whole more vehement than instructive, but nevertheless a fairly accurate conception of the existing situation may be gathered from a perusal of it. Miss Mayo's book is an unsparing denunciation of Mr. Harrison for playing into the hands of the native politicians, whom she declares do not represent the views of more than a small minority of the population of the islands. On the other hand she gives no indication that she was able to converse with her informants in Spanish, the lingua franca of the archipelago, and she admits that she has never considered the strategic or commercial aspect of the American occupation. Mr. Harrison gives an account of his eight years' stewardship, though not without a good many digs at his opponents, while Mr. Russell is an enthusiastic partisan of immediate independence. Señor Bocobo, as has already been mentioned, deals with General Wood's interpretation of the Jones Act, and "Nuestra Demanda de Libertad" contains a quantity of carefully classified information concerning the administration since 1916, which one is tempted to ask if Miss Mayo has ever read.

In dealing with this mass of evidence it is more than a little difficult to keep the situation in the Philippines as it exists to-day distinct from the recriminations of Democrat and Republicanas difficult, indeed, as it must have been for foreigners to gain any real insight into the merits of Irish Home Rule when that controversy was at its height. Knowledge of the truth can best be obtained by asking whether the islanders are yet fit for independence, whether they really desire it, and what is the feeling in the United States on the matter.

Perhaps the most compelling argument against evacuation is that the population is by no means homogeneous, for in addition to nine million Christian Filipinos there are some half-a-million pagan aborigines and about the same number of Moslem Moros. The opponents of independence point to the existence of these diverse and mutually antagonistic elements, and say that to hand the archipelago over to the Filipinos would merely be to surrender it to civil war and anarchy. The argument used to support this statement is the misrule which it is alleged took place in the Moro districts during the Harrison régime, when Filipinos were in charge of the administration. Miss Mayo, indeed, even goes so far as to talk of "The Scourge of Harrison." Then again the statement is made that the Filipinization of the government

resulted, even in Manila itself, in every kind of abuse and corruption, which brought the country to the verge of bankruptcy. In reply to this charge the Philippine Commission for Independence published "Nuestra Demanda de Libertad," in which it is freely admitted that the Filipino administrators are not as efficient as their American predecessors, but it is contended that this is solely due to inexperience, and it is claimed that since the Jones Act came into force the progress made has in fact been very considerable. Miss Mayo contends that education had been neglected, and points out that 34 per cent. of the population is illiterate; to this Mr. Russell replies that the percentage for the State of Louisiana is 29, and that a quarter of the American soldiers in the last war could not read or write. In fact, there is not a statement made by one side which is not immediately contradicted by the other.

The same controversy rages round the desire of the Filipinos for independence as round their fitness for it. Miss Mayo roundly declares that it is the politicians alone who wish to be quit of the United States, and that the rest of the population is coerced into upholding them. In support of this statement she quotes conversations which she has held with innumerable Filipinos and Moros, all of whom announced their opposition to independence, but only on condition that their identity was not disclosed. On the other hand, the value of this evidence is heavily discounted by the known tendency of the Oriental to agree with his interlocutor, and, as has been said, Miss Mayo does not tell her readers whether she is able to converse in Spanish. No doubt the average Filipino politician leaves a good deal to be desired, but then so do many of the same profession much nearer home, and if his methods of obtaining votes do not commend themselves to the purist, the fault lies rather with democracy itself than with those who attempt to translate it into action. At the same time, even an unworthy man-and there is no evidence that all, or even most, Filipino politicians come within this category-may hold views which commend themselves to the majority of his fellow-countrymen. History abounds with examples, of which one will suffice : Ferdinand VII of Spain, in spite of all his misgovernment, never lost his hold upon the affection of the vast majority of his people. Similarly, the most corrupt Filipino politician may well represent the aspirations of the islanders far better than the most efficient or idealistic American.

