seeing the late Secretary of State for foreign affairs in his place, would beg leave to say a few words with regard to the opinion he had formed upon the correspondence between that right hon. gent, and Mr. Erskine relative to the late negotiation with America which had been laid before the House in the present session of parliament, and he trusted to the indulgence of the House to be allowed to state it, although he certainly did not intend to conclude with any motion. The statement made by that right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) had been, that Mr. Erskine had not only not acted in conformity with, but had acted in direct contradiction to his instructions; and in another letter he had asserted, that Mr. Erskine had departed widely both from the letter and the spirit of his instructions. This from every thing which he then knew, he had taken the liberty to question, and then the right hon. gent said, that the question as relating to himself was neither more nor less than whether he had told a direct falsehood in. the face of Europe and the world. To this he could answer, that no such charge had ever been made, or ever insinuated, against the right hon. gent. He was not aware——

spoke to order. If the hon. Gent. had no motion to submit to the House, such observations as those which he was making were calculated only to produce an irregular discussion.

allowed, that if the House stood on their precise forms, he would be precluded from making any further observations; but he threw himself on their indulgence, to which he conceived himself to be the more entitled, as his object was to shew why he was desirous, on a consideration of all the circumstances of the case, that no motion should be made on the subject to which he had called their attention. He presumed that the House would grant to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Canning) a similar liberty in reply. What he would say, if he were. permitted to do so, was, that on attentively reading the papers to which he had alluded, he did think that Mr. Erskine had not complied with the letter of his instructions; and he also thought that any individual by whom those papers alone were read would be justified in entertaining the opinion that Mr. Erskine had not acted up to the spirit of his instructions. Yet he for his own part altogether agreed in the vindication of his conduct, which had been offered by Mr. Erskine in a dispatch which was now published, but which had not been before the public last year; and thought, that the spirit of the instructions taken altogether had been, complied with. But the instructions themselves appeared to him to have been drawn up and framed without a due attention to the power vested in the executive government of America, and without adverting to the specific provisions of an act of congress. Moreover, if the right hon. Gent. had continued in office he should perhaps have thought it right to make some motion upon these papers; because it appeared to him that another favourable opportunity of placing this country and America upon that amicable footing upon which it was most desirable they should stand, had been lost by the total rejection of Mr. Erskine's arrangement, by the right hon. gent. But as he understood the negociation between this country and America to be still pending, and that it had been conducted lately in a manner perfectly smooth and satisfactory, and the more satisfactorily because that right hon. gent. was not in office on public grounds he should think it unadvisable to agitate any question relative to America at present. And as for Mr. Erskine he did not think it necessary any specific motion should be made, as his vindication of himself was now before the world. He imagined the right hon. gent. would be satisfied also with his own exposition of his own case; if otherwise, it was competent to him or to any other member to make such motion he might think proper on the subject.

