^{page 49 note 1} See Spectator, 81 (1898), 821Google Scholar; 82 (1899), 478; 85 (1900), 830; 93 (1904), 730; Macmillan's Magazine, 87 (1902–1903), 159Google Scholar; National Review, 32 (1898–1899), 393–6Google Scholar.

^{page 49 note 2} Spectator, 80 (1898), 646Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 1} Fortnightly Review, 64 [N.S.] (1898), 885Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 2} Quarterly Review, 190 (1899), 220Google Scholar; The Times, 31 08 1899, p. 7Google Scholar.

^{page 50 note 3} Spectator, 82 (1899), 191Google Scholar. The Times, however, warned against excessive optimism and expressed the view that ‘many years must elapse before there can be any visible result’ of American efforts to establish a new system of government (The Times, 12 12 1898, p. 11Google Scholar).

^{page 50 note 4} The effect of the Boer War, and the American response to it, as well as moderating British interest in American overseas enterprises, may well have been, in conjunction with Aguinaldo's insurrection, to produce a diminution of American interest also. Opinion which might have been recruited to support a positive American imperialism was diverted by the Boer War into criticism of British imperial expansion, thereby reinforcing traditional anti-imperialist attitudes, and leading in consequence to hostility, or at least lack of enthusiasm, towards American expansionism.

^{page 51 note 1} Spectator, 82 (1899), 478Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 2} Ibid.81 (1898), 641.

^{page 51 note 3} Ibid. p. 821.

^{page 51 note 4} The Times, 4 11 1899, p. 11Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 5} John Foreman, who wrote many articles on Philippine affairs, had lived for several years as a merchant in the Philippines and had travelled extensively throughout the archipelago. He was the author of a substantial work entitled The Philippine Islands which was first published (in London) in 1890, with subsequent editions in 1899 and 1906.

^{page 51 note 6} National Review, 36 (1900–1901), 58Google Scholar; see also Blackwood's Magazine, 171 (1902), 856Google Scholar; Edinburgh Review, 196 (1902), 215Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 7} Hugh Clifford, who with Foreman was one of the two most frequent and well-informed contributors on Philippine affairs, was a colonial civil servant who from 1883 to 1903 served in various posts in South-East Asia. In 1903 he became colonial secretary for Trinidad and Tobago, and in 1907 he moved to a similar post in Ceylon. Subsequently he was governor in turn of the Gold Coast, Nigeria, and Ceylon, and finally High Commissioner to the Malay States and British Agent in Borneo.

^{page 51 note 8} Macmillan's Magazine, 87 (1902–1903), 159Google Scholar.

^{page 51 note 9} Blackwood's Magazine, 172 (1902), 620Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 1} Quarterly Review, 200 (1904), 495Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 2} Edinburgh Review, 203 (1906), 255Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 3} The Times, 10 08 1898, p. 7Google Scholar; 17 September 1898, p. 9; 3 December 1898, p. 11.

^{page 52 note 4} Ibid. 6 February 1899, p. 9; 29 March 1899, p. 9; 5 May 1899, p. 9; 4 November 1899, p. 11.

^{page 52 note 5} Ibid. 18 April 1899, p. 9.

^{page 52 note 6} Ibid. 31 March 1902, p. 7.

^{page 52 note 7} Blackwood's Magazine, 165 (1899), 1029Google Scholar; Spectator, 83 (1899), 390Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 8} Spectator, 81 (1898), 390Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 9} Contemporary Review, 74 (1898), 20Google Scholar.

^{page 52 note 10} The Guardian, 54 (1899), 542Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 1} Ibid. p. 449.

^{page 53 note 2} Ibid.56 (1901), 443.

^{page 53 note 3} Quarterly Review, 192 (1900), 492Google Scholar; see also The Guardian, 54 (1899), 253–4Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 4} Macmillan's Magazine, 87 (1902–1903), 159Google Scholar; see also Blackwood's Magazine, 165 (1899), 1029Google Scholar; Spectator, 83 (1899), 307Google Scholar; Contemporary Review, 91 (1907), 726Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 5} Spectator, 83 (1899), 307, 682Google Scholar.

^{page 53 note 6} Edinburgh Review, 203 (1906), 255Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 1} Macmillan's Magazine, 2 [N.S.] (1906–1907), 70Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 2} Ibid. p. 72.

^{page 54 note 3} Contemporary Review, 91 (1907), 719Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 4} Spectator, 99 (1907), 315Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 5} Edinburgh Review, 203 (1906), 255Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 6} Contemporary Review, 91 (1907), 714Google Scholar.

^{page 54 note 7} Spectator, 92 (1904), 323–4Google Scholar; see also ibid.99 (1907), 315.

^{page 55 note 1} Contemporary Review, 91 (1907), 715–16Google Scholar.

^{page 55 note 2} Ibid. p. 719.

