TOPICS OF THE DAY.

YEARLY TENANTCIES.

Ana nation, by Lord GREY, to a memorial 3f the Birmingham Union, transmitted through Mr. Arrwoon, has subsequently been pub

lished. "DowningStreet, 30th June 1831. " Sir—nevi"! hail the honour of receiving your letter, enclosing a memorial of the Council of the Birmingham Political Union, in which objections are stated to limiting the 10/. franchise to persons paying their rents half-yearly.

" It is with great satisfaction I have to inform you that the words so limiting the franchise were inadvertently inserted, and will he altered in Committee ; the only object in contemplation being that of insuring a bona fide holding of WI. per annum. " The memorial also refers to another supposed alteration as to the division of counties. You will find, by referrina.'' to the bill of last session, that on this point no alteration whatever has been made.

" I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant,

" Thomas Attwood, Esq." " GREY." The clause was too good a thing for the Tory journals to give. Alp; for even of them, gifted though they be with extraordinary powers of imagination, the old adage holds true, ex nihilo nihil fit —"They cannot make a lie out of nothing." Accordingly, the John Bull of Sunday last put forth the following very particular account of the origin of the blunder, its detection, and what followed thereupon.

" 'When this clause—this very clause, with all its imperfections as they appear—came under the consideration of the able and honourable gentleman who has been employed to draw the Bill—we mean Mr. Gregsonthat gentleman called the attention of Lord John Russell to its operation and consequences. His Lordship, so far from being surprised, seemed aware of that operation and those consequences, and even expressed his opinion of the necessity of throwing the elective franchise into the chan

nels, to which the proposed clause would naturally lead it. Mr. Gregson differed in opinion with his Lordship, and the question was referred to Lord Althorp ; and, after much consideration, Lord John Russell agreed to abandon it ; and so the conference upon it ended. At a Cabinet, however, Which was held a short time after, Lord John met with more support and countenance, and after a second mature deliberation the clause was inserted.

"This being the case, Mr. Gregson, when he found that the insertion of the-clause was attributed to either the inadvertence of the gentleman who drew the Bill, or tosome worse cause, and that its appearance in the Bill was spoken of as being the result of Tory maneeuvre, did not hesitate to call upon Lord John Russell, and request a vindication of his character upon this point; 'but :Lord John Russell turned a deaf ear . to the appeal, and adopted the system recommended by the Times, of saying nothing about it, as the bestway of getting rid of it altogether. This, however, would. not satisfy. Mr. .Gregson, than whom, as all 'those who know him know, there does not exist a more henourable or •higher-minded gentleman ; and in order to wash his hands of all further connexion with persons who denied him common justice, he tendered his resignation of the office which he holds under Government.

"To this Lord Althorp demurred. He begged him to retain his office, and promised him that on Friday he would explain the whole of 'the circumstances to the House of Commons; which, accordingly, .his Lordship

omitted to do." •

On this circumstantial statement, the Standard of Monday evening remarked— "The most particular attention is due to the disclosure of the history of the clausein question, made in the John Bull. We can vouch for the truth of every syllable in this statement. We were, indeed, in possession of the facts some days ago, bat we had no permission to make use of Mr. Greg.

son's name." ..

Next comes the Parliamentary explanation. On Monday night, before going into debate on the second reading of the Reform Bill, Mr. ESTCOURT, member for Oxford, put to Lord ALTHORP the following question—

Whether the noble Lord had not heard a statement that the clause of the new Bill relating to the payment of the 10/. rent in smaller portions than by quarterly payments had been introduced by an enemy of the Bill, and without the authority of the Government; and whether that statement was true; or whether the gentleman alluded to was not free from all blame whatever on the subject?

