good word for the Salonica venture; its advocates (he wrote) are the dupes of maps' (II, 213); whatever else it did, clearly it was fatal to another effort at Gallipoli. But, if there was not to be another attack, the retention of our hold on the Peninsula was dubious wisdom, with winter approaching and only make-shift piers and harbours at our landing-places. Between attacking and evacuation there was no compromise.*

The upshot of the Gallipoli story is simplicity itself. We undertook the expedition without adequate resources, without adequate consideration or preparations. Sir Henry Wilson has well said (North Russia Blue Book'): Once a military force is involved in operations on land, it is impossible to limit the magnitude of its commitments.' We attempted to force the Dardanelles on a limited liability basis, and the natural consequences followed. We tried to run with the Eastern hare and hunt with the Western hounds. There is great force in Sir Ian Hamilton's cry, 'It would be well if they could make up their minds if they wish to score the next trick in the East or in the West' (1, 304). It was of paramount importance not to jeopardise the position on the Western front, but there was a difference between refraining from attacking in the West, where our primary object was secured by a successful defence, and allowing our offensive in the East to be held up for want of a relatively small amount of ammunition; a check there was equivalent to complete failure. Nothing is easier than to be wise after the event, but, once the May offensive in France had proved a disappointment, while the German efforts were clearly directed against Russia, would it not have been safe to support the Gallipoli venture more strenuously? Even in August the old troubles re-appeared. The New Army divisions brought no 'first reinforcements'; most of their artillery went to Egypt and stayed there; the two Territorial divisions brought no artillery at all. Reliance had once again to be placed on ships' guns, despite repeated proofs

It is interesting to read in Sir C. E. Callwell's biography of Sir Stanley Maude (p. 167) that General Maude was hopeful of success had the attack been renewed, even so late as Oct. 30; but by December he was convinced that, if that was not allowed, the only alternative is to get out of this; and we ought to have done so long ago' (p. 170).

of their inadequacy as substitutes for howitzers. Not even then was sufficient ammunition available (11, 143).

Gallipoli will remain the greatest 'might have been' of the war. As it was, it saw no mean achievements; and, if the evacuation, as skilful in accomplishment as it was undoubtedly necessary, was not followed by the ill-effects Sir Ian Hamilton and Lord Kitchener himself had dreaded, this is no small tribute to what our troops had accomplished at Gallipoli. The Turks prevented them from getting through, but at a cost which left Turkey crippled. The fruits of Gallipoli were reaped more than two years later in Palestine.

If Gallipoli was a bitter disappointment, the nation has only itself to thank for having neglected preparation for war because it would not believe war possible. Lord Kitchener may have failed to stiffen his back sufficiently and to prevent headstrong and amateur colleagues committing the country to enterprises for which he had not been able to equip it (cf. III, 111); but, if he failed here, it is only the measure of the dangers through which he had to steer the country. He did not live to see the New Armies launched upon their first great venture, but the last New Army division was crossing to France when he started on his ill-fated journey; and he had seen his New Armies afford valuable help to France at a most critical moment in the Verdun struggle by relieving French divisions on a long front north of Arras. The great bombardment which ushered in that great struggle on the Somme, which was to prove the real turning-point of the war, was a fitting salute to the man who had armed an unready nation, and had put into the field the batteries and the battalions that were massing for the attack.

Art. 3.-THE PILGRIM FATHERS AND THEIR PLACE IN HISTORY.

1. History of Plymouth Plantation, 1620-1647. By William Bradford. Two vols. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1912.

2. The Story of the Pilgrim Fathers, 1606-1623, as told by Themselves, their Friends and their Enemies. By Edward Arber. Ward and Downey, 1897.

3. The Works of John Robinson. With a Memoir by Robert Ashton. London: Snow, 1851.

4. Smith the Se-Baptist, and the Pilgrim Fathers. Walter H. Burgess. London: Clarke, 1911.

་

By

ON Nov. 9, 1620, a company of Separatists from the Church of England, voyaging in the 'Mayflower' with intent to settle in North America, sighted land off Cape Cod. On the 11th, they decided to go no further, but to establish themselves on the shores of Cape Cod bay. The passengers numbered one hundred and twoforty-four adult men, nineteen adult women, and thirtynine young people under age. Of the hundred and two, thirty-five came from the congregation of English Separatists who, since 1609, had been dwelling at Leyden in Holland, under the pastoral charge of John Robinson. It was by the leading spirits of this body that the migration had been carried out; and they expected, if the enterprise succeeded, to be followed by their minister and the rest of the congregation. Their sixty-seven companions had been collected in England on the way over; presumably they were also mostly Separatists or sympathisers. But some of these 'strangers' 'let fall mutinous speeches: that when they came ashore they would use their own liberty; for none had power to command them, the patent they had being for Virginia and not for New England.' Accordingly, before any one was allowed to leave the ship, a formal agreement was drawn up.