^{page 55 note 3} See Macmillan's Magazine, 87 (1902–1903), 160Google Scholar; Edinburgh Review, 196 (1902), 216Google Scholar.

^{page 55 note 4} The Times, 14 02 1899, p. 9Google Scholar. This was not the first occasion on which The Times had called attention to this problem. A few weeks earlier it had stated: ‘We do not distrust the governing capacity of our cousins beyond the Atlantic, but it is only right to warn them, as we are entitled to do from our own experience, that to create an army for service in a tropical climate…is less difficult than to call into existence a civil service that will labour with a single eye for the benefit of the governed’ (The Times, 10 01 1899, p. 7Google Scholar).

^{page 55 note 5} The Times, 14 02 1899, p. 9Google Scholar; see also Fortnightly Review, 70 [N.S.] (1901), 233Google Scholar; Macmillan's Magazine, 79 (1898–1899), 240Google Scholar; Blackwood's Magazine, 177 (1905), 142Google Scholar. The Times, in a series of vigorous attacks on the Secretary of War, R. A. Alger, contended that corruption at the top might frustrate the creation of a sound administration. ‘As the head is,’ it asserted, ‘so we may expect the subordinates to be. Chosen without regard to fitness, but with every regard for their political services, they naturally act as the politicians they are rather than as the soldiers and administrators which they are not. The new Imperial policy of the United States is thus discredited by its association with a system of more than common corruptness’ (The Times, 18 07 1899, p. 7Google Scholar; see also 14 February 1899, p. 9). On 1 August 1899 Alger was succeeded as Secretary of War by Elihu Root, who quickly achieved a high reputation in Britain for integrity and ability.

^{page 56 note 1} See Contemporary Review, 75 (1899), 622Google Scholar; Macmillan's Magazine, 79 (1898–1899), 237Google Scholar; Edinburgh Review, 196 (1902), 215Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 2} Spectator, 81 (1898), 394Google Scholar.

^{page 56 note 3} Ibid.81 (1898), 641, 822; 82 (1899), 191.

^{page 56 note 4} Ibid.85 (1900), 830.

^{page 56 note 5} Ibid.99 (1907), 314.

^{page 56 note 6} Blackwood's Magazine, 171 (1902), 854Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 1} The Times, 31 03 1902, p. 7Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 2} Contemporary Review, 75 (1899), 622Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 3} Fortnightly Review, 64 [N.S.] (1898), 888Google Scholar; Blackwood's Magazine, 177 (1905), 142Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 4} See e.g. Edinburgh Review, 189 (1899), 259–60Google Scholar; Fortnightly Review, 70 [N.S.] (1901), 233–5Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 5} Macmillan's Magazine, 87 (1902–1903), 160Google Scholar.

^{page 57 note 6} Ibid.2 [N.S.] (1906–7), 74.

^{page 58 note 1} Blackwood's Magazine, 171 (1902), 855Google Scholar.

^{page 58 note 2} Spectator, 81 (1898), 232Google Scholar; see also ibid. p. 821, and 82, 478–9.

^{page 58 note 3} Ibid.81 (1898), 136–7, 394–5.

^{page 58 note 4} Edinburgh Review, 189 (1899), 259Google Scholar.

^{page 58 note 5} Contemporary Review, 75 (1899), 622Google Scholar.

^{page 59 note 1} The Times, 24 11 1898, p. 9Google Scholar.

^{page 59 note 2} Spectator, 82 (1899), 444Google Scholar.

^{page 59 note 3} The Times, 31 05 1901, p. 7Google Scholar.

^{page 59 note 4} Ibid. 31 March 1902, p. 7.

^{page 59 note 5} Ibid. 24 November 1898, p. 9.

^{page 59 note 6} Ibid. 31 March 1902, p. 7.

^{page 60 note 1} Edinburgh Review, 303 (1906), 255Google Scholar; see also Spectator, 94 (1905), 243Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 2} The Times, 1 11 1898, p. 9Google Scholar.

^{page 60 note 3} Ibid. 24 November 1898, p. 9.

^{page 60 note 4} Ibid. 29 November 1898, p. 9.

^{page 60 note 5} Ibid. 8 December 1898, p. 9. The Times clearly was very disturbed by this matter. It went on to assert: ‘Most of all, this country has a right to expect that the “open door” in trade and navigation shall be one of the fundamental principles of American policy in the future, at all events outside the actual territories of the Union. We have shown no jealousy of the new “Imperialism” of the Government at Washington … But we should be sorry to see the work upon which the American people have entered, in such auspicious circumstances and with such general good will, hampered by narrow ideas of exclusiveness’ (ibid.). Two days later the point was pressed further with the suggestion that support for American ‘open door’ policies in China depended on the adoption of a similar policy in the Philippines, and the assertion was reiterated that Britain, partly because of her refusal to adopt an exclusive commercial system in her own territories, had ‘a right to look for reciprocity of conditions from the United States as a colonial Power’ (ibid. 10 December 1898, p. 11).

