SOME ACCOUNT OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE LATE LIEUTENANT-GENERAL
SIR GEORGE PREVOST, BART.

PARTICULARLY OF HIS SERVICES

IN

THE CANADAS;

INCLUDING

A REPLY TO THE STRICTURES ON HIS MILITARY CHARACTER,

CONTAINED

IN AN ARTICLE IN THE QUARTERLY REVIEW FOR OCTOBER, 1822.

"Either this is envy in you, folly, or mistaking; the very stream of his life, and the business he hath helmed, must upon a warranted need give him a better proclamation. Let him be but testimonied in his own bringings forth, and he shall appear a statesman and a soldier. Therefore you speak unskilfully; or if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice."

MEASURE FOR MEASURE.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR T. CADELL, STRAND;
AND
T. EGERTON, WHITEHALL.
1823.
J. M'Creery, Printer,
Tooks Court, Chancery Lane.

SOME ACCOUNT
OF
THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE LATE LIEUT.-GENERAL
Sir GEORGE PREVOST, Bart.
&c. &c.

The character and conduct of individuals in high and responsible situations, will naturally and necessarily be the subject of free and open discussion. The conduct of a soldier is more particularly exposed to this scrutiny. His success or his failure is a matter of such powerful interest to his country, that he generally receives even more than his full measure of approbation or of blame. Notwithstanding all the difficulties of forming a correct judgment on the merits of military operations, there is perhaps no subject upon which public opinion expresses itself so quickly and so decidedly. Disappointed in the sanguine hopes which they had entertained, and mortified by the consciousness of defeat, the public too frequently imagine cause for censure, and without a competent knowledge of the facts necessary to enable them to form a sound and satisfactory judgment, unhesitatingly condemn those who have perhaps passed in their service a long life of anxiety and labour. But while, in the moment of irritation, they are thus disposed to impugn the conduct of their military servants, they are no less ready, on more deliberate inquiry, and a fuller understanding of the facts, to grant them a candid and generous acquittal. These observations are peculiarly applicable to the case of the late Lieutenant-General Sir George Prevost, who, after having devoted to his country thirty-five of the best years of his life; after having distinguished himself in many gallant actions; and after having preserved to the crown of Great Britain some of its most valuable foreign possessions, was called upon, at the close of his honourable career, to answer charges which vitally affected his reputation, and which he was prevented by death from fully and clearly refuting.

Painful as it was to the friends of Sir George Prevost to allow a single stain to rest upon the memory of so brave and distinguished a soldier, more especially when they possessed the means of removing every doubt as to his conduct, they yet considered an appeal to the candour and justice of his country as unnecessary. The violent prejudices which at one period existed against the late Commander of the Forces in the Canadas were gradually wearing away; his memory had been honored by a just tribute of his Sovereign's regret and approbation; and the scenes in which he had been so conspicuous an actor, had ceased to be a matter of general interest. Under these circumstances, the relatives of Sir George Prevost would confidently have entrusted his reputation to the unprejudiced judgment of posterity, had they not seen, with equal regret and indignation, a late attempt to revive the almost exploded calumnies and misrepresentations of which he had been the victim. That the Quarterly Review[1] should have lent its pages to an attack like this, will, upon the perusal of the present volume, excite the surprise of every candid person; and it is chiefly for the purpose of correcting the mis-statements into which the Reviewer has been led, that the following pages are presented to the public.

Before entering more particularly upon the subject of Sir George Prevost's conduct, so wantonly attacked in the article above alluded to, it may not be thought improper briefly to advert to his father's services and to his own early history. From his military career, previous to his appointment to the chief command in British North America, it will clearly appear that he was not without reason selected by his Majesty's Government for the discharge of that important trust.

Major-General Augustin Prevost, the father of the late Sir George Prevost, was by birth a citizen of Geneva: he entered the British service as a Cornet in the Earl of Albemarle's regiment of Horse Guards, and was present at the battle of Fontenoy, where he was wounded.

Having attained the rank of Major in the 60th regiment in 1759, he had the honor of serving under General Wolfe, and received a severe wound in the head, whilst gallantly forcing a landing, twenty miles above Quebec, under the immediate command of General Carleton, afterwards Lord Dorchester. Upon the reduction of Canada, Major Prevost was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, and served with reputation at the capture of Martinique and the Havannah. In 1775, he was appointed to the command in East Florida, and, in 1778, he eminently distinguished himself by his defence of Savannah, against the attack of a very superior force of French and Americans, under the Comte d'Estaing and General Lincoln. The garrison consisted of only 2,300 men, while the force of the besiegers amounted to 8,000, supported by a fleet of twenty-two sail of the line. Such, however, was the determined energy of Major-General Prevost, and of the British soldiers and sailors under his command, that the enemy were compelled to abandon the enterprize, after thirty-three days' close siege.[2]

In 1780, Major-General Prevost, after having served twenty-two years in North America and the West Indies, returned to England, to enjoy the pleasing consciousness of having always discharged his duty with zeal and effect. His health was much impaired by a long residence in climates unfavorable to an European constitution, and, on the 6th May, 1786, he died, at Greenhill Grove, near Barnet, in the sixty-third year of his age.

In 1765, Major-General Prevost married, at Lausanne, a daughter of M. Grand, of that place;[3] and, on her husband's departure to America, Mrs. Prevost accompanied him thither. George, their eldest son, was born while General Prevost was stationed in the province of New Jersey, on the 19th May, 1767. Being designed by his father for the military profession, he was placed with that view at Lochée's academy, at Chelsea, and his education was finished at Colmar, on the continent. He obtained his first commission in the 60th regiment, and being removed upon promotion to the 28th foot, he joined that corps at Gibraltar in 1784. He obtained his majority in 1790, and early in 1791, he took the command of the 3d battalion of the 60th regiment at Antigua. In March, 1794, he was promoted to a Lieutenant-Colonelcy in the 60th, and, in 1795, he proceeded to Demerara, and from thence to St. Vincent's, at that time attacked by the French. He was there actively employed in suppressing the Carib insurrection, and in resisting the French invasion, and at the storming of the Vigie he commanded a column. In October, 1795, he was ordered to Dominica, to relieve Lieutenant-Colonel Madden in the command of the troops in that island; but in January, 1796, he resumed the command of the 3d battalion of the 60th regiment at St. Vincent's, where he was twice severely wounded in successfully resisting the enemy's progress towards the capital of the colony, after the defeat of Major-General Stewart at Colonary. In consequence of his wounds, Lieutenant-Colonel Prevost obtained leave to return to England. The sense which the inhabitants of St. Vincent's entertained of his services was warmly expressed in an address from the Council and House of Representatives in that island.[4]

On his arrival in England, Lieutenant-Colonel Provost was appointed Inspecting Field Officer. In January, 1798, he obtained the rank of Colonel, and proceeded in the same year to the West Indies as Brigadier-General. In 1798, he was removed from the command of the troops at Barbadoes to St. Lucie, as Commandant, where he was afterwards appointed Lieutenant-Governor, in compliance with a request from the inhabitants.[5]

Brigadier-General Prevost continued to perform the duties of Governor of St. Lucie until the peace of 1802, when that colony was restored to the French. The address which he received from the inhabitants of the island on his departure, fully evinces the popularity which he had acquired;[6] while the letters addressed to him, and to Colonel Brownrigg, Secretary to H.R.H. the Commander in Chief, by Sir Thomas Trigge, at that time Commander of the Forces in the West Indies, satisfactorily prove that he merited the confidence reposed in him by Government.[7]

In July, Brigadier-General Prevost arrived in England, when the government of Dominica was immediately offered to him by Lord Hobart. Having accepted the appointment, he embarked for that island in the following November, and landed there on the 25th of December, 1802.

In the following year, he volunteered his services on the expedition against St. Lucie and Tobago, and served as second in command under Lieutenant-General Grenfield, who in his general order, after the capture of Morne Fortunée, thus mentions his conduct upon that occasion:—

"To the cool and determined conduct of Brigadier-general Prevost and Brigadier-General Brereton, who led the two columns of attack, may be attributed the success of the action; but to Brigadier-General Prevost it must be acknowledged, that to his counsel and arrangements the Commander of the forces attributes the glory of the day."[8]

The important services of Brigadier-General Prevost upon this expedition, received numerous tributes of approbation from distinguished military characters;[9] and even the French Commander could not refrain from expressing the esteem and admiration with which he regarded his generous enemy.[10] Upon the successful termination of this affair, Brigadier-General Prevost returned to his Government at Dominica, where nothing worthy of notice occurred until the 22d February, 1805, when an unexpected attack was made by a French squadron from Rochefort. The result of that attack was highly creditable to the valour and military talents of the Governor, who after having, with the few troops under his command, disputed inch by inch the landing of the French force, amounting to 4,000 men, and covered by an overwhelming fire from the ships, succeeded in effecting a retreat to the fort of Prince Rupert. The French Commander in Chief, after vainly summoning him to surrender, reimbarked the whole of his troops, and sailed to Guadaloupe.[11]

The terms in which H. R. H. the Commander in Chief was pleased to express his sense of General Prevost's conduct upon this occasion, were highly gratifying to his feelings.[12] In consequence of his gallant and successful defence of the Colony, General Prevost received a communication from the Speaker of the House of Assembly,[13] conveying to him the thanks of that body, and informing him that a Thousand Guineas had been voted by them for the purchase of a sword and a service of plate, to be presented to him in testimony of their gratitude and approbation.[14] A similar testimonial to the conduct of General Prevost upon this occasion was given by the Patriotic Fund, who voted him a sword of the value of one hundred pounds, and a piece of plate, of the value of two hundred pounds, "for the distinguished gallantry and military talents which he had displayed."[15] From the West India Planters and Merchants General Prevost likewise received a piece of plate to the value of three hundred guineas.[16]

In July, 1805, General Prevost returned to England.[17] Soon after his arrival he was created a Baronet, and was subsequently appointed Lieutenant-Governor of Portsmouth.

In February, 1808, he was selected to command a brigade destined to reinforce Nova Scotia, where he succeeded Sir John Wentworth as Governor, and in December, 1808, he left Halifax, in order to assist in the reduction of Martinique. The expedition sailed from Barbadoes on the 28th of January, 1809, and on the 30th, the troops were landed on the island of Martinique. Sir George Prevost was second in command under General Sir George Beckwith, and to him the management of all the active operations was confided. The result of this expedition was, that the French troops were driven into Fort Bourbon, where they held out until the 24th of February, when the surrender of that fort completed the conquest of the island.[18]

Upon the conclusion of this short but brilliant campaign, Sir George Prevost passed a few days at Dominica, where he was received with many demonstrations of joy. Addresses were upon this occasion presented to him by the House of Assembly of Dominica, and by the merchants and inhabitants of St. Christophers.[19]

In the month of April the army returned to Halifax, and from this period until his appointment to the chief civil and military command in British North America, in 1811, upon the resignation of Sir James Craig, Sir George Prevost remained in Nova Scotia, esteemed and beloved by all ranks of the inhabitants. On his departure for his new government, he received the most gratifying addresses from the inhabitants of Halifax,[20] and from the clergy of Nova Scotia, &c. &c.[21]

Upon the arrival of Sir George Prevost at Quebec in 1811, he found much dissatisfaction and discontent existing in the Lower Province. The inhabitants were divided into two parties, termed the English and the Canadian, and the feelings of hostility with which they viewed each other, had unfortunately not been allayed by the policy which the late Governor in Chief, Sir James Craig, had thought it necessary to adopt during his administration. To such a degree had this party spirit been carried, and so doubtful had he been of the disposition of the Canadians, that it had been thought inexpedient to call out the militia, lest they should make an improper use of the arms to be intrusted to them. Under these circumstances, it was evidently the duty of Sir George Prevost to conciliate, by every means in his power, the confidence and affection of the Canadians, more particularly as in case of hostilities with America, it would have been impossible to preserve Lower Canada without the cordial support of its inhabitants. Sir George Prevost therefore did not hesitate to adopt a system which the true interest of the Province seemed so imperiously to require. He anxiously endeavoured to unite the two adverse parties, and to soothe the irritation which not only threatened the tranquillity of his government, but even the safety of the colony itself. In the distribution of the patronage which he enjoyed, he resolved to be guided solely by a consideration of the public good, and when offices became vacant, he bestowed them, with a due regard to the merits of the individuals, indifferently upon the English and the Canadians.

The beneficial effects of these measures became every day more apparent. The Governor in Chief speedily acquired the confidence of all ranks of people, who submitted with cheerfulness to the privations and sacrifices which they were soon afterwards called upon to endure. In numerous instances he received from the inhabitants, both collectively and individually, the strongest proofs of their zeal; and he had the satisfaction of seeing them united in their attachment to his government, at a time when the preservation of the colony depended upon such feelings.

Having thus given a brief sketch of the situation in which the Governor in Chief found the Province of Lower Canada upon his arrival, and of the views and objects which he entertained respecting it, we shall proceed to point out the conduct which he pursued, when, from the aspect of affairs, it became evident that hostilities with America could not be long delayed. No sooner had Sir George Prevost assumed the chief command of the Canadas, than he became sensible of the necessity of placing those provinces in the most efficient state of defence; and he therefore applied himself with the utmost vigour and vigilance to call forth all their resources. It is difficult to believe that the unwearied exertions of Sir George Prevost, with a view to this important object, should have been altogether unknown to the writer in the Quarterly Review. But supposing him to have been ignorant of them, yet without access to the private and confidential correspondence which took place between Sir George Prevost and his Majesty's Government, or to the communications which passed between him and the officers under his command, it was impossible that the Reviewer could form a correct opinion upon the subject. And yet he has not hesitated boldly to assert, that, "in the winters of 1811 and 1812, although the designs upon the Canadas were openly avowed in the American Congress, except the embodying of the militia of the Lower Province, Sir George Prevost made not the slightest preparation for defence."[22] The following statement will show the degree of credit to which this assertion of the Reviewer is entitled.

In the month of September, 1811, Sir George Prevost arrived in Canada, and in the same month, proceeding from Quebec to the district of Montreal, he inspected the different forts and military positions in that neighbourhood, and on the American frontier. Soon after his return to Quebec in the November following, he communicated confidentially with the Adjutant-General of the forces in England, upon the apprehended hostilities with America. In December he proposed to Lord Liverpool, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, the raising a corps of Fencibles, from the Glengarry settlement in Upper Canada; and in his correspondence with Admiral Sawyer, who commanded on the Halifax station, he requested that a ship of war might be sent, on the opening of the navigation, to the St. Lawrence. In the month of February, 1812, another communication was made to the Secretary of State's Office, in which Sir George Prevost expressed a hope, that the proceedings in Washington would justify him, in making preparations to repel the threatened attack. Those preparations had been commenced as early as November, 1811, by forwarding arms and ammunition to the Upper Province. During the winter of 1811 and 1812, and the spring of the latter year, frequent communications passed between the Commander of the forces and Major-General Brock, who commanded in Upper Canada, respecting the preparations which would be necessary in the event of a war. It was proposed to reinforce Amherstburgh, and Fort George; and supplies of provisions, cavalry-arms, accoutrements and money, were directed to be conveyed to Upper Canada. Accoutrements and clothing for the militia in the Canadas, were requested from the British Government. Another schooner was directed to be built, to increase our marine on Lake Erie. Captain Gray, Deputy Assistant-Quarter-Master-General, was despatched to the Upper Province, in order to assist in forwarding these defensive preparations; and Captain Dixon, of the Royal Engineers, was directed to proceed to Amherstburgh, to inspect the works of that fort, which the Commander of the forces had ordered to be put in a tenable state. The propriety of strengthening and fortifying York was submitted to Government; and the commanding engineer was directed to make the repairs, which his report on the different forts and posts in Upper Canada, had stated to be necessary. In addition to these measures, a reinforcement from the 41st regiment, and five companies of the Newfoundland Fencibles, left Quebec in the month of May for the Upper Province.

On the 31st March, Sir George Prevost addressed a private and confidential letter to Major-General Brock, in which his sentiments respecting the approaching war, and the policy to be adopted in meeting it, were clearly detailed. One passage in this letter merits a more particular notice, since it is highly important, not only as repelling the accusation of the Reviewer respecting the want of preparation for the war, but also as containing an answer to another charge, which will afterwards be noticed. The paragraph in the letter is as follows: "You are nevertheless to persevere in your preparations for defence, and in such arrangements as may, upon a change in the state of affairs, enable you to employ any disposeable part of your force offensively against the common enemy."

Independently of all these various communications with the officer commanding in Upper Canada, respecting the measures to be pursued in the event of war, and of the supplies of men, arms, money, stores, and provisions, which, with a view to that event, had been afforded to Upper Canada; much correspondence had previously taken place, and many difficulties had been removed with regard to the supply and transport of the Indian presents to the Upper Province, upon the due furnishing of which very materially depended the support which we might expect to receive from the Indians, in case of a rupture with America.

From this statement, drawn from the original correspondence, and from official documents, it is evident, that even in contemplation of hostilities, an event by no means certain, and which the British Government were so far from thinking probable, that they discouraged any measure of extraordinary expense to meet it, the Commander of the forces did, as far as rested with him, during the winter of 1811 and 1812, and for months prior to the declaration of war, make every preparation for defence, consistent with the means which he possessed. All the requisitions of Major-General Brock which the Commander of the forces had the power to grant, were promptly complied with; nor was the slightest intimation ever given by that invaluable officer, that any measure, either suggested by himself or which ought to have occurred to the Commander of the forces, for the preservation of the Upper Province, in the event of its being attacked, had been overlooked or neglected. The same vigilant foresight will be found to mark the conduct of Sir George Prevost in the Lower Province. One of the first measures of his government, in contemplation of war, was an application to the legislature of Lower Canada, in February, 1812, for an act to new model the militia laws, and which might enable him to call forth a proportion of the population into active service. Averse as the Canadians had hitherto been to grant any power of this description to former Governors, and repugnant as many of the clauses which it was intended to introduce into the bill, were to the habits and feelings of the people, such was the deserved popularity acquired by Sir George Prevost, from the conciliatory policy, which, as before stated, he had adopted towards the Canadians, immediately upon his arrival amongst them, that he obtained from the Legislature nearly all that he had required. Before the end of May, 1812, a sum exceeding 60,000l. was placed at his disposal for the militia service; and he was authorized to embody 2,000 Bachelors, between the age of eighteen and twenty-five years, for three months in the year; and in case of invasion, or imminent danger of it, to retain them for a year. In case of war, he was empowered to embody if necessary, the whole militia of the Province. Under that law, a force of 2,000 men, from the finest and most efficient class of the militia, was embodied on the 13th May, so to remain for three months, unless the then state of affairs should render it expedient to retain them longer. A corps of Canadian voltigeurs, under the command of Major De Salaberry, of the 60th regiment, consisting of between 300 and 400 men, had likewise, been raised and disciplined; and 400 recruits for the Glengarry Fencibles, had, before the 1st June, been assembled at Three Rivers, in Lower Canada. The advantages arising from thus embodying the militia prior to the war, were incalculable, and it may be confidently asserted, materially contributed to the preservation of the Canadas.