Taking the various factors into account, therefore, it would probably be accurate to say that practically all the Filipinos who take any interest in the matter are in favour of independence, and the rest are quite willing to follow their lead. Of course, there is a minority which, whether owing to a natural timidity in respect of the unknown, or because its material interests are bound up with a continuance of the present régime, is opposed to independence; but it carries very little weight. The average Filipino admits that, at any rate in its early days, a native administration would not be so efficient as the American, but he puts forward the plea, old as history itself, that he would rather mismanage his own affairs than have them efficiently transacted for him by someone else.

If it is difficult to arrive at an accurate appreciation of the position as it exists in the Philippines themselves it is infinitely more so to disentangle the real attitude of the American people from the speeches and writings of Republican and Democratic politicians; for the future of the Philippines is a party question, and that means the obscuration of truth at Washington as at Westminster. It is certain that the average citizen does not concern himself with the matter at all, while those who do so look at it from two points of view-the strategic and the economic. Both are of importance, for they at any rate provide a clue to the official attitude.

The view is undoubtedly widely held that the American evacuation of the Philippines would sooner or later be followed by a Japanese occupation of the archipelago, and the result would be a very considerable diminution of the prestige of the United States throughout the Far East. The opponents of this theory either assert, as does Mr. Harrison, that the acquisition of Korea and Formosa has not been such a success as to inspire the Tokio government with a desire to repeat the experiment on an even larger scale, leaving on one side the fact that the Philippines are thickly populated and that the Japanese are notoriously bad colonisers; or they maintain that Japan can have the archipelago at any time for the asking, whether it is in the possession of the United States or not. The latter view, it may be remarked in parenthesis, was adopted by so distinguished a naval strategist as Mr. H. C. Bywater in "The Great Pacific War, 1931-1933.' Into the relative importance of these views it is not necessary

to enter, but there can be no doubt that there is a widespread feeling in the United States that to grant the Filipino demand for independence would in some sense be a humiliating experience, and the American is probably less inclined to abase himself to-day than at any previous moment in the history of his country. When the late President Harding denounced Mr. Harrison's policy as "hauling down the flag," he certainly expressed the opinion of more of his fellow-countrymen than would have cared to admit the fact.

The economic value of the Philippines to the United States is a very new factor in the relations of the two countries, but it is an important one all the same, for it is due to the recent discovery of the rubber potentialities of the archipelago. Previously the advantages were all with the Filipinos, who were protected by the American tariff wall against foreign competition. Now the situation is reversed, and there is no use in disguising the fact that the demand for independence will meet with very strong opposition from the powerful syndicates interested in rubber. For several years the United States has been suffering from the British monopoly of this product, and now that there is a chance of securing freedom it is too much to ask of the ordinary business man that he should throw away his advantages for the sake of the Filipinos, who, so far as he can gather, are neither fit for independence nor by any means unanimous in desiring it. Those who hold such a view have in reality quite a strong case, even on the ground of equity, for the United States has spent money freely upon the Philippines for over a quarter of a century, and is surely entitled to some return for all her expenditure. Unfortunately, in international as in personal relations, gratitude is but too often the expectation of favours to come, and when no more are to be looked for the gratitude comes abruptly to an end. That such would be the case with the relations between an independent Filipino Republic and the United States is the opinion of a large number of Americans.

In reality, the situation in the Philippines is, mutatis mutandis, the same as that in all the native territories of the Great Powers, but with the grave disadvantage that it has become entangled in the meshes of the net of party warfare in the governing country. Otherwise, Mr. Harrison's policy was very much the same as that

of Count Limburg van Steerum in Java and that of the MontaguChelmsford Report. Where Washington has blundered is in acting as if the tap of autonomy can be turned off and on at will, and the lesson that it cannot is proving rather an unpleasant one. There are, however, signs that more interest is being taken in the Philippines than was previously the case. The manner in which the United States deals with this problem will be watched with the keenest interest by other nations which have the same difficulties to face, and not least by Great Britain.

CHARLES PETRIE