rose to call the attention of the House to the circumstance of a misrepresentation, which he might say was unprecedented since he had had the honour of a seat in parliament. This misrepresentation occurred in a statement purporting to be an account of what took place in the House last night, in that part of the debate on the consideration of the Lords amendments to the Alien bill, where, after an hon. and learned gentleman had objected to those amendments, as affecting the privileges of the House, he (Mr. Canning) appealed to the Chair for an opinion on the question. In a newspaper of this morning there was not only a report of what then occurred, but a comment of a nature which, as it affected a particular member, or the privileges of the House in general, was most offensive, far exceeded the usual latitude allowed in such cases, and could never be tolerated. It would be in the recollection of the House, that when this point of form arose, he, after making a few observations, put a question to the Chair, saying, he was willing to rest the issue on its decision; and it was in the description of the tone and manner in which it was said to have delivered his sentiments on that occasion, and made this appeal, that he thought the House implicated, and he, individually, had reason to complain. In the report itself there was no unfairness or misrepresentation. It stated the substance of what he said, and gave the view that he took as correctly as such reports were generally given; but nothing could be more unfair than the comment which followed, and which described him as treating the objection of the hon. and learned gentleman as absurd, and confidently and triumphantly appealing to the Chair for a confirmation of his opinion, and in expectation of a different answer from that which he received. The words to which he alluded, and of which he complained were these:—"It will be recollected that a clause was introduced into it by the Lords, invalidating the effect of a law, derived originally from Scotland, whereby it was first enacted, that the purchasers of stock in the bank of that country should be deemed naturalized; and afterwards, by the act of Union, the naturalized subjects of one country were in future to be admitted to equal rights in the other. This law, we say, was, by an express clause in the Allen bill, to be set aside: but it was last night discovered and argued in the Commons, that such a clause, having relation to money concerns—to the money concerns of the subject—could only originate in that House. A debate ensued, in which Mr. Canning treated the idea then first started, as absurd; triumphantly and confidently declaring, that he should be content to put the question to the Speaker, and to be decided by him (being, as he is, the constitutional watchman of the Commons rights), whether the present was a money transaction at all, within the purview of that law which makes it necessary to originate all such in the Commons. There is such a thing as "reckoning without your host;" and here it appears that Mr. Canning did so reckon; for the Speaker, thus appealed to, declared his opinion that the clause in question was of such a nature as to render its origination in the Lords irregular and illegal." Now, Sir, (said Mr. Canning) what passed on the occasion alluded to, passed in a House as full as at present, and I can confidently put it to your recollection, and to that of the members who then attended, whether the manner in which I stated my sentiments, the expressions which I used, and the tone in which I made the appeal, were not the very reverse of those here described: and whether any man who heard me could, without doing it falsely, perversely, and malignantly convey to the public the representation which I have read. I can not only rest the matter on the impression of the House, but I can appeal to you whether, from previous communication on the point at issue, I had not good reason, at the time when I put the question, for believing what was your opinion; and whether so far from entertaining a confident hope of eliciting from the Chairman answer contrary to what was given, I had not a perfect anticipation of what that answer would be. It is not my intention to found any proceeding upon this subject. I think it enough to have pointed out the misrepresentation, in order to induce greater caution in future. I am of opinion, that great good must and does result from the publication of the proceedings of this House; but it is not too much to require in those who communicate them to the public, a respect for truth, and an attention to correctness; and it is not to be tolerated, that they should impute motives or represent con- duct without the least shadow of fact for their statements.

said, that though he could not, without great delicacy touch on any thing in which he was personally concerned, he owed it to the House and to the right hon. gentleman on this appeal, to confirm every thing which he had stated. When a question arose about the forms of the House, on which, from his situation, he might be supposed to deliver his opinion, he thought it due from him to communicate his impressions either to the House, or to any individual member of either side who might make the appeal to him. He had accordingly, on being asked by the right hon. gentleman his opinion, mentioned it to him previously to its being stated to the House; and he would have done so to any other member; convinced that by concealing his impressions on matters of form from any member, he should be doing what was neither consistent with courtesy, or right [Hear, hear!].

A member asked the name of the newspaper alluded to.

said, "The Times."

concurred in the statement, that nothing could be more distant from a true representation of what had occurred than the comment which had been read. He had a perfect recollection of the circumstances, and could say, that the tone in which the right hon. gentleman delivered his sentiments was incorrectly stated. He was glad to hear from the right hon. gentleman, a liberal admission of the benefit to be derived from free discussion and the unrestrained publication of what occurred in the House, but comments of the sort alluded to, when inaccurate, were very much to be reprobated. He himself had reason to be dissatisfied with similar comments on what he had said, though he always felt reluctant to complain. On a late occasion, he was said to have made an attack on a great law officer, and then to have retracted it; whereas it would be in the recollection of the House, that what were called the attack and the retractation referred to different things, and that neither the one nor the other existed; he, speaking of the court in the one case, and of the character of the individual at the head of it in the other.

Here the conversation ended.

said, the House had now been for some minutes without any business before it. He wished to know from the noble lord, whether any measure was to be brought forward to-day, which required so full an attendance, or whether they had been convened on a Saturday only to have the pleasure of sitting to look at each other. If the noble lord had any measure to propose, he would perhaps state the nature of it now, that the House might be prepared for it whenever it was brought forward.

said, it appeared to his majesty's government that it was not fit the law should remain in the state in which it was now, with respect to the continuing the privilege of naturalization on the smallest purchase of stock in the bank of Scotland; he should therefore, on Monday next, introduce a bill on this subject; it would be a short bill, to suspend the operation of the Scotch act in favour of aliens purchasing such stock till the next session. The bill would have no retrospective provisions, and he did not think it would lead to much discussion.