The American Government, deceived by the erroneous information which they had received respecting the disaffection of the Canadian population to Great Britain, had calculated upon meeting with considerable support from the people in their invasion of the Province. They had been told, and they believed, that the militia would not serve, or, if embodied, would be worse than useless. The embodying, arming, and training of 2,000 of the most active portion of the population, for several weeks before the war was declared, was a severe disappointment to the American Government; and was one of the causes of that determined resistance, which they afterwards experienced in every attempt to penetrate into that Province. This militia force also enabled the Commander of the forces to detach a larger portion of the regular troops, than he could otherwise have been justified in parting with, to the Upper Province; while, at the same time, it afforded him the means, on the breaking out of the war, of guarding the different passes and roads into Lower Canada, with a description of men perfectly well acquainted with the nature of the country, and with the mode of warfare necessary for its defence. The line of frontier in the Lower Province was thus most effectually guarded by Sir George Prevost's able disposition of this new force, together with the assistance of the regular troops; and every prudent precaution consistent with his means, and with the instructions he was constantly receiving from England, to avoid all unnecessary expense, was taken. The precautionary measures which were pursued upon this occasion, by the Commander of the forces, met with the full approbation of His Majesty's Government, expressed in a despatch from Lord Bathurst, of the 6th November, 1812, in which his Lordship informed Sir George Prevost, that "the preparations for defence which he had made upon the first intimation of eventual hostility with America, and which he had since so vigorously continued, had met with the Prince Regent's entire approbation."

After charging Sir George Prevost with negligence, in not preparing to meet the threatened hostilities, the Reviewer proceeds to hazard an opinion, that the occupation and fortifying of Coteau du Lac, and Isle aux Noix, which he terms the keys of Lower Canada, was a measure which Sir George Prevost ought to have adopted, in preference to all others; but which he entirely overlooked and neglected.[23] The fact is, that the occupation of Coteau du Lac, as is well known to every military man acquainted with the Canadas, could only be useful as against the enemy advancing from Lake Ontario, or the shores of the St. Lawrence, above Montreal. No such force could be expected to descend the river from the lake, so long as we had the command of it, as we undoubtedly had, not only at the commencement of the war, but for several months afterwards; and as little was it to be apprehended as collecting on the shores of the river. The information which the Commander of the forces was constantly receiving of the intended movements of the enemy, and of the real and immediate object of their attack, was too correct to leave him in any doubt as to their attempting the Lower Province in that direction, or to induce him to diminish the small means he possessed, for the defence of more important points, by the occupation of posts which at that period could afford him no additional security. Coteau du Lac, was not therefore occupied as a post, either before the war or for several months afterwards, but its real importance was neither overlooked nor disregarded, as the Reviewer has stated. It was examined and reported upon by different officers, sent to inspect the line of frontier extending from Lower Canada to Lake Ontario, immediately after the declaration of war, and particularly by Colonel Lethbridge, who was afterwards in command there. In possession of Kingston, and commanding the waters of the lake, and with the knowledge possessed by Sir George Prevost, of the force and designs of the enemy, no military man in the Canadas, would have thought it necessary, in the then state of affairs, that Coteau du Lac should be occupied. When subsequent events clearly shewed the intentions of the enemy to invade Lower Canada from Lake Ontario, and when the means of Sir George Prevost were better adapted for defending the whole line of that frontier, Coteau du Lac was occupied and fortified; and had it not been for the defeat which part of General Dearborn's army met with from Lieutenant-Colonel Morrison's division in descending the St. Lawrence, that post would have presented a formidable obstacle to the advance of the enemy.

The importance of Isle aux Noix, as a post, has been considerably lessened[24] since the defence of the Canadas by the French, in consequence of the facility with which Lower Canada may now be entered by the various routes which the intercourse between that Province and the United States has created. Isle aux Noix had long ceased to be either the only, or principal barrier between the two countries. The occupation of this post was not therefore deemed necessary as a precautionary measure before the war; nor was it until some time afterwards that Sir George Prevost was enabled to put it in a state of defence. As soon, however, as the reinforcements and supplies from England gave him the means of more effectually guarding all the avenues to the Lower Province, Isle aux Noix became the object of his consideration. In consequence of the condition in which it was then placed, and of the force stationed there, two armed schooners of the enemy fell into our possession, and laid the foundation of the marine which was afterwards formed for carrying forward the operations on Lake Champlain. There cannot be a stronger proof of the little importance which the enemy themselves attached to this post in the early part of the contest, than their never making the slightest attempt to obtain possession of it.

Having thus stated what Sir George Prevost did not do, by way of preparation for the defence of the Canadas before the war, the Reviewer proceeds to point out what was done by him after the commencement of hostilities. And here we find the same want of candour which distinguishes the remarks to which we have already adverted.[25]

In order to form a correct opinion of Sir George Prevost's conduct at this period, it will be necessary to advert to the system which he adopted on the commencement of the war, and to the motives which induced him to pursue it.

The declaration of war by the United States of America, it is well known, was finally carried in Congress, after long debate, and a most violent opposition, by a comparatively small majority. The northern and eastern states, whose interests, it was acknowledged, were most affected by the British orders in council, the ostensible and avowed cause of the war, were constantly and strenuously opposed to hostile measures. It was apparent to every person at all conversant with what was passing in the United States at this time, that a contest undertaken in opposition to the sentiments and wishes of so considerable a portion of the Union, and for an object which Great Britain might, without any sacrifice of national honor, so easily concede, as she was, in fact, about to do, at that very period, must necessarily be of short duration. This was the opinion entertained by the most sensible and well informed men in the northern and eastern states, as well as in the Canadas, and in that opinion Sir George Prevost concurred. It will likewise be seen, that the sentiments of His Majesty's Government on this head were in unison with those of the Commander of the forces. Under these circumstances, and with these impressions, it became the obvious policy of Sir George Prevost, upon the breaking out of the war, to avoid whatever might tend to widen the breach between the two countries, and to pursue a line of conduct, which, while it should effectually tend to defeat the object of the American Government in their attack upon the Canadas, should also serve still further to increase the dislike and opposition of the northern and eastern states, to those measures of aggression against the British Provinces, which they had constantly predicted would be attended with discomfiture and disgrace. In his adherence to this defensive system, Sir George Prevost was encouraged and supported, as it will speedily be shewn, not only by the approbation of the British Government, but likewise by the concurrence of those who were best qualified by their knowledge and situation to form a correct judgment on the propriety of the measures which he was pursuing. This policy was also the more necessary, in consequence of the inadequacy of the means possessed by the Commander of the forces to repel the threatened attack of the Americans at the commencement of the contest. The whole of the regular force at that time in the Canadas did not amount to 5,000 men; the law for embodying the militia had only been recently passed; and the population, which had been previously considered as not well affected, had neither been armed nor accustomed to discipline for many years. The military chest was exhausted, and there was little prospect, that for some months at least, considering the exertions which Great Britain was then called upon to make in Europe, any supplies either of men or money could be afforded for the defence of her Dominions in North America. These difficulties neither depressed nor discouraged the ardent and active spirit of Sir George Prevost. Although he fully coincided in opinion with that able and judicious officer Sir James Craig, that in the event of a war with America, Quebec should be the object of primary consideration; yet the defence of the whole line of frontier between the Canadas and the United States, occupied his early and serious consideration. That frontier comprehended a distance of more than 900 miles, every part of which he determined to dispute inch by inch, and to defend by every means in his power.

It was in pursuance of the defensive line of policy which had been so wisely determined upon, as well with reference to his own resources, and the character of the enemy with whom he had to contend, as to the views and instructions of the British Government, that the Commander of the forces immediately after the commencement of the war, gave general instructions to those in command under him, to abstain from any unnecessary and uncalled for act of hostility upon the American territory. Notwithstanding these general instructions, much was of course left to the discretion of those who received them, in availing themselves of any fair opportunity of retaliating upon the enemy the aggressive warfare they might attempt, by attacking, wherever it might be done with any reasonable prospect of success, the contiguous forts and possessions of the Americans.

The private letter of 31st March, 1812, to Major-General Brock, from which an extract has already been made, evidently shews, that Sir George Prevost never meant to restrain the officers in command under him from acting upon the offensive, whenever circumstances were such as would justify their departure from the defensive system. Of these circumstances they were the best judges. That this was the light in which Sir George Prevost's instructions were viewed by Major-General Brock, appears by the following extract from a letter addressed by him to the Commander of the forces, on the 3rd July, 1812, at which time he was fully aware of the defensive line of policy which had been adopted:

"The account received, first through a mercantile channel, and soon after repeated from various quarters, of war having been declared by the United States against Great Britain, would have justified, in my opinion, offensive operations. But the reflexion, that at Detroit and St. Joseph's, the weak state of the garrisons would prevent the Commanders from attempting any essential service connected in any degree with their future security, and that my only means of annoyance on this communication, was limited to the reduction of Fort Niagara, which could be battered at any future period, I relinquished my original intentions, and attended only to defensive measures."

That Captain Roberts, the commanding officer at Fort St. Joseph's, acted from a sense of this discretion thus entrusted to him, there cannot be a doubt, as in his official letter to the Adjutant-General, announcing the capture of Michilimachinac, he does not allude in the slightest degree to his having acted contrary to his orders. The approval of his conduct in general orders is likewise a convincing proof that Sir George Prevost considered that he had acted up to the spirit of his instructions whatever they might have been, and that he had used a sound discretion respecting them.

It however clearly appears by the above letter, that Captain Roberts acted altogether from the orders he received from Major-General Brock, who was fully aware, as it has been already shewn, of the sentiments of Sir George Prevost, and who did not hesitate to give Captain Roberts the discretionary order, which led to the attack and capture of the fort.

It will be seen from the preceding pages, that the approaching hostilities with America had been the subject of frequent communication between Sir George Prevost and Major-General Brock, for several months prior to the commencement of the war; and that, in more than one letter to which reference has been made, the precautions necessary to be taken, and the system and line of defence to be adopted in the event of war, had been clearly and distinctly pointed out. Possessed then, as Sir George Prevost knew General Brock to be, of his sentiments on this subject, and aware that he would receive from the North West company, from whom he had himself derived the information, the earliest intelligence of the actual declaration of war, an immediate further communication of his sentiments was unnecessary. On the day, however, on which the intelligence of that event reached Quebec, the 25th June, 1812, a letter was despatched to Major-General Brock from the Adjutant-General, communicating the information; and as soon as the important arrangements respecting the Lower Province, and particularly those for the defence of Quebec had been completed, Sir George Prevost proceeded to Montreal. Upon his receiving at that place a despatch from Mr. Foster, our late minister at Washington, with an official notification of the war, he immediately afterwards, (on 7th July,) and within a fortnight after the first intelligence of it had reached him at Quebec, sent off his first despatch to Major-General Brock. This was followed by another on the 10th of the same month by Colonel Lethbridge, who was sent to take the command at Kingston; and in both these letters every instruction and information which Sir George Prevost's situation afforded, or enabled him to give, were sent to the Major-General. That these despatches did not reach General Brock until the 29th of the month was owing to circumstances over which Sir George Prevost had no control. It must be observed, however, that General Brock received the despatches several days before he set off to join the army opposed to General Hull, although the Reviewer[26] gives his readers to understand that it did not arrive until after General Hull's capture.

The above statement will afford a full and satisfactory answer to the misrepresentations of the Quarterly Reviewer,[27] and to the unwarrantable insinuation by which they are accompanied, if indeed any answer were wanting to assertions in which the writer has directly contradicted himself. The Reviewer states, "that Sir George Prevost sent no instructions whatever to General Brock for some weeks after he received intimation of the war:"—and further, "that he, General Brock, was only restrained from the measure of attacking Fort Niagara, by the perplexity of his situation, in being left without orders." It is singular that the writer should have forgotten, that only five pages before, he had stated[28] that "on the receipt of the intelligence of the American declaration of war, Major-General Brock, who commanded the troops in the Upper Province immediately despatched discretionary orders to the British officer in charge of Fort St. Joseph's, to act either offensively or otherwise against the enemy at Michilimachinac, as he should find advisable." If General Brock was justified in giving these discretionary orders to act offensively as circumstances might require, it follows that he must have considered a similar line of conduct open to himself; and yet, in the face of this statement, the Reviewer gravely endeavours to persuade his readers, that General Brock was in perplexity with regard to the measures which he should pursue.

The Reviewer's insinuation, that Sir G. Prevost sent no instructions to General Brock for some weeks after he received intimation of the war, with the intention of leaving that officer to act on his own responsibility, cannot be passed over in silence. It has been already proved, by incontrovertible facts, that the contemptible motives thus attributed to the Commander of the forces, could not possibly have existed in his mind; and the attempt to impute to him a conduct so dishonorable ought therefore to be marked with the severest reprobation. No two persons could more sincerely respect and esteem each other than these gallant and high-minded individuals. Sir George Prevost had early evinced his opinion of General Brock's merits and talents, in a private communication to him of the 22d Jan. 1812, several months before the war; and the reply of General Brock to that communication, was sufficient evidence of the sentiments he entertained towards the Commander, under whom he expressed himself to be so desirous of serving. Indeed, the utmost confidence and cordiality prevailed between these officers, as is amply manifested in the correspondence before referred to; and wherever a difference of opinion did exist, General Brock never hesitated to yield to what he expressed and considered the superior knowledge and experience of the Commander in Chief.

The conduct of Sir George Prevost in his communications with General Brock, after receiving intelligence of the war, was not attended with any of those consequences which the Reviewer has asserted. Upon this head General Brock's correspondence with the Commander of the forces is conclusive.

The first letter from that officer, after the receipt of the intelligence of the war, is dated the 3d July, at Fort George; the extract from which, already given, is a convincing proof, that whatever might have been his intention in moving from York to Fort George, he was not restrained from the measure of attacking Fort Niagara by any deficiency of instructions from the Commander of the Forces.

The next letter from General Brock is from Fort George, dated 12th July, and states that the enemy were constructing batteries at the different points of the frontier; that he was making exertions to counteract their views; and that the arrival, that morning, of the Royal George and the vessels under convoy, bringing various pieces of ordnance, would give him a decided superiority. Not a single word is said in this despatch of any wish or intention on the part of the Major-General to invade the American territory. Major-General Brock's next letter of the 20th July states, that the enemy had evidently diminished his force, and appeared to have no intention of making an immediate attack. This letter also communicated the intelligence of General Hull's invasion of the Province. It likewise contained details of General Brock's means of defensive warfare, and expressed some apprehension for the fate of the troops under his command, should the communication be cut off between Kingston and Montreal; which apprehension was entertained by him on the supposition, as he stated, that "the slender means possessed by Sir G. Prevost would not admit of diminution, and consequently that he could not look for reinforcements." The same letter acknowledged the receipt of the Adjutant General's communication from Quebec, of 25th June, of the declaration of war. In the succeeding despatch from General Brock to Sir G. Prevost, dated 26th July, from Fort George, that officer writes as follows: "I have not deemed it of sufficient importance to commence active operations on this line by an attack on Fort Niagara; it can be demolished, when found necessary, in half an hour, and there my means of annoyance would cease. To enable the militia to acquire some degree of discipline, without interruption, is of far greater consequence than such a conquest."

The next letter from the Major-General, dated from York, the 28th July, principally relates to the approaching meeting of the legislature, and mentions his intention of detaching a force for the relief of Amherstburg. A letter from the same place, written on the following day, communicates the surrender of Michilimachinac, and particularly acknowledges the receipt of Sir George Prevost's despatches of the 7th and 10th July, written after the declaration of war, and before alluded to. General Brock also states his intention of embarking immediately in the Prince Regent, (the vessel which had been built and equipped since the month of March preceding), for Fort George, from whence he should speedily return to York. On the 4th August, a short letter was addressed by General Brock to Sir G. Prevost, from York, principally upon the proceeding of the legislature, regarding the militia laws, and on the following day he set off for Amherstburg, from whence he did not return until after the glorious termination of Hull's invasion. It was, therefore, from a consideration of the nature of his resources, and of the necessity of maturing and husbanding them, and from a conviction that Niagara would easily fall whenever he should be inclined to attack it, and not from any doubt arising from want of instructions, that General Brock abandoned the attempt.

It was in further pursuance of the line of policy adopted at the commencement of the war, that Sir George Prevost, upon the receipt of despatches from Mr. Foster, acquainting him with the proposed repeal of the Orders in Council by the British Government, immediately opened a communication with Major-General Dearborn, commanding the American forces on the frontier of Lower Canada, for the purpose of concluding an armistice, until the Congress should determine upon the proposals transmitted to them by Mr. Foster. An armistice of about three weeks did accordingly take place; and whatever might be the advantage arising from it to the American commanders and their troops, from the time and opportunity it afforded them of increasing their means of attacking the Canadas, it is obvious that the cessation of hostilities was of far more importance to Sir George Prevost, by enabling him to mature his preparations for defence. In fact, at the very time the armistice was negotiating, a regiment had arrived in the river from the West Indies; and after the conclusion, and during the continuance of it, considerable reinforcements of men and supplies were forwarded to Upper Canada, where they armed before the resuming of hostilities, and materially contributed towards defeating the attempts which the enemy afterwards made to invade that province.

