Copy of a letter : "Gloucester Lodge"[London], to Robert Dundas, 1809 Oct. 3.

Docketed and with a note beneath the docket "In Mr. Canning's Private & Confidential Letter the 10th October."
Part of a large collection of letters from and to George Canning. Letters are described in individual records; see MA 854-855 for more detail.
Replying to his letter of the previous day; concerning their differing recollections of conversations between them related to Dundas' eventual choice not to support Canning; reviewing, at length and in detail, his recollections and understanding of conversations and how they differ from the recollections in Dundas' letter to Canning of October 2nd (MA 855.56); discussing in detail his support for Lord Chatham as a successor to the Duke of Portland if the Duke were to have resigned voluntarily; clarifying his position on whether the First Minister should be chosen from the House of Commons and asking "...how is it that, in stating this opinion, I can justly or with any colour of Fairness, be accused of having demanded the Situation for myself - nothing ever was more unfounded or more unfair. - In what circumstances, and on what occasion, did I first avow the Opinion? Perceval had proposed to me, in Substance to co-operate with him in producing the Duke of Portland's resignation. - His avowed object in this was, to cover the arrangement of Lord Wellesley's Succession to the War Department. I had no such object. Why should I? I expected and had a right to expect, to find that arrangement prepared - without any such cover or compromise. - I was besides unwilling that the Duke should be sacrificed for Lord Castlereagh; or rather for the convenience and apology of Lord Castlereagh's Friends, who had neglected to prepare him, according to the Promise made in the King's name, for the change;" defending his own resignation and explaining the timing of it in refutation to charges that he was demanding that he be the First Minister rather than Perceval saying "If that be the 'demand' Perceval is as guilty as I: - for I have it under his hand that he would not serve under me - nor would I have him do so. The Fault is neither in him nor in me - but in the Circumstances of the Case. The Principle of a Minister in the House of Commons once admitted must necessarily bring us into a Competition, not of our own Seeking; out of which there was no way but by the Retreat of one of us - Fortunately I had anticipated this Solution of the difficulty; and there, I think, all question about it might have ended;" concluding "What I did say to you on Sunday was (as I have said) founded on a Recollection, which I am ready to believe to be a mistaken one, of a supposed voluntary Promise or profession, on which, and on which alone, I could found my Claim to your Goodwill - much more to your Cooperation. That Promise, or Profession, I must have mis-heard or misapprehended, or wholly imagined - as your Letter contains no reference to it. - There is therefore no more to be said about it;" adding in a postscript, Since writing this I find that I wrote to my Wife (an unstatesmanlike Trick) on the day on which I saw you at the Foreign Office - expressing great delight & acknowledgement to you, in consequence of what I understood you to have said to me. I mention this, I assure you, not as an argument that I must have understood you aright, but as another Proof of the Sincerity, at least of the Impression which I received at the Time. - This particular Expression which I imagined you to have employed, was that you 'should make your Bow', if I did. - But this, like the Rest, must, of course, have been merely imagination."