Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/135

1 820.] Close of the War to the Death of George III. 1 21 lutionists. To Sidmouth and Eldon and Castlereagh the reformer and the Spencean were alike enemies of the State, and a maintenance of existing institutions in all their parts the only hope of safety for the nation. This theory was laid down very clearly in the Regent's speech by which Parliament was opened on the 28th of January, 1817, the month following that in which the Spa Fields riots had occurred. The Regent said, " I rely with the utmost confidence on your cordial support and co-operation in up- holding a system of law and government from which we have derived inestimable advantages, which has enabled us to conclude with unexampled glory a contest whereon depended the best interests of mankind, and which has hitherto been felt by ourselves, as it is acknowledged by other nations, to be the most perfect that has ever fallen to the lot of any people." The idea of positive finality, the repudiation of any prin- ciple of life and growth in national affairs, could not be more definitely stated by the most ardent supporter of abso- lute government. It was against such opponents that the reformers of 1817 had to contend. Nor were these statements in the royal speech intended to be merely declaratory ; they were only the preface of a policy of repression and coercion which has never been surpassed. On the 3rd of February, within a week after the meeting of Parliament, a message was sent by the Regent to both Houses, telling them that " he had given orders that there be laid before them papers containing information respecting certain practices, meetings, and com- binations in the metropolis and in different parts of the kingdom, evidently calculated to endanger the public tran- quillity, and to alienate the affections of his Majesty's subjects from his person and government, and to bring into contempt the whole system of our laws and constitution." This message and the papers by which it was accom- panied were referred by both Houses to committees, which were to sit and examine and deliberate in secret. The re- ports were such as might have been expected. The com- mittee of the Lords said that the evidence submitted to them