Intelligence of the conclusion of the armistice was despatched to General Brock on the 12th August, by Brigade-Major Sheckleton, and must have reached him at Amherstburg before he left that place for Fort George, where he arrived the 6th September; but, whatever may have been General Brock's opinion of the policy of the measure, we do not find in his letter of the 7th September to Sir George Prevost, that the receipt of that intelligence had at all interfered with any intention he had previously entertained of "sweeping" (according to the Reviewer's assertion) "the Niagara line of the American garrisons, which he knew were then unprepared for vigorous resistance."[29] In fact, as that letter states, the armistice was to terminate the next day; and so far was General Brock from being in a situation to act offensively, that he states his expectation of an almost immediate attack, and of his having sent to Amherstburg to Colonel Proctor, as well as to Colonel Vincent at Kingston, for reinforcements, to enable him to meet it; expressing at the same time his hope, that if he could continue to maintain his position for six weeks longer, the campaign would terminate in a manner little expected in the United States.

Upon the expiration of the armistice, Sir George Prevost resolved to continue, for a time at least, and until his resources would better enable him to pursue a contrary line of conduct, the same defensive system which he had previously determined upon; and which he had been originally induced to adopt, in consequence of the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed at the commencement of hostilities, and of the war having been undertaken, on the part of the United States, so much in opposition to the opinions and wishes of a considerable portion of its population. In a private letter from Sir George Prevost to General Brock, of the 2d August, 1812, upon the subject of the proposed armistice, he particularly refers to the opinion of Mr. Foster, respecting the policy of the defensive system. "Mr. Foster," he says, "submits the propriety of our abstaining from an invasion of the United States' territory, as only in such event could the American government be empowered to order the militia out of the States." As a further ground for this line of conduct, and a confirmation of the propriety of his own opinion in adopting it, he quotes in a subsequent communication to General Brock, of 30th August, 1812, the opinion of his Majesty's Government on the subject. "The King's Government having most unequivocally expressed to me their desire to preserve peace with the United States, that they might uninterruptedly pursue, with the whole disposeable force of the country, the great interests committed to them in Europe, I have endeavoured to be instrumental in the accomplishment of those views; but I consider it most fortunate to have been enabled to do so without interfering with your operations on the Detroit. I have sent you men, money, and stores of every kind." It cannot be matter of surprise that Sir George Prevost should persevere in his defensive system, even after the termination of the armistice, and when from the manner in which the Government of the United States had received the communication of the repeal of the Orders in Council, it was evident that they meant to continue the war for other objects; for it ought to be considered, that up to that period, the only reinforcements of troops received by him were the 103d, nearly a boy-regiment, and the first battalion of the Royals from the West Indies, the latter incomplete, from the capture of part of their numbers, on board of one of the transports, by an American frigate. In consequence, however, of this addition to the force in the Lower Province, Sir George Prevost was enabled immediately to strengthen the army in Upper Canada, by detachments from the 49th regiment, Royal Newfoundland Fencibles, and Royal Veterans; but it must be evident that the total accession of strength in both Provinces was not sufficient to warrant a departure from a system, which had been adopted after the fullest deliberation, and upon a just calculation of the means necessary to meet the American warfare. The grounds of Sir George Prevost's opinion on this head had been stated to General Brock, in his letters to him of the 7th and 10th July, before referred to; and as a further confirmation of the necessity of adhering to it, in his communication to General Brock, of the 17th September, Sir George Prevost acquaints him, that in his last despatches from Lord Bathurst, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 4th July, 1812, he is told by him, "That his Majesty's Government trusts he will be enabled to suspend, with perfect safety, all extraordinary preparations for defence, which he may have been induced to make, in consequence of the precarious state of the relations between Great Britain and the United States."—As this opinion of the British Government was evidently founded upon their belief, that the revocation of the Orders in Council would either prevent war, if not declared, or lead to an immediate peace, had hostilities commenced, it was plain that no further reinforcements could be expected to be even ordered from England, until accounts should arrive there of the reception which the intelligence of the revocation of the Orders in Council had met with from the Government of the United States. As this could not well be before the end of September, there was not the slightest prospect of any addition being afforded to the force in the Canadas before the ensuing year; and it was therefore certain, that the Commander of the forces would until that period be completely left to his own resources for the defence of those Provinces.

To husband those resources became, under these circumstances, his imperious duty. The posture of affairs in Lower Canada, as he had stated to General Brock, in his letter of the 17th September, particularly on the frontier of Montreal, required every soldier in that Province, and no further reinforcements could be sent by him to the other. Not aware of any advantage which could arise from offensive operations against America, to compensate for the loss they might occasion, and for the consequent insecurity to the Provinces which he was defending, Sir George Prevost continued to urge upon General Brock, and after his death, upon his successor, General Sheaffe, the necessity of adhering to a defensive system; nor does it appear from any part of the correspondence between these officers and Sir George Prevost, that they had any particular object in view, which that policy restrained them from pursuing. Previous to the armistice, and to the capture of Hull's army at Detroit, General Brock had in his letters of 3d and 26th July, 1812, before referred to, given his reasons, which were evidently independent of the consideration of any instructions from Sir George Prevost, why he did not meditate offensive operations against the American frontier; and subsequent to the capture of Detroit, and after his arrival at Fort George in September, it has been clearly shewn, that his situation and means precluded him from such measures, except at a great risk, and for the accomplishment of inadequate objects.

The correctness of this statement appears from a letter addressed by General Brock, to Sir George Prevost, on the 13th September, 1812, from Fort George; in which he says, "that although he had learnt from deserters, (but which information he had reason afterwards to think, as he acknowledged, was not altogether correct), that great dissatisfaction prevailed amongst the American troops on the Niagara frontier, and that therefore much might be effected against such a body at that moment; that keeping in mind his excellency's instructions, and aware of the policy of permitting such a force to dwindle away by it's own inefficient means, he did not contemplate any immediate attack." Two strong inferences naturally arise from this letter—the one, that General Brock must have considered the instructions received from Sir George Prevost, as to defensive measures not positive, as the Reviewer has thought fit to state them to have been, but discretionary; the other, that General Brock himself, was convinced of the policy of abstaining from offensive operations against an enemy circumstanced as the Americans then were. That this policy was a wise one, was manifest from the result. Had any attack been made on Fort Niagara, or had that general sweeping of the American garrisons on the frontier, (which the critic seems to think so easy an achievement) been attempted, there cannot be a doubt but that this invasion of the American territory, before the enemy had made an attack upon our own frontier, would have united the whole population, not only of the states bordering upon that line, but of every other part of the union, in the prosecution of the war. The militia already assembled upon that frontier, and who were known to be dissatisfied, and anxious to return to their homes, would in the event of an attack upon their territory, not only have cheerfully remained to repel the aggression, but would have been further obliged to pass the frontier, for the invasion of Canada; which, without such an attack on our part, they could not have been compelled to do. Aware of this circumstance, it was the policy of the American Government, to hold out lures to our officers, commanding on the frontiers, to induce them to commence an offensive warfare. Sir George Prevost, however, saw through their design, and fortunately disappointed it. The consequence was, that finding their militia could no longer be kept together, and that the season was fast approaching, when all offensive operations must cease, the American commanders urged the troops on that line, to that ill-concerted expedition, which ended in the battle of Queenstown, and which, though attended with the irreparable loss to the British forces of their gallant Commander, terminated in the disgrace and defeat of the American army; and was thus the means of preserving, at least for that campaign, the Province of Upper Canada. Brilliant as had been the success of our arms at the battle of Queenstown, and complete as had been the overthrow of the enemy, they still remained in sufficient force on the opposite territory, to make an immediate attack upon their frontier, notwithstanding the dismay with which the critic seems to think the Americans were filled,[30] something more than hazardous. Out of the small force of less than 900 regular troops which we had on the field that day, nearly 100 of them were killed or wounded, and many were necessarily engaged in guarding the prisoners, whose numbers amounted to more than our own regular force. The enemy had received reinforcements in their line during the day of the action, and others were constantly arriving. Under these circumstances is it to be wondered at, that Major-General Sheaffe should not have listened to the suggestions of any of his officers, if such were made, and the fact is more than doubtful, to cross over immediately after the action, when according to the Reviewer's sagacious opinion, "Fort Niagara might have been taken, and the whole of the Niagara line cleared of the American troops!"

Such an attempt might indeed have averted the insinuation levelled by the critic against General Sheaffe and Sir George Prevost as lovers of armistices, but would have evinced great want of military judgment and prudence in General Sheaffe, and have hazarded all the advantages gained by the gallant and able conduct of his lamented predecessor, and strengthened and confirmed at Queenstown by himself. General Sheaffe was, therefore, wisely contented with having foiled a second attempt of a superior force to invade the Province; and, anxious to secure its future preservation, he willingly acceded to a proposal for an armistice, which he knew, under the circumstances of his situation, would be of incalculably more benefit to himself than to the enemy. It must be evident to every one at all conversant with military subjects, that to those who are carrying on a defensive warfare, which their inferiority of force and means of every description has obliged them to adopt, a suspension of hostilities must be infinitely more beneficial than to the opposite party. General Sheaffe was fully aware of the importance of this measure to the safety of the province, which on the death of General Brock was entrusted to him, since he was in daily expectation of receiving supplies of clothing, and other articles which were indispensable for the militia, who had become much dissatisfied from the want of those articles. Reinforcements of troops were also on their way to him; and, in fact, these supplies and reinforcements did arrive during the continuance of the armistice, and materially contributed to foil the further efforts of the enemy to invade the Province. It may also be added, that the armistice was further expedient in the first instance, when its duration was limited to three days, for the purpose of affording time for carrying into effect the proposed exchange of prisoners, the removal of those that were wounded, and the passing over to the enemy's side the militia paroles. Some portion of time was also necessary for performing, without any hostile interruption, the last tribute of respect to the memory of the gallant Commander who had then lately fallen. The subsequent prolongation of the armistice to an indefinite period, although it was in the power of either party to terminate the same by thirty hours notice, perfectly coincided with Major-General Sheaffe's system of defensive warfare, and permitted him to leave Fort George for a short time, and proceed to York, where his presence was indispensable for the purpose of being sworn in, and assuming the civil government.

It has been thought necessary to say thus much in vindication of this measure, from a sense of justice to a gallant and meritorious officer, although it was adopted without any reference to, and without the consent or approbation of Sir George Prevost. The Reviewer has indeed thought fit to characterize the armistice[31] as one for which no reason, civil or military, was ever assigned; whereas it was notorious to the army employed on the Niagara line that General Sheaffe was influenced in this step by the motives and circumstances already stated, all of which were immediately communicated by him to Sir George Prevost. If any thing further were necessary to be adduced in vindication of the policy of the defensive system, of which these armistices formed a part, and which the Reviewer has thought fit so groundlessly to denominate short-sighted and ill-judged, although attended with results so favourable to the safety of both Provinces, it will be found in the complete approbation expressed by his Majesty's Government. In Lord Bathurst's despatch to Sir George Prevost, of the 4th July, 1812, written before the intelligence of the declaration of war, by America, had reached England, his Lordship says, "The instructions given by you to Major-General Brock and Sir John Sherbrooke, cautioning them against any premature measures of hostility, or any deviation from a line of conduct strictly defensive, meets with the full approbation of his Royal Highness the Prince Regent."

In a subsequent despatch of the 10th Aug., Lord Bathurst approves of the general principles upon which Sir George Prevost intended to conduct the operations of the war, by making the defence of Quebec paramount to every other consideration, in the event of invasion. In a later despatch of the date of the 1st October, 1812, his Lordship says, "I have it in command from his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, to convey to you his most unqualified approbation of the measures which you have adopted for defending the Provinces under your charge, and of those to which you have had recourse for deferring, if not altogether preventing, any resort to actual hostility." On the subject of the armistice, he adds, "The desire which you have unceasingly manifested to avoid hostilities, with the subjects of the United States, is not more in conformity with your own feelings, than with the wishes and intentions of his Majesty's Government, and therefore your correspondence with General Dearborn cannot fail to receive their cordial concurrence."

In a further despatch from Lord Bathurst, dated the 10th October, 1812, acknowledging the receipt of the letter from Sir George Prevost, which announced the surrender of General Hull, with his army, to General Brock, and communicating his Royal Highness the Prince Regent's approbation of the conduct of General Brock, his officers and troops, on that occasion, his Lordship adds—"I am further commanded by his Royal Highness to say, that in giving every credit to Major-General Brock, and the army under his command, he is fully sensible how much your exertions and arrangements have contributed to the fortunate conclusion of the campaign in Upper Canada." In Lord Bathurst's despatch of the 16th November following, he says, "The measures which you have taken for obstructing the navigation of the Richelieu, by the erection of works on the Isle Aux Noix, appear well calculated to impede the advance of the enemy in that quarter."

Testimonials like these, so highly honorable to the zeal and ability displayed by Sir George Prevost, are sufficient of themselves to afford a complete answer to the Reviewer's assertions. That writer's remark, with regard to "the practical illustration of the tendency"[32] of Sir George Prevost's defensive system, is directly in opposition to the facts, both as respects the conduct of Colonel Procter, in consequence of his orders, and the effect produced by that conduct upon the minds of the Indians. In proof of this assertion, it is only necessary to advert to the two expeditions, of Captain Muir to Fort Wayne, in September, 1812, and of Lieutenant Dewar to the Fort of the Rapids of the Miami, in October following. The former of these expeditions tended, for some time at least, to retard the preparations which the enemy were making for their second advance to the Detroit frontier, which terminated in the defeat and capture of General Winchester and his army, while both expeditions afforded to the Indians a strong proof of our desire to co-operate with them, as far as was consistent with the security of our own Provinces, and of the Michigan territory. Neither of these expeditions would have been undertaken, had not Colonel Procter's orders been discretionary instead of positive. It is certainly true, that Sir George Prevost did wish to discourage the employment of the regular troops under Colonel Procter, in offensive operations jointly with the Indians; because such a course of proceeding was neither consistent with the instructions he had received from his Majesty's Government, nor compatible with the military resources of his command. At the same time he merely recommended to Colonel Procter a cautious line of conduct, chiefly directed to the preservation of the district committed to his charge; and it is evident that Colonel Procter's use of the discretion thus entrusted to him, had the effect of retaining the willing services of the Indians during the whole period of our remaining in possession of the Michigan territory, and up to the time of the unfortunate retreat and consequent capture of Colonel Procter's detachment at the Moravian village.

Having thus briefly adverted to the principal occurrences of the first campaign in Upper Canada, it becomes necessary to say a few words with regard to those of the Lower Province, during the same period; and which, being under the immediate direction of Sir George Prevost, the Reviewer has thought proper to characterize as utterly insignificant.[33] Almost immediately after intelligence of the war had arrived at Quebec, Sir George Prevost repaired to Montreal, for the purpose of providing for the defence of that frontier; and having established a cordon of troops in the situations most exposed to attack, between the St. Lawrence and the Richelieu rivers, consisting of all the flank companies of the 49th and 100th regiments, together with three battalions of embodied militia, and one of Canadian voltigeurs, which last four corps had been raised and disciplined previous to the war, he returned to Quebec, in order to meet the Provincial Parliament. The legislature had been summoned, principally, for the purpose of obtaining from them an act authorizing the circulation of army bills, a measure to which from his deserved popularity with that body, they did not hesitate to accede, and without which, from the want of specie, it would scarcely have been possible to carry on the public service. To many of the arrangements and measures of Sir George Prevost, for reinforcing and strengthening Upper Canada, as well as for guarding the approaches to the Lower Province, reference has already been made. The whole summer had been unceasingly employed in these important objects, and the greatest exertions had been made to transport and convey to Kingston, by the tedious route of the St. Lawrence, against the current, and along a frontier much exposed to the enemy, the various supplies which the exigencies of the Upper Province demanded; all of which, by the judicious and able arrangements made by him for that purpose, arrived safe and without loss, or with very inconsiderable molestation.

In the month of August Sir George Prevost again repaired to Montreal, in order that he might be ready to take the field, should the movements of General Dearborn, who commanded the enemy's forces on that frontier, indicate any intention of attacking our line of defence, which had been entrusted to the charge of Major-General de Rottenburg. General Dearborn having, on the 16th November, advanced from Plattsburg to Champlain town, close upon our frontier line, thereby threatening the front of Major-General de Rottenburg's position, Sir George Prevost, upon the receipt of this intelligence, crossed the St. Lawrence with a considerable proportion of the force then at Montreal, in order to strengthen the point thus threatened, and established his head-quarters at Chambly, where he remained for several weeks. Whether this movement on the part of General Dearborn was made in the expectation of finding that no effectual resistance would be offered by the Canadian population to his further advance into the Province, or with the view of preventing the sending of reinforcements from the Lower to the Upper Province, he was equally disappointed in both these objects. The able measures adopted by Sir George Prevost in the disposition of the regular troops, as well as of the militia, who displayed the most ardent spirit of loyalty, and the most resolute determination to repel every attempt of the enemy to invade the Colony, induced the American Commander in Chief to abandon any further intention of advancing. After pushing forward a few reconnoitring parties which were invariably forced to retreat without effecting their object, he was ultimately compelled, by the advanced season of the year, to close the campaign, and to put the army into winter quarters.

The result of the first campaign was highly honorable to the military talents of the Commander of the forces. The enemy, notwithstanding their superior resources, were foiled in every attempt which they made to invade the Provinces, with the loss in one instance of the whole of their army, together with the Commander; while, in the other, their troops suffered a total defeat, attended with the capture of a General Officer, and upwards of 700 men.

But while thus engaged in his military duties, Sir George Prevost was not unmindful of the importance of our naval superiority upon the Lakes, though in this as in every other part of his conduct, he has fallen under the indiscriminate censure of the Quarterly Reviewer,[34] who has accused him of neglecting to preserve the naval ascendancy which we enjoyed on Lakes Erie and Ontario, at the commencement of the contest.

