xceedingly out of humour
by the House of Lords adopting a different line; that the leaders
of the Lords found their party impracticable, and they were
compelled (or thought themselves so) to give way to the
prejudices of the majority. But Peel did not understand this
_knocking under_ to violence and folly, and his pride was
mortified, because it was a sort of renunciation of his authority
as leader and chief of the whole party. Accordingly it was with
reference to these proceedings that Peel spoke with great
bitterness to Sandon, and said that 'he never would be the tool
of the Lords,' He left town in high dudgeon, and was probably not
sorry to display his resentment at the same time with his power,
when he suddenly returned and made his speech on the Lords'
amendments. Sandon confirmed the statement of his having done
this without any communication with the Duke and Lyndhurst, in
which he thinks he was to blame. I think he ought to have seen
the Duke, and have imparted to him his intentions and his
motives; but with Lyndhurst he probably felt very angry for the
part he took. He has now, however, put himself more openly and
decidedly at the head of the party, and Sandon considers that
Stanley already virtually belongs to it, inasmuch as they sit
together and consult together, and the other day when he went to
Peel's house he found Stanley there.

February 21st, 1836 {p.341}

There is a mighty stir about the appointment of Dr. Hampden to the
Regius Professorship of Divinity at Oxford, on the ground of his
having put forth doctrines or arguments of a Socinian tendency.
The two Archbishops went to Melbourne with a remonstrance, but he
told them the appointment was completed, and that he had not been
aware of any objections to Dr. Hampden, and had taken pains to
ascertain his fitness for the office. It will give the Churchmen a
handle for accusing Melbourne of a design to sap the foundations
of the Church and poison the fountain of orthodoxy; but he
certainly has no such view.

February 23rd, 1836 {p.341}

Had some conversation with Lord Wharncliffe the other day, who
has always been a great alarmist. I asked him if he was so still.
He said yes; that he was convinced the House of Lords and the
House of Commons could not go on, that the Lords would not pass
their Bills; a ferment would be produced, which would finish by
an open dissension. 'What, then, would be the result?' I asked.
'Why, the Lords would be beate