Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1824-12-24

authority, had mentioned the practice as de-
nounced by all the nations Of antiquity, the
Jews ana rersians excepted. Plusarch repre-
hended the marriage Of Crassus with his wife,s
sister, in the most pointed terms. At late me-
ROD OF the Roman Empire. and when christi
AMY had become the religion of the state. the
Emperors Diocetian and Alaximin, in their re-
scripts, had disapproved it in strong terms. The
marriage of Henry the 9Th with his brother,s
WIDOW, CatIlarinc of Arragon, had excited
.earhed enquiries, and warm disapprobation; and
Tue prohibition Of such marriages had bccp nro-
nounced by the divnes of that dnv. upf,nnJod
an moral and eternal propricty. The practice
Vi t'c h,renians had been quoted by Mr. u. as
sancuonIng the marriage of sisters. Tie thank.
ei Tie gentleman for this scrap of information
II confirmed his position-it proved that if such
, were allowed, they would gradually
ic'u 10 universal corruption of morals. The
argument of the gentleman from Nor,bamn,on
proved 100 MUCH Adopt his reasoning, and we
ought TO have no laws imposing restraint unn
,ne human passions. The murderer should be
Aeit 10 satiate his revenge in the death of h;s
enehy--the gambler, in the qualification of his
prosperity, to corrupt the youth of the commu-
my. Every restriction ought to be removed,
." men ieit as IN State of nature, to do what
eyer To them seemeth good.
1t had been urged, that the repeal OF the
present law was required by public opinion
How was this ascertaineds Was il from the
petition from the county of Northampton. which
had produced the present bills Mr. w. consiJ.
cred the opinion of Northampton, as very in.
conclusive evidence of the opinion of the State.
IN iurlher proof that the law was in opposition
10 public opinion, Mr.. u. commended that M
infamy attached to the marriage of t,vn sisters.
that such events frequently occurred without
diminishing the responsibility the parties Yet,
SAID Mr.. w. we have heard that gentleman. in
another part of his argument, eloauently deplorc
the fate of the offspring of such MARRIAGES.
lie had urged as reason for the repeal of the
law, that the finger of scorn was pointed at the
offspring; and though legitimated by act of As
seihoiy' mat the stigma of their birth cIunp TO
them and their connexions. Ii this was the
case, now could 1t be said that such marriages
incurred no infamy, and that they did not impair
the respectability of the parties? Both positions
could not be true. Ii such marriages were
deemed by public opinion ,rreproachable. the
same opinion could not stigmatize the offspring
as bdsfayds.
Mr. Watkins deplored the consequences
winch would result from the legislative sanction
OF such marriages. IL would drive every sister,
in-iaw from the roof of her married sister, and
iefel The barriers of modesty and virtue He
oei'cVed mat such connexions would poison the
happiness of society, and corrupt the purity of
man. 1t was the duty Of the Legislature to pro-
teot morals, and not to give direct sanction to
dement's OF matrimony, the union and cement of
families, would be frustrated. Men would be
tempted TO form that important connection
Tashly, and without reflection. He Loped he
had succeeded i'm proving, that the marriage of
sisters was prohibited by the Divine law, and
was iraught with the most immoral conse-
4uences to society.-[Mr. w. then offered a
ryder TO the bill, which we have already pub
lIshed, and which was rejected on the second
reading.
MT. BRIGGS OF Spottsylvania-Sadh he should
not attempt to follow the gentleman who had lust
taken his seat, through the wild range he had
taken on this occasion-he should not GO to the
ages and nations of antiquity to learn how to
discuss and describe the important question now
before the House. 1t was not 10 the feelings
and opinions of the ancents, their law -givers or
philosophers, to which he would refer in deter
mining upon the sentiments and feelings of Vir-
ginia-the enquiry was not what rule upon
this subject, may have been approved and OBJ
served by the Jews, or any other people. into
whose polity or laws the gentleman from North
ampton, may have profoundly searched: but
what is wise and polite for the people and their
happiness, whom we represent. The gentleman
who so zealously and eioquently advocates the
bill on your table, might have spared himself
much iabour and research, and fhc House much
time, had he confined himself to the real enquiry
before us. The precepts and the prohibitions of
the Alcoran, or the doctrines of Coufucius
would have been entitled 10 as much weight as
those he has so deliberately presented. Mr. b
had the profoundcst reverence, as he hoped
every member present had, for the authority of
The sacred volume, SO much referred 10 by te
gentleman. He would not wish to derorate
from the influence which it ought Justly TO have
whenever that influence should be exerfed mr.
felt; nor does the canon in our marriage act.
now held to be so obnoxious, and sought to be
reprobatcd, conflict with any of the prcscrip-
tons prohibitions of tiIat book, as the gem
tleman asserts he has most satisfactorily proved
Suppose, said Mr.. b. he does demonstrate that
the prohibition for waich he contends is not to
be found in any part Of The Bible-tl,at man is
not forbidden 10 marry his wie's sister in the
Ohdor .Nc,o Testdment--is that any reason why
we, legislating in these times, and under our
circumstances, should not enact the bill9 For
reasons peculiar to the economy and poty of
the Jewish people, suclia canon may have been
unnecessary, or improper; and therefore not
found in their code: but that is no reason or ar
gument why we should not incorporate il i'm
ours. Mr.. Ii. insisted on the total inapplcabi-
lily of most of the maxims and sentiments of the
ancient nations to us a. TO our government. IL IS
vain to rambe among the types and shadows of
the Jews, to tell us Of the opinions of Rabbits
or the dogmas of philosophers. tits uninpor
fant to us what Plato or Socrates NAV have
thought or wrote. We enjoy the benefits of
hundreds ofy years since their time with all their
accumulated light and knowledge, and must
judge and legslate for ourselves. So far from
being bound to regard The Levetical law, as go
verning this subject, (if, as Che gentleman AYERS,
ii contains no such prohibition as we adYocate. J
we must, and have, interdicted what that law