As early as the month of December, 1811, as appears from a letter addressed by Sir George Prevost to General Brock, he had directed his attention towards our marine on Lake Erie, and had given directions for the building of a schooner at Amherstburg. Our force on the Lake, at that period, consisted of the ship Queen Charlotte, and Hunter schooner, both of which were armed and actually employed. The Americans possessed at the same period a brig, the Detroit, and a sloop, the former a very fine vessel, and in readiness for any service, although then laid up at Presque Isle. During the whole of the campaign of 1812, our vessels navigated the Lake without any attempt on the part of the enemy to interrupt them, and materially contributed to the success of our arms in that quarter, by the countenance and protection afforded by them to the garrison at Amherstburg, and by the transportation from Fort Erie of such stores, provisions, and supplies as were indispensable for the security of the former post. In direct variance with the Reviewer's assertion,[35] that "not one effort was made by Sir George Prevost to increase our marine at that period;" it is a remarkable fact that the schooner, Lady Prevost, which he had ordered to be built in December, 1811, was launched and fitted out, and was actually employed on the Lake within a month after the declaration of war, and essentially assisted in the transport of the arms, provisions, &c. before mentioned, during nearly the whole of the first campaign. Of the force which the enemy then possessed on this Lake, consisting of the Detroit and a schooner, the former fell into our possession upon the surrender of General Hull with his army; and, although she was recaptured in the October following, under circumstances which, considering the superiority of the enemy, reflected no discredit upon the officer commanding her, and the men under him, she made no accession to their strength, as she was burnt the day afterwards by our troops, and the Caledonia, a private vessel, captured with her, was rendered a mere wreck by the fire from our fort and batteries. On Lake Erie, therefore, during the whole of the campaign of 1812, our naval ascendancy was decisive; to strengthen and preserve which, the efforts of Sir George Prevost materially contributed. On Lake Ontario, our superiority, as well at the commencement of hostilities, as long prior and subsequent to that period, was still more apparent and efficient. In March, 1812, our force on that Lake consisted of the Royal George ship of 24 guns, the brig Moira of 16 guns, and two schooners; whilst that of the enemy was composed of a single brig laid up at Sackett's Harbour. But the importance of maintaining this great superiority over the enemy was not lost sight of by Sir George Prevost. As early as January, 1812, Captain Gray, an able officer of the Quarter-Master-General's department, under which the marine was placed, was despatched to York for the purpose, amongst other services, of consulting with Major-General Brock, upon the best means of preserving the ascendancy which we possessed upon Lake Ontario. In consequence of Captain Gray's suggestion, the building of a very fine schooner, called the Prince Regent, was commenced at York in the following March, which was launched, equipped, and employed upon the Lake in conveying supplies of great importance on the 3d July, immediately after notice of the declaration of war had been received in Upper Canada. This fact furnishes a full contradiction to the assertion of the Reviewer,[36] that "after slumbering away the summer and autumn without one effort to increase our marine in amount or efficiency, Sir George Prevost suddenly awoke, in the depth of winter, to a sense of the condition to which his supineness had reduced the British cause, and the building of two frigates commenced with convulsive activity." That Sir George Prevost, with so decided a naval ascendancy on both lakes at the commencement of the war, should not have thought himself justified in any extraordinary exertions to increase that ascendancy, is not to be wondered, at when it is considered, that for every purpose of the defensive system which he had adopted, the British force upon the Lakes was amply sufficient, and that Government would not have approved, in the then state of affairs, of the expense which such a measure must unavoidably have occasioned. Aware, however, as Sir George Prevost was of the important advantages which the dominion of the Lakes afforded for the preservation of the Canadas, he had, both long before, and immediately after the commencement of the war, called the attention of His Majesty's Government to that subject. He had also in his communication with General Brock, and particularly by the Deputy Assistant Quarter-Master-General, invited his consideration of the same matter. It certainly affords a strong proof of the conviction of that gallant and able officer, that our force on those waters needed no extraordinary exertion at that time to increase it beyond what had been already made; that, excepting in his letter before referred to, of 2d December, 1811, he never once mentioned the subject of our marine in his various different communications with Sir George Prevost, respecting the means of defending the Upper Province, until in his despatch of the 11th October, 1812, he acquainted the Commander of the forces with the recapture of the brig Detroit by the enemy. Previous, however, to this period, and as soon as Sir George Prevost had reason to suppose from the refusal of the American Government to accede to the Armistice, or to consider the revocation of the Orders in Council a sufficient ground for pacification, that the war would be continued, and that renewed efforts would be made for the invasion of the Canadas, he had strongly represented to His Majesty's Government the absolute necessity of experienced officers and able seamen being sent to him, to enable him to preserve the ascendancy which our marine then enjoyed. In a letter addressed to General Brock, on the 19th October, 1812, he authorized that officer to take whatever measures he might deem necessary for the accomplishment of the same object, without further reference to himself. It was not ascertained, until towards the end of October, that any extraordinary exertions were making by the enemy to equip and fit out a squadron at Sackett's Harbour. The arrival of Commodore Chauncey, with a number of shipwrights and seamen, making their intentions evident, Captain Gray, of the Quarter-Master-General's department, was sent to Kingston, to direct the laying down of the keels of two frigates, the one at that place, and the other at York; and in the month of December, more than 120 shipwrights, together with 30 seamen, engaged at Quebec, arrived in the Upper Province, and the building of the two frigates immediately commenced. In the same month, directions were given for the building of a ship, of the dimensions and tonnage of the Queen Charlotte, together with several gun-boats at Amherstburg, on Lake Erie. During the whole of the summer after the declaration of war, the superiority of our fleet on Lake Ontario, had enabled us uninterruptedly to transport from Kingston to York and Fort George, all the supplies of stores, provisions, and reinforcements of men, necessary for the defence of Upper Canada; nor was it until the month of November, when those services had been completed, and our vessels were on the point of being laid up for the winter, that with all the great advantages which they derived from the immediate vicinity of their resources, particularly of officers and men, seconded by the strenuous exertions which they made, the Americans were able to do more than to fit out the Oneida, a vessel perfectly ready for any service at the commencement of the war, and six small schooners, carrying one or two heavy guns each. With this force they ventured out for the first time on the Lake in the beginning of November, under the command of Commodore Chauncey; and availing themselves of the absence of the Moira brig, and our three schooners, at the head of the Lake, to make on the 11th an ineffectual attack upon the Royal George, under the batteries of Kingston, they retired to Sackett's Harbour, without attempting to interrupt our vessels on their return to Kingston; nor did they again shew themselves upon the Lake until the following year. Up to the month of November, therefore, which may be called the conclusion of the first campaign, as far as respected our means of defending the Province, our ascendancy on Lake Ontario had been preserved. To this object, the measures adopted by Sir George Prevost, by the building of the Prince Regent, and the supply of officers and men furnished to our marine after the commencement of the war, essentially contributed. The superior advantages enjoyed by the enemy, in being able to obtain shipwrights and seamen to an unlimited amount, together with the proximity of all their means for the building and equipment of vessels, had enabled them to launch a frigate at Sackett's Harbour, before the end of the year 1812, and to fit out a squadron, which at the commencement of 1813, gave them a temporary ascendancy on Lake Ontario, before officers and seamen could be sent to Canada from England. This ascendancy on their part was, however, of short duration, for we shall find in pursuing this subject, that the measures planned by Sir George Prevost during the summer of 1812, and carried into effect during the autumn and winter, were such as in their consequence secured to us a full equality, and occasionally the superiority on that Lake, during the two remaining campaigns. Of the nature and extent of the exertions thus made by Sir George Prevost to increase our marine on Lake Ontario, the Reviewer has himself furnished the most abundant proof. "Such," he says, "were the zeal and exertions of Sir James Yeo and his followers on their arrival at Kingston, that before the end of May they were prepared to take the Lake with the British fleet,[37] now composed of two ships of 24 and 22 guns, a brig of 14, and two schooners of 12 and 10 guns."

Sir James Yeo did not arrive at Quebec with his seamen, until the 5th May, and it was not until after the 16th that he reached Kingston; to which place Sir George Prevost had accompanied him from Montreal. The state of forwardness in which he then found the fleet was such, that he was enabled to complete its equipment, and actually to set sail on the 27th of the same month, within little more than a week after his arrival at Kingston. The previous exertion requisite to accomplish the building of the Wolfe, a ship carrying 24 guns, the altering and refitting the brig Moira, and the making of the various repairs and alterations in the other vessels, while at the same time a ship of a large class had been built at York, and was nearly ready to be launched in April, and a ship and several gun-boats were in a state of great forwardness at Amherstburg, may be easily conjectured; particularly, when it is considered that the stores and supplies of almost every description, necessary for the armament and equipment of these vessels, had been transported to the Upper Province from Quebec and Montreal, the greater part of them during the winter, and through roads before deemed impassable for many of the heavy articles required. These difficulties were, however, soon surmounted by the energetic measures of Sir George Prevost; and he had the satisfaction to find on his arrival at Kingston, that the important object of having a fleet ready to take the Lake as early as it was probable that officers and seamen could be sent from England to command and man it, had been accomplished. Upon Sir James Yeo's arrival, as already mentioned, not more than ten days were requisite to put the squadron into a complete state of equipment, and from the period of its appearance on the Lake, the enemy ceased to enjoy the temporary ascendancy which their superior resources of men and supplies had enabled them, during the preceding month, to acquire. The Reviewer has confidently asserted, that these exertions to increase our marine ought to have been earlier made; and that had they been so made, our ascendancy on the Lake would have been retained, and York, together with the ship which was there building, might have been saved. The answer to this has already been partly given. Any extraordinary exertions to increase a marine so decidedly superior to that of the enemy, before the probable continuation of the war was clearly ascertained, and before any steps were taken by the Americans to rival us in that respect, would not have been justified, by the circumstances in which Sir George Prevost was then placed. It was not until the beginning of September, that the termination of the armistice manifested the intention of the American Government to continue the war; nor were any effectual steps taken by them for a material increase of their naval forces at Sackett's Harbour, until the month of October following, when Commodore Chauncey and his seamen arrived at that place. It is evident, therefore, that except in the construction of new vessels, and the forwarding of the supplies necessary for their equipment, nothing further could have been done at that period, to enable us to keep pace with the exertions of the enemy; and that without officers and men, who could not be expected before the spring, any number or description of vessels must have been useless.

Sir George Prevost, soon after the declaration of war, had called the attention of Government, as well as that of the Admiral on the Halifax station, to this subject. He had, therefore, every reason to expect that either from England or from Halifax, he should early in the year receive officers and seamen sufficient to fit out and man a fleet equal at least, if not superior, to any that the enemy might at that time be able to prepare. In this expectation Sir George Prevost was not disappointed; and although the Admiral on the Halifax station had only been able to afford to his strong solicitations on this head, Lieutenants Barclay and Fennis, to act as captains, and four petty officers for lieutenants, who arrived over land from New Brunswick at the end of April, this small supply of able and spirited officers being immediately despatched to Kingston, materially contributed, by their active services, to put the Fleet into the forward condition in which it was found by Sir James Yeo on his arrival.

Notwithstanding the active measures which were thus taken by Sir George Prevost to maintain our ascendancy upon the Lakes, the Quarterly Reviewer has thought proper to observe, that it is perfectly inconceivable how any man, in Sir George Prevost's situation, could have been so infatuated, as to disregard the importance of maintaining his superiority. The gross injustice of this charge will be best proved by citing the words of Sir George Prevost himself, in a letter of the 3rd February, 1813, addressed to General Sheaffe. "The extreme anxiety I experienced respecting the naval force to be employed on Lake Ontario, in the spring of this year, has rendered the proceedings in the dock-yards at Kingston and York, subjects highly interesting to me. You may therefore suppose I shall expect to find the exertions at both these places to have fully corresponded with the magnitude of the object and the difficulties surmounted in forwarding from hence the numerous supplies required for that service."

Much has been said by the Reviewer upon the incompetency of the person commanding, and of the other officers belonging to our Provincial marine on Lake Ontario.[38] Whatever might have been the want of energy and enterprise on the part of Earle, in the instance to which the critic has alluded, and the circumstances of which he has greatly exaggerated, Sir George Prevost did not think it incumbent upon him, on that account, to deprive himself of the services of that officer, who was acknowledged to be a tried and skilful navigator of the Lake, at a period when those services were particularly required for the transport of the various supplies destined for the upper parts of the Province. He was, therefore, retained in the command, not only as being highly useful for the purposes for which he was wanted, but because no person could then be found adequate to supply his place. That the captain of the Tartarus sloop of war, then at Quebec, needed but a hint from Sir George Prevost[39] to proceed with his crew to Lake Ontario, and supersede Earle and his feeble followers, may well be doubted, when we consider the state of the squadron to which he belonged, and the services required from it at the commencement of the war. Whether such a plan was beyond Sir George's capacity,[40] may be left for the reader to determine. Had he, however, adopted it, he would certainly have evinced a great want of consistency and judgment. He was, at that period, in the act of negociating with General Dearborn for the armistice, which afterwards took place, with the reasonable expectation that the revocation of the Orders in Council would lead to a return of peace between Great Britain and America. Our force at that time on Lake Ontario was so decidedly superior, not only to what the enemy possessed on those waters, but to any which they could hope for several months to fit out, that an addition, either to its amount or efficiency, seemed to be uncalled for and unnecessary. Offensive operations of any description, on our part, were not in contemplation; and to every purpose of defensive warfare our means on the Lake were amply competent. To have deprived the Admiral, on the Halifax station, of the services of the Tartarus, when every ship was required by him for the protection of our trade from the numerous cruizers of the enemy, without any adequate object in view, would have been altogether unjustifiable on the part of Sir George Prevost. Whether, if the captain and seamen of the Tartarus had been sent to Lake Ontario, the enemy's flotilla, preparing at Sackett's Harbour,[41] could have been destroyed; or whether, if ship-carpenters had, at the commencement of the war, been sent to Kingston, we could have built as rapidly as the enemy, cannot be proved, as neither course was attempted: nor is it material to the present discussion that it should be proved; the only question being, whether Sir George Prevost, in the then state of affairs, ought to have adopted either measure. From the preceding statement, it appears that he would not have been warranted in so doing. The observation of the Reviewer,[42] that the common-place attempt to hire, at Quebec, sailors for the Lake at one-half the wages which merchants were giving at the same moment, was the only exertion used to strengthen our flotilla, would not merit notice, if it were not for the purpose of exposing the writer's disingenuousness and want of candour. He must have known, when he made the assertion, that the merchants at Quebec hire their sailors for what is called the run-home (to England), and that for this purpose double and triple the amount of the common wages is frequently given; one-half, therefore, of that amount for a permanency, and on the Lake establishment, which held out many advantages to the men, was, as it proved, a sufficient inducement for them to enter into that service, and as many of the description required as could be found at Quebec, were procured by active and intelligent officers sent for that purpose. To these were added some valuable and experienced seamen from two transports then in the river St. Lawrence; and this supply of seamen, together with an additional number of shipwrights and other workmen, was during the winter forwarded to Kingston and York.

The situation of York for the building of one of the frigates laid down in December, as before stated, has been censured by the Reviewer,[43] as holding out to the enemy an invitation to destroy it, from the defenceless state of that fort. Long before the first certain intelligence had been received by Sir George Prevost, of the building of a new ship at Sackett's Harbour, or of the fitting out of their flotilla there, Captain Gray, as already mentioned, one of the most intelligent officers of the Quarter-Master-General's department, had been sent to the Upper Province, to ascertain the fittest situation for the construction of new vessels, whenever such a measure should become necessary. It was in consequence of the communication which that officer had with Major-General Brock, who had the highest confidence in his abilities, that it was decided that one ship should be built at York and the other at Kingston. Both places were alike exposed to attack from their unfortified state. York was certainly the weakest, although General Brock had recommended that place as the fittest and most secure, if strengthened, for a naval dock-yard on Lake Ontario. In determining to build at both places, it was thought most prudent not to run the hazard of losing both vessels from the possibility of a successful attempt of the enemy to destroy them, should they both be constructed at either of those places. The most effectual measures, on the part of Sir George Prevost and of those acting under him in the Upper Province, were taken to strengthen and fortify both York and Kingston, and it was expected that the enemy would be repelled in any attack upon either. It was not doubted, but that if York should be attacked and taken, the ship which was building there, might be, as she in fact was, destroyed, and thus be prevented from increasing the strength of the enemy, whilst Kingston might in the mean time be made too strong to occasion any fear for the safety of the fleet in that port. The result shewed the wisdom of this determination, and the capture of York, which considering the overwhelming force of the enemy, was not to be prevented, evidently preserved Kingston.

The only advantage which the Americans derived in this attack, as respected our marine, was the destruction of the new ship, and the capture of an inconsiderable quantity of stores designed for her, together with the Gloucester schooner, then lying a mere hulk, under repairs for a transport. It may in this place be proper briefly to notice another assertion of the Reviewer, respecting our marine—that the enemy commanded the waters of Lake Champlain[44] with a flotilla, before the British Commander in Chief had directed the construction of a single gun-boat to oppose them. That this should have been the fact, will not appear at all remarkable, when it is known that the waters of that Lake belong exclusively to the Americans, who enjoyed the most abundant means and resources for fitting out a fleet, from the number of vessels constantly navigating it for the purposes of trade. It was only necessary to arm and equip some of the vessels of that description, and their command of the water would be undisputed. At the commencement of the war, and for some time afterwards, we neither did nor could possess any force capable of meeting them; but that this subject was not viewed with indifference by Sir George Prevost, notwithstanding the variety of other and more important concerns which commanded his attention, may be inferred from the fact, that in June, 1813, in less than twelve months after the commencement of the war, our force of gun-boats on the Richelieu river, communicating with Lake Champlain, was such, that in conjunction with our troops at Isle aux Noix, they were sufficient for the capture of two fine schooners of the enemy, each carrying 11 guns, and 45 men. To have attempted to create any other force, except gun-boats, for the purpose of defending the Richelieu, would, when no offensive operations were contemplated, have been an useless waste of those means which were required and employed for the increase of our marine on the other Lakes.

