condition was far better in the family of Abraham, than in the wilderness. The running off of slaves does not always better their condition. A man residing at Vicksburgh had a slave who left him, and succeeded in getting safely to Canada; but he was so far from experiencing the advantages he had expected, and which had been promised by his abolition advisers, that he voluntarily returned to his master. Other fugitive slaves have done the same thing. Our friends may yet learn, that by tempting slaves to run away they often place them in a worse condition, than that from which they have induced them to escape.

I will close this speech with a very brief recapitulation of the evidence proving the bondmen bought of the heathen by the Jews, to have been slaves, in the proper sense of the word. 1. They were bought with money. When the gentleman reads in the newspapers, that a certain man in Kentucky bought a servant with money; does he not at once conclude, that the servant bought is a slave? 2. The master was permitted by Moses' law to enforce obedience on the part of the servant by chastisement; and the reason given why the master should not be punished, if the servant survived a day or two after the chastisement, was, that "he is his money." Here the property relation is recog. nized, and is regarded as a protection of the slave, and as evidence that it was not the design of the master to kill him; for it is not to be supposed, that in any ordinary case a man would deliberately aim to kill the servant who was his money. Such are the facts as they stand recorded in the word of God. The gentleman may, if he is so disposed, pronounce this law cruel and inhuman; but he cannot erase it from the volume which he professes to regard as inspired by God. Is such language as we find here employed, applicable to hired servants? Do men in Ohio regard their hired servants as their money? Do they claim the right to enforce obedience by chastisement with the rod. 3. The word used, and translated servant and bondman is the proper Hebrew word for slave; it is the word the Hebrews uniformly used, when

they spoke of slaves. If the gentleman should deny this, will he please to tell us what is the proper word for slave in the Hebrew language? I affirm, that if the word eved does not mean slave, the Hebrews, though surrounded by slavery, had no word in their language by which they could designate it. 4. The Hebrew has a word which definitely signifies a hired servant; and that word is placed in contrast with the eved or bondman. The sakir is the hired servant; and the eved is the bondman or slave. 5. Finally those servants are declared to be the possession of their owners, and inheritence of their children-language never employed concerning hired servants, but constantly employed with regard to land and other property.

The fact, then, is clearly established, if language can establish it, that God did recognize the relation of master and slave as, under the circumstances, lawful, and did give express permission to the Jews to purchase slaves from the heathen, and hold them. To understand the language on which I have been remarking, as descriptive of hired serv ants, is to disregard the plainest principles of language. The gentleman must admit, that God gave the Jews permission, under certain circumstances, to form the relation which he denounces as in itself sinful; or he must deny that the Old Testament is the word of God. [Time expired.

Friday Evening, 7 o'clock.

[MR. BLANCHARD'S ELEVENTH SPEECH.] Gentlemen Moderators, and Gentlemen and Ladies, FellowCitizens:

At the commencement of my remarks, it is proper for me to say that I render cordial thanks to the brother opposed to me, for his kindness in consenting to adjourn this discussion till Monday. I have asked this, in consequence of my health, which is infirm from a cold contracted a few days before the debate began.

In my last speech of the afternoon, I said that the abolition of slavery in the British colonies, was the fruit of the principles of abolitionism: and my quoted proofs fully sustained my proposition. My brother objects that the abolition of West India slavery was not immediate, but that an apprenticeship of seven years was substituted for slavery. This is partly true, and partly erroneous. In Antigua, and the Bermudas, emancipation was immediate, and took instant effect, August 1st, 1834. It is true, that against the wishes of many leaders of the abolition movement in Great Britain, Parliament refused to grant immediate abolition throughout the colonies, and substituted a clumsy apprenticeship of seven years, which, however, worked so badly, that they were glad to abolish it two years before the legal time expired.

