Note 118 — THE PHILIPPINES, 1860–1898—SOME COMMENT AND BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Enough has been developed to show the demoralizing character of the transaction. In justice to Aguinaldo and his closest associates, it is to be said that they had kept the money practically intact, for use in a possible future insurrection, until they spent some of it for arms after Commodore Dewey’s victory in Manila Bay.118 Nor are we able to say categorically that Aguinaldo and the other leaders in Biak-na-bató were not led to believe that specific reforms had been promised verbally by Primo de Rivera in the name of his government; Aguinaldo and Paterno could clear up that matter, but neither speaks. Just what informal discussion of this subject there was between Paterno and Primo de Rivera, we do not know; but the latter’s own version will warrant the conclusion that he at least permitted Paterno to lay before the insurgents the fact that he was making recommendations on this line, and to hold out the expectation of results, once he was not confronted with armed rebellion.119 He declares that a scheme of Philippine reform, covering also the friar question, had been drawn up and agreed upon, when Premier Cánovas was assassinated and the Conservatives soon after fell from power; but he does not tell us what were the reforms as to the friars. Primo de Rivera continued to give his ideas as to the need for reform in provision of parishes, church fees, local government, education, civil service, etc., after the Liberals came into power. Yet, though stating the case against the friars in strong terms, virtually confirming every charge made against them, he appears to have advised only a curtailment of their power and a more rigid discipline, not their elimination as parish-priests, which was the aim of most of the insurgents.120 When a Spanish editor in Manila began writing in February, 1898, of political reforms in the direction of “autonomy,” without submitting his articles to previous censure, Primo de Rivera suspended publication of the periodical.121 That Spanish circles in Manila as well as the Filipinos were in expectation, in late 1897 and early 1898, of the announcement of some comprehensive scheme of Philippine reform, is apparent from the press of the time.122 The Liberal press of Madrid and Barcelona was also actively agitating reform for the Philippines, and Spanish Liberals and Filipinos addressed petitions on the subject to the government at Madrid.123 The general belief at Manila was also that some sort of promise of reforms had passed at Biak-na-bató, even that it included the gradual withdrawal of the friars.124 That the religious orders themselves knew that they were the storm-center is sufficiently shown by the Memorial of April 21, 1898, reproduced post, pp. 227–286.125