These observations upon Sir George Prevost's conduct with respect to our marine on the Lakes, may be concluded by a reference to the opinion of the public bodies in Upper Canada, with regard to the exertions of the Commander of the forces, in preserving our naval ascendancy on those waters.

These documents afford a strong proof of the sentiments almost universally entertained on this head, by persons most capable, from their knowledge of, and interest in the subject, of appreciating the merits of Sir George Prevost's exertions.

In the address of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada,[45] in answer to the President's speech at the opening of the Provincial Parliament, 27th February, 1813, they say, "We learn, with the highest satisfaction, that the most vigorous measures have been adopted under the direction of the Commander of the forces, and are now in operation, to strengthen the Provincial Marine, and preserve the superiority of the Lakes so essential to the prosperity of this Province." The same expressions occur in the address of the Legislative Council, and in March following, on Sir George Prevost's arrival in Upper Canada, the House of Assembly and town of York addressed him in similar terms.

The campaign of 1813 opened, on the part of the Americans, with the attack and capture of York. The squadron under Commander Chauncey employed on this expedition, after landing part of the force at the Niagara frontier, returned to Sackett's Harbour, from whence it again sailed towards the end of May, with another strong force collected from that place and its neighbourhood, for the purpose of uniting with the troops on the Niagara frontier, in an attack upon Fort George. In this attack, which took place on the 27th May, the overwhelming numbers of the enemy prevailed, and the small but gallant band of about 1,500 men, under Brigadier-General Vincent, which had, for more than two hours, opposed nearly 5,000 of the Americans, after evacuating Fort George, spiking the guns, and destroying the ammunition, retreated towards the head of the Lake, General Vincent having first called in all the detachments from the different Posts on that frontier.

The enemy, pursuing his advantages, pushed forwards a force of between 3,000 and 4,000 infantry and cavalry, with nine pieces of artillery, to attack the position which General Vincent occupied at Burlington. Previous, however, to their reaching that point, a well-concerted, daring, and spirited attack was made upon their camp in the night, by a party of General Vincent's force, and under his command, which proved completely successful as a surprise, and Generals Winder and Chandler, the two senior officers, together with 100 prisoners, and four field-pieces being taken, the enemy, after destroying their stores and provisions, &c. precipitately retreated, until they joined the main body of their army. While these operations were proceeding, the most active measures were taking at Kingston to fit out and equip a fleet which might be able to dispute with the enemy the temporary ascendancy which they had gained on the Lake; but whatever efforts might be made to construct vessels and prepare them for service, it must be obvious that no advantage could be derived from any number or description of vessels without officers and seamen. The only reinforcement which up to this period, the end of April, Sir George Prevost had been able to obtain from the Admiral commanding on the Halifax station, consisted of the three lieutenants, and four petty officers, whose arrival at Kingston has been already mentioned, and whose active services had very much accelerated the equipment of our squadron before Sir James Yeo took the command of it. Previous to the arrival of Sir George Prevost at that place in May, his extreme anxiety respecting the naval force preparing on both Lakes, had induced him, during the depth of winter, to proceed in the month of February, from the Lower Province to Kingston, York, and Fort George, where his presence must have essentially contributed to impart increased activity to the preparations then making for the opening of the next campaign. The zeal and energy thus displayed by him in his indefatigable endeavours to promote the public service, although justly appreciated by the inhabitants of both provinces, could not protect him from the unfounded accusations of the Reviewer,[46] who informs his readers that Sir George Prevost had excited the expectations of the Canadian public, "that he had designed an attack upon Sackett's Harbour, where the shipping was known to be very indifferently protected, by marching over the ice, which was stronger at that time than had been known for many years."—And that "the anxious inhabitants of the Provinces who had witnessed his previous inactivity, with gloomy foreboding, were again doomed to be disappointed." What the opinion of the inhabitants of the Provinces was, with regard to Sir George Prevost's "previous inactivity," has clearly been shewn from the different addresses presented to him at the period alluded to.

That Sackett's Harbour could at that time, or at any other period of the winter, have been attacked with the smallest prospect of success, may be confidently denied. So far from the shipping, which by the Reviewer's[47] own showing, was a formidable squadron, commanded by an experienced officer, and manned by more than 500 able seamen, being, as he has asserted, indifferently protected, the enemy had constructed batteries for their defence, and it was known that a very considerable force had been assembled at that post, and in its neighbourhood, in order to be ready for embarkation as soon as the season would permit the fleet to take the Lake. To have attempted with the small force which then garrisoned Kingston, and which was scarcely sufficient for its defence, an expedition against an enemy's position, capable of a determined resistance, when it is considered that the troops would have been obliged to march several miles over the ice before they could reach the American territory, from whence they would still have been 15 miles distant from the object of their attack, and exposed during the whole of their approach to the concealed fire of the enemy's troops in the woods, would have been, under the circumstances in which Sir George Prevost was placed, with regard to his resources for defending Kingston, the Key, as it has been termed, to the Lower Province, little short of madness. Nothing but a determination to attach blame to the conduct of Sir George Prevost could have induced the Reviewer to hazard so groundless and unmilitary a stricture. That Sir George was alive to the importance of attacking this place, and of destroying the means there possessed by the enemy for increasing their marine, and for carrying on from thence their offensive operations, will appear evident from the measure which will be immediately adverted to, and which has drawn upon the Commander of the forces the acrimonious censure of the Reviewer.

In December, 1812, Sir George Prevost, aware of the importance of strengthening himself against the threatened attempts upon the Canadas, in the interval which would elapse before any reinforcements could by possibility arrive from Europe, had directed Lieutenant-General Sir John Sherbrooke, and Major-General Smyth, to make arrangements for forwarding to him, during the winter, by land, the 104th regiment, then in New Brunswick. This arduous march, which had not before been attempted, and which was thought extremely hazardous, if not altogether impracticable, was effected in the month of March without the loss of a single man, and by the end of April six companies of that regiment arrived at Kingston. This accession to the strength of that garrison enabled Sir George Prevost, who, as already stated, reached Kingston with Sir James Yeo about the middle of May, to avail himself of the opportunity afforded by the sailing of the American fleet for the head of the Lake, to attempt a diversion in favour of the points threatened by the enemy on the Niagara frontier. The expedition against Sackett's Harbour was accordingly resolved upon, the moment the absence of the enemy's squadron was ascertained. The circumstances which attended this expedition, have been misrepresented in the most extraordinary manner by the Quarterly Reviewer,[48] who, instead of ascribing the failure of the enterprise to its real and natural causes, as given in the official report of Colonel Baynes,[49] and which will now be more particularly detailed, has not scrupled to attribute that failure to the indecision and misconduct of the Commander of the forces. As the whole force, which could be mustered for this service, hardly exceeded 700 men, consisting of the greater part of the garrison of Kingston, it must be obvious that means so inadequate could justify an attempt to carry Sackett's Harbour only by surprise. This, in fact, was the sole object in view; and the troops being embarked, together with two field-pieces, on board of our squadron, sailed in the evening of the 27th May, under the immediate command of Colonel, now Major-General Baynes. Sanguine hopes were entertained of teaching the enemy's post in the course of the night, when the surprise would have been complete, and our success infallible; but owing to light and baffling winds, it was not until between 10 and 11 o'clock on the following morning, the 28th, that our fleet was able to approach within 12 or 15 miles of Sackett's Harbour. Previously to this, and as soon as our squadron had been discovered from the port, alarm-guns had been fired, and boats were seen filled with armed men, continually passing down the shores of the Lake, from Oswego towards Sackett's Harbour, to assist in its defence. In the mean time, the troops on board the fleet were held in readiness for landing in the boats, as soon as the vessels should have approached sufficiently near to the shore for that purpose, as well as for insuring their co-operation in the attack. At this period, unfortunately, the wind, which had been rather fair, though light, altogether failed, and shortly afterwards the breeze came almost immediately from the point which the fleet was endeavouring to approach. To have attempted a landing in boats, at the distance of fifteen miles from the object of attack, would have been a most tedious and hazardous undertaking, exposed, as the men must have been, to the fire of musketry and field-pieces from the shore, and to the direct enfilade of all the heavy cannon in the enemy's forts and batteries. The day was too far advanced to leave any hope of completing the service before dark; and without the efficient co-operation of the fleet, which, from the state of the wind, could not be obtained, the most gallant exertions of the troops, as was afterwards proved, would have been ineffectual. From these circumstances, it was the unanimous opinion of the principal officers of the expedition under Colonel Baynes, who, together with Sir James Yeo, had been consulted by him as to the expediency of persevering in the enterprise, that the attempt should be abandoned, and orders were accordingly given for the return of the squadron to Kingston. The incident of the surrender of the cavalry officer and his party, which is stated by the Reviewer with his usual incorrectness, did certainly lead to the determination, which was subsequently taken, of persisting in the expedition; but it was the information obtained from those persons, with regard to the force of the enemy, and their means of defence, which principally influenced that determination. It appearing probable, from the state of the wind, which towards evening again became favourable for approaching Sackett's Harbour, that the men might be brought under cover of the night to the point of attack, in which they would be supported by the active co-operation of the fleet, it was resolved to make the attack at day-break the following morning. In order to favour the belief that we had abandoned the attempt, the ships' heads were kept towards Kingston until the evening commenced, when the squadron stood in for the shore. The troops were in the boats at ten o'clock, and confident hopes were indulged that, on the approach to the landing at day-break, they would be assisted by the artillery, and receive the effectual support and co-operation of the fleet, which was judged most essential to the success of the undertaking. The landing took place as was intended, nearly at day-break; and, considering the local impediments, was effected in a style highly creditable to the military skill of Colonel Baynes. Notwithstanding the want of our artillery, which being on board of a schooner, towed by the boats of the squadron, was still at a considerable distance, and the state of the wind, which prevented the squadron from approaching the shore, our troops, after landing and taking possession of one of their field-pieces and a tumbril, had, by a spirited advance, driven the enemy before them, at the point of the bayonet, through the woods, which were most obstinately maintained by them, and had forced them to retire towards their works and loop-holed barracks. But these works were found to be of such strength, as to render it next to impossible for our small force, unprovided with heavy cannon, to make any impression upon them. The men had been now engaged for several hours, and had sustained a considerable loss. It was at this period that Sir George Prevost, who had landed shortly after the troops, and who had followed their course and progress, came up with the main body engaged with the enemy; and it was then that he received from the officer commanding the expedition, the report of the manner in which the enemy had been driven towards their works and loop-holed barracks, and of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of forcing them without the aid of our artillery and the co-operation of our fleet. The former, with all the exertions made in towing the schooner, had not been landed; and the latter, from the state of the wind, could not approach sufficiently near for their guns to bear upon the enemy's batteries.

The Commander of the forces then, for the first time, interfered, so as to give any orders respecting the expedition. Though there was scarcely a hope of success, yet he determined not to abandon the enterprise whilst a possibility of attaining his object remained. He accordingly directed Colonel Baynes to concentrate his scattered force, and to advance upon the enemy, who were posted in considerable numbers in front of and behind their loop-holed barracks. Not more than from 300 to 400 men could be assembled for this last attack. It was, however, made by this small band with intrepid gallantry. The enemy, though superior in numbers, were driven from their position, and forced to take shelter in the town; but in the further attempt to approach the works, our troops were met by such a galling and destructive fire of grape and musketry, both in front and flank, that they were compelled to abandon a contest to which their numbers were so unequal. The force of the enemy, at this period, consisted, by their own acknowledgment, exclusive of their killed and wounded, of upwards of 1,100 men, including 142 artillerymen. They were strongly posted in Fort Tompkins, armed with heavy guns, and in their block-houses and loop-holed barracks, the very situation which renders the youngest American recruit (a marksman from his youth), more than a match for the most experienced veteran. Our force was reduced to nearly one-third of its effective strength from the casualties of the field, and from the absence of those who had withdrawn to the rear with the wounded and prisoners. We possessed not a single field-piece, the artillery not having yet been landed. Colonel Young had retired from exhaustion, in consequence of previous illness. All the other field-officers, one excepted, were wounded, together with most of the captains and subalterns. Captain Mulcaster commanding the gun-boat, made every exertion in his power; but there was no hope of assistance from the fleet, in consequence of the state of the wind. Under such circumstances, that so small a band, exhausted by previous exertion, should have attacked and carried Fort Tompkins, the block-houses, and the remaining loop-holed barracks of the enemy, so numerously defended as they were, might probably be expected by such experienced warriors as the Quarterly Reviewer, and those upon whose authority he relies; but it was apparent to every officer and man who was present, that success was impossible. Such being the conviction of the Commander of the forces, who had witnessed with feelings of poignant regret the last gallant though unavailing exertions of his troops, he reluctantly ordered their re-embarkation, which was effected in the most perfect order, and without the slightest precipitation, the enemy not attempting to offer the least molestation. This expedition, though certainly attended with a considerable loss on our part, was not unproductive of advantage to us, or of damage and serious inconvenience to our adversaries. Their apprehensions of the result of the last attack, ignorant as they were of the trifling force by which it was made, induced them to set fire to their new ship and naval arsenal; and although, afterwards, when their fear subsided, from a more perfect knowledge of the state of our force, they succeeded in extinguishing the fire on board the ship, before it had got to any height, yet, by their own acknowledgment, they lost their arsenal, with a large quantity of valuable stores; while one field-piece, and upwards of 200 prisoners were brought away, together with some camp-equipage, and another field-piece was rendered useless. Their loss, also, in killed and wounded was, by their own admission, upwards of 150 men. From this detail of facts, to the truth of which there are abundant living witnesses to vouch, it must be obvious that the main object of the expedition failed principally from the smallness of our numbers, compared with the superior force of the enemy; from the want of our artillery, which could not be landed in time; and particularly from the little assistance which, from the state of the wind, the squadron could afford in taking off the fire of the forts. So far from nearly two days being lost, as the Reviewer has stated,[50] it is notorious to every person who was employed in that expedition, that the fleet sailed on the evening of the 27th May from Kingston, and did not arrive at Sackett's Harbour until the morning of the 28th, when the intended attack was prevented solely by the impossibility of approaching the shore from the state of the wind, and that it did in fact take place on the following morning, the 29th, within 24 hours after the fleet had appeared off the place. It is a fact equally well known to every person engaged in this enterprise, that Sir George Prevost did not take the personal command of it, in the sense in which the Reviewer[51] would have it understood. That he accompanied the expedition was never denied, or attempted to be concealed. His zealous and anxious feelings prompted him to that measure, to prevent any delay in the contemplated service, should a reference to him become necessary. It is freely admitted, that when present he could not divest himself of his authority, or responsibility as Commander of the forces. But independently of its being contrary to all military usage, for the Governor in Chief and Commander of the forces in British North America, to assume the immediate command[52] of so inconsiderable a force, no instance of his interference took place until the period of the last attack, which certainly produced the greatest damage that the enemy sustained. The order to retreat was neither precipitate,[53] nor one which the gallant officers "believed with difficulty."[54] They were all convinced, not excepting the naval commander, Sir James Yeo, that it was impossible longer to contend with any prospect of success, and with our diminished means, against the superior numbers and resources of the enemy. It may indeed be confidently asserted, in direct opposition to the Reviewer's statement, that although "the troops withdrew to their boats in disappointment," at their not having been able to accomplish their object, they felt no disgrace in retiring from a contest which they had so long and so bravely supported; nor did either officers or men experience any indignation or shame at a retreat which, after the most gallant, though unavailing exertions, they knew to be indispensable for their own preservation. It may here be observed, that the situation of our troops at the time of the retreat was most critical. At that very period, a reinforcement of 600 men, under Colonel Tuttle, reached Sackett's Harbour. With the overwhelming superiority which this accession to their force gave the enemy, it is obvious that with very moderate pretensions to either skill or enterprise, they might have opposed most formidable obstacles to our re-embarkation. A further perseverance in the attack on our part, or the least delay in the retreat, would probably have ended in the capture or destruction of the whole of our troops. Fortunately, the coolness and deliberation with which that measure was executed, served to deceive the enemy with regard to our numbers and losses; and the re-embarkation being effected without opposition, the troops returned the same day to Kingston with the field-piece, camp-equipage, and prisoners which they had taken.

On the following morning the American squadron, which had been recalled from the head of the Lake to the assistance of Sackett's Harbour, appeared off Kingston, and it was a most fortunate circumstance that they did not fall in with our fleet, encumbered as it was with troops and wounded men. One material advantage immediately accrued from this expedition, by the recal of the enemy's fleet to Sackett's Harbour. Sir George Prevost lost not a moment in availing himself of the opportunity of their being in port, to embark the 49th regiment on board the squadron, and to despatch it to the head of the Lake to reinforce Brigadier-General Vincent, who was then hard pressed by the enemy, and to whose small force that regiment proved an important accession of strength at a very critical period. Sir James Yeo accordingly sailed with, and safely landed them, and from that time our full equality at least, if not our ascendancy, was established on Lake Ontario.

In reviewing the events that took place during the campaign of 1813, it will be necessary to notice the operations on the Detroit frontier, and on Lake Erie, more especially as the Commander of the forces has been accused of neglecting the representations of Colonel Procter, who commanded in that quarter.

The battle of Frenchtown, in which the Americans were totally defeated, and their General captured, was highly creditable to the talents of Colonel Procter, who certainly, until the retreat from Amherstburgh, was entitled to the reputation of a zealous and active officer.

It is said by the Quarterly Reviewer, that at this period Colonel Procter was positively restrained by Sir George Prevost from any offensive operations. The nature of the instructions given by the Commander of the forces to that officer has been already shewn; and will further appear by a reference to the letters[55] of Sir George Prevost to Colonel, now become Brigadier-General Procter, in answer to the despatches received from him, announcing the different operations which had taken place in the Michigan territory. These operations, though not always attended with success on the part of General Procter, and though they occasioned a considerable diminution of his small force from his repeated losses, were yet favourably viewed by Sir George Prevost, who, as it appears from the correspondence already referred to, was always disposed to give him full credit for his exertions, and to put the most favourable construction upon his failures. That Sir George Prevost was fully aware of the importance of General Procter's position, and of the necessity of strengthening it by every means in his power, will now be shewn by the testimony of General Procter himself.

