caused by a single expression-a mere rhetorical flourish. It is truly a singular method of rounding a period, to tell slave-holders that there are spikes in the streets, and only panes of glass between them and your "smooth-skinned" wives and daughters! The obvious meaning of such language is "take care, or the slaves will rise and murder your families;" and the direct tendency of such language. is, to produce a servile insurrection.

But Mr. B. has great facility in concealing the odious features of abolitionism. When in the early part of this discussion I read the intemperate and disgusting language of Foster on this subject, he told us, that some considered him insane. And when I read paragraphs from Duncan's pamphlet, republished by the Cincinnati Abolition Society, containing sentiments equally abhorrent, he coolly remarked, that he did not approve of every comma and semi-colon in it! I replied, that the justification of slave insurrections and murders were something more than either commas or semi-colons. And then he urged me just to let "father Duncan's pamphlet alone; he was a very good man, and is gone to his rest." I shall not deny that he had piety; but whether he had or not, he published doctrines not only false, but of the most ruinous tendency; and the Cincinnati Abolition Society have endorsed them. That society, therefore, stands before the public, chargeable with sending forth the most incendiary publications. The gentleman himself was most active, as he has informed us, in having it republished. He and his society, therefore, are fully responsible for all its abominable sentiments; for in having it reprinted they did not disclaim one sentiment it contains. But this by the way.

I am not here to justify the course pursued toward Mr. Clay. I cannot justify it; but no man, who knows anything of human nature, can be surprised at it. In the articles which produced the excitement, it cannot be denied, that there were sentiments of dangerous tendency; and it is worse than vain for the gentleman to attempt to cover them

over by representing them as mere rhetorical flourishes without meaning. I was truly glad when Mr. Clay proposed to publish his paper. I did hope that he would calmly and prudently plead the cause of gradual emancipation, and that great good would result. Had he done so, I believe he might have gone forward without interruption; but his language was violent and intemperate, and the result is known. Although I cannot justify the course pursued against him, I cannot condemn it without first condemning him as the aggressor.

The gentleman says, I condemn abolitionists for helping runaway slaves, and yet I have said, I would not force them back. No-I have not condemned them simply for helping those who have run from their masters, but for sending emissaries into the slave-holding States, to render the slaves discontented, and induce them to run. And I condemn them for publishing papers and pamphlets urging them to leave their masters, and even encouraging insurrection and murder. I condemn them for publishing addresses to the slaves, as did Gerrit Smith, and the New York anti-slavery nominating convention, advising them not only to run from their masters, but to steal, along their route, in the free as well as the slave States, "the horse, the boat, the food, the clothing," which they need! Conduct and sentiments of this character are unscriptural and abominable. True, I do not regard it as my duty to be a catcher of fugitive slaves, or to force such to return to their masters; but if I were to see a slave leaving a good master, I should advise him, as the angel advised Hagar, to return and faithfully discharge his duty. Most assuredly I would never be found engaged in the pitiful business of running a few slaves to Canada, to starve and freeze; but the gentleman's fraternity will. [A laugh.]

I do not say, that every abolitionist will do this thing; but I do say, that Duncan's pamphlet, endorsed by the Cincinnati Abolition Society, urges it as the solemn duty of slaves to embrace the first opportunity to escape; and Gerrit Smith and his party advise them not only to run, but to steal! But

there are amongst abolitionists so many parties, that I do not well know what is orthodoxy and what is heterodoxy amongst them.

I do, indeed, most strongly condemn both the principles and the conduct of the abolitionists; but I have also uniformly condemned all violence toward them. When Mr. Birney's press was destroyed in Cincinnati, I as editor of a religious paper, condemned the course of his opponents in language as strong as I could command; and I took the same course in regard to the violence against Lovejoy, in Illinois. I go for freedom of speech and of the press, even though in some instances, evils grow out of it.

The brother says that I am anxious to put slavery on a par with marriage. Such, however, is not the fact, as I have repeatedly explained. I have said that he has not the right to bring an argument against slave-holding, which would be of equal force against marriage. An argument that proves too much, proves nothing. This all logicians maintain, and the gentleman will not deny.

