lor,
on seeing the documents, felt obliged to express a contrary opinion. It
is certain that he gave way most reluctantly, and probable that his
scruples were as sincere as was consistent with his character; but he
knew well that, if he dismissed his ministers, he would be left
isolated, and he bowed to necessity. Indeed even the "protestant"
members of the cabinet had urged him to yield. His assent was, in fact,
only given by degrees; after each member of the cabinet, who had
previously opposed catholic emancipation, had had a separate interview,
the king consented on January 15 to the consideration of the subject by
the cabinet, but reserved the right to reject its advice. After this no
great difficulty was experienced in obtaining the royal assent to the
introduction of a bill.[89] Accordingly the king's speech, delivered by
commission on February 5, 1829, distinctly recommended parliament to
consider whether the civil disabilities of the catholics could not be
removed "consistently with the full and permanent security of our
establishments in Church and State". This recommendation, however, was
preceded by a severe condemnation of the Catholic Association and the
expression of a resolution to put down the disorders caused by it. The
sensation produced by the king's speech was increased by the
simultaneous resignation by Peel of his seat for the university of
Oxford. Considering that he was originally preferred to Canning mainly
on protestant grounds, he could not have honourably acted otherwise.
Many of his old friends stood by him, in spite of differences on the
catholic question, and Eldon's grandson, who had been proposed as a
candidate, was set aside as too weak an opponent. Ultimately Sir Robert
Inglis was put forward by the "protestants," and was returned by 755
votes against 609. Peel obtained a seat for the borough of Westbury,[90]
and moved a preliminary bill for suppressing the Catholic Association.
This passed both houses in February, but was already ineffective when it
became law, since the association had been shrewd enough to dissolve
itself upon the advice of its English well-wishers. The catholic relief
bill was therefore introduced under favourable auspices.

The motives which actuated Wellington and Peel in espousing the cause
which they had so persistently opposed admit of no doubt whatever. In
the memoir which Peel left as embodying his own defence, no less than in
his speech introducing the eman