July 24, 1915. 
LAND AND WATER 
©0 o©o 
G ^o © O 
G 


O 
o © 
©0 © 
O O 0© g« 
O®©© © 
©©O^ ©-^VQ 
Q<^BA^% % 
© GT ^ 
^fTs 
J.-TOTAL OF &2 SUBUAKINE ATTACKS IN THIS ARE.V. 
FEB. 19— JULY 19. 
have had many apparently reliable accounts from 
Athens and elsewhere of the efficiency of the 
British submarines in attacking the Turkish 
tran.sports plying l^etween Penderma Bay and 
Gallipoli. The correspondents go so far as to 
say that we have completely scared the transports 
off the sea, and that the Turks are compelled to 
supply their Gallipoli forces by Rodosto and 
Bulair, or by the Asia Minor roads right up to 
Chanak. And yet Sir Ian liamiltou, in his last 
dispatch, tells us that a Turkish battleship, else- 
where described as the Goehen, threw no less than 
forty 11-inoh shells into our lines before the last 
Turkish assault. Suteequent accounts speak of 
repeated advances of the British forces, in which 
they were supported by heavy battleship bombard- 
ment of the Asiatic forts of the Turkish jjositions 
by the Allied ships. It looks, then, as if our own 
submarines were far from being constant in their 
attentions east of Chanak, and that Admiral de 
Roebeck has had good reason to think that no 
German submarines were, at any rate on these 
particular days, in our neighbourhood in the 
^^gean. 
Is it not clear from the foregoing considera- 
tions that the submarine is anything but an extra- 
ordinarily efficient ship of war? German sub- 
marines have, as the reader has seen from my little 
plan, attacked eighty-two British and neutral 
ships in the approaches from the Atlantic. But 
suppose a 25-knot cruiser, armed with 4-inch 
guns had been equally free to hang about this 
neighbourhood during these five nionths, would 
not her victims have been at least ten times as 
numerous ? 
THE IDEALS OF THE WAR. 
THE IMPERIAL POINT OF VIEW. 
By L. March Prillipps. 
TO one who is more or less familiar with Colonial 
life and thought it is surprising to find how 
great is the misunderstanding of the subject 
which exists in England. English people 
apparently figure the Colonial as a kind of 
banished Englishman. They picture liim dreaming be- 
side his camp fire of the " old country," and the cathe- 
dral close, and the rooks in the immemorial elms. 
Evidently there must be numbers of petDple in England 
who, themselves very susceptible to emotional impres- 
sions, habitually transfer to the oversea citizens of the 
British Empire the same sentiment of home-sickness and 
longing which would tear their own hearts were they to 
discover themselves to-morrow in the bush or the back- 
woods, on the prairie or the veklt. These emotional 
people see in the Colonial co-operation in the present 
w-ar an exhibition of filial devotion to England. That 
satisfies them. They seek no further motive. They 
might not say so in words, but their feeling at heart is 
that the Imperial bond consists in love of the J.Iother 
Country. The newspapers, with their instinct for 
the sentimental, almost always adopt the same 
view. 
It is, however, quite misleading. Colonials are, in- 
deed, attached to England, but they are attached to her, 
not liecause she is the repository of ancestral memories, 
but because she is the source and chief guardian of the 
principle of civil and constitutional liberty on which 
Colonial life is based. Colonials, least of all people, are 
subject to attacks of sentimentality. The lives they 
live, the demands made by the opening up of a new 
country, and the consolidation of a new order of society 
keep them steadily practical. Ihey are neither intro- 
spective nor retrospective. Such is the urgency of their 
circumstances that they are bound to be engrossed in 
their own immediate aftairs and in the realities of life 
17 
around them. There where their homes and hopes are 
their hearts also have taken root. They think of Eng- 
land, on an average, perhaps once in six months. 
If the reader would distinguish, as it is most im- 
portant at the present juncture that he should disiin- 
gui.sh, Ijetween the motives that count for much and for 
little in Colonial estimation, let him glance at our first, 
attempt at Colonial expansion. In the year 1620 the 
MayftoKer landed her cargo of Plymouth Fathers at 
Plymouth ,in Massachusetts, and one hundred and fifty 
years later, in 1776, the Declaration of Independence, 
by which the rule of England was rejected as " incom- 
patible with the aspirations of a free people," was 
adopted by Congress. Our first experiment in Empire- 
building had ended in disastrous failure. 
Why ? The Yankees had just the same memories 
to fondle as the Canadians and Australians of the pre- 
sent. .\11 influences that evoke tender associations — 
ancestral homes, a common history, memories and sub- 
conscious instincts woven out of English life — were 
theirs. With astonishment and indignant vexation the 
England of that day saw such claims reputliated. They 
were, indeed, rejected with an energy which sufficiently 
proved that they, at an}' rate, were not tics to trust to. 
The ardour with which the raw Colonial levies tackled 
the British Army was not in the slightest degree affected 
by the memories they held in common. 
What, then, was the motive which, in the estimation 
c>f the Colonists, did count? Tlie reader knows the 
answer. lie remembers the, as it already seems, in- 
credible spirit of despotism in whicli we set to work to 
govern the new country. .'\ " Colony," according to our 
definition, was to Ije not a free but a subject Statr. 1 he 
American Cokjnists were offered an rilterruuive : WVjuW 
they cleave to England and forfeit liberty, or would 
they cleave to lii^erty and forfeit England ? Iheir stern 
