78] 



ANNUAL REGISTER, ISI2. 



for postponement, had been nega- 

 tived, Mr. Huskisson's motion for 

 a recommittal was carried. 



On May 15, Lord Clive rose to 

 move for an address to the Prince 

 Regent for a monument to the 

 memory of Mr. Perceval in West- 

 minster Abbey. This was opposed 

 by Mr. Lambe as a clear recogni- 

 tion of his public services, which 

 could not be acquiesced in by those 

 who had disagreed with hi en in his 

 political measures. Mr. Whit- 

 bread, Mr. Wynn, and Lord Mil- 

 ton, spoke to the same effect. Lord 

 Castlereagh, Mr. Canning, Mr. 

 Wilberforce, and others, supported 

 the motion, which was carried on 

 a division by 199 votes against 26. 



Mr. Huskisson then, upon a 

 recommittal of the resolution pro- 

 posed by Mr. Sumner, moved his 

 amendment upon it relative to the 

 grant of 1,000/. a year to the eldest 

 son of Mr. Perceval, which was 

 agreed to without opposition. 



On the bringing up of the report 

 of the committee on May 20, Mr. 

 Whitbread rose to make his final 

 objections to the resolution, on the 

 ground that any thing further than 

 what had been done by the first 

 resolutions must be considered as a 

 reward for public services, in which 

 he could not concur. He also 

 mentioned some particulars of the 

 circumstances of the family, to 

 show that such an addition was not 

 necessary. The debate was then 



resumed, at no great length, and 

 terminated in a division, on which 

 the resolution was carried by 171 

 against 16. 



The only other parliamentary 

 proceeding immediately consequent 

 upon Mr. Perceval's assassination 

 arose from a circumstance in Bel- 

 lingham's trial. That criminal, in 

 justification of his act, which he 

 always defended as vindicative of 

 the injury he had sustained from 

 the ministers in refusing him com- 

 pensation for wrongs which he 

 asserted that he had undergone in 

 Russia, particularly complained of 

 the conduct of Lord Granville 

 Leveson Gower, then ambassador 

 in that country, and Sir Stephen 

 Sharp, the consul-general. His 

 lordship, therefore, on May 20, 

 moved in the House of Commons 

 for the production of a letter from 

 himself to the secretary of state 

 for the home department. Lord 

 Castlereagh, statingall the circnm- 

 stances relative to the case of John 

 Bellingham. An address to the 

 Prince Regent was agreed to for 

 this purpose, and the letter was 

 read before the house. Of its 

 contents no more needs here to be 

 said, than that it completely ex- 

 culpated his lordship and Sir 

 Stephen with respect to that un- 

 happy man, whose passions appear 

 entirely to have obscured his reason 

 as far as concerned his transactions 

 in Russia. 



I 



CHAPTER 