The letters of that officer fully prove, in contradiction to the assertion of the Reviewer, who has attributed to the Commander of the forces, the neglect (if any took place) in forwarding to him the reinforcements which he had so strongly solicited, that no such neglect is imputable to Sir George Prevost.

As early as the month of March, 1813, a confidential letter was addressed by Sir George Prevost to General Procter, upon the subject of the reinforcements he had solicited, and Captain M'Douall, one of the Commander of the forces' Aids-de-camp, was sent for the purpose of ascertaining General Procter's wants, and the best mode of relieving them. In the correspondence between the Commander of the forces and General Vincent, the situation of General Procter was constantly alluded to, and the former officer was desired to pay his particular attention to the subject. On the 20th June, Sir George Prevost acquainted General Procter that General de Rottenburg, who had been appointed to the command of the forces serving in Upper Canada, had received his directions to push on the remainder of the 41st regiment, from the head of Lake Ontario to Amherstburgh. And in his subsequent letters to General Procter, of the 11th and 12th July, after stating that his wants of money, clothing, &c. had been supplied as far as lay in the power of the Commander of the forces, and that those articles were then on their passage to him, he informed him that the whole of the 41st regiment were either on their way, or would be with him before that letter could arrive. This assurance was given by Sir George Prevost, in the full confidence that the orders which he had sent to the officer commanding in Upper Canada, for the immediate forwarding of the remainder of that regiment to Amherstburgh, had been complied with. That they were not complied with as early as Sir George Prevost intended they should be, was owing to circumstances over which the Commander of the forces had no control. The force under Major-General de Rottenburg, from which the 41st regiment was to be detached, was then before an enemy greatly superior in numbers and resources, and he was very unwilling to weaken it by sending off the remainder of that regiment, until other reinforcements which were on their way to him should arrive. It appears, however, by his letter to Sir George Prevost, of 9th July, 1813, that he had, on the 6th of that month, sent forward 120 men of that regiment to Long Point, in order that thence they might be transported by means of the fleet to Amherstburgh, and that it was his intention to send the remainder of the regiment to General Procter, as soon as the Royals, then daily expected, should arrive. In a subsequent letter from Sir George Prevost to Major-General de Rottenburg, dated 23d July, 1813, in which his high opinion of General Procter's merits and conduct is pointedly expressed, he says, "I trust the reinforcements and supplies, which, in consequence of my orders to you, must be near him," &c.

From these letters it is evident that it was Sir George Prevost's intention that General Procter should be reinforced to the extent he had required, and that the commanding officers in Upper Canada, who from the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed at the time, thought themselves justified, as they really were, in so doing, were the persons who delayed the forwarding of such reinforcements.

That to this cause the delay was attributed by General Procter himself, is unequivocally proved by his correspondence respecting it with the Commander of the forces. The letter to Sir George Prevost, of the 4th July, 1813, to which the Reviewer has referred,[56] commences in a way little to be expected, from the extract which that writer has given from it. He says, "I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 4th ult. and am fully sensible that this district has received a due share of your Excellency's attention. I beg to add, that if I had received from the Line the reinforcements which you had directed should be sent, I should by this time," &c.

It must not be forgotten that this letter was before the Reviewer, and that he must therefore have designedly suppressed that portion of it, which completely exonerates Sir George Prevost from any charge of neglect.

In General Procter's next letter to the Commander of the forces, of the 11th July, he says, "I beg leave to add, that we are fully confident of every aid from your Excellency, and of the fortunate result of the contest, if we are allowed the benefit of your consideration of us; but I am unfortunately so situated, that your best intentions towards me are of no avail. If the means were afforded me, and which were no more than what your Excellency has repeatedly directed, &c."—In his next letter to the Commander of the forces, of the 13th July, he says, "The reinforcements which have been reluctantly afforded me, notwithstanding your Excellency's intentions, have been so sparingly and tardily sent me, as in a considerable degree to defeat the purpose of their being sent. I have no hopes of any aid from the centre division, where our situation is little understood, or has ever been a secondary consideration."—These extracts clearly shew that General Procter ascribed the delay in forwarding to him the remainder of the 41st regiment, not to the Commander of the forces, but to General de Rottenburg, who then commanded the centre division in Upper Canada.

Notwithstanding the Reviewer must have known this to have been the fact, from the very correspondence he was quoting, he has had the hardihood to say, "that although Sir George Prevost fully acknowledged, in his letter of the 12th July, his immediate ability to grant the reinforcement General Procter had asked for, in his letter of the 4th of that month, it will scarcely be credited, that even after this, he should have suffered above five weeks to elapse before he despatched the small amount of regular troops, &c."[57]

Now it appears from General de Rottenburg's letter, before referred to, that 120 men of the 41st, had been despatched to Amherstburgh on the 6th July; and by a return made to the Military Secretary's Office, by Captain Chambers, Deputy-Quarter-Master-General with General Procter's army, dated Amherstburgh, 13th August, 1813, it further appears, that up to the 10th August, more than 300 rank and file of the 41st, and 41 rank and file of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment, with nearly 50 officers and non-commissioned officers, had arrived at that post, which was further strengthened, within ten days afterwards, by a detachment of 50 provincial dragoons. The cavalry and men of the Newfoundland Regiment were particularly requested, by General Procter, in his correspondence with the Commander of the forces, to be sent to him.

It may here be observed, that General Procter appears to have attached by far too much importance to his own command, and not to have made proper allowances for the critical situation of the centre division, from which his reinforcements were expected. Upon the safety of that division his own altogether depended; for had they been defeated, or obliged to retire from the Upper Province, he would have been cut off from all supplies and assistance, and his capture would have been inevitable. Whereas, as afterwards happened, a disaster to the force under General Procter, and the capture of Amherstburgh, would not necessarily involve in it the safety of the centre division. These reasons, without doubt, weighed with General de Rottenburg, in retaining the remainder of the 41st regiment, until they could be despatched to General Procter, without injury to the more important service for which they were required on the Niagara frontier.

Having thus proved that, as far as depended upon Sir George Prevost, General Procter's requisitions, of every description, had been complied with, we now proceed to shew that he did not neglect our marine on Lake Erie.

The Quarterly Reviewer, indeed, has not hesitated to say, "that in the whole course of that vacillation and error, which unhappily distinguished the administration of Sir George Prevost,[58] his imbecility of judgment and action was most flagrant and palpable, in the circumstances which led to the destruction of our marine on Lake Erie." These censures, unfounded as they are, may perhaps be thought to require a more particular and detailed reply.

To the exertions made by Sir George Prevost, both before the war and after its commencement, to preserve our naval ascendancy on Lake Erie, we have already had occasion to refer. From these statements it will appear, that, independently of the new schooner, Lady Prevost, launched, armed, equipped, and upon the Lake, before the month of August, 1812, the Detroit, a ship to carry 18 guns, which the Reviewer would have his readers believe was only laid down after Captain Barclay's arrival at Amherstburgh in June,[59] had been commenced building before the month of March preceding, together with several gun-boats. The latter were launched in April. The ship was, in fact, in a state of considerable forwardness, when Captain Barclay assumed the command on the Lake. Upon the declaration of war, we had only one ship and a schooner on Lake Erie; and, within little more than a year afterwards, our fleet there consisted of two ships, a brig, a schooner, and two small vessels. In order properly to appreciate the efforts made for the construction and armament of this squadron, it must be borne in mind that the whole of the supplies necessary for that purpose, with the exception perhaps of the timber alone, were to be transported from the Lower to the Upper Province, by the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario, and from thence to Lake Erie, where the superiority of our marine enabled us to convey them to Amherstburgh. As the efficiency of this squadron necessarily depended upon the number and discipline of the crews with which it was manned, the subject of a supply of able seamen, for that service, early engaged the attention of Sir George Prevost. Upon Sir James Yeo's arrival at Kingston, and the appointment by him of Captain Barclay, to take the naval command on Lake Erie, the Commander of the forces urgently requested Sir James to supply that officer with a greater number of seamen than he was disposed, from his own wants, to allow him. As the obtaining the naval ascendancy, on Lake Ontario, was a primary consideration, and as the seamen whom Sir James Yeo brought with him were not sufficient adequately to man his own ships, Captain Barclay was obliged to proceed with a very scanty supply of men. The Commander of the forces was in hopes that there might be other opportunities of increasing Captain Barclay's force, and that, in the mean time, the reinforcements which he intended, and immediately afterwards directed, should be sent to General Procter, would enable him to spare a sufficient number of soldiers for the use of the squadron on Lake Erie, until Captain Barclay's wants could be more efficiently supplied. The first letter from Captain Barclay, upon the subject of these wants, was addressed to Brigadier-General Vincent, who then commanded on the Niagara frontier, and was dated 17th June, 1813. The principal object of that letter was to obtain a reinforcement of troops for General Procter, in order to enable him to co-operate with Captain Barclay, in an attack upon the enemy's naval establishment at Presqu' isle, and in that letter he expressly states that he was making an application for seamen to Sir James Yeo. This communication was forwarded to the Commander of the forces by General Vincent, with an intimation that he should immediately push forward the remainder of the 41st regiment, (a company of the regiment having been sent by him the preceding month) in order to assist in the proposed attack upon the enemy's fleet. Before the above letter either was or could be received by Sir George Prevost, he had appointed Major-General de Rottenburg to the command of the forces in Upper Canada, and had given him particular directions for supplying General Procter's wants, and for immediately despatching to him the remainder of the 41st regiment. The Reviewer has asserted,[60] that "Captain Barclay stated the wants of his squadron in men, stores, and guns, with the same truth and earnestness as General Procter had repeatedly expressed; but the only reply of Sir George Prevost, to his statements, was a cold and general promise, in a letter to General Procter, that some petty officers and seamen, for Lake Erie, should be sent forward on the first opportunity."

Captain Barclay's wants were particularly detailed by him to the Commander of the forces, in the only letter he addressed to him on the subject, dated Long Point, 16th July, 1813. The receipt of this letter was acknowledged by Sir George Prevost, on the 21st of the same month, he having the day before sent an extract from it, with a strong letter of representation upon the subject, to Lord Bathurst. In this letter to Captain Barclay, Sir George Prevost states, that he is fully aware of all that officer's difficulties, and that he should endeavour to relieve his wants, as far as was in his power, explaining to him the reasons which prevented him from so doing to the extent required. He repeats, also, what he had before said to General Procter, that Captain Barclay must endeavour to obtain his naval stores from the enemy, but that being satisfied that such a measure could not be effected without an addition to his present strength, he had strongly pressed upon Sir James Yeo the necessity of immediately sending forward to him a supply of petty officers and seamen, and that he (Sir J. Yeo), had assured the Commander of the forces that he would do so without delay: that he had also given positive directions for the remainder of the 41st regiment to be sent to General Procter, and hoped that the arrival of these reinforcements would afford the timely means of attempting something against the enemy's flotilla, before it should be in a state to venture out upon the Lake.—With this assurance from Sir James Yeo, that seamen and officers should be supplied to Captain Barclay, and in the hope that his repeated orders for the reinforcement of General Procter, with the remainder of the 41st regiment, had been complied with, Sir George Prevost might with justice point out to Captain Barclay the necessity of supplying his further wants from the enemy's resources,[61] more especially as General Procter had repeatedly declared that a supply of troops alone would be sufficient to enable him to succeed in an attack upon Presqu'isle.

Subsequent to Captain Barclay's letter to the Commander of the forces, of the 16th July, all further representations respecting the supply of seamen for Lake Erie, were made by General Procter, in his letters to Sir George Prevost. The several answers to these representations the Reviewer has not thought proper to notice, contenting himself with giving a partial and immaterial extract from Sir George Prevost's letter to General Procter, of the 22nd August, evidently for the purpose of introducing what he is pleased to term a taunt, but which was in fact neither designed as such by Sir George, nor so considered by the gallant Captain Barclay. After stating that General Procter had, in his letter of the 18th August, 1813, announced to the Commander of the forces, that the Detroit was launched, and that, if he had seamen, a few hours would place that district in security, the Reviewer adds, "but instead of replying to this application, with an immediate reinforcement of seamen, the Commander-in-chief answered it as usual, on the 22nd of August, with mere promises."

Without dwelling upon the Reviewer's error in supposing that Sir George Prevost, who had no control whatever over the seamen belonging to the squadron on Lake Ontario, who were exclusively under the orders of Sir James Yeo, could by any possibility immediately have sent forward to Captain Barclay the reinforcement of seamen required, we shall shew that Sir George Prevost's answer to the application was not one of mere promises, but that the reinforcement required, and which had been previously provided by him, was then actually on its way to its destination. Within two days after the date of the letter of the Commander of the forces to Captain Barclay before referred to, he acquainted General Procter that Sir James Yeo had assured him, that as many petty officers and seamen as could be spared, should be forwarded to Captain Barclay without delay, but that he, Sir George Prevost, much feared they would, as to numbers, fall short of his expectations. That he was, however, endeavouring to obtain a further supply from Quebec, which he meant should be exclusively appropriated for the service of Lake Erie. This letter, which was an answer to that of General Procter, of the date of 13th July,[62] referred to by the Reviewer, has been altogether suppressed by him, as well as the material fact that almost immediately after the letter of 13th July was written, General Procter relinquished the intended expedition against Presqu'isle, although 120 men of the 41st had been sent forward to Long Point, to be there taken on board by Captain Barclay for that purpose, and employed the whole of his disposable force in an unsuccessful expedition to Forts Meigs and Sandusky, by which proceeding that force was considerably diminished. In his answer of the 22d to General Procter's letter of the 18th August, before referred to, an extract from which is given in the note, Sir George Prevost expressed his opinion of that expedition, and stated the measures he was taking to remedy the inconveniences which might arise from it.[63] After mentioning the reinforcements which he intended to send forward to General Procter, he informed him, that, of the three troop-ships which had arrived at Quebec with De Meuron's regiment, two had conveyed to Halifax 500 American prisoners of war, and the third, the Dover, had been laid up in consequence of his having directed three-fourths of the officers and seamen to be landed and sent forward for the naval service on the Lakes; and that he had the satisfaction to inform General Procter, that the first Lieutenant of that ship, with 50 or 60 seamen, were then at Kingston, from whence they were to be forwarded, without delay, to Amherstburgh. This circumstance Sir George Prevost requested might be made known to Captain Barclay. This portion of the letter, which so clearly shews the exertions Sir George Prevost had made, and was then making, to send a supply of seamen to Lake Erie, the Reviewer, with the whole letter before him, has thought proper to omit, and in lieu of it, to insert as the only reply given by Sir George Prevost to General Procter's request for further assistance, a passage in the letter[64] which was evidently meant as a compliment to the bravery of General Procter's troops, and an encouragement to him to persevere under the difficulties of his situation, assured, as he must have been, that every endeavour was making to relieve him. On the 26th August, four days after the date of the last letter, the Military Secretary informed General Procter that Colonel Talbot had been sent to the head of the Lake to await the arrival of the seamen mentioned in his letter of the 25th, and to forward them to Amherstburgh with all possible despatch. He was further informed, that 12 24lb. carronades for the new ship, the Detroit, were expected in the fleet at Burlington Bay, and General Procter was desired to request Captain Barclay, on his arrival at Long Point, to send off an express to the officer commanding at Burlington Heights, to say when he would be ready to receive them on board. In this letter, the Military Secretary, Captain Freer says, "His Excellency trusts, that upon the arrival of the seamen, Captain Barclay will be able to make his appearance on the Lake to meet the enemy."

From all that has been stated upon this subject, it must satisfactorily appear, that every exertion in the power of Sir George Prevost was made by him to supply the wants of Captain Barclay and the squadron, both with seamen and stores, and that at the very period when the action was fought, more men were on their way to him.

The truth of the Reviewer's assertion, that the conduct of Sir George Prevost contributed to the destruction of our marine on Lake Erie, will be best ascertained by a reference to Captain Barclay himself; and the following letter from that officer to the present Sir George Prevost, will clearly shew how unwarrantably the character of the Commander of the forces in the Canadas has been attacked on this occasion.

"Edinburgh, 14th January, 1823.

"Sir,

"I have had the honor to receive a letter from Miss Prevost, acquainting me that the family of the late Lieut.-General Sir George Prevost are preparing a pamphlet, in vindication of his memory and conduct, so ungenerously and cruelly aspersed in the Quarterly Review for October, 1822, and appealing to me for the truth or falsehood of that portion of the article, which attributes the defeat and capture of His Majesty's squadron on Lake Erie, then under my command, to the imbecility of his conduct, and general inattention to our necessities.

"I most deeply lament that an article so ungenerous and severe, should have been written, when the object of its hostility has been so long in his grave, which must not only lacerate most deeply the feelings of his family, but which also tends to open again a controversy which I had hoped was at rest.

"Agitated, however, as the question again is, by this anonymous publication; appealed to as I am for its truth or falsehood, I declare that as far as relates to Lake Erie, nothing can be more false and groundless. So contrary indeed is the fact, that I can say, the only communication which was made by me direct to the Commander of the forces, and which I was only induced to make by the extreme urgency of the case, was answered by his ordering a reinforcement of seamen from Quebec, and which I am confident would have been larger, had it been possible to have waited for them.

"It is also but justice in me to declare, that I ever considered his peremptory order[65] to risk a battle, (which, however, did not arrive till after the battle was over,) arose from his firm conviction of the paramount necessity of a strenuous exertion on the part of the navy for the preservation of the post, and from a generous desire on his part, to share with me the responsibility of a measure so hazardous, should the issue prove unsuccessful.

I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
R. H. Barclay.
"Sir George Prevost, Bart.
Oriel College, Oxford."

The subjoined extract of a letter from Sir James Yeo to Sir George Prevost, will also shew that the Naval Commander on the Lakes entertained a very different opinion on this subject from the Reviewer.

"Kingston, 23d March, 1814.

"Dear Sir,

"I have had the honor of your Excellency's letter of the 14th inst.