^{page 61 note 1} Spectator, 81 (1898), 821Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 2} Quarterly Review, 200 (1904), 495Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 3} Fortnightly Review, 82 [N.S.] (1907), 143Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 4} Macmillan's Magazine, 2 [N.S.] (1906–1907), 71Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 5} Spectator, 96 (1906), 365–6Google Scholar.

^{page 61 note 6} The Times, 24 03 1906, p. 11Google Scholar.

^{page 62 note 1} Contemporary Review, 91 (1907), 716–18Google Scholar.

^{page 62 note 2} The Times, 17 10 1907, p. 7Google Scholar. It was astutely observed that those Americans who favoured early political independence for the Philippines did not necessarily support ‘commercial and economic fair play’ while the islands remained under the jurisdiction of the United States.

^{page 62 note 3} Contemporary Review, 86 (1904), 399Google Scholar.

^{page 62 note 4} Macmillan's Magazine, 2 [N.S.] (1906–1907), 68Google Scholar.

^{page 62 note 5} To come to regard the American administration as inferior to that of Spain represented a most astonishing reversal, and is perhaps the best measure of the degree of disillusionment which had set in. A factor of some importance in this process may well have been revulsion against the conduct of Americans towards Filipinos. Foreman, a witness to it, was the most outspoken critic—most commentators in fact chose to ignore it, though they could not have been unaware of it. Foreman reported and condemned the wholesale drunkenness of American troops, their insolence to Filipinos, and the prevalence of rape, robbery and murder committed by them. American civilians were included in criticism of ‘boisterous’ and ‘undisciplined’ conduct. He was especially disturbed by the open contempt displayed towards Filipinos, and though he recognized a considerable improvement in the conduct of Americans after the arrival of the Taft Commission he nevertheless sharply contrasted their attitude towards Filipinos with that of the Spaniards (National Review, 36 (1900–1901), 56–8Google Scholar; Contemporary Review, 86 (1904), 393–4, 398Google Scholar; ibid.91 (1907), 718). Though Continental reports of atrocities committed by United States forces were commonly ignored, or noticed only to be discounted, the Spectator regretfully and apologetically acknowledged at least their partial truth in observing: ‘the Americans will never succeed in the Philippines unless they banish cruelty, and make clemency, and not reprisals, the distinguishing mark of the ruling race… The Americans are not by nature cruel, … but “the brightness of Columbian air” has given them … a certain fierceness which makes them liable to act in hot blood, and in hot blood there is little equity’ (Spectator, 90 (1903), 686Google Scholar).

^{page 63 note 1} National Review, 36 (1900–1901), 56–62Google Scholar.

^{page 63 note 2} The most conspicuous exception was the Saturday Review, whose hostility to the United States was blatantly calculated. To the Saturday Review the Philippines were a useful source of anti-American arguments; there was never an attempt to assess a situation objectively, and to criticize accordingly. Nor was its attitude based on a sincere anti-colonialism, whether American or British; if in any sense it was anti-colonial, it was only through alarm at the possible emergence of an American imperialism as a dangerous rival to British imperialism. A few examples will reveal the tone of comment in the Saturday Review. ‘The Philippine imbroglio’ was stated to be ‘not only an instance of singular ineptitude but also the result of deliberate perfidy’; the Philippine administration was said to illustrate a general incapacity for government among Americans; mock incredulity was expressed at reports it took care to publicize of atrocities committed by American forces; Aguinaldo was extravagantly praised, with patent insincerity; warning was given of ‘how grave an opportunity for corruption at home and tyranny abroad may be found in the administration of distant territories by a venal and decadent assembly’ (Saturday Review, 89 (1900), 802Google Scholar; 93 (1902), 658; 91 (1901), 391, 698). Later, when the regime had lasted a number of years, the Saturday Review exulted in the apparent confirmation of its initial forecast. American rule, it asserted in 1906, had consisted of ‘ludicrous attempts at autonomy, squalid faction fights, corruption, intrigue and anarchy’ (ibid.102 (1906), 352). The Saturday Review, however, was not representative of informed and influential opinion.

^{page 63 note 3} Spectator, 99 (1907), 314Google Scholar; Macmillan's Magazine, 2 [N.S.] (1906–1907), 80Google Scholar.

^{page 63 note 4} Fortnightly Review, 81 (1907), 141Google Scholar.

^{page 63 note 5} Ibid. p. 692.

^{page 63 note 6} Contemporary Review, 91 (1907), 726Google Scholar; 92 (1907), 674.

^{page 63 note 7} Ibid.91 (1907), 724.

^{page 63 note 8} Fortnightly Review, 81 (1907), 143Google Scholar.