Lord ALTHORP'S answer was, that

"A statement having appeared in the public papers,reflecting upon Mr. Gregson, and asserting that that gentleman had treacherously and without the authority of Government made a certain alteration in the Reform Bill, on Thursday morning Mr. Gregson had come to him, and had stated the nature of the publication; when Lord Althorp had replied, that they were both fully aware that there was no foundation for the statement that had been set forth. The alteration in the Bill had been made by-the directions of Ministers ; and Mr. Gregson had had nothing to do with it, except merely to execute what he was directed to do. He told Mr. Gregson, that the very first opportunity he had, he would make a declaration in the House to that effect. He had expected that something would have been said in Parliament which might have afforded him the onortunity he desired; for he did not feel it right to bring forward the subject in any manner not relevant to what might be going forward."

His Lordship repeated what Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Lord GREY in their respective lettershad previously stated, and added

" When it was first proposed, Mr. Gregson Stated that there would be some difficulty in it, but Lord Althorp did not then understand that there was any further objection than that of the difficulty of Wording it."

Mr. ESTCOURT, not satisfied with this statement, requested some further information; when Lord ALTHORP added ." He must say that Mr. Gregson had not stated that it was the general custioni.in leases to have rent paid quarterly, and which he apprehended was the cause that the clause was objectionable. He had not given Ministers any ground to understand the extent of the effect of the alteration."

Lord JOHN RUSSELL spoke in corroboration of Lord Althorp's statement; and observed, in extenuation of his own ignorance and carelessness,

"In drawing, up a Bill comprehending so many divisions of importance, amfdausea which required to be considered and reconsidered, there

I necessarily had passed between those who gave instructions on the part of Ministers to Mr. Gregson, a great variety of discussions ; and objections were frequently stated against certain parts; but many_ -•.,f' ellern did not make any impression on Lord Jon

;Seii f 's mind that they were o ;Seii f 's mind that they were o

Importance:" The pertinacious Mr. ESTCOURT again put the question, whether Mr. GREGSON was or was not to blame ; and Lord ALTHORP reassured him that he was not. . Sir ROBERT PEEL, who, whenever any charge of double-dealing is in discussion, seems to have an instinctive ankiety to stand on his defence, assured the House that Mr. GRE GSON had of late had no communication with him. He also observed, that the communication in the John Bull was not by Mr. GREGSON—how he found that out, he did not explain ; and Lord JOHN RUSSELL was understood to express his assent to the observation. We have here the story as told by the John. Bull and vouched for by the Standard, and as told by Lord Athnorte and vouched for by Lord JOHN RUSSELL—which are we to believe ? There is another question, which has not yet been answered unless by Sir ROBERT PEEL, and that in his usual Way—if Mr. GREGSON did not communicate the facts of the case to the John Bull, who did? According to the story told in Parliament, there was nobody out of the Cabinet but Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Mr. GREGSON cognizant of them—they must have been communicated directly or indirectly by the one or the other. We can hardly suspect Lord JOHN, for we think he would have given a different, if not a more faithful view of the case. The Standard says it knew the story before the John Bull printed it, but had not permission to use Mr. GREGSON'S name. Who could tell the story to the Standard, subject to such a reservation, but Mr. GRE GSON himself?

The truth is, that the Ministers are surrounded on every side

by enemies public and personal. In the most secret offices, the former Ministers have their spies, bound to them by the strongest ties—the memory of past favours, and the hope of future ;for these people are as convinced of the restoration of Toryism as worthy ROBERT OWEN is of the advent of parallelograms, bringing salvation to man. The Ministers ought either to make a clean sweep of the whole of the "red tape" gentry that the "PEEL and DAWSON" Crew" have left behind them in the public offices, or drop at once all attempts at small secrets in their doings. In their

personal character, the Cabinet are, generally speaking, the most open-hearted of men—the noble Premier is a pattern of straightforwardness. Finesse and mystery sit ill upon them. Let us, then, have no' more of it. .They are trusted, and with so much of sterling honesty about them, must continue to be trusted, in the precise degree in which they are known. They have every thing to gain and nothing to lose by exposure.