"It is impossible any person can be more truly sensible of your Excellency's unremitting attention and assiduity to every thing connected with the naval department in this country than myself, &c.

I have the honour to remain,
With the highest respect,
Dear Sir,
Your Excellency's
Most obedient servant,
James Lucas Yeo."

With regard to the naval action on Lake Erie, we shall only observe, that it certainly was not lost from the want of skill or courage on the part of the officers and men of our squadron. The decided superiority of the enemy in their weight of metal and seamen, gave them an advantage which the bravest efforts of our squadron, directed and encouraged by the distinguished gallantry and conduct of their Commander, were insufficient to resist. The causes of the disastrous result of that action are best told, in the words of the sentence of the Court-martial upon Captain Barclay and his officers, which will be found in the Appendix.[66] The situation of General Procter was such, after this disaster, as to render it indispensable for him to take the most prompt and energetic measures for withdrawing his troops from posts which were no longer tenable, and to join the main body of the army on the Niagara frontier, to whose force he knew his men would prove a seasonable and powerful accession. Upon this disastrous retreat it is unnecessary to dwell. It must, however, be remarked, that from the sentence of the Court-martial upon General Procter, and the subsequent remarks upon that sentence by order of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, it certainly appears that General Procter did not avail himself, with sufficient energy and activity of the period which elapsed between the loss of our fleet and the action at the Moravian village, to effect the important object of retiring with his troops to a place of safety.

However meritorious had been the conduct of General Procter, and of the troops serving under him previous to his retreat from Amherstburgh, it was not possible for Sir George Prevost to avoid noticing in the public orders, which announced to the army the capture of the greater part of those troops at the Moravian town, what appeared to him the disgraceful circumstances with which the affair had been attended. Although General Procter might feel hurt by the reflections thus passed upon his conduct, yet the Commander of the forces, in consideration of his former services, was unwilling to make that conduct the subject of public investigation, until His Majesty's Government, to whom General Procter's explanation had been submitted, should determine upon the course to be pursued. It was in obedience to their orders that General Procter was at length put upon his trial.[67]

That the charges against General Procter could only rest upon the events of the retreat which he was accused of misconducting, and that "a long period of arduous services and neglected representations"[68] could form no part of such charges, must be obvious to the lowest capacity. General Procter had, of course, the opportunity of availing himself of those services before the Court-martial, and that he did so the nature of the sentence would lead us to suppose. But it surely cannot be inferred from the opinion of the Court, that Sir George Prevost had any other motive in preferring the charges, than the good of the service, and obedience to the commands of his superiors. Whether, under these circumstances, and with the knowledge of Sir George Prevost's military life, which the Reviewer must have possessed, he is justified in making the gross insinuation with which he concludes his strictures on this subject, will be left to the candid reader to determine.

The greater part of the troops under General Procter having been captured, General Vincent was compelled immediately to retreat to Burlington Heights, a measure which the information received by that officer of the extent of General Procter's loss, and the probable immediate advance of the enemy, seemed to render indispensable.

The first intelligence received of General Procter's defeat was through a Staff-Adjutant, who had escaped from the field of battle, and who, by exaggerated accounts of this disaster, and of the consequences to be expected from it, spread terror and dismay through the country as he passed rapidly along to Kingston, where he arrived on the 12th October. In the mean time, General Vincent, whom these reports had reached, and who had also on the 8th received from General Procter intelligence of the action, had begun his retreat from the four-mile creek, and had halted at the twelve-mile creek, when a communication from Colonel Young, at Burlington, induced him immediately to fall back upon that place as a post where he might with less difficulty maintain himself if attacked, and where he might wait for instructions from General de Rottenburg, the officer commanding in Upper Canada.

General de Rottenburg, who was on his way from York to Kingston, when the intelligence of General Procter's defeat overtook him on the road, immediately sent to General Vincent, directing him, in his despatch of the 10th October, if he did not consider himself sufficiently strong to hold out against the superior force of the enemy, to destroy the stores, &c. and to fall back on Kingston. These directions, it is to be observed, were given under the impression created by the Staff-Adjutant's account, which, in a very short time was discovered to be greatly exaggerated; and it appears from General Vincent's letter to General de Rottenburg, previous to the receipt of the despatch last mentioned, as well as from the one in answer to it, that he had no immediate intention of retreating from the position he then occupied, although he thought circumstances might afterwards render such a measure necessary. In the mean time the same exaggerated accounts of the action at the Moravian village, which had been carried to Kingston, having been received at Montreal by the Commander of the forces, together with General de Rottenburg's despatches, communicating the orders he had sent to General Vincent in consequence of that intelligence, Sir George Prevost in his letter to General de Rottenburg of the 18th October, approved of those orders, and directed them to be carried into execution.

On the 18th October, the very day on which this last despatch was dated, General de Rottenburg informed Sir George Prevost, by letter, that the Staff-Adjutant's account, by which he had been induced to give the directions to General Vincent to retreat to York, preparatory to falling back on Kingston, was false and scandalous. As soon as it was thus ascertained at head-quarters at Montreal, what the real nature of General Procter's disaster was, the Commander of the forces having also reason to believe, from the information transmitted to him by General de Rottenburg, that the enemy had designs upon York from Sackett's Harbour, instructions, dated the 29th October, were sent to that officer, directing him to prevent General Vincent's further retreat, and to order him to occupy both Burlington and York with the force under his command. The orders, which were accordingly sent from General de Rottenburg to General Vincent to that effect on the 1st November, were received by him on the 4th, and he in consequence remained in the position he then occupied at Burlington Heights, which undoubtedly led afterwards to the recovery of the Niagara frontier.

From the above correspondence it incontrovertibly appears, that the orders transmitted from the Commander of the forces, through General de Rottenburg to Major-General Vincent, were the real and only cause of that officer's not retreating to York, and of his continuing to hold his position at Burlington; which, as appears by his own letter of the 27th October, before referred to, he was preparing to leave on the 1st November.

Sir George Prevost's orders to General Vincent, to fall back upon Kingston, had not reached him on the 23rd October; previous to which, his orders to retreat had been discretionary. On the 27th he was preparing to obey them, and on the 4th of November he received orders to remain where he was.

There cannot, therefore, be a doubt of the gross incorrectness of all the Reviewer's statements,[69] of the repeated peremptory orders to retreat; of the advice which the firmness of General Procter and others had induced them to give General Vincent to disobey those orders, and of his being persuaded upon their responsibility to adopt it.

It was, in fact, the prompt and decided measures of Sir George Prevost, as soon as the truth, with regard to General Procter's defeat, was made known to him, that alone prevented General Vincent from continuing his retreat, and that led to those offensive operations which followed shortly afterwards on the Niagara frontier, and which, notwithstanding the attempt made by the Reviewer to give the sole credit of them to General Vincent and Colonel Murray, originated in the instructions which the former officer had received from General de Rottenburg, then commanding in Upper Canada. Even the attack upon Fort Niagara had previously been pressed upon the consideration of Major-Generals de Rottenburg and Sheaffe, by the Commander of the forces, as desirable, whenever circumstances might render such a measure practicable.

In summing up the events of the campaign of 1813, the Reviewer observes,[70] "that on the British side, the occurrences of the year, on the part of the subordinate commanders and troops, presented a brilliant series of achievements, the greater number of which were rendered nugatory or imperfect in result, from the absence of all energy, talent, and enterprise, in their Commander-in-Chief."

In support of this opinion, which is sufficiently singular, considering what the Reviewer has himself stated to have been the result of the campaign, he adds, that the successes obtained by General Vincent and Colonel Harvey, by General Procter, Colonel Murray, and Lieutenant-Colonel Morrison, were all obtained either against the positive commands of Sir George Prevost, or without any instructions from him; and that in the only measure which could be ascribed to him, he endeavoured to wrest the merit from Lieut.-Colonel De Salaberry, because he happened to arrive when the enemy were beaten.

The following observations will afford a full answer to this unfounded and disgraceful attack upon the character and reputation of Sir George Prevost. The brilliant affair at Stoney Creek, under Major-General Vincent and Colonel Harvey, and the equally successful operation on the Michigan frontier, when General Procter defeated the forces of Winchester and Clay, arose out of the circumstances of the moment, of which those officers immediately, with great judgment and gallantry, availed themselves. There could, therefore, be no time for communication with the Commander of the forces, and consequently the operations in question could not have taken place in direct opposition to commands which were never received. With regard to the general instructions under which the subordinate Commanders acted, it has already been shewn that General Procter had discretionary orders from Sir George Prevost to act on the defensive or otherwise, as circumstances might require; so likewise had General Vincent; and the marked approbation expressed, both in general orders, and in the despatches to the Secretary of State announcing these events, is a further strong proof that the conduct of those officers was in perfect accordance with the orders and instructions which they had received from the Commander of the forces. Colonel Murray's expedition against Plattsburg was, as appears by the despatch to Lord Bathurst, of the 1st August, 1813, planned altogether by Sir George Prevost, who had previously endeavoured to place our marine on the Richelieu, which had been increased by the capture of the two schooners from the enemy, on a respectable footing; first, by the appointment of Captain Pring to the naval command there, and subsequently by obtaining the services of Captain Everard, and the officers and seamen of the Wasp sloop of war, then lately arrived at Quebec from Halifax, to man these vessels and the gun-boats. Colonel Murray was the officer particularly selected by Sir George Prevost to command on this expedition, from the opinion he entertained of his zeal and energy. The event amply justified his expectations, and this enterprise, undertaken by the orders and under the instructions of the Commander of the forces, was in every respect successful.

The daring exploit which was subsequently achieved by Colonel Murray, in the capture of Fort Niagara, so far from being in opposition to Sir George Prevost's orders, or in the absence of any instructions respecting it, was the consequence of the verbal instructions given by Sir George Prevost to Lieutenant-General Drummond, previous to his assuming the command in Upper Canada, and confirmed in his letter to him of the 3rd December, 1813. Lieutenant-Colonel Morrison had been detached from Kingston with the 49th, the 2nd battalion of the 89th, and the Voltigeurs, as a corps of observation, to follow the motions of General Wilkinson's army, then threatening Montreal from Sackett's Harbour, in consequence of the express orders and directions of Sir George Prevost; a fact established by his despatch to Lord Bathurst of the 15th November, 1813.

The foresight of the Commander of the forces in providing this force to watch the enemy, and his judgment in the selection of Lieut.-Colonel Morrison to command it, led beyond all doubt, to the defeat which General Boyd received at Chrystler's farm, and ultimately, by the interruptions thus occasioned to General Wilkinson's plans, to the safety of Lower Canada. That the measures adopted by Sir George Prevost might in some degree have contributed to the success which attended Lieut.-Colonel De Salaberry's defence of his position at Chateaugay, the Reviewer seems most unwillingly to admit, while at the same time he imputes to him the base and unworthy attempt of endeavouring to assume to himself the merit which on that occasion was alone due to Colonel De Salaberry.

In Sir George Prevost's despatch to Lord Bathurst on this subject, of the date of 30th October, 1813, he expresses himself fortunate at having arrived at the scene of action shortly after it commenced, as it enabled him personally to witness the conduct of the officers and men engaged in it, and to form a proper judgment of their merits, which he then severally details in his letter. The unqualified praise which he bestows upon the officer immediately commanding, (Lieut.-Colonel De Salaberry) is of itself a sufficient refutation of this libel on the part of the Reviewer.[71]

The checks thus received by the forces under Generals Wilkinson and Hampton, from Lieut.-Colonel Morrison, and Lieut.-Colonel De Salaberry, were, without doubt, no inconsiderable causes of their repulse in the attempt upon Lower Canada; but it was also the duty of the Reviewer to have noticed the prompt and judicious measures adopted by Sir George Prevost, as soon as he had ascertained that General Wilkinson was descending the St. Lawrence to attack Montreal, for the defence of that place, by calling out the whole militia of the district, and by collecting all his disposable force at La Chine, where he commanded in person. The formidable defences which he had prepared both at Coteau du Lac, and at the Cedars, together with the imposing force of militia which had been assembled at a very short notice, must have convinced General Wilkinson that he could not hope to make any impression upon a people who shewed so much zeal and alacrity in defending themselves, and who were commanded by one who possessed their entire confidence and affection. Under these circumstances, and from the opposition already experienced to his attempt, the American Commander resolved to abandon it as impracticable, more particularly as he found himself without support from General Hampton, who had retired towards Lake Champlain.

In detailing the events of the campaign of 1814, the Reviewer has again not scrupled, in his account of Captain Pring's expedition to Vergennes, to distort the truth, for the purpose of attaching the blame of this failure to Sir George Prevost. So far from the Commander of the forces refusing to Captain Pring the assistance of the troops stationed at Isle aux Noix, as the Reviewer asserts,[72] a strong detachment of the marines then in garrison at that post, was embarked on board of his squadron, and the despatch to Lord Bathurst from Sir George Prevost, of the 18th of May, 1814,[73] proves that this expedition was planned and directed by the Commander of the forces, and probably failed from the circumstance alone of Captain Pring being prevented by baffling winds for four days from reaching his destination, before the enemy had time to mature their preparations for defence.

A similar degree of incorrectness prevails in the Reviewer's statements with regard to the force retained by Sir George Prevost in Lower Canada. That Lower Canada, in the middle of April, 1814,[74] had nothing to dread, may be confidently denied. On the 22d and 30th March, two attempts had been made by General Wilkinson to penetrate into that Province by the Montreal frontier, and in the latter instance, in considerable force. Though he was repulsed in both cases, and in the latter with severe loss, he still continued to keep a considerable body of men on the frontier line, from which he did not withdraw until towards the middle of May.[75] Sackett's Harbour, instead of being weakly garrisoned, had been strengthened by two regiments from General Wilkinson's army, besides other reinforcements; and our fleet on Lake Ontario was so far from being at that period ready for sea, that it was not until the 14th of April, that the two ships, which were to constitute its principal strength, had been launched, nor was our squadron in a situation to take the Lake until the beginning of May. The only reinforcements which, up to this period in 1814, and even until the beginning of June, had arrived in Lower Canada, were the 2d battalion of the 8th regiment, which the foresight of the Commander of the forces had induced him to draw in the depth of winter by land from New Brunswick, whence they arrived in the month of March, together with 200 picked seamen from Admiral Griffiths for the fleet on Lake Ontario, without a single accident. This regiment is enumerated by the Reviewer amongst his nine regular regiments of infantry, with three squadrons of dragoons, six strong battalions of militia, and a numerous division of artillery, the whole of which he has untruly asserted, were crowded together in inactivity at Chambly, behind a strong frontier, without an enemy to oppose them;[76] adding, that although reinforcements were daily arriving or expected, not a man was sent to strengthen the inadequate force on the Niagara frontier, until the middle of July, when only two of the Peninsular regiments were reluctantly yielded for that service. Of the nine regular regiments of infantry, of which the Reviewer speaks, one was De Meuron's foreign corps, another the Canadian Fencibles, a third a battalion of Marines, a fourth the Canadian Voltigeurs, militia-men, subject to militia law, and whose force at the utmost was 450 men. Of the real regular regiments, viz. the 8th, 13th, 16th, 49th, and 70th, the 16th did not arrive until June, together with two companies of artillery. This regiment was almost immediately stationed at Montreal, where it remained the whole of July, and in August was despatched to Upper Canada. The 70th garrisoned Quebec, with a portion of artillery, and a small corps, composed of the recruits of the other regiments in the Province. The 13th was in advance at St. John, and La Cole Mill, and the battalion of marines garrisoned Isle aux Noix. Of the six battalions of embodied militia, one was at La Prairie, and another, if not two of the others, at different parts of the frontier; the Voltigeurs were also in advance, and part of the Canadian fencibles were at Coteau du Lac. From this statement, made out from documents, the authenticity of which cannot be doubted, it will appear that the troops under Sir George Prevost in the Lower Province, which were barely adequate to its defence, in lieu of being all assembled at Chambly, were stationed in different parts of the Province, where their services were most required, and that they did not at any time, collectively form the camp of instruction of which the Reviewer speaks. Previous even to the 1st of May, when the Reviewer has stated that Sir James Yeo was ready with his fleet for any operation, no part of this force could, consistently with the safety of Lower Canada, have been despatched for the reinforcement of General Drummond. Still less could a sufficient portion of it have been spared, to have enabled that officer, with any prospect of success, to attempt an attack on Sackett's Harbour. General Drummond was, in fact, aware that, from the period of the first attack on that place, in May, 1813, the enemy had been indefatigable in fortifying it, and that it was at all times guarded by a large body of regular troops and militia, together with a number of able and experienced seamen. Nothing, therefore, short of the full co-operation of a superior fleet, and a large body of troops, could have afforded him a well-grounded expectation of succeeding. General Drummond well knew that, up to May, 1814, and for some time afterwards, no force of this description could be spared from the Lower Province. However desirable he might have thought it, to destroy the naval depôt at Sackett's Harbour, he knew that no adequate means were within his power, or that of the Commander of the forces; and until, by fresh reinforcements from England, those means should be acquired, he was obliged to content himself with operations compatible with his resources. We accordingly find that, as soon as the fleet was in readiness to take the Lake, General Drummond, in consequence of the previous communication which had taken place between Sir George Prevost and himself, undertook the expedition against Oswego, which terminated in the capture of that place, together with a quantity of stores, provisions, and ordnance, most of which being designed for the squadron at Sackett's Harbour, must have materially delayed its equipment. Of this enterprise the Reviewer has thought proper to say nothing, because he knew that it might in a great degree be attributed to the measures of Sir George Prevost. For a similar reason he has altogether omitted to notice the extraordinary and energetic measures which had been adopted by the Commander of the forces, for relieving Michilimachinac, and affording to that garrison an important reinforcement of troops, seamen, and provisions, under the command of an able and experienced officer, who afterwards gave ample proofs of his courage and talents in his successful defence of that post against a powerful attack of the enemy. The reinforcement of that distant position, whilst the enemy were in possession of the whole of the Michigan territory, and by a route never before attempted, reflected the greatest credit upon the Commander of the forces who directed, and upon Lieutenant Colonel M'Douall, who executed, this arduous enterprise, which was highly important in its consequences as respected our Indian allies, and the safety of the Upper Province. Independently of this reinforcement to the troops in Upper Canada, we shall find that Sir George Prevost continued mindful of Lieutenant-General Drummond's situation, and desirous of assisting him, as soon as the means of doing so were placed within his power. It has been already shewn, that out of the force which the Commander of the forces possessed for the defence of Lower Canada, and of which the Reviewer has given so incorrect a statement, the 2nd battalion of the 8th arrived from New Brunswick in March, and the 16th with two companies of artillery in June. It was not until the month of July that the next reinforcements, consisting of the 90th regiment, from the West Indies, and the 6th and 82nd from the army under the Duke of Wellington, reached Montreal. These three regiments were immediately sent forward to the Niagara frontier. The despatch to the Secretary of State, announcing the arrival of these troops, sufficiently and satisfactorily explained the reasons which had hitherto prevented Sir George Prevost from strengthening General Drummond's force in the Upper Province. In the beginning of June, and previously to the arrival of these reinforcements, Sir James Yeo had retired into port after blockading Sackett's Harbour; and from that period, until October, the enemy had the ascendancy on Lake Ontario. Our operations in Upper Canada were, therefore, necessarily confined to the defensive; and although the superior numbers of the enemy gave them at times an advantage over us, and occasioned a considerable loss of valuable lives, the efforts made by the Commander of the forces, to supply these losses, enabled General Drummond successfully to maintain the contest, and to prevent the Americans from gaining any permanent footing in the Province. Upon the arrival of the Nova Scotia Fencibles, a battalion of the Royals, and the 97th regiment towards the end of July, the latter regiment was immediately sent to Kingston, and Sir George Prevost continued to make every exertion to reinforce the army on the Niagara frontier.

