Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-06-02

be true, aud IT the act question 4 CRIME, the
gument would apply with elusive force. But there
IS no man, however severe his Judgment however ri
gcous bis feelings who class these marriages with
larceny or murder any other infamous crime. Ii is
therefore fair TO argue that while the offence, if offence
IL can be called Is SO slight that II is scarcely possible 10
characterize il, the punishment with which you visit H.
is attended with desoiating misery which not found
in the train of the darkest crimes.
might follow the gentleman still farther in his dis
cursve range this subject. lie says that these
marriages ought to be forbidden because nature ahors
an incestuous connections because wrong inter-
rupt family ties and for various other equally
applicable and convincing lie might with equal pro-
prety have called them rong, because it is wrong
commit murder. The evils which he mentions, I'M
doubleday present in themselves q sufficient argument
against any which is meiy to Drofcc them, but
the bill IN your hand is free from such tendency as
the gentlenans own thoughts. do not deem it ncccs
sary to reply 10 string of solemn truisus which no
ever thought OF denying, and which have no proper
place III this debate. The gentleman concludes has
gumcnt with the remark that all men can feel while
few can reason: that in 99 cases out OF IOO feel.
ing is right; and finally that my feeling right when
say that would not myself form such connection.
tell the gentleman that never said any such thing
the contrary, # is the very connection which should
consider most proper and most desirable Neither do ]
admit that feeling is correct test o! legislation any
such subject Let every mans feeling guide
tor himself, but let him not be guilty of the prcsump.
ton of setting up his feelings rule for the feelings
and judgments of Others 1T all events. give us the
benefit OF the principle, and lei il be admitted that ON.
times be relied on safe guides. The gentleans test
viii scarcely bear examination. Those who burnt the
reiormers at Smithfeld feh that they wer6rigi and
the Jews fcH that they did God service when they
nailed his onfy begotlen Son 10 the CROSSE
The most painful part of my duty is vet 10 be per-
formed. am TO reply TO the gentleman from Bath, and
my Chief difficulty is in determining to what decription
OF popular eoqnence, his speech properly belongs He
has gwen us little argument, chiefly borrowed from
ms associates; little wit, not the most refned little
hunour at which no body laughed, and vast deal of
scofding The gentleman might well apologize in the
commencement of his remarks, for the indiscretions
which he forcsaw that he must commit 'sif lie should
grow warm" 1t was prudent 10 ask befor eand, and
while his offences yet only in anticipation pledge
OIL mat general mercy which could not otherwise have
oeen extended 10 him. eOQucnCc consists in Yitupe
ration, the gentleman may claim the palm from every
other debator for he has. indeed exhausted the vncabu
ay oi hard names, and left topic ofabuse unassaycd
Something OF THIS kindwas expected for he has long been
remarkable Tor '5l.mnded contempt OF all the rules
OF logic, and for bold and general use of that species
OF argument which consists in pantomne and grimacc
but on this occasion he has gone beyond his own
previous example, and his speech will long, he remem~
bercd as = model by all those who think tie eloquencc
OF tho tavern, becoming in Legislative Assembly.
He has called this 'oathsome subject "nauseous
SUBJECT" filthy bill" ''legisative pimping for the
devil with great variety of those castc and delicate
expouTcs, with which he is wont TO adorn his discourse
have hcssteI whether should consi,c, his remarks
as worthy of any reply, should leave them to that
terrible rcbulle which they will moi fail TO receive from
a
dopted, and regrctsha it appears unavoidable.
The gentleman thinks tlIas experiment Of ninety
i've years is sufficient to prove the wisdom of tic exist
ing law This idea is borrow ed from the gentleman from
Charlotte, but 1t has passed through hands and
has been so clipped anu disguised, like light guinea
that lear the true owner viii scarcely recognize his
property tel! gentlemen again, that this is not
the law 1890, but different and tl,ch seve-e, ,,r
and one which the liberal feelings former periods
would not have endured. This argument founded
IN gross misunderstanding OF facts, strangely
persisted in by those who might convince themselves of
lis Righteousness by half hours reading. We are
told too, that Washington and Jefferson and Marshall
and hos of great names which adorn history have
never thought IT necessary touch this law, and
hence 1t Is argued that IT ought never 10 be touched in
Tune 10 come Tins IS the true way 10 pcrpetuatc abu-
scs 1t is the nOiWuS ie@cS 3ngiM ni'ri'e ci
preserved the ridiculous trial by battle upon the Eng.
lish Code even down 10 the present century. 1t is
principle which would have crushed the first germ of
that revolution which the gentleman affects TO admire:
for great men have lived in England in DAYS gone by
who did not think that these colonies ought 10 be free
The reason may be that they thought of the sub
jcct ct all And for The reason the distinguished
Americans referred to, may have thought il neces
s1ry TO Tread Josephus," consult the learning Of
Solomon the jew" Oh! fe! nor ever have dwcIt like
the gentleman from Bath, with luscious "Reminiscences
upon iIe ''boson of Ann Boeynn ii n new principle
Of legislation that whatever the wisdom OF former DAYS
has left undsurbcd, shall be held always sacred not:
outstanding the whole system of society NAV have
changed, and new modes of thought and feeling. have
The gentleman asks "will not this repeal opcn the
door and facilitate intercourse nhibiled:n WHY
certainly it will, sir, else why wish the repeal at ALP
But cui malo? What injury is to result fion ito The
bill founded in the belief that il will remove useless
and oppressive restraint and leave men to the enov
ment Of liberty which ought to be denied in
fee country. Let then the intercourse be facilitated
and ii still remains for the gentleman to show as lie
has certainly failed TO DO, that any evil will result from
IT. His argument is plain petite principe. He takes
for granted that these marriageEar improper and con-
ciudes that because they improper, hey ought be
prohibited. will meet the gentleman in his own way
and thus reason These marriages are highly proper
the law prevents these marriages and therefore the law
ought to be repealed The gentleman will scarcely OBJ
Jec TO conclusion so iegimaley drawn from his own
principles of logic. But is it lndicrous to hear the
gentleman eXcla'p, that "make the marriages fasona
Die introduce them into high life, and they viii be
come the rage of the day? Fashion may regulate the
cut OF the gcntemaus coat but it will scarcely govern
his taste in the choice Of wife There is indeed suc!
thing as national taste III female beauty but il does
not partake Of the mutabilty Of fashion. Fat beau
ties are admired in China, thick lips in Austria black