John at
first had sought consolation in an orthodox historical parallel--the
case of Mr. Fox, though at the head of the largest party, leading the
Commons under Lord Grenville as head of the government. Why should he,
then, refuse a position that Fox had accepted? But friends, often in his
case the most mischievous of advisers, reminded him what sort of place
he would hold in a cabinet in which the chief posts were filled by men
not of his own party. Lord John himself thought, from memories of Bishop
Hampden and other ecclesiastical proceedings, that Mr. Gladstone would
be his sharpest opponent. Then as the days passed, he found deposition
from first place to second more bitter than he had expected. Historic
and literary consolation can seldom be a sure sedative against the
stings of political ambition. He changed his mind every twelve hours,
and made infinite difficulties. When these were with much travail
appeased, difficulties were made on behalf of others. The sacred caste
and their adherents were up in arms, and a bitter cry arose that all
the good things were going to the Peelites, only the leavings to the
whigs. Lord John doubtless remembered what Fox had said when the
ministry of All the Talents was made,--'We are three in a bed.' Disraeli
now remarked sardonically, 'The cake is too small.' To realise the
scramble, the reader may think of the venerable carp that date from
Henry iv. and Sully, struggling for bread in the fish-ponds of the
palace of Fontainebleau. The whigs of this time were men of intellectual
refinement; they had a genuine regard for good government, and a decent
faith in reform; but when we chide the selfishness of machine
politicians hunting office in modern democracy, let us console ourselves
by recalling the rapacity of our oligarchies. 'It is melancholy,' muses
Sir James Graham this Christmas in his journal, 'to see how little
fitness for office is regarded on all sides, and how much the public
employments are treated as booty to be divided among successful
combatants.'

From that point of view, the whig case was strong. 'Of 330 members of
the House of Commons,' wrote Lord John to Aberdeen, '270 are whig and
radical, thirty are Irish brigade, thirty are Peelites. To this party of
thirty you propose to give seven seats in cabinet, to the whigs and
radicals five, to Lord Palmerston one.' In the end there were six whigs,
as many Peelites, and one radical. The case of four important offices
ou