Senator Sherman calls it, with the natural amazement of a veteran Congressman who finds a politician actually grappling with a public question, instead of gyrating round it. The speculative capitalists who had hitherto relied on their power to manipulate one party or another, as the occasion might arise, were thoroughly alarmed. At the previous election, Mr. Blaine had endeavoured to rally the Protectionist interests to the support of the Republicans; but neither party had paid much attention to the subject of tariff. The Democrats claimed to win on the bad character of their opponents rather than upon any definite programme. In 1888 it became necessary to speak out, and the Democratic platform was mainly an echo of the message of 1887. On the other side, the protected manufacturers immediately raised large subscriptions, and sent out agents to organize resistance to this formidable movement. In the declaration adopted at Chicago a few weeks after the nomination of Mr. Cleveland, the Republicans described themselves as "uncompromisingly in favour of the American system of Protection." protest against its destruction as proposed by the President and his party: they serve the interests of Europe; we will support the interests of America."

"We

The ill fortune of Mr. Blaine in 1884 made the party unwilling to risk their cause under his leadership a second time, and he went on a visit to Europe, leaving the care of his interests to lieutenants on the spot. The object of the Republican managers was to bring the Western farmers into line with the Protectionists of the Eastern States. The votes of the latter were assured to the party irrespective of the candidate, and it was agreed that a selection

should be made from the West. The Convention finally adopted General Benjamin Harrison of Indiana. This gentleman recalled the military glories of the Republicans in the War. After retiring from the army, he attained some distinction at the Bar, and went through a round of political work-serving on Conventions, and for one term as senator for Indiana. His name was of good omen to a party in opposition, for he was the grandson of that General William Harrison whose election to the Presidency in 1840 interrupted, during a few months, the long supremacy of the Democrats.

In the midst of the struggle occurred one of those strange incidents to which all human organization is subject. The English Minister at Washington was addressed by a Mr. Murchison, who, writing from a distant part of the Union, described himself as indifferent to American parties, but with English sympathies. He sought advice how to bestow his vote at the coming election. He professed to be much scandalized at the later declarations of the President in reference to Canada. In a generous moment-a diplomatist ought never to be generous-the Minister replied confidentially, expressing a favourable opinion of the dispositions of the Democratic party towards England, and adding, "allowances must be made for the political situation, as regards the Presidential election."

On the 24th October, just fifteen days before the poll, this correspondence was suddenly published in Republican papers as conclusive evidence that Mr. Cleveland was the creature of the wicked Englishman who is so familiar a figure in American oratory.

The President at once requested Lord Salisbury to recall Sir Sackville West, and as there was no immediate reply to this peremptory demand, "he took a second step which," in the language of Mr. Hensel, "somewhat astonished and baffled Great Britain." *

"On October 30th, six days after the publication of the letter, he notified Minister West that his presence in Washington, as the representative of Great Britain to this country, was no longer agreeable to this Government, and directed that his passports should be delivered to him.

"This decisive action cut the Gordian knot of the difficulty. The British lion now found a tongue, and denounced this action as marked by undue haste and a lack of international courtesy. The President, however, was resolute. . . . . But Great Britain's rulers kept up a show of irritation, and, as punishment to this upstart nation, refused to send a Minister to the United States during the remainder of the Cleveland administration—a deprivation which this country bore with philosophical fortitude and equanimity."

From the point of view of an American public man, it was incumbent on the President, in the unfortunate circumstances, to make some emphatic demonstration. It was, on the other hand, impossible for a foreign Government to treat the exigencies of American electioneering as an excuse for a total disregard of the habits of deliberation essential to international relations.

Mr. Cleveland's position prevented him from taking any direct part in the campaign. General Harrison made 94 speeches in the course of the autumn, and, devoting special attention to his own State, succeeded in securing its 15 votes. This victory in Indiana, coupled with the

* HENSEL'S Life of Grover Cleveland, p. 300.

success of the Protectionists in Mr. Cleveland's own State, New York, restored the Republicans to power. The defection of New York from Mr. Cleveland was accounted for in various ways. Some attributed it to the discontent of the Independents at the failure of Mr. Cleveland to carry out their opinions in connection with Civil Service Reform; others to the hostility of Tammany Hall. That body, it was alleged, had, in the Presidential poll, exchanged the votes of their supporters against Republican votes for certain State offices. The true explanation, however, seems to be that Protectionist combinations showed in defence of their interests unexampled energy and address, and were lavish in their expenditure of money, whilst the Democrats lacked organization.

The growth of Mr. Cleveland in the estimation of the country was illustrated by the fact that, although he lost the Presidency by the votes of the electors chosen by the States, he had a largely increased majority in the vote of the whole country. There is no similar instance of this operation of the mode of election by delegates from States, with the exception of the struggle between Mr. Tilden and Mr. Hayes in 1876, when the Democrats were finally defeated on technical grounds, but had a considerable majority of the vote of the whole nation, reckoned on the plan of a plebiscite.

It was not for personal aims that the President had assailed the huge system of taxation built up in the interest of capitalists; and in his final message the following month, he returned to the topic discussed in the message of the previous year, and made another

vigorous attack upon the tariff. He referred to the approaching centennial anniversary of the Constitution, and contrasted the frugality of the plain people of 1789 with the wealth and luxury of American cities at the present time, whilst "millions are exacted from the citizens to lie unused in the Treasury," and "millions. more are added to the cost of living of the people, in order to swell the profits of a small, but powerful, minority." His survey of the state of the Treasury in this his last year of office, is worth recording in view of subsequent events. The total revenue of the year was nearly $8,000,000 larger than in 1887; whilst the expenditure, notwithstanding an increase of $5,000,000 for pensions, was $8,000,000 less. The surplus on the year, apart from the sinking fund, was $119,600,000; and, after payments in purchase of bonds, there remained at the opening of Congress a net surplus of $52,000,000. At the same time, careful management had produced considerable reduction in current expenditure. For instance, the cost of Customs collection was reduced by nearly one per cent.,* whilst many useless offices were abolished.

The most notable measure of this last session was the Direct Tax Refunding Bill. This was another example of the policy of making away with the surplus in the Treasury, in order to escape any demand for reducing the duties. The want of principle, characteristic of Congressional politicians, was shown in the fact that the bill was passed by a House of Representatives in which there was still a majority for the party who had * In 1885 this was 3.77 per cent. It was 2.98 in 1888.

K