The Empire at War ed. by Sir Charles Lucas (review)

REVIEWS OF BOOKS 199 up to meet only Canadian conditions. He makeserrorsin names; e.g. "Lake Francis" for St. Francis and "Long Rapids" for Long Sault (p. 262). He commits frequently the commonerror of calling Point Levi "Point Levis." l_•vishimself isalways"deLevis". JustinWinsor is"Windsor"(p. 281). The volumes of Constitutional Documents edited by Messrs.Shortt and Doughty are cited in sucha variety of ways asto seem so many different works. None the less the book is the product of intelligent industry, and is usefulas bringingtogether the important things in Murray's career. And what a fine gentlemanhe is seento be! He is devoted to his friendsand to his duty, and chivalrouslyloyal to the Hanoverian king against whose line his Jacobite ancestorshad fought. He bought great quantities of land in Canada and, since he seemedpoor, the sourceof the purchasemoneywas not clear. We now find that Lord Elibank lent his brother somefifteen thousandpoundsfor this purpose. Murray became,indeed,a rich man, partly through a rich wife. The arrogant,peppery,impulsive,generous old soldierended his days as an English country gentleman, at his seat at Beauport in Sussex. He liesin the old churchat Ore, nearby, and Canadianpilgrims ought sometimesto find their way to the tomb of the first British governor of Canada. GEORGE M. WRONG The Empire at War. Edited for the Royal Colonial Institute by Sir Charles Lucas. Volume I, by the Editor. Toronto: Oxford University Press. 1921. Pp. vii, 324. THe.appearanceat this time of a five volumework on the war recordof the overseasEmpire needsto be justified by a very high standard of excellence. It would seemto be'muchtoo early, or just too late. Publication , Sir CharlesLucaspointsout, hasbeendelayedby a chapter of accidents,and this may easilyprove fatal to the value of the work as a whole,without detractingfrom the value and merit of this brief historical retrospectthat acts as herald. The libraries are floodedwith general histories of the British forces and contemporary records of Dominion valour. We have cometo the middle period. The eyewitnesshas laid asidehis energeticpen; the war historian is sortingdocuments. The Colonial Institute's schemeis "to trace the growth of Imperial co-operationin war-time prior to the late war, to give side by side a completerecordof the effort madein the late war by every unit of the overseasEmpire from the greatestto the smallest,and also to tell in what particular waysand to what extent the fortunesand the development of eachpart were'affectedby the war." The title is a misnomer, for The Empire at War takesthe British war effort entirely for granted. 200 T•i• C2t•.m•.• H•sro•c•.• R•w•w The Institute may by this schemeunwittingly lend colourto suchprovincial ideas (and they still exist) as that the SecondBattle of Ypres wasa Canadian,and Gallipoli an Australian,operation. It is alsoliable to leave some English people with the general impression(expressly repudiatedby Sir CharlesLucason p. 200) that overseas co-operation wasa "rally to theoldflag" toutsimple. It shouldsurelybeparticularly the Institute's part to steerall British peopleaway from this anachronistic conceptionof the Commonwealth. There is to be a volume for each continent, "an American volume devotedto Canada,Newfoundland,West Indies,Bermuda,andFalkland Islands," and three for Australia, Africa, and the East and Mediterranean . There is an excellent casefor collectingthe evidencesof colonial co-operation. The comparativelyshort recordsshouldby this time be in goodshape,and too little is known of West Indian and other forces whoseeffortsescaped the boomingof the Londonpress. Native Indian troops,too, have hardly receivedproperrecognition. But is there, at present,anything new to say about the self-governing Dominions? Their war correspondents have goneback and forth over Flanders,Vimy, Egypt, German East Africa. ProfessorKeith has given us the facts about the immediate repercussions of overseaswar on their domestic developments.Andwhat immense difficulties aretherein thisterritorial arrangementwhen it comesto explainingthe military operationsin France! The Newfoundlanders fought in British brigades, and one cannot separatethe battalion from the brigade. The South African Brigadefoughtin British divisions,and onecannotseparatethe brigade from the division. The Canadianand AustralianCorpsjumpedoff side by sideat the beginningof the Hundred Days under almostidentical conditions. Is the strategy of the battle of Amiens to be told twice over,--or not at all? The resolvingof these doubts is left to Mr. C. T...