Narrative of Current Events published by Messrs.
Bradbury and Evans. The Board of Stamps had come to
the conclusion that that publication came under the
designation of a newspaper, and a communication was
made to the publishers requiring them to submit to the
stamp regulations. A correspondence took place, one
part of which stated, on the part of Messrs. Bradbury
and Evans, their wish to have the whole question tried
by a special case to be submitted by arrangement. The
Commissioners had acceded to that arrangement, accepting
the offer of a judicial decision, and reference was
requested to the solicitor of the parties.—In committee
of supply a number of sums wore voted for Army
Estimates. On the vote of £41 ,000, half the sum required
for the yeomanry corps; Mr. H. Berkley contended
that the yeomanry were an unconstitutional, useless,
and dangerous force:—they were defended by Mr. Fox
MAULE and others, and the vote was affirmed by 147 to 25.

On Monday, the 29th, the adjourned debate on Baron
Rothschild's claim to take his Seat for the City of
London was resumed. A preliminary discussion took
place on points of form; and a motion by Sir Charles
WOOD, that Baron Rothschild having demanded to be
sworn on the Old Testament, he should be called to the
table and desired to state why he demanded to be sworn
in that form, having been carried, Baron Rothschild
was called to the table, and the questions being put to him
by the Speaker, answered, " Because that is the form of
swearing that I declare to be most binding on my
conscience."—Another motion, by Mr. WORTLEY, that the
Speaker should ask Baron Rothschild whether he was
willing to take the oaths required by law to be taken by
members of Parliament before admission to their seat,
was negatived by 118 to 104.—The adjourned debate
then proceeded; Mr. HUME moved as an amendment,
that Baron Rothschild having presented himself at the
table and requested to be sworn on the Old Testament,
declaring that form to be most binding on his
conscience, the clerk be directed to swear him on the Old
Testament accordingly.—Sir F. THESIGER objected to
this course, but objected also to Sir R. Inglis' resolution,
there being no necessity for a resolution in affirmation
of the practice of the House. He therefore recommended
that the resolution should be withdrawn, and Mr. Hume's
amendment discussed as a substantive motion. The
question depended upon the law of the land, and according
to existing statutes, a member could not be sworn
upon the Old Testament. In courts of justice, indeed,
Jews were sworn as witnesses and jurymen, but there
was no form prescribed for such judicial oaths. The
question now related, not to judicial but to promissory
oaths; and the three oaths in question were
required by a series of acts of Parliament to be taken
in the Christian form. The early acts declare that the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy are to be made on
the Holy Evangelists, and the later acts imply the
continuance of the form of administration; while the act
of George I., which sets forth the oaths as they are now
taken, requires the oath of abjuration to be taken on the
true faith of a Christian. Great stress had been laid
on the Act 1 and 2 Vict., but it was merely a
declaratory act to affirm the law as it no doubt existed.
Baron Rothschild, as a Jew, could not take the oath
of abjuration as it stood, and the house had no authority
to alter it.—Lord John RUSSELL agreed with Sir F.
Thesiger that the question should be treated judicially.
He believed that the ancient practice of the legislature
did not prescribe oaths to its members, and he doubted the
policy of such oaths. Baron Rothschild had offered to
take the oath in an unusual way, and there was no
precedent for refusal; he found from the authority of Lord
Hardwicke that a Jew who had been sworn on the Holy
Evangelists might be indicted for perjury, the Old
Testament being the Evangelium of the Jew. Sir F. Thesiger
had argued that the oaths had always been taken in
the Christian form, and that it was so by positive
statute, but he had failed to make this out, and unless
some statute could be pointed out the house ought not
to insist on a form which excluded a gentleman duly
elected. In regard to the words, "on the true faith of
a Christian," in the oath of abjuration, it had been
maintained that they were not of the essence of the
oath; but he did not think the house had the power to
dispense with those words, and he should be compelled
to vote against omitting them; though he was in favour
of the admission of Jews to the house, he thought that
no opinion of this kind ought to induce the house to
take a step which might produce serious evils. In
conclusion, he was of opinion that Baron Rothschild
should be allowed to be sworn on the Old Testament,
but was not willing to alter the terms of the act of
abjuration without the authority of an act of parliament.
—After some further remarks from Sir H. Inglis
and Mr. Osborne the debate was adjourned till the
evening: it was then resumed, the speakers being
Mr. Anstey and Mr Page Wood in favour of Baron
Rothschild's claim, and Mr. Stuart Wortley against it.
—The sense of the house was then taken; first, on the
point whether the words of Sir R. Inglis' motion
should stand part of the question put. It was resolved,
without division, that they should not. The amendment
moved by Mr. Hume was then carried by 113
to 59; and it was ordered that the clerk should
swear in Baron Rothschild on the Old Testament,
the ceremony being deferred till the following day.—

The house, in committee, considered the proposed
appropriation of Marlborough House for the Prince of
Wales, during the joint lives of the Queen and himself,
and the provision of a coach-house and stables out of the
crown land revenues.—Mr. HUME objected that the
arrangement was premature, the Prince being only nine
years old.—Lord John RUSSELL reminded the house of
the arrangement respecting the Vernon pictures, and
said it was thought right to make the appropriation
now, lest it should afterwards be thought that the
pictures had so long occupied the house that it would
be wrong to give it to the Prince without having settled
it before.—Lord SEYMOUR explained that by the
arrangement as to the stables the crown revenues would
be benefited £800 a year. After further remarks, in
opposition to the measure, from Mr. Hume, Mr. Henley,
and Alderman Sidney, it was carried by 68 to 46.—
In committee of supply on the vote of £731,206, for
Half-pay and Retirement to Officers of the Navy and
Marines, Mr. HUME moved that it should be reduced
by £3000, the select committee having stated that there
are 150 admirals, and having recommended that they
should be reduced to 100 by promotion of only one as
often as three vacancies occur—Mr. Cobden, Sir James
Graham, and Mr. Henley supported the amendment,
which was opposed by Sir F. Baring and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, and negatived by 128 to 72.

At noon on Tuesday the 30th, Baron Rothschild
presented himself at the table, and a copy of the Old
Testament was handed him by the clerk. He audibly
repeated, after the clerk, the oaths of allegiance and
supremacy; and, at the close of each, put on his hat,
kissed the book, and said "So help me God." In the
oath of abjuration; he repeated the words till the phrase
"on the true faith of a Christian," when he said "I
omit these words as not binding on my conscience,"
and concluded as before. The Speaker then desired him
to withdraw. There were cries of "no, no," and "seat,
seat!" but he withdrew.—Mr. HUME rose to order;
the Member for London, he said, had taken the oaths
in accordance with the vote of the preceding day, and
he moved that he should now take his seat.—The
SPEAKER said that the honourable member had been
directed to withdraw, because he had not taken the
last words of the oath prescribed by act of parliament.
Sir F. THESIGER moved for a new writ, and Sir R. Inglis
seconded the motion.—Mr. Page Wood contended that
the oaths having been duly taken there was no vacancy.
Even if Baron Rothschild had not taken the abjuration
oath he had not forfeited his seat, though he might by
act of parliament be liable in certain penalties. But
that oath had been taken; the words omitted were not
a portion of the oath itself—not words of abjuration but
of adjuration. He argued these points at great length,
and moved that the seat of Baron Rothschild, as one of
the members for London, was full.—The ATTORNEY-
GENERAL said he had always voted for the admission of
Jews into the House, but he could not as a Judge decide
that Baron Rothschild had taken the oath of abjuration.
Once admit the principle that this or that portion of a
legislative direction might be dispensed with to meet