have been passed enlarging the competency of
witnesses and refusing the objection to their
credibility.' So that in adopting it here, we are
only keeping up with the progressive spirit of
the age.
Mr. DORSEY objected to the substitute as in-
sufficient to carry out the purpose which the
mover had in view. When all that it proposed
to accomplish was effected, a great part of the
ground would have to be gone over again. He
thought the subject of religion should not be mix-
ed up with legislation. We live in a country of
universal toleration, and that principle ought to
be carried out in relation to the competence of
witnesses, and also with reference to persons who
may be selected by the people as their agents,
without attempting to restrict them in their
choice. He should vote against the substitute.
The question was then stated to be on the sub-
stitute of Mr. RANDALL.
Mr. WARE asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and being taken, resulted as fol-
lows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Donaldson, Randall, Sell-
man. Bond, Brent of Charles, Merrick, Buchan-
an, Welch, Crisfield, Eccleston, Miller, Tuck,
George, Dirickson,Sappington, Magraw, Gwinn,
Fiery, Hollyday, Ege and Shower—21.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, President, Mor-
gan, Hopewell, Lee, Chambers of Kent, Mitch-
ell, Dorsey, Wells, Weems, Dalrymple, Bell,
Chandler, Ridgely, Sherwood ofTalbot,Colston,
John Dennis, Dashiell, Williams, Hicks, Phelps,
Chambers of Cecil, McLane, Bowie, Sprigg, Mc-
Cubbin, McMaster, Fooks, Shriver, Gaither,
Biser, Stephenson, McHenry, Nelson, Carter,
Stewart of Caroline, Hardcastle, Brent of Balti-
more city, Ware, John Newcomer, Harbine, Mi-
chael Newcomer, Davis, Slicer, Parks and
Cockey—45.
So the substitute was rejected.
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. DORSEY.
Mr. CHAMBERS asked the yeas and nays:
Which were ordered.
Mr. BOWIE called for the reading of the amend-
ment;
Which was again read.
The question on the amendment was then tak-
en, and resulted as follows:
Affirmative—Messrs. Morgan,Hopewell, Mitch-
ell, Dorsey, Wells, Randall, Kent, Sellman,
Bond, Sellers, Brent of Charles, Buchanan, Bell,
Welch, Ridgely, Colston, Eccleston, Chambers,
of Cecil, Miller, McLane, George, Dirickson,
Thomas, Shriver, Gaither, Biser, Sappington,
Magraw, Nelson, Gwinn, Brent of Baltimore
city, Ware, Fiery, John Newcomer, Michael
Newcomer, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Parke, Ege,
Shower and Cockey—43.
Negative— Messrs. Chapman, President, Lee,
Chambers of Kent, Donaldson, Weems, Dalrym-
ple, Merrick, Chandler, Sherwood of Talbot,
John Dennis, Crisfield, Dashiell, Williams,
Hicks, Phelps, Bowie, Tuck, Sprigg, McCub-
bin, McMaster, Fooks, Stephenson, McHenry,

Carter, Stewart of Caroline, Harbine and Da-
vis—27.
So the amendment was adopted.
The question then recurring on the adoption
of the thirty-third section, as amended,
Mr. JOHN NEWCOMER moved to amend it, by
striking out the word "duty, "and inserting the
word "privilege."
Mr. N. said, it seemed to him that "privilege"
was the better word.
The question was taken, and the amendment
was rejected.
And then the article as amended, was adopted.
The thirty-fourth article was read as follows:
Art. 34. That every gift, sale or devise of
lands, to any minister, public teacher, or preach-
er of the gospel, as such, or to any religious sect,
order or denomination, or to or for the support,
use or benefit of, or in trust for any minister,
public teacher or preacher of the gospel, as such,
or any religious sect, order or denomination, and
every gift or sale of goods or chattels, to go in
succession, or to take place after the death of the
seller or donor, to or for such support, use, or
benefit; and also every devise of goods or chat-
tels to or for the support, use or benefit of any
minister, public teacher or preacher of the gos-
pel, as such, or any religious sect, order or de-
nomination, without the leave of the legislature,
shall be void; except always any sale, gift, lease,
or devise of any quantity of land, not exceeding
five acres for a church, meeting or other house
of worship, and for a burying ground, which shall
be improved, enjoyed, or used only for such pur-
pose; or such sale, gift, lease or devise shall be
void.
Mr. PHELPS moved to strike out "five" acres,
and insert "thirty."
Mr. P. said, he had had some experience in
these matters, and he thought it necessary to in-
crease the number of acres which may be grant-
ed, "for a church, meeting, or other house of
worship, and for a burying ground." It had of
late years become very fashionable and proper to
lay out cemeteries, and "five" acres was not suf-
ficient for the purpose. He had been told that
Greenwood Cemetery occupied one hundred
acres.
Mr. MICHAEL NEWCOMER opposed the motion
of Mr. PHELPS, and suggested that one acre
of land in the county which he, [Mr. N.,] repre-
sented, was worth thirty in the county of Dor-
chester. (Laughter.)
Some conversation followed.
Mr. BLAKISTONE moved to strike out the whole
section.
Mr. PHELPS slid that scarcely a year passed,
without an application being made to the Legis-
lature, for an appropriation for the enlargement
of grave yards. There was certainly nothing im-
proper in such an object, and the spirit of beauti-
fying and improving these grave yards, ought to
be encouraged by every gentleman on this floor.
Mr. STEPHENSON called for a division on the
motion of Mr. PHELPS, so that the question should
be taken, first, on the motion to strike out.
A division was ordered.