He says, farther, that I affirmed that the apostles treated the relation of master and slave, and husband and wife, alike. I never said so. I have said that they did not treat the slave relation as the abolitionists do; but enjoined upon master and slave the discharge of their respective duties. I did not say they treated the two relations alike.

neous.

Having thus misrepresented my views he attempted to ridicule them by applying to the husband, Paul's language to the slave "Art thou called being an husband, care not for it," &c. It is often easier to misrepresent, and then ridicule the sentiments of an opponent, than to prove them erroSlavery is an evil; and liberty, to those who can appreciate and improve it, is a blessing. So poverty is an evil; and to possess a competency of the good things of this world, is desirable. The language of Paul to the slave, suffering under an evil, might be addressed to a man suffering from poverty-"Art thou called, being poor, care not for it; but if thou mayest be made comfortable, choose it rather." As a

state of slavery is attended with many evils, its removal is desirable. So say I; and so say all anti-slavery men, who are not abolitionists.

He reminds me, that when the Bible says that the slave shall go out, but his wife and his children shall remain and be his master's, it does not imply that the man was driven out of the house: he might "go out" of a state of bondage and yet remain in the house, and not be separated from his wife. But I did not say, that he was separated from his wife, but that although he went free, his wife and children remained slaves, the children following the condition of the mother, and not receiving liberty with the father.

The gentleman attempts to explain the fact, that the wife of the servant who went out free, under certain circumstances, did not go out with him, but remained in servitude, by stating it as one of the laws of Moses, that a servant bought of the heathen, if not converted in one year, was to be sent back to the heathen, but was not permitted to take with him his wife and children. There are two difficulties attending this explanation, viz: 1st. There is no such law as that of which he speaks. On what authority he has made the assertion, I cannot imagine. 2nd. The law of which I was speaking, relates to a Jew who had been sold for six years, not to a man bought from the heathen. If such a Jew married a servant of his purchaser, (one perhaps bought from the heathen) and had children by her; at the end of the six years, he went out free; but his wife, given him by his master, and the children born in the master's house, did not go out with him, but continued in servitude. Since, therefore, the law in question related exclusively to Jews, (not at all to servants bought of pagans) and to a term of service of six years, not of one, the gentleman's reply is a perfect failure.

I shall not detain the audience to discuss the views of Clarkson on slavery; because it is unnecessary. But let it be remembered, that the British Parliament adopted the plan of West India emancipation, not at the suggestion of Clarkson,

but under the influence of a public sentiment created by the great body of Philanthropists and Christians in England and Scotland. Were they abolitionists? Were slave-holders denounced, without regard to character or circumstances, as heinous sinners? Were the churches called upon to exclude all the slave-holders from their communion? These questions must be answered in the negative. The Christians and churches in England and Scotland generally, believed no such doctrine, and therefore resorted to no such practice. No man was excommunicated simply because he was a slave-holder. The slaves in the West Indies, then, were not emancipated by the principles of modern abolitionists, but by the principles of anti-slavery men whom they denounce. Under the influence of such men the British Parliament paid to the owners of slaves twenty millions of pounds, and placed the slaves under an apprenticeship of seven years.

I ought to notice, for a moment, the gentleman's remark that I represented Mr. Duncan as crazy. I did not say so. He excused the intemperate language and abominable sentiments of Foster on the ground that he was partially deranged. In reply to this, I said that his friend Mr. Duncan was at least as crazy as Foster, for his pamphlet contained precisely the same sentiments. But I hold neither of them to have been insane, nor do I charge the Cincinnati Abolition Society with being madmen because they sanctioned and reprinted Duncan's book. All I said, and now say, is that the one writer was as much a crazy man as the other, and both were about as sane as men can be, who hold the doctrines of abolitionism.

I have proved by language too plain to be misunderstood, that Hagar was the slave of Sarah; nor will all the gentleman has said or can say by way of ridicule, prove that she was any thing else. That she was a bondwoman, a slave, and that she fled from her mistress, because she punished her, are facts plainly stated in the Bible. If she was free, there was no sense in her running into the wilderness from her mistress. Nor was the angel a "ruffian" because he advised and directed her to return. He well knew, that her