TOPICS OF THE DAY.

OUGHT MINISTERS TO DISSOLVE THE PARLIAMENT?

THERE seen is to he a general understanding among men of all parties, that the Parliament will be dissolved next year. It is so very unusual for a Minister to attempt to carry on the Government with a House of Commons c-aosen under the auspices of his oppo- nents, that few suppose Lord MELBOURNE can contemplate a lengthened existence for the PEEL Parliament. Still there is a variety of opinion among the supporters of Government as to the proper time for a dissolution. It is believed by many, and we . incline to the opinion, that the Ministers may rely on a majority sufficient to enable them to carry on the Government during the next session. They have lost very little strength since the com- mencement of the last session, notwithstanding the boast of the Tories, and the calculations of Mr. ROEBUCK. In his pamphlet this week, MT. ROEBUCK asserts, that if Sir ROBERT PEEL Could place himself in his position of last February, " he would have a majority, in place of being in a minority, of nine; " and he sup- Torts this assertion by the following list of changes that have taken place since the General Election, extracted from Deacon's Analysis of the Proceedings of the Session of 1835, which he calls a very useful book.

PLACES. OLD MEMBERS. NEW MEMBERS.

Ayrshire Oswald Dunlop • Belfast NI‘Cance Dunbar • Cambridge Manners Sutton Law Loss Canterbury ..... .....Villiers Lushington Loss Carlow Vigors Bruen Loss Raphael Kavanagh Loss Cashel Perrin Wolfe ' Cork (County) F. O'Connor Longfield Loss Cork (City) Baldwin Chatterton Gain

D. Callaghan I eye..ster Gain

Devon (South) Russell, Lord John... Parker Loss Drogheda O'Dwyer Plunkett Loss Essex (North) Baring Elwes • Inverness-shire Grant (Glenelg) . .Chisholm Loss Ipswich Dundas Morrison Gain Wason Kelly Gain Hull Carruthers Thompson Gain Nottingham Lord Lumley Knight ... ........ ...Loss

Oldham Cobbett lees Loss

Poole Byng Byng • Staffordshire Lyttleton Coodrieke .... ...... Loss Stroud Fox Russell, Lord J.... • Tiverton Kennedy Palmerston • Waterford Power Stuart Loss Windsor Beauvoir Elley Loss Since the above Book was published : Devizes Locke Estcourt Loss

The following note is appended to this statement-

" It should be observed, that every vote lost to one party and gained by the other affects the majority by TWO. Theie are 14 votes lost to the Whigs, making a deduction of 28 from their majority ; and a gain of 5, making an -addition of 10 thereto. Their loss by changes in the Representation are thus -shown to be 18. Some of the stars; it is believed: are placed rather too favour- ably to the case of the %%lags ; besides whieh, the Waverers, who always go with the party in power, have nothing to do with this statement."

Now let us point out the very material blunders in this calcula- tion.

In the first place, Mr. DUNBAR is a Tory ; therefore there was a loss to the Liberals, instead of no change.

.Secondly, There was no loss by LAW replacing MANNERS Surt'orr; both being Tories. 'Thirdly, BRUEN and KAVANAGH were originally returned for Carlow, and were not displaced till the middle of June : sub- sequently they regained their seats; and thus there was neither loss nor gain to either party. Fourthly, STUART is as good a Whig as POWER; there was no loss there.

Fifthly, The writ for Stafford being suspended, the vote of' GOOD- RICKE, who resigned his seat for that borough, was lost to the Tories.

We may add, that Conuerr could not fairly be reckoned among the supporters of Government. With these emendations, the Tory gain will stand at 19; the fallowing gentlemen having re- placed Liberals— Dunbar, Knight,

Longfield, Lushington, Goodricke, I Elley,

Parker, Estcourt,

Chisholm, Plunkett.

Here we have ten names; which being doubled, gives 20; deduct 'GOODRICKE (whose vote for Stafford was lost to the Tories, though be was not 'replaced by a Liberal), and we have the gross Tory gain of 19.

The Liberal gain is correctly stated at 10; which being taken from the gain of the Tories, leaves them a balance of 9, instead -of 18.

It is not fair to take the vote on the Speakership or the Address as the test of the ordinary strength of parties. The Ministerial Majority may he reasonably calculated at 30; as several of the losses above specified had occurred before the division on Lord -JOHN Russim.'s resolutions. The Waverers will side with the strongest party for the time being: therefore we reckon on a majority of at least 40. On these grounds we Mund our belief, • The asterisk is used to indicate wither loss *or gain. that Ministers may "rub en" through the session Without a new Parliament.

But the question remains to be answered, ought they to delay a dissolution, seeing that their majority is so narrow at the best? Those who dread expensive contests will deprecate a new elec- tion; and we cannot deny that it is a matter of grave consideration for any Ministry, whether, if they can possibly avoid it, they should put their supporters to the cost and trouble which, under the still very defective Representative machinery, an election in- volves. But it seems to us that the evil day to these gentlemen cannot long be delayed; and that the real question is, whether they will encounter a fresh contest having the Government for a friend or for an opponent? Suppose an election in February next —the present Ministers in power, ready to back their friends, and the new Town-Councils in the place of the old rotten Tot)! Corpo- rations—it is all but certain that a decided majority of Liberals would be returned ; and then, for some time at least, Members might feel secure in their seats. But if PEEL were again in office, we should inevitably have a dissolution ; and have again to fight the whole force of the Government. Lord MELBOURNE, we think, ought, while he can, to give his friends and the Liberal cause the benefit of Ministerial countenance and support. Besides, it is of some importance, as regards the carrying of good measures, that there should be a large majority in their favour in the House of Commons; and it would be very satisfac- tory to deprive the Tories of their boast that the majority of English Members vote with them. This might be done were Lord MELBOURNE to dissolve the Parliament early in the spring.

It may be that there is reluctance on the part of the King to take this step. But Lord MELBOURNE should claim it as his right. Every Minister is allowed the benefit of an appeal to the People. PEEL dissolved the last Parliament, and spared no pains to procure another to his own liking: let Lord MELBOURNE take every fair method for the same end.