the House the preceding evening, he understood an arrangement had been made upon the subject of the provision for the family of the late Mr. Perceval, to which he could not give his consent. The two first Resolutions (three having been come to by the Committee) had passed without any ob jection, but the third, which he had the honour to propose, had been postponed for further consideration; thus giving to that Resolution, which had met with the concurrence of a large majority of the House, a doubtful aspect. The operation of the postponement would have the effect of disparaging that Resolution; and if in proposing it he had merely stood in the situation of an insulated individual, he should have considered himself bound to protect his motion, but he stood in a very different light; he was protected and supported in it by a majority of from six or seven to one in its favour. If the Report was now brought up, and any objection should be made to the third Resolution, he should feel the necessity for pressing the House to a division on its adoption or rejection.

Lord Castlereagh had no objection to the Resolution, at least he had been friendly for unanimity on the occasion, and he trusted the honourable gentleman would see how desirable it was. At present, as the House was waiting to go up with the Address, it might be as well if the Report was brought up, and then after the assembling of the House at five o'clock, on the return from Carlton House, should any difference of opinion arise, the Report might be discussed. The Report was then brought up, and ordered to be taken into further consideration at five o'clock.

THE ADDRESS.

The Speaker then acquainted the House that the time was arrived (half past two o'clock) for going up with the Address; accordingly the House adjourned till five o'clock, and the right honourable gentleman, accompanied by Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Ponsonby, (the mover and seconder) and the whole of the House, proceeded in their carriages to Carlton House.

Soon after five o'clock the gallery was re-opened, when the Speaker stated, that the House, in pursuance of its resolution, had waited upon the Prince Regent with the Address, to which his Royal Highness had been pleased to return a most gracious answer, to the following effect:

"I receive with satisfaction the assurance that you will enable me to provide for the widow and family of the late Right Hon. Spencer Perceval.

"It is a most beneficial mode of disposing of the public money, and one most gratifying to my feelings, in marking with peculiar distinction the family of an individual, whose talents and virtues have been snatched, by an act of unpa ralleled atrocity, from the service of his country."

ORDERS IN COUNCIL.

Mr. Marryatt, in the absence of an honourable alderman, Member for the City of London, presented a Petition from certain Merchants, Ship-owners, and Traders of the City of London, in favour of the Orders in Council, praying that the same may not be repealed, but be continued, as a rctaliatory system against the enemy, until the Orders of the enemy are revoked. The Petition was laid on the table.

MONUMENT TO THE MEMORY OF MR. PERCEVAL.

Lord Clice gave notice that he should to-morrow move an humble Address to his royal highness the Prince Regent, humbly praying that he would be graciously pleased to give directions for erecting a Monument to the memory of the Right Hon. Spencer Perceval, in the Cathedral Church of St. Peter, at Westminster.

FAMILY OF MR. PERCEVAL.

Lord Castlereagh moved the further consideration of the Resolutions of the Committee, for providing for the family

of the late Mr. Perceval.

Mr. C. Adems wished to make a few observations upon the subject. The honourable gentleman stated, that he had not the honour of an intimate acquaintance with the late lamented right hon. gentleman whose family were the objects of the present motion-the public and private virtues of that distinguished man had been so ably pourtrayed by gentlemen more capable than himself, that he could not add any language which he could use to the testimony so justly bestowed. But it was impossible to recollect the tragedy of Monday without emotions which could not entirely subside -a tragedy which had awfully snatched away from the scene of life a man so eminently qualified for his public station, and borne him to the silent grave. With respect to the grant, and to that he principally rose, he thought the House would not act up to the professions which they so unanimously evinced on Tuesday, if they did not make an ample and liberal provision for the eldest son of Mr. Perceval. He lamented that the noble lord, when he originally

brought the provision under the consideration of the House, had not proposed to double the grant. (Hear, hear !)—-If he had proposed 100,000l. instead of 50,0007. he was sure the House would have acceded to the proposition unanimously. (Hear, hear!) Sure he was that the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Ponsonby) who seconded the motion, would have advocated the larger grant.

Lord Castlereagh reminded the honourable gentleman, that his observations applied to the third Resolution, and the two first had not been disposed of.

The first and second Resolutions were then read, and agreed to nem. con.

