tive advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone."

Clearly the "A" mandates are in theory merely transitional protectorates designed to guide the Arab states into full independence. The French mandate over Syria (including Lebanon) expressly stipulates not only that an organic law or constitution shall be framed "in agreement with the native authorities," but also that France shall "enact measures to facilitate the progressive development of Syria and the Lebanon as independent States" (article 1). In Palestine, Great Britain has "full powers of legislation and administration" but must encourage local autonomy and promote the "establishment of the Jewish national home," and "the development of self-governing institutions." In Mesopotamia, Great Britain has already established an Arab kingdom and pledged herself to endeavor to secure its admission into the League of Nations.

Certain other general features of the "A" mandates are worth mentioning. The mandatory is forbidden to interfere with religious liberty, or to discriminate against any of the inhabitants on religious grounds, or to impose its own language through the schools, or to cede to another state any of the mandated territory, or to violate the economic open door, or in the case of Syria alone to grant monopolistic concessions for the exploitation of raw materials, or to discriminate against citizens of other Members of the League in the granting of concessions. These are liberal provisions, far in advance of the principles applied in many a colony or protectorate not subject to a mandate.

The most important and the least successful of the "A" mandates is Syria. The difficulty has been the costly failure of the French in this case to cope with Arab sentiment. Syria had been freed from the Turks, toward the close of the Great War, by British and Arab troops, and with British consent an Arab prince, Feisal, had established himself in Damascus as virtual ruler of Syria. Indeed, the French Foreign minister, M. Pichon, admitted that Feisal had the support of a majority of the population. A commission of investigation sent to Syria by President Wilson, during the Peace Conference, discovered that the prevalent desire on the part of the Syrian people was for independence and union with other Arab lands. As a mandatory they preferred United States, or, as second choice, Great Brit

ain. Nevertheless, France insisted upon Syria as her share of the Turkish spoils, and in 1919 French troops were sent to replace the British army of occupation. The Arab leaders manifested their opposition by holding a Congress of Syrian Notables at Damascus, in March 1920, and electing Prince Feisal King of Syria and Palestine, and his brother Abdullah they nominated for the crown of Mesopotamia. As Feisal and Abdullah were sons of King Hussein of the Hejaz, the successful consummation of this plan would have meant the confederation of the leading Arab states under Hussein's dynasty. The French, however, were not to be thwarted by Arab kingdoms. General Gouraud, with 90,000 French soldiers under his command in Syria, peremptorily summoned Feisal to recognize the French mandate. King Feisal complied, but soon afterwards fighting began between his supporters and the French army. Being defeated, Feisal was expelled from Syria only to be made king of Iraq (Mesopotamia) by the British.

This unfortunate beginning handicapped the French from the outset. Having destroyed the Arab government which they found when they came, the French administrators had to build up a new government, and seek to overcome native hostility. To satisfy local desires, or possibly to offset Arab nationalism, they divided the country into five units. The mountainous area of Lebanon, in the south, with its Maronite Christian population-inclined to favor French rule-was enlarged to form "Great Lebanon" and given an independent administration, with even a national flag of its own, the French tricolor with a cedar superimposed on the white ground. Another hill country, southeast of Damascus, inhabited by a religious sect known as the Druses, was cut off to form the autonomous territory of Jebel Druse. The remainder formed three territories-Damascus, Aleppo and the Alaouite-grouped together as the Federation of Syrian States. Each of these three states, it was provided, should have a Representative Council which would send five delegates to a Federal Council, which in turn would elect the President of the Federation. This system of native authorities was paralleled and controlled by a system of French of ficials, headed by the French High Commissioner appointed by the French foreign minister. Later, in 1925, because the Arabs did not relish disunity, Damascus and Aleppo were combined in

a State of Syria, and the Alaouite State received complete autonomy, the Federation being dissolved.

Before much progress could be made with this new form of government, the whole situation was altered by a serious. Syrian rebellion. A radical French Cabinet, the Herriot Cabinet, made the mistake of appointing as High Commissioner a certain General Sarrail, whose anticlericalism antagonized the only important pro-French element in Syria, that is, the Christian minority, and whose arbitrary conduct in other matters angered other groups. Rebellion flared up among the Druses. Sairrail's efforts to restore order by having his troops burn native villages and bombard the city of Damascus only made matters worse. The rebellion spread to other parts of Syria. In dismay the authorities at Paris recalled General Sarrail, promised a reform of the constitutional laws, and sent reinforcements to the army of occupation.1 The new governor, de Jouvenel, endeavored by conciliatory methods to persuade the rebels to lay down their arms. Syrian Arab nationalists demanded the reunification of Syria under a nationalist government, and some suggested that France should imitate the policy Britain had pursued in Mesopotamia.

The Syrian revolt was a severe test of the mandate system. Would the Mandates Commission have the courage to call France to account for maladministration? It did. France was requested to make a special report on the insurrection. After considering the report, and hearing the explanations offered by the French delegate, the Mandates Commission politely announced that the French report does not fulfil its expectations." In courteous but candid terms the Commission censured General Sarrail for allowing Captain Carbillet, French administrator of the Jebel Druse, to introduce hasty reforms regarding land tenure and public works in violation of the agreement one of Sarrail's predecessors had made with the Druse chiefs to respect their autonomy. The Commission scored Carbillet for his "abuses of authority," Sarrail for his "obstinacy" and breaches of faith with the Druses, and the French administration in general for its "oscillations" of policy and its ten

'See L'Asie Française, Jan. 1926, pp. 9-30, on debates regarding Syria. Rapport provisoire à la Société des Nations sur la situation de la Syrie et du Liban, Année 1925.

dency to substitute direct rule for mandatory advice. One of the causes of revolt, the Commission frankly declared, was the subjection of the Druses to "excessive demands in the form of forced labour."' 1 These were "severe criticisms," as a French imperialist journal admitted; yet the same journal praised the Commission and recommended that France should loyally carry out the mandate principle and sincerely collaborate with the Commission and the League.2 In this spirit the French government made every effort to convince the Commission and the League Council that France intended to prepare Syria for selfgovernment, in accordance with the mandate system, rather than practise the old policy of imperialist domination.

The conflict between Arab nationalism and French imperialism rendered the French mandate in Syria not only less successful than French rule in certain other colonies, but much more expensive than it should have been. Up to October 21, 1925, the military expenditures in Syria amounted to 2,465,000,000 francs. Syrian taxes sufficed to pay only a very small fraction of the expense. The French army of occupation, from 1919 to Nov. 5, 1925, lost 6,622 men-killed or died. The mandate in Syria was an expensive luxury for the French nation.3

In Palestine the British mandatory administration conflicted with Arab nationalism in a more serious and more permanent manner, but the British administrators handled the problem more skillfully than their French neighbors. Palestine, like Syria, is an Arab country. Of its total population (by the census of 1922) of 757,000, no fewer than 591,000 were Moslems, and of the 73,000 Christians many were Arabs. There were only 84,000 Jews. Yet, under the terms of the mandate, Great Britain is to aid in the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people," facilitating Jewish immigration, promoting the settlement of Jewish immigrants on the public and waste lands, enabling Jews to acquire Palestinian citizenship, and accepting the Zionist organization as an advisory

1 See Report of Permanent Mandates Commission, 8th Session, March 6, 1926, C.144.M.58.1926 V. Also, account of 9th session, in Monthly Summary of the League of Nations, June 1926, pp. 145 ff.; Council discussion in Official Journal, April 1926, pp. 522 ff.

'L'Asie Française, May 1926, pp. 178 ff.

For additional material on the French in Syria see the official annual Rapport sur la situation de la Syrie et du Liban.