COMPARATIVE STRENGTH OF PARTIES IN THE I1OUSE OF COMMONS:

A REVISED CALCULATION.

SOME corrections of the Parliamentary Analysis given in our last Number have reached us, from exceedingly well-informed and estimable correspondents. As our object is to furnish as correct a statement as possible of the comparative strength of parties in the House of Commons, and to excite discussion, and the atten- tion of constituencies to their own proper duties, we gladly publish the subjoined lists ; with some remarks, however, explanatory of our reasons for differing, where we do differ, from our correspon- dents.

The following names, which appeared in our Doubtful list, should, we are told, be transferred to that which contains the Members who may be relied upon to oppose a WELLINGTON and PEEL Administration.

Lord Belfast, Lord Andover, Mr. Barham, Mr. Dilwyn, Lord Grosvenor, Mr. Pease, Mr. Horatio Rose, Captain Wemyss.

The following should be removed from the list of the Duke's supporters to that of his opponents.

Mr. John Dunlop, Sir Alexander Hope, Sir D. Sandford, or his Successor.

Lord BELFAST, we are informed, has professed himself a decided Liberal, and tendered his resignation of the post of Vice-Cham- berlain, with a degree of promptitude that did him credit : we apologize for misplacing him. It was the supposed slippery character of the Marquis of DONEGAL'S politics at the present time, that induced us to doubt as to the future course which Lord BELFAST would take; and upon turning to the Division Lists, we found his Lordship's name marked "absent" on more than one trying divisiors—those on Mr. HARVEY'S motion on the Pensions, and Mr. BasiEris on the Liverpool Disfranchisement Bill, for instance.

Lord ANDOVER, MT. BARHAM, and Mr. DILWYN, were all con- sidered" Moderate Reformers" at the period of their elections; and since they have had seats in the House, have done nothing to forfeit the character. Lord ANDOVER, more especially, has been " absent" on several occasions when a man of decided polities would probably have been anxious to record his vote ; and it must be remembered, that men who were considered only Moderate Reformers two years ago, are precisely those who ought to be most carefully watched now. We rejoice, however, to have good authority to erase the names of these gentlemen from the Doubtful, and place them in the Anti-Tory list. Lord GROSVENOR and Mr. PEASE are also, it is said, misplaced. We hope it may turn out to be the case. But Lord GROSVENOR'S Parliamentary conduct has been such, that on one occasion he told an assembly of his Reforming constituents at Nantwich, that be was surprised it had given them satisfaction, for he was afraid that they would have expected him to "go further." His Lordship

but a lukewarm Whig. As for Mr. Pisan, we can never place confidence in a man who avows that his "primary duty" is to support the King's Government. We recommend his constituents to look closely after him ; and we know very well that if he do support the Duke, he will never again sit for South Durham.

We cannot remove Mr. HORATIO Ross, or even Captain WE MYSS, (though of him we have better hopes,) from the Doubtful list. The first must be judged by his past conduct; and Captain WEMYSS is too recent a convert from Toryism, under peculiar circumstances, to have gained the full confidence of the Re- formers—we have hopes of him, though. Mr. DUNLOP pledged himself to oppose the Duke, at the late Kilmarnock meeting. The pledge on his part seems to have been considered necessary, by some of his Northern acquaintance: but since be has given it, there is no reason, certainly, to keep bitn among the Tories. Our correspondent himself seems to have some doubt as to Sir ALEXANDER HOPE; and we have doubts as to the politics of Sir DANIEL SANDFORD'S successor. The constituency that could displace Sir JOHN MAXWELL, and then reject Mr. Jona CRAWFURD, for such a trimmer as Sir DANIEL, cannot be de- pended on to return a sound Radical or even a good Whig. These two names had better be classed among the Doubtfuls.

According to our correspondent,

Lord Marcus Hill, • Mr. Greene, Sir P. C. Durham, Honourable R. Smith, and Sir S. Spry,

should be deducted from the Duke's friends, and added to the Doubtfuls. So be it. We only hope their constituents will lose no time in ascertaining what the politics of these gentlemen really are. Our own notion is that they are of a Tory cast. From the Anti-Tory list, we are advised that the following names should be passed to the Doubtfuls.

W. B. Baring, .

Sir C. Coote, Alderman Copeland, Mr. Cripps, Mr. liaise, Mr. J. Hodgson,

Mr. Hornhy, Mr. Ingham, Mr. Jervis, Lord A. Lennox,

Lord C. Lennox, Mr. Sheppard, Mr. Walter, Mr. G. F. Young.

If the votes and speeches of several of these gentlemen are to be taken in confirmation of their professions when elected, they may be relied on to vote against the Duke. Some of them stand in salutary dread of their constituents ; who should take the hint, and be warned in time that their Members are viewed with some distrust by the party with whom they generally act.

The names of M. A. TAYLOR and Mr. WESTENRA. should be erased from the Anti-Tory list ; the first being dead, the second unseated on petition. Sir R. FRANKLAND, in the third list, must also be removed; being out of Parliament. Their places may probably be supplied by men of similar politics.

With these corrections, the comparative numbers will stand as follows.

1. Opponents of the Duke 432 2. Supporters of the Duke 152 3. Doubtfuls 64

648 If the number of the Doubtfuls is divided equally, we s'osll have, for the Opponents of the Duke 464 Supporters of the Duke 184 280 The result, therefore, is within half a dozen of our calculation of last week; which gave an Anti-Tory majority of 286. We are persuaded that we have been dealing liberally with the Duke in this estimate.