Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1826-06-02
gbe Cnt.atifmft0HaI aaInf@-
~ rnr HOUSE or DrLroArss, JAr. 1a 1aae

Mr. Speaker 1t is extremely gratifying to me IN TO-
INA, inc ioud call Tor the question, which has so
oen, and so strongly indicated the impatieuce of tho
House, IN The course of this debate no oprer heard
receive tins circumstance proof that the House
arc sensible OF the injustice which has been done 10 v
argument and that they willing to afford me an nm
Portuny OF vindicating this against the nn
candid attacks which have been made on it. 7 .hau
10 repay TINS courtesy by rendering my re-
marks as short as possible, consistent with duo res
poet to the various speakers whom am TO reply-
fortunately for me,and not less fortunately for the
iiouse,-the same general course of argument has
been pursued by all of them. and my reply therefore
VIII be particular TO ench only far as nc n,at have
struck out an idea which his coad tutors have not thought
Ito adopt.
The gentleman from Charlotte, who, as candid de-
oa;er' stands alone onStt side of the question: is of
opinion that the cnormity of the penalties of this law
affords no good reason for repeal of IT, because those
penalties may be mtSated, whout repeating the of
fence That gentleman, and every other gentleman
must be sensible OF the tyranny which he
Is attempting TO pcrpeuatc but he is the only one who
has shewn enough of human kindness, to acknowledge
IT. admit that has argument is a fair one but If he
knew as well as do, the feelings of those who opDose
the present bill, he would be convinced that no such
halt way measure could be successful. Ii would be
called repeal in 5isguise and il would afford 10 some
OF his coadjutors who not accustomed to ,yVfgi
heir words III nice balance, better topic of abuse
than any with which the House has been SO lately cfFY
ed. The truth IS, sir that will vote for mod:
heauon OF tic punishment who is not in his conscience
convinced that the law ought to be repeaed altopethor
1t little better than mockery tell us that the pre-
sent bill cannot be supported because asks too much
when the Whole character Of the debate must convince
us that no medium would be tolerated
IL is urged as argument against the rcpeal of the
present law, that ii has been force TOR ninety. five
years, and yet that mischief has resulted from it
The accurate mind OF the gentleman from Charlotte
ought II have guarged him against such mistake as
this The ODD law was perfect dead letter. il was
regarded, and justly regarded, a mere remnant of
that ecclesiastical rgou which formed part Of tie CO.
onia government, and neither courts nor uri,s ever
felt alyaSf ipi
marriages that before us, of every DAYS occur
renee There is scarcely county i'll lower Virginia
which cannot shew example Off, in the humber
walks at life, but among that class who in every coun
try, give the tGne public morals This fact which
IS notorious, is worth whole volumes of argument TO
prove the state OF public opinion upon this subject In
tins harmless sunher the law would have been permit
ed 10 rest forever, iiad not occurrence which now
matter Of history, compelled the attention OF the Iers
aturC 70 the subject allude TO the trial of fe Re
verend MIR. Rroaddus i.anny sir in Ais go
s:on, which shall be excused for using "a do
justice 10 that gentleman. In argument upon ths
subject, which delivered in this House al The last SEES
SION, stated that the marriage of Mr. Broaddus was
concluded with indecent haste, and under crcumstan
calculated to excite general reprobation Such
was the information which had received aud src i, is
believed, was tie general impression. Mr. Eroaddus
has since satisfied that his worst offence was his
marriage alone, without any attendant circumstance 10
aggravae IL. offer this exclamation with measure
and ii would long ago have been made pnbcl had my
communication III regard 10 ii, reached the worthy cd
ms IaiI
was, that the Did law pronounced unconstitutional
and consequently, part of it could be enforced
Let IT BIC remembered that the same law which prohibit
ed the marriage OF man with the sister OF his wife
prohibited also the marriage of man with his own sis
ter with fis mother, and nth his daughter. Dep!ora
bile indeed would have been the of public morale
If these last offences corId be punished Hence
the old LAYS was re-eDacted, but with ucv guards and
much stronger sanctions is this law, passed as
late the year 1917, which we now seek TO repeaL-
true that for 81 years, while the old law slept among
the forgotten remains of British intolerance, no mis-
chief icsucd from IT. But scarcely by eight wears have
elapsed since this law enacted It's heart break
ing penalties Just beginning TO be chfOrcediis severe
sanctions, useless they severe are now for the
first time, brought home 10 the citizen and ono loud
and general complaint aess the hSrror of the people
AT ITS cold booded tyranny. IL the gentleman from
Charlotte would the long acquescence of the neo
pic under The old law as an argument its favour,
may surely be permitted TO urge against the present
law the we'll known fact that the first attempt to exc.
cute ii has excited disgust and Hluimuring.
The gentleman lays great stress the idea that il
such marriages DC permitted 1t will give rise to painful
Jealousies bet" tie sisters and drive the unmarried
sister from the husbands house This latter idea has
already been anticipated and thought that il had been
answered IL IS IN vain for to reply to such spceu-
lative reasoning by mere denial of the conclusions
deduced from it, for in of mere probabilities
every man Will form lns opinions by bis own pro
cess OF argument But il strange That gentlemen en-
gagged in tie same cause cannot agree TO work together
for common OBJECT. One OF them tells that these
marriages will ALLEVIATE the sisters and render the TN.
married one stranger in her brothers. house; another
says that great intimacy, and confidence and IA
marity viii prevail between the parties that nothing
less than The chastity of the virgin sister III paw the
price of it.. Which Of these reasOuers is right They
are directly opposed to each other, and nm 7os,run
ianes compoeye Htcs But the wife will be Jealous of
her sister And wh12 Is ii because she is a woman
I size will be equally Jealous Of every other woman
possessing equal attractions. is it, because accordipr
10 the gentleman's idea she will be driven from the
husbands house, and, therefore, be of the way Ell
thcr Of tempting being tempted? This is too palpa-
bic scquiiur 10 be endured by the genuemaa's
logcal mind. Is because she is a sister and there
FORE 5ound by every obligation, human and divine to
give no cause Of jealousy whatever? The fact may
indeed, exist tie gentleman supposes, bnt it cannot
exist except under perverted state Of Judgment and
diseased Of feeling, for which this bill can in no
degree, be made responsible.
should follow the Gentleman from Charlotte through
other parts Of his argument, had not bis ideas been in
general adopted by those who have succeeded him in