My friend also tells you that a hundred thousand dollars were paid as a compensation to the owners for their slaves. This, also, was not in accordance with the views of many leading abolitionists. They said that if slavery had been profitable, the slave-holders had enjoyed the profits of it long enough-if not profitable, abolition was no sacrifice to them. They, however, were willing to accept the bill enacted by Parliament, seeing it struck out at once, the principle of chattelism, and speedily resulted in perfect emancipation.

I now call your attention to what I call the direct argument (and all my arguments are from the Bible, or are intended to be) to show that the relation of master and slave is a sinful relation. I have showed (I think) slave-holding to be "in itself sinful," which was the first part of the question. The latter part of the question respects the RELATION. I wish therefore, to show that the relation,—not the practice, only, of slave-holding, but the relation of master and slave is sinful. I have duly advertised the audience of my one and a half hours' speech in the Old Testament servitude and a speech of similar length on the New Testament view of slavery. Mr. Rice will have an opportunity to reply to

them, for he has the closing speeches, both afternoon and evening, in each day of debate.

Now I beg you to bear in mind, my object, now in hand, is not to arraign every man who is sinfully or unfortunately connected with the slave system. But if I show the relation to be a sinful relation, it will follow that it is the duty of every church to tell its candidates for membership, to come out of it, that God may receive them. A HUMAN RELATION is that connexion between two persons which creates mutual rights and obligations. As the relation of husband and wife. That is based upon a certain principle, and vests certain claims in the wife upon the husband, and certain claims in the husband upon the wife; and these rights and obligations take root in the principle which lies at the foundation of the relation.

Let us analyze this thing which is called a relation. There are three things constituting a relation. 1. The principle on which it is based. 2. The claims which it creates; And 3. The obligations it imposes. If we consider any good and wholesome relation, say a partnership in business, we find first the principle in which it rests, is the mutual wants of men. One man may know more than the other; the other may be physically stronger than he. Their relation rests on this natural foundation; the mutual dependence of men upon one another, and because it rests on this true principle, the relation, thus. formed, gives rise to certain claims which are just claims, and certain obligations, which are right obligations. Marriage is susceptible of the same analysis. The principle on which it rests, is the mutual affection of the opposite sexes. This is a natural principle. God laid the foundation of marriage in the constitution of man. He is the author of nature, or rather nature is the rule by which God works. The claims of the husband on the wife, and of the wife upon her husband are right and just, because they are rooted in a right relation. So of the relation and mutual claims of parent and child. But look now at the relation of a gypsy to the child which she has stolen; that is, the relation of

false parentage. The principle of the relation is wrong at bottom. The relation is forced and unnatural. It is unwarranted by scripture, having no foundation in the word of God. Hence it can give rise to no just claims nor obligations, because the relation itself is void in equity, ab initio, and, whatever claims exist, are rooted in a relation which is false.

Now, take the relation of master and slave, and test it by this same analysis. Has God fitted one man to be property, and adapted another to be the property-holder of men? is one man formed for fetters and a yoke, and another with a whip in his hand, and a spur on his heel? Will my brother tell me, as the southern defenders of slavery argue in Congress, that the wise are the natural owners of the foolish, and the strong of the weak. Mr. Pickens, of South Carolina, stated in his place, in Congress, that "when once society is pressed down into its classifications, one class will always hold the other as property, in some form or other." Is that doctrine to find advocates in free Ohio? Sirs, if it be true that the strong are born to own the weak, why not put the weak slave-holder into slavery, and make the strong slave his master? If the unwise and the untalented are the natural slaves of the wise and capable, the moment when, by causes inseparable from slavery, the owner becomes the slave's inferior, that moment your rule gives the slave of strong and vigorous mind and athletic muscles, dominion over the master of weak intellect and emasculate person; and it is well understood that slavery deteriorates both the mind and body of the owner class. If the silly and weak are to be enslaved by the wise and strong, God help the cripple, the idiot, and the weak-minded child! No, gentlemen, no, never. I will never admit the doctrine of the inequality of man, by nature, while I am told in God's word, that "He has made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on all the face of the earth." And if of "one blood," then equal, because one.

The doctrine that the relation of slavery is an unnatural