appealed to the justice of the House, on the extraordinary situation in which he had been placed by the conduct of the hon. gent. On the last day before the holidays, the hon. gent. (having before in no obscure terms hinted at the same thing), declared that he (Mr. C.) had asserted that which was not true when he had stated that Mr. Erskine had acted contrary to his instructions. After such a declaration he thought, that he was in-titled in fairness to expect, either that the hon. gent. should support his declaration by arguments and facts in a manly manner, or that if convinced of its fallacy, he should come forward and candidly disavow it. In stating it to have been represented by that hon. gent. that his assertions were not true, he had never meant to say, that that expression was applied to him personally, or in a way that affected him as a gentleman, but only in his official capacity, most importantly as affecting the interests and character of the country, and also in another view (which he should be one of the last to disregard), as traducing the character of another individual. That individual he had neither traduced nor misrepresented. He had affirmed, and armed with the documents on the table he would fearlessly re-affirm, that Mr. Erskine had acted in direct contradiction to his instructions, and had deviated both from their letter and from their spirit. Mr. Erskine had not only done that which he was directed not to do, but from that which he had been directed to do, he had abstained. This he was ready to establish by argument, whenever Mr. E.'s friends or his own accusers would give him an opportunity of doing so. If the hon. gentleman opposite were not more satisfied with the documents than his speech that night showed him to be, he would tell him explicitly that he would accept of no compromise. Labouring as he had done so long and so anxiously under circumstances of peculiar provocation, he had carefully avoided using a single word of unkindness or disrespect towards the individual who was the subject of the present observations. His business with Mr. Erskine was merely with a gentleman acting under him in his official capacity. So far was he from permitting any political differences to induce him to advise the recal of Mr. Erskine, or the substitution of another minister in America, that he appealed to Mr. Erskine himself, whether those who felt most warmly for his interest and honour could have treated him with more kindness, attention and indulgence? But whether Mr. Erskine, to whom he was a stranger, or the dearest friend that he had upon earth, were involved in a question connected with the public interest, committed to his care, he never could allow any private consideration to interfere with the faithful and conscientious discharge of his public duty. He had never withheld his official disapprobation from those whom he most loved, if they appeared to him deservedly to incur it; nor had he ever gone out of his way to express that disapprobation, because the individual on whom it fell was of political opinions different from his own. He was confident that on that ground his character and conduct while in office would bear the strictest examination. When so many months had elapsed after the return of Mr. Erskine during the whole of which time the grossest misrepresentations had been circulated against him, and when the documents, by which the whole affair was elucidated, lay on the table, was it just that he (Mr. Canning) should be left without either an opportunity of publicly refuting it, or a retractation of the charge? On the one hand, the discussion would enable him himself to prove the fallacy of the accusation preferred against him, or on the other hand a frank avowal of that fallacy by his accusers would prove to the world how unfounded had been the charge. He returned the hon. gent. therefore no thanks for the little mixture of candour in his observations. The fact was that the hon. gent. could not, dare not, maintain his original position. He was ready to meet him upon the subject whenever he chose. That was the sort of reception which he gave to the overture of the hon. gent. to pass the matter by without debate. If the hon. gent, should change his mind, he repeated that he was ready to meet his arguments whenever he might chuse to advance them; or the arguments of any other friend of the hon. gent. in question, respecting whom he trusted that no disrespectful expression had escaped him, although he had felt it his duty to advise his Majesty to recal a minister who had so directly disobeyed his instructions. He should have given his Majesty expressly the same advice, had that minister been connected with him by the closest ties of friendship or consanguinity. He begged pardon of the House for having presumed to trespass so long upon their indulgence, but trusted they would recollect that the charge which had been preferred against him was of a most serious nature. He had been accused not of official misconduct merely, but of conduct which, if it could be established, would prove him wholly unworthy of that office, the functions of which it would in that case appear he had most grossly misused.—Whether the hon. gent. brought forward the question, or left it where it was, he trusted that he should now stand equally justified in the opinion of the House and the country.

declared that he had offered no compromise whatever to the right hon. gent. His thanks he did not expect, and he was surprised at his allowing that he (Mr. W.) had mixed even a little candour in his observations. He should not bring forward any motion on the subject, because he did not think that Mr. Erskine required any more to be said in his vindication. But if the right hon. gent. feeling that his own conduct required further defence, and regardless of the existing circumstances between the two countries, was disposed to submit to the House any proposition upon the subject he should always be ready to meet it.

begged to say a few words, although he was aware that a regard to the forms of the House would render it impossible for him to go into the subject as he wished. He expressed his surprise that the right hon. gent. had treated the question as having at any time assumed the aspect of a personal difference between that right hon. gent. and Mr. Erskine. He had never so understood it. He certainly did always consider that the right bon. gent. ought to have laid on the table all the documents upon this subject, or that—

spoke to order. There was a regular charge preferred against him of official misconduct in a discussion studiously divested of the forms of debate. He had never treated the question as one of a personal nature between Mr. Erskine and himself, but—

here interposed, and prevented any further conversation. He expressed his hope that what had occurred would induce the House in future not to entertain any discussion without a distinct question before them, and would convince them of the practical wisdom of their own rules upon that subject.