to breath, as it were, by permission of the civil
authorities ?
Mr. MCLANE said:
He felt somewhat embarrassed as to the vote
he might be called upon to give, not understand-
ing precisely the effect of it. His own impres-
sion would be to leave things as they are. He
thought we bad gone on well, under the old bill
of rights. He had not heard any thing to satisfy
his mind, that any great necessity existed for
material change.
The amendment, as he understood it, declared
that nothing in the old bill of rights should be
construed "to qualify" a certain class of persons
as witnesses. If he voted against that amend-
ment, in what position was he placed? The in-
ference must be, that he meant them to be quali-
fied. If he voted for the amendment, he knew
not what inference might be drawn from the vote.
It might be, to qualify others whom he did not
think it right to qualify.
He would be glad if the gentleman would put
his amendment into such a form as would enable
him, (Mr. McL.,) to give a vote which should
not convey any misapprehension as to his opin-
ions. And lie desired that the gentleman from
Baltimore county, (Mr. Ridgely,) would state
what the effect of the amendment was to be. He,
(Mr. McL.,) did not desire to disturb the ques-
tion. He did not wish to interfere with any
man's rights of conscience. He was, himself,
/very independent in his opinions—trusting al-
ways that they were sound enough for his own
welfare, and he desired to extend the same lib-
erty to every other man. But when he was call-
ed upon to guard the rights of others, lie was un-
willing to cast aside any of the restraints, which,
by the law of the land, or by a sound morality,
might be imposed upon a man who was called
upon to testify as to those rights. He wished that
it should be done under all the responsibility
which could be imposed by laws—human and
Divine.
Mr. BUCHANAN, (to the President.) Is it in
order to move to lay the amendment on the ta-
blet
The PRESIDENT. The motion is not in or-
der.
Mr. RIDGELY. My object is to place the law
of the land, in relation to the religious opinions
of witnesses beyond controversy. Mr. R. furth-
er explained his amendment, and recapitulated
his reasons for its adoption. His object simply
was, that no individual who believed in a Su-
preme Being, and acknowledged his accountabil-
ity for his acts, should be disqualified as a wit-
ness in a. court of justice.
Mr. McMASTER, (to Mr. Ridgely.) Will the gentleman
from Baltimore county allow me to ask
him one question ?
Mr. RIDGELY. Certainly, sir.
Mr. MCMASTER. Does the amendment quali-
fy persons who do not believe in a future state
of rewards and punishments, to hold office and
give testimony ?
Mr. RIDGELY. That is the object.

Mr. MCMASTER. Then I shall vote against
it.
Mr. MERRICK said, that he felt some reluctance
to vote for this proposition. He felt disposed to
leave the provision as it was; and it seemed to
him that the legislature could hereafter regulate
the competency of witnesses. It would be better
that the Convention, should confine itself to do-
ing that, which more appropriately belonged to
it. He might be right or he might be wrong.
He did not profess to know much about these
things, and he would rather not touch them.
We had gone on well under the law as it stood,
and he thought it would be bettor to suffer the
bill of rights to remain as it was. If there was
a contradictory practise in the courts of the dis-
tricts, let these matters be left to the supervision
and regulation of the legislature.
Some conversation followed between Messrs.
RIDGELY and MERRICK.
Mr. PRESSTMAN referred to his own experience
as to the practice in the courts. He did not
think that any other men than Atheists had been
excluded from testifying—nor that any sect in
this country, as a sect, had been excluded in any
of our courts of justice for their particular opinions.
If it were so, he should undoubtedly vote
for the amendment of the gentleman from Balti-
more county, (Mr. Ridgely.) He, [Mr. P.,]
thought, however, that there was some misapprehension
about the matter. A single individual,
perhaps, might have gone further than his sect,
and therefore, been excluded; but he did not
think that the disqualification had been carried
any further.
Mr. FIERY said he had no desire to protract
this discussion; it was with some reluctance that
he rose to respond to the appeal made to him by
the gentleman from Baltimore city. He took
occasion on yesterday to suggest to the gentle-
man from Anne Arundel, that an instance had
occurred in Washington county, in which the
testimony of a Universalist was refused, because
he avowed his disbelief in the doctrine of future
punishment. He now repeated the fact, upon
the authority of men of undoubted veracity, who
were witnesses of the whole transaction. The
distinguished gentleman from Kent, (Mr. Chamb-
ers,) also states, that this has been the uniform
practice in the judicial district in which he has
the honor to preside.
Now, sir, said Mr. F., it is not my purpose to
discuss the doctrines of this church, nor did he
profess to be a disciple of their school; but from
a long and an intimate acquaintance with this
class of his constituents, he must say, that they
rank among the most honest and respectable citi-
zens of that. county which he had the honor in
part to represent. Whatever may be their reli-
gious opinions, Mr. F. declared in the presence
of this Convention, that he would be willing to
stake all he had in the world upon the oath of
any Universalist within the circle of his acquaint-
ance.
And yet, sir, (said Mr. F.) it has been avowed
in this House, that such men are unfit to testify
in our courts of justice. It has been gravely ar-