On the third Resolution being read,

Mr. Huskisson, adverting to the vote which he had given on the preceding night, observed, that he voted against the previous question, as it was necessary to come to a vote, the unanimity originally proposed having been departed from. With respect to the Resolution for providing for the eldest son of the late right honourable gentleman, after the decease of his mother, that might be very well. But did the House see the situation in which a grant of that kind might place the young man he might or might not stand in need of it at that time. Was the House aware that it was likely he might succeed not only to the name but to the splendid talents and abilities of his lamented father?-(Hear, hear!)that he was a young man of the most promising abilities, and that it was intended he should pursue his studies at one of the Universities, to fit him for passing through life with honour and advantage to himself, whether in the profession of his father, or whatever other situation, was not now the question. The House must be convinced of the great expence attending a liberal education, and the impossibility of maintaining that rank and station at college upon a bare 2001. per annum. The only resource, therefore, he could have (unless the House took his situation into consideration) was, to depend upon his mother, and the deficiency of the maintenance must be supplied out of the income of Mrs. Perceval, or from the provision made for the other children. Under these circumstances, he thought the House ought to make the grant more effectual, considering the age of the young man, and give him something immediately. Suppose 1000l. a year from this time, or from the moment of his coming of age.

Sir A. Piggott made some observations as to the wording

of the Resolution, in order that the House might not decide in the dark. The Resolution proposed to provide for " the male descendant of Mr. Perceval, being the heir at law." Now the son of a daughter of Mr. Perceval might be the heir at law, he thought, therefore, that it should be specifically stated "the eldest son of the late Mr. Perceval," to avoid error.

General Matthew was of opinion that the grant was not of sufficient magnitude, not what a great country like England ought to give-(hear, hear!)-If the honourable gentleman was to move to grant 20007. a year for the eldest son of such a man, he should not think it too much.

Mr. Huskisson intimated his intention, for the reasons before stated, of proposing to vote 1000l. a year, without prejudice to the grant of 2000l. to Mrs. Perceval.

Mr. J. W. Ward thought the arguments which the hon. gentleman, Mr. Huskisson, had used, might with equal propriety apply to the other sons. When he recollected this, and further, that the sums originally proposed had received the approbation of the friends of Mr. Perceval's family, he was bound to support the original proposition.

Mr. Wallis declared, that in his opinion the young man who was the representative of Mr. Perceval, ought to have every advantage which the country could give him—(Hear, hear!)-Yesterday evening he had voted for the Amendment of the noble lord, because he was desirous of preserving unanimity; but as the House had decided by a large majority against that Amendment, he felt himself at liberty to give way to his feelings for the memory of his much-lamented friend, and in testimony of the high regard in which he held his virtues and talents, he was ready to vote for any additional grant that might be proposed.

Mr. W. Smith came down, determined not to oppose what so large a majority of the House had declared to be their opinion. He was nevertheless convinced of the danger of opening the door to any extended vote. He regretted that the personal character of Mr. Perceval's son had been introduced into the discussion, as it was wholly irrelevant to it. Two appeals had been made to the House-the one to their feelings, the other to their judgment. They had answered the first by expressing in words, as strong as the British language would afford, their detestation and abhorrence of the crime that had been committed, and their sense of the public and private virtues of the individual on whom

it had been committed. When they came to the provision that was to be made for the family of that individual, their judgment was necessarily to be consulted. For his part, he thought it would be wise to postpone the consideration of the subject for a week, when the House would be more cool upon it. The necessity had been urged of making a handsome provision for Mrs. Perceval, and all the family; there were many differences of opinion as to what was a handsome provision. Under all the circumstances of the case, he did not see the necessity. All that be thought the House bound to do, on the spur of the occasion, was, to vote something, to shew their sense of abhorrence of the late horrid transaction, without entering into any nice disquisition into what might be the cost of the education of Mr. Perceval's children. For the reason, however, which he had assigned at the commencement of his speech, he should refrain from voting on the present question. The honourable Member then made his bow, and retired from the House.

Mr. William Fitzgerald observed, it would not be denied that the merits of Mr. Perceval were greater than those of any man who ever yet filled the same office. He had the singular merit of leaving his family, after five years of administration, poorer than they would have been had it been his fate to have been carried off before becoming Minister of the country. Had he advised his Sovereign to confer on his son the office of Teller of the Exchequer, which was lately conferred on another, it would have been an act perfectly justifiable, and which few persons in his situation would not have done. He would have done this, had he followed the conduct of Lord Sidmouth on a similar occasion, which he did not mention for the purpose of cen suring. Mr. Perceval was in fact the only Minister of the country whose fortune had been ruined by his public services; and the question properly before the House was, whether a public functionary was to be ruined by having dedicated himself to the service of his country and his Sovereign (Hear, hear!) Much had been said about una nimity. He considered that unanimity was not abandoned as to the principle of the vote. All were of opinion that the family of Mr. Perceval had a claim on the country, and the only difference which existed was, as to the amount of what ought to be bestowed upon them. It would be very singular indeed if the understanding of a minority of the House were to be binding on so great a majority as