sum of L50,000
out of the consolidated fund, for a provision to Prince Albert, to
commence on the day of his marriage with her majesty, and to continue
during his life." The debate was adjourned for a few days, and on
its resumption Mr. Hume moved as an amendment, that L21,000 be voted
annually to Prince Albert, instead of L50,000. In his opinion, indeed,
no grant should be made during her majesty's lifetime. The chancellor
of the exchequer replied to Mr. Hume, and several members spoke
in opposition to the grant; after which the house divided, on the
amendment, which was lost by a majority of three hundred and five
against thirty-eight. Ministers, however, were doomed to be defeated on
this question. Colonel Sibthorp had given notice that he would move an
amendment that L30,000 should be the extent of the annuity; and on
the defeat of Mr. Hume's motion, the gallant colonel rose to move this
amendment. On a division it was carried by a large majority, the numbers
being two hundred and sixty-two against one hundred and fifty-eight.
This was a great triumph over the ministers, and Colonel Sibthorp was
so elated by it, that he endeavoured to follow it up a week or two
afterwards by moving for the insertion of a clause in the bill for
Prince Albert's provision, to the effect that the annuity of L30,000
should cease altogether in case his serene highness should reside for a
less period than six months consecutively in each year within the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or should ally himself in marriage
with any foreign princess who should not be a Protestant, or should
cease to profess and adhere to the Protestant religion as by law
established in these realms. Both Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell
contended that such restrictions were inexpedient and inconsistent, and
the gallant colonel, finding that there was no chance of success, did
not press his motion to a division.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE--HANSARD AND STOCKDALE.

In the year 1835, a bill was proposed in the house of lords, by the Duke
of Richmond, for the purpose of appointing inspectors of prisons. In the
report of these inspectors, which was printed by Messrs. Hansard, it was
stated, that amongst other books in use by the prisoners, one published
by John Joseph Stockdale, in 1827, was of the most disgusting nature,
the plates being obscene and indecent in the extreme. In 1836, Stockdale
brought an action against Messrs. Hansard for the sal