"To clerical government," he writes "paradoxical as the statement may
sound in modern European ears, the Philippine islands owe, more than
to anything else, their internal prosperity, the Malay population its
sufficiency and happiness. This it is that again and again has stood a
barrier of mercy and justice between the weaker and stronger race, the
vanquished and the victor; this has been the steady protector of the
native inhabitants, this their faithful benefactor, their sufficient
leader and guide. With the 'Cura' for father, and the 'Capitan'
for his adjutant, a Philippine hamlet feels and knows little of the
vexations inseparable from direct and foreign official administration;
and if under such a rule 'progress,' as we love to term it, be rare,
disaffection and want are rarer still."

As compared with India, the absence of famines is significant; and
this he attributes in part to the prevalence of small holdings. "Not
so much what they have, but rather what they have not, makes the good
fortune of the Philippines, the absence of European Enterprise, the
absence of European Capital. A few European capitalist settlers, a few
giant estates, a few central factories, a few colossal money-making
combinations of organized labour and gainful produce, and all the
equable balance of property and production, of ownership and labour
that now leaves to the poorest cottager enough, and yet to the
total colony abundance to spare, would be disorganized, displaced,
upset; to be succeeded by day labour, pauperism, government relief,
subscriptions, starvation. Europe, gainful, insatiate Europe would
reap the harvest; but to the now happy, contented, satiate Philippine
Archipelago, what would remain but the stubble, but leanness, want,
unrest, misery?" [123]

The latest witness to the average well-being of the natives under the