mission of the sin.

Mr. Freeman is a plausible man; he talks earnestly and fluently, and his
argument is clear and comprehensive, so far as it goes. He thinks
readily and speaks aptly. As a debater, he far excels his opponent Mr.
Green, and with a good cause would be an opponent difficult to conquer.
But few, we think, expected so much of the metaphysics of gambling as he
gave, but after he had constructed his argument, and presented the
justification of the fraternity, it was marvellous how quickly the one
crumbled and the other was turned to condemnation, by the application of
the tests of reason and truth which Mr. Green applied. Facts stood
stubbornly before Mr. Freeman's theories, and bore them down, and the
experiments with the cards which closed the lecture, demonstrated,
beyond a doubt, how far an unscrupulous gambler could carry his villany
against an unsuspecting victim. With a rapidity that defied observation
and detection, Mr. Green performed several tricks, by which he produced
any card or series of cards at will, and even read eighteen cards in
succession by the backs.

In his argument, Mr. Freeman invariably rose in the estimation of the
audience, but he rose only to fall again. There may have been respect
for his abilities, but there was greater sorrow that so unprofitable and
degrading a direction had been given to them. Every argument that he
used became, upon reflection, an argument against gambling, and the only
thing he really effected, was the proof that the law recently passed
against gamblers by the legislature of this State is not stringent
enough.

Mr. Freeman announced that on Wednesday next, he would deliver a
lecture, in which he would review his course of life, and offer
arguments against gambling--which he freely confessed to be a vice, even
while he proclaimed his right to practise it. Such an exposition cannot
fail to be of deep interest.

From the Inquirer.

This controversy was continued on Saturday evening, Dr. Elder in the
chair. The Lecture-room at the Chinese Museum was crowded on the
occasion.

Mr. Freeman commented on the notice taken by the press of the
controversy--in general it was manly and dignified; Mr. Freeman read
from the Post, in which gambling was severely opposed. The ground on
which Mr. Freeman had canvassed this matter was, he contended, in
accordance with Blackstone, Paley, and other great men, who
thought--namely, that a man had a right to do what h