a work of parody, actually attacking the works of Erasmus Darwin (grandfather of Charles Darwin) and had the lines 'Still down thy steep, romantic Ashbourne, glides The Derby dilly carrying six insides'. Failure to create a centre grouping The idea of an erratic coach, with Stanley driving the horses, was quickly picked up by others, and the name stuck to the group. He already had a reputation as the 'Prince Rupert of Debate', a man who could lead his followers into an attack but was unable to rally them afterward. As a result, it was difficult to estimate the number of MPs who were actually part of the 'Dilly'. It is possible that they then numbered up to 70, but they lacked a core set of political beliefs or attitudes. Many of them still remained uncertain whether to go back to the Whigs, join the Tories or attempt to create a third political force. Some political observers wondered if the 'Dilly' (or at least those identified solidly with Stanley) really numbered only half a dozen MPs at most. Despite his growing estrangement from the Whigs, Stanley remained on good terms with his former party leader, Earl Grey. In November 1834, following the resignation of The Viscount Melbourne, Sir Robert Peel invited Stanley (now Lord Stanley) and others in the 'Dilly' to join his minority Tory government. Stanley declined but made it obvious that he was finding himself in general agreement with Peel's attempt to form an administration. In December 1834, Stanley decided that he needed to at least define a set of ideas to distinguish his group from the other parties and factions in the House of Commons. In a speech at Glasgow University that was subsequently dubbed 'The Knowsley Creed', after the Stanley family's ancestral home Knowsley Hall, near Liverpool, Stanley gave the student audience an outline of his political beliefs. Besides affirming his staunch support of the established church and opposition to 'destructive reform', Stanley still signalled his political belief that it was not possible to reverse the Reform Act of 1832 or undertake a purely reactionary domestic agenda. 'The machine must move forward for good or evil – for it cannot be stopped; like the fire it may purify, if properly kindled by a skilful hand, but if it should be impetuously and recklessly accelerated, destruction and overwhelming wreck must be the inevitable consequences'. However, Stanley had