The Sun.
London, England, 1858-10-05 00:00:00

COLONEL SYKES AT ABERDEEN.

On Friday, Colonel Sykes addressed his consti-
tuents at Aberdeen. In the course of his speech he
alluded to the Conspiracy to Murder Bill. " The
Government," he said, "which last year had a
strength and a prospect of duration which no pre-
ceding Government in recent times possessed, was
overthrown by the Conspiracy to Murder Bill. It
was brought m, as you all know, if not to gratify,
at least in conformity with the wishes and views of
a foreign potentate. It proposed to alter and modify
the laws of England for the ratification of a foreign
monarch. It was brought in by Government, and
was supported by the Conservative party. Indeed,
with so little disfavour was 'the bill received at its
introduction, that Mr. Kingslake's motion, that it
was inexpedient to legislate, was negatived by 299
to 99. The minority consisted, with the exception
of Lord J. Russell and Sir F. Kelly, and two or
three others, of independent Liberals. My vote
was given in the minority. (Cheers.) I did not con-
sult other members ; but I felt that the honour of
my country would be wounded by any such conces-
sion, and I unhesitatingly went into the lobby
against the Whig Ministry. (Hear.) Ten days
afterwards, what was the result ? On the 19th
Feb., the second reading of the bill was proposed
by Lord Palmerston, to be carried, of course, by
an overwhelming majority as before. But, mean-
while, what had occurred ?—a chord had been
struck which vibrated from the Land's End to John
o'Groat's House; a feeling of indignation arose;
and, though Lord Palmerston's Government were
prepared to face it, the Conservatives were not.
They saw their opportunity—they were not reluc-
tant to take advantage of it—and aiding Mr.
Milner Gibson's vote of censure, the motion was
carried by 234 to 215—the independent Liberals
preserving their consistency and voting as before.
Thus the reputed strongest Government of modern
times was overthrown. My vote was given irrespec-
tive of a consideration of consequences to persons.
I have always so acted, and trust ever will. I con-
sidered that I had a duty to my country to perform,
and such a feeling on my part will, I feel assured,
be my justification with you. (Hear.) Lord Derby's
Government followed, but it was plain that it could
only exist a single day upon sufferance—that is to
say, as long as the Liberals abstained from com-
bined action; and the opportunity and need for
combined action seemed to occur upon the publica-
tion of Lord Ellenborough's remarkable letter, and.
Mr. Cardwell proposed a vote of censure. The de-
bate was carried on for several nights, and at the
early part of the week it was calculated that Mr.
Cardwell would have a majority of 70, but on the
Friday so many Liberals had misgivings with re-
spect to the propriety of the motion that doubts
were entertained whether there would be a majo-
rity at all, and the motion was withdrawn. From
that moment the Whig prestige and influence were
gone, and Lord Derby's Government was secure, at
all events for the session." On the subject of reform
the colonel said, " I have a strong conviction that
unless the people of England manifest their wishes
vigorously, and in an unmistakeable manner, the
promised Reform Bill will fall lamentably short of
present expectations. (Hear, and cheers.) The pro-
spect of the ballot forming part of the contemplated
Reform Bill cannot be said to be favourable.
(Cheers.) I voted for the ballot—(a hiss)—but lam
not sanguine enough to believe that the ballot
would be a panacea against corrupt practices at
elections. I do, however, believe that it would
diminish them, for no prudent man would give
money or money's worth for that which he had no
certainty of receiving. A good deal of slip-shod is
talked about the secrecy of the ballot being unworthy
of Englishmen, but this cannot be really thought
by the middle and upper classes of society, other-
wise they would not protect themselves in their
clubs, such as the Athenaeum, and scientific and
literary societies, by having recourse to the
ballot to elect members. -Why should the rich
enjoy in this respect what is denied to the poor ?
The East India Company have not only elected their
representatives by ballot for a century past, but
each of their directors, when a court is assembled
for deliberation, has a right to demand that any
question put to the vote be decided by secret
ballot. It has been adopted in Australia, and we
may therefore set aside the argument of its being
unworthy of Englishmen. I shall continue to vote
for it—(hisses and cheers)—as long as I am in the
House of Commons, but if constituencies really
wish for its becoming law, they must send more
representatives favourable to it to the House of
Commons. The chances are, I think, that it will
be a useful and surely a more proper and moral
measure than compelling men to vote against
their consciences, that they may not sacrifice their
interests. Another great question, gentlemen, is
government by party. You all know that in the
present condition of the House of Commons what
is called government by party is almost impracti-
cable. Hitherto the government of England has
been carried on by party ; in former days it was a
tory or a whig party ; subsequently a conservative
party and a liberal party, and since the last ge-
neral election the conservatives have split into
ramifications, embracing quasi-liberalism ; and the
liberals, numerous as they are, consist of oligar-
chical whigs, whigs of the old school, liberals who
are whig followers; independent liberals, and ultra-
liberals ; but there aro no common views in politics
amongst them—no common :bond of union to in-
sure uniformity in action and defined results. If
such were the case, the conservative government
would be swept away at any prescribed division, for
the house counts about 400 liberals. The conserva-
tive government, therefore, exists only by the dis-
sension of the liberals, and by alternately availing
itself of the aid of some one of its sections. Is this
or is it not a healthy or even a safe state of things ?
There are great lamentations about the direction of
party influence, and a noble lord last year wrote a
book asserting that this country could only be well-
governed by party, and that patronage was essen-
tial to any party to keep its followers together—at
least so I interpret the argument used. Party has
been rendered imperative by the growth of a body
of men amongst the liberals who have resolved to
exercise their own judgments upon all political
questions, irrespective of party cries or party
leaders. (Hear.) That body, it is said, now
amounts to about 120 members in the house ; and if
they were to throw their whole—l say their whole
—weight into one scale or the other, the side they
aid would preponderate. But they are withoutorgani-
sation, and the salutary or beneficial effects of their in-
dependence is only shown by the results. Judging
by their votes during the session, the majority of
them have zealously tried to retrench expenditure,
to prevent centralisation; to extend the franchise,
and generally to promote popular rights. I have
usually found myself in the same lobby with them
—(hear, hear)—in their :divisions ; but by them-
selves they are powerless against an union of the
Conservatives, and one or more sections of the
Liberals. Their increase in numbers in the house
will no doubt render government by party still
more difficult than it is now ; but I have not the
misgivings which some have, that this would be
prejudicial to popular interests. A weighty body
in this house, conscientiously resolved to vote for
measures and not men, will surely do more good
in promoting national progress than a party
Government of reluctant Conservatives, or a Liberal
party Government whose promises hitherto have
not realised the expectations their name implied.
(Hear, hear.)