...

...

'We, whose names are underwritten . . . covenant and combine ourselves into a civil body politic . . . and, by virtue hereof, to enact . . . such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices . . . as shall be thought most meet . . . for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.'

·

The signers were the grown men; they were probably wont to assume-in any case their pastor was wont to teach-that women must have no voice in Church matters, and that wives must allow their husbands to decide their place of residence.

After spending a month in exploration, the company decided to settle at the place already marked on the maps of the well-known explorer, Captain John Smith, with the name of Plymouth. Dec. 11 is the traditional date of the landing'; it was not till the 16th that the 'Mayflower' brought the women and children into Plymouth harbour, and not till Christmas that they began to build houses. Before the end of March 1621, forty-four had died of a 'general sickness.' Early in April the Mayflower' started homeward, and left the colonists to their own resources until another ship should arrive in the autumn. Bradford, their historian and for many years their Governor, who was one of the leaders, says finely of the departure from Leyden: They knew that they were Pilgrims . . . but lift up their eyes to the heavens, their dearest country, and quieted their spirits.' It was not till far on in the 19th century that this designation was given a terrestrial application, and that the settlers of 1620 came to be known, to the exclusion of all others, as 'the Pilgrim Fathers.'

Such were the events which fittingly give rise this year to tercentenary celebrations. The American Republic, of which these men, and we will now add these women, were among the earliest, though unconscious, builders, and the Congregational Churches, on both sides of the Atlantic, who see in them some of the earliest champions of their principles, may well be proud of their loyalty to conscience and their high courage. After the lapse of three hundred years it should not be impossible to view the Pilgrim Fathers with reasonable impartiality. Recent investigations have made it easier to assign them their place in the movement of English thought. The original narratives have been reprinted by the late Mr Arber, and in the sumptuous issue of Bradford's History,' recently edited by Mr Ford for the Massachusetts Historical Society. The pamphlet literature of early Dissent has been assiduously sought out by Mr Burrage; though it may be remarked that the three-volume

6

edition of John Robinson's Works,' published so long ago as 1851, could never have left those who troubled to read them in much doubt as to the teaching received by the Leyden church. More freshly illuminating have been the works of Principal Lindsay on the Reformation, and of Prof. Usher on the English Church, since these fill in the background of the Independent movement; while the researches of Mr Burgess and Mr Braithwaite into Baptist and Quaker beginnings, show the later stages of a development which Independency did but partially arrest.

While the more intensive study of the 16th and 17th centuries puts the facts into a truer setting, a good deal of lingering prejudice, on one side or the other, is dispelled by our better understanding of a much earlier period, the first Christian century. The ecclesiastical controversies of the Elizabethan period were controversies primarily concerning Church government. It is true that the earlier Puritans were anxious to amend the 39 Articles in a more thoroughgoing Calvinist direction; though the Augustinian sense in which these Articles had been drawn up is not readily distinguishable from pure Calvinism. They almost succeeded in getting inserted the Lambeth Articles of 1595, which announced outright that it is not in the will or power of every man to be saved.' They were greatly disappointed by their failure to effect this at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604. Still, they could manage to put up with the unamended Articles; and Robinson, on behalf of his Leyden church, wrote in 1618: 'To the Confession of Faith published in the name of the Church of England, and to every article thereof, we do assent wholly.' It was of course long before the Puritans and the main body of Separatists objected on principle to doctrinal subscription; Calvin himself had recommended it to the English Reformers. What was now at issue, to quote Bradford, was not doctrine but the holy discipline and outward regiment of the kingdom of Christ.'

Even to-day it is hopeless to expect anything more than an attitude of patronising tolerance on the part of modern Churchmen towards early Dissenters, or of modern Dissenters towards Elizabethan Churchmen, so long as a belief survives anywhere in the 'divine right'