Before we proceed to the consideration of the much misrepresented affair of Plattsburg, the orders under which Sir George Prevost acted, and the plan of operations proposed upon the arrival of the reinforcements from the Duke of Wellington's army, it will be necessary to expose the perverted statement with which the Quarterly Reviewer has introduced his account of this expedition. "In June and July," he says, "a numerous fleet arrived in the St. Lawrence from Bourdeaux, with the flower of the Duke of Wellington's army."[77] Now connecting this paragraph with the one that follows soon afterwards—"that the Peninsular troops were suffered to ascend no higher than the ill-fated camp of Chambly, where they were detained during the whole month of August"[78]—it is evident that the Reviewer meant his readers to believe that the brigades, under Generals Robinson, Brisbane, Power, and Kempt, had arrived in Canada in June and July, so as to enable Sir George Prevost to assemble them for any service at Chambly by the beginning of August, and yet that he kept them the whole of that month unemployed. It appears, however, from Sir George Prevost's despatches to Lord Bathurst, dated 28th June, 1814, that the only part of the Duke of Wellington's army, which arrived in June, were the 6th and 82nd regiments. The transports having those regiments on board passed Quebec for Montreal, about the 26th of that month, but did not reach the latter place until the first or second week in July, from whence they were immediately pushed forward to reinforce Lieutenant-General Drummond on the Niagara frontier. The brigade under Major-General Power, which was accompanied by Major-General Brisbane, did not arrive at Quebec until late in July; indeed so late, that Sir George Prevost, in his despatch to Lord Bathurst announcing their arrival, states, that they would scarcely be able to arrive at Montreal, with every exertion, before the 20th of August. The two last brigades, under Generals Kempt and Robinson, arrived still later; and Sir George Prevost's despatch of the 5th August, 1814, announcing their approach to Quebec, stated that it would be impossible, with every exertion, to collect the whole force, viz. all the brigades in the neighbourhood of Montreal, before the end of that month. In fact, it was not until towards the end of August, that two of the brigades above mentioned were assembled at Chambly, and in the neighbourhood; the other brigade, under Major-General Kempt, being stationed partly at Montreal, and partly in advance towards Kingston, in order to be in readiness for the service for which it was designed, whenever our ascendancy on Lake Ontario should be required.

In his next observations, the Reviewer has confounded both dates and facts, in order to make it appear that Sir George Prevost knew not how to dispose of the succours which had reached him; with which, in the Reviewer's opinion,[79] he ought instantly to have made a rapid movement towards Lake Ontario, for the purpose of attacking Sackett's Harbour; an attempt which, it is stated, should have been made whilst Sir James Yeo was blockading that place, instead of wasting some of the most valuable months of the summer in the camp at Chambly:[80] and further, that the march of General Izzard to Sackett's Harbour, with 3,000 or 4,000 regular troops, was a proof that the American Government felt (although our Commander did not), that all objects on the frontier were insignificant, in comparison with the protection of the numerous squadron which was blockaded in their ports on Lake Ontario.

Unfortunately for the Reviewer's consistency, he had previously stated, that in consequence of Commodore Chauncey having prepared two new frigates for sea, Sir James Yeo discontinued his blockade of Sackett's Harbour, and retired to Kingston, to await the equipment of the St. Lawrence, and that during the months of August and September, Chauncey held the Lake.

General Izzard was despatched to Sackett's Harbour about the end of August, or 1st of September, and consequently the American Government, from the Reviewer's own shewing, could not at that time have any apprehensions for their numerous squadron, blockaded in their Port on Lake Ontario. So far indeed from the American squadron being at this time in danger, Kingston, and Sir James Yeo's numerous squadron, were actually at the period of General Izzard's march to Sackett's Harbour, most rigorously blockaded by Chauncey, and so continued for nearly six weeks afterwards. Sackett's Harbour was in fact only blockaded by Sir James Yeo, from the beginning of May to the beginning of June, at which latter period he relinquished the blockade, and did not make his appearance on the Lake until the middle of October following.

It has been already shewn what Sir George Prevost's force really consisted of, in the Lower Province, during the period of this blockade, and until the month of July, when the first reinforcements from France reached him. These reinforcements were immediately sent to the Upper Province. It is consequently most evident that he did not then possess the means of attacking Sackett's Harbour, and that after the blockade had ceased, tenfold the means he possessed would not have sufficed for the service, without the co-operation of the fleet.[81]

It is in the highest degree improbable, that any man in Sir George Prevost's army, or in the Provinces, possessing a knowledge of these facts, which were within the reach of all, should have thought it possible that on the arrival of the troops from Bourdeaux, Sackett's Harbour was or could be the point of attack, so long as our squadron was not able to take the Lake.

It will, it is apprehended, tend very materially to elucidate the subsequent operations of the war, to state the views which probably influenced His Majesty's Government in sending so large a force from the Duke of Wellington's army to Canada, and the manner in which it was directed to be employed. The circumstances under which the war had been commenced on the part of the Americans, and the refusal of their Government to consider the revocation of the Orders in Council, the ostensible ground of war as a cause for pacification, had justly offended both the Government and people of Great Britain. The efforts, however, which they were called upon to make in Europe, had, until the termination of the contest by the abdication of Buonaparte, prevented the British Government from furnishing any other reinforcements for the army in the Canadas, than such as were barely sufficient, aided by the bravery of the troops, and the talents, zeal, and energy of their Commander, for the defence of the country from the repeated attacks of the enemy. As soon, however, as the peace with France placed a larger force at their disposal, His Majesty's Government resolved to avail themselves of a portion of it, in order to retaliate upon America her unjust aggressions, and to carry the war into such parts of her territory as might prove most assailable. In consequence of this determination, the expeditions to the Chesapeake and the Mississipi were planned; and with the same views three brigades were ordered from Bourdeaux to Canada. The objects contemplated in sending this reinforcement to Canada, will be best understood by a reference to Lord Bathurst's despatch to Sir George Prevost, of the 3d June, 1814, in which it is said, "The object of your operations will be, First, To give immediate protection, secondly, to obtain, if possible, ultimate security, to His Majesty's possessions in America. The entire destruction of Sackett's Harbour, and the naval establishment on Lake Erie and Lake Champlain, come under the first description."—"Should there be any advanced position on that part of our frontier which extends towards Lake Champlain, the occupation of which would materially tend to the security of the Province, you will, if you deem it expedient, expel the enemy from it, and occupy it by detachments of the troops under your command, always, however, taking care not to expose his Majesty's troops to being cut off by too extended a line of advance"—"At the same time, it is by no means the intention of His Majesty's Government to encourage such forward movements into the interior of the American territory, as might commit the safety of the force placed under your command." It must be evident to every person in the least acquainted with the territories of America bordering upon the Canadas, that none of the objects of offensive warfare contemplated in the foregoing despatch could be undertaken without the aid and co-operation of a fleet able to contend with that of the enemy. That His Majesty's Government might be aware of the impossibility of complying with the views and wishes above described, until the naval ascendancy should be secured on Lakes Ontario and Champlain, Sir George Prevost, in his despatch to Lord Bathurst, of the 12th July, before referred to, expresses his opinion on this head, stating that he did not expect from the reports he had received from Sir James Yeo, and the officer commanding our naval forces on the Richelieu, that their fleets would be in readiness before the middle of September.

Upon the arrival of the troops from France, and upon their being assembled as before stated in the neighbourhood of Montreal towards the end of August, it was ascertained that the new ship at Kingston would not be launched until towards the middle of September, and consequently, that Sir James Yeo would not be ready to take the Lake, at the earliest, until the beginning of October. All, therefore, that could be done with regard to the projected expedition against Sackett's Harbour, was to make such a disposition of the troops designed for the service, that they might be in readiness for it, whenever it might be deemed advisable to make the attempt. Major-General Sir James Kempt, who was to have the command, was accordingly dispatched to Kingston, and two brigades were quartered partly at Montreal and partly in advance, wherever he judged they might be best placed, with a view to the ultimate service for which they were designed. The employment of the remainder of the force from France next became the subject of Sir George Prevost's consideration. The enemy had at that time a strong squadron on Lake Champlain, and their naval depôt at Vergennes furnished them with the means of continually adding to it. They had also since the first attack fortified Plattsburg, a position which, provided we had the ascendancy on the Lake, it might be expedient for us to occupy for the security of the Lower Province. Should, therefore, our squadron, equipping in the Richelieu, be ready to co-operate with the army before the season was too far advanced for offensive operations, it was clear that one of the objects contemplated by Government might be undertaken with every prospect of success. The enemy's fleet, if they waited the attack upon them in Plattsburg bay, or elsewhere, might be destroyed, or the depôt at Vergennes might fall into our hands by the occupation of Plattsburg, and the further advance of the army aided by the fleet. That the enemy were not assailable in any other quarter, (Sackett's Harbour being out of the question from what has been before stated,) it can scarcely be necessary to mention, nor has it ever been pretended that they were.

The State of Vermont on the east shore of the Lake might, indeed, have been entered from St. Amand, and our townships on that frontier, without the assistance of our squadron. But independently of there not being any object of sufficient consequence in that quarter to make an attack upon it advisable, it was deemed highly imprudent to molest that State by a mere predatory expedition, whilst two-thirds of the supplies of fresh meat for the army in Canada were furnished by American contractors, and whilst droves of cattle, as well as large sums of money in specie were constantly passing by that route from the United States into Canada; a fact which is not generally known, and which strongly marks the wisdom of that policy which Sir George Prevost pursued during the American warfare. As the destruction of the enemy's naval depôt on Lake Champlain was then the only operation contemplated by His Majesty's Government, which could be undertaken with any prospect of success, Sir George Prevost with a view to that object, had, immediately after the receipt of the despatch of the 3rd June, above referred to, used every possible exertion to accelerate the building of the new ship at Isle aux Noix, and the efficient arming and equipment of the squadron there, for the service in which it was proposed to be employed. Some time previous to this period it appears from Sir George Prevost's correspondence with Sir James Yeo, that he had repeatedly called the particular attention of that officer to the manning of the squadron for Lake Champlain.[82] In addition to this, his correspondence with Captain Fisher, and Vice Admiral Otway, tends to establish the fact of his unwearied and successful exertions to accomplish that object.

The Confiance was launched on the 26th of August, and Sir George Prevost having reason to believe that the efforts which were making for her equipment would enable Captain Fisher to take the Lake in the course of a few days, proceeded, on the 30th, to inspect the first brigade of troops quartered at Chambly; and on the 31st. established his head-quarters at Odell Town, close upon the enemy's frontier. Having here received information that General Izzard had suddenly quitted his position at Champlain Town, and had marched with a body of troops in the direction of Niagara, evidently for the purpose of joining General Brown, who had established a footing on the Niagara frontier, and was pressing upon Lieutenant General Drummond, Sir George Prevost determined to lose no time in entering the enemy's territory, (even though our fleet was not ready to co-operate,) in the hope by this movement of checking General Izzard's progress, and of thus making a diversion in favour of General Drummond. Our troops accordingly crossed the frontier line, and on the 3d of September took possession of Champlain Town, which the enemy had abandoned on their approach. Our forces advanced the following day to Chazy and Simpson's Inn, about eight miles from Plattsburg, where they halted on the 5th. Previously to this advance Captain Fisher, who had superintended the building of the Confiance, and whose local knowledge would have rendered his services peculiarly useful in the joint operations contemplated, had been suddenly and unexpectedly superseded by Sir James Yeo in the command of our naval force on the Richelieu, and Captain Downie had been appointed to succeed him. This officer did not arrive at Montreal from Lake Ontario until the 3rd September, and on the following day repaired to Isle aux Noix to superintend the equipment of the new ship. On the 5th of September, the day on which the troops halted at Simpson's Inn, an interview took place between Sir George Prevost and Captain Downie, when the latter assured the Commander of the forces, that his flotilla would be ready to co-operate with the army in less than forty-eight hours; that he had correctly ascertained the state and condition of the enemy's fleet; and that in consequence he entertained no apprehensions of the result of an action. Sir George Prevost then explained to Captain Downie the reason of his having pressed forward before the latter was ready. On the following day, the 6th September, the army advanced to Plattsburg, and took possession of that part of it situate on the northern side of the Saranac, the enemy's troops having retreated thence to the south side, and to their fortified position on the crest of the hills.

No sooner had this position been taken, than Sir George Prevost, conceiving that the enemy, on the first approach of our troops, might not be fully prepared to receive them, proposed that the works should be immediately attacked;[83] but it being represented to him that one of the brigades was extremely harassed, having been brought forward from Chazy with great celerity, and that after allowing the men a reasonable time to rest, the afternoon would be too far advanced to attempt an operation for which it was desirable to have day-light, as the movement was to be made through so thick and intricate a country, Sir George was induced to acquiesce in this reasoning; and being likewise satisfied, from the assurance given him, by Captain Downie, that the fleet would be ready to co-operate in a day or two at farthest, he finally resolved to defer the attack until the junction of the squadron. The enemy's fleet had retired from the mouth of the Chazy (where it was placed, when our troops entered the American territory), to Plattsburg Bay, and there, on the arrival of our army, it was found anchored; their gun-boats, which had been employed to interrupt the march of our army on the Lake road, being placed so as to manifest a determination to support their troops and position on the south side of the Saranac. On the morning of the 7th, it was discovered that the enemy's flotilla had changed their position since the preceding evening, and had moved further into the bay, out of the range of cannon from the shore, evidently with the object of avoiding the fire from the works, in case they should be attacked and carried.

As soon as Sir George Prevost had, by a thorough reconnoitring of the enemy's position, on shore and in the bay, satisfied his own mind that their fleet was moored too far from the shore to receive any support from their own batteries, or any injury from ours, he communicated the enemy's force and situation to Captain Downie, by a letter[84] dated the 7th September, seven o'clock a. m., and stated, that if Captain Downie felt the vessels under his command equal to the contest, the present moment afforded advantages that might not again occur, requesting, at the same time, his decision on the subject. This letter was delivered by Major Fulton, Aid-de-Camp to Sir George Prevost, who was ordered particularly to explain to Captain Downie the position of the enemy's squadron, and that they were, in his opinion, anchored out of range of shot from the shore. Major Fulton's statement[85] on this subject, shews most clearly the views which Captain Downie then entertained, and the confidence which he felt in the result of the contest, for which he declared he would be ready in 24 hours. Captain Downie's letter, in reply to Sir George Prevost's communication, although more guarded in expression, contained in substance what he had said to Major Fulton, and confirmed the expectation of his being able to meet the enemy in a day or two. On the 8th of September Sir George Prevost again despatched a letter to Captain Downie, stating that he had sent his Aid-de-Camp, Major Coore, to give him correct information with regard to the enemy's naval force in the bay, and that he, Sir George Prevost, only waited the arrival of Captain Downie to proceed against General Macomb's position. In this letter he particularly points out the co-operation which he expected from Captain Downie. That officer's answer, dated on the same day, states, "that his ship was not ready, and that until she should be, it was his duty not to hazard her before the enemy;" and this determination of Captain Downie's appears to have been still more strongly expressed by him in his conversation with Major Coore. Hitherto, therefore it may be assumed as an incontrovertible fact, that nothing had been either said or written by Sir George Prevost to Captain Downie which might lead the latter to expect any assistance in his approaching contest with the American fleet, from the forces on shore, or that any simultaneous attack was to be made upon the enemy's works, with a view to afford such aid or support. Being thus perfectly aware of the number, force, and position of the enemy's fleet, and finding himself ready for a conflict, of the successful issue of which we may be assured that he had not a doubt, Captain Downie, on the 9th of September, wrote to Sir George Prevost, informing him that it was his intention to weigh and proceed with his squadron, so as to approach Plattsburg Bay at day-break on the 10th, and to commence an immediate attack on the enemy's squadron, if it should be found anchored in a position to afford any chance of success. Immediately upon the receipt of this letter, Sir George Prevost gave orders for the troops to be held in readiness to assault the enemy's works at the same time that the naval action should commence. On the 10th, the fleet not making its appearance, Sir George Prevost addressed a letter to Captain Downie, acknowledging the receipt of his communication of the 9th, and acquainting him that, in consequence of it, the troops had been held in readiness since six o'clock in the morning, to storm the enemy's works at nearly the same moment as the naval action should commence in the bay; that he ascribed the disappointment he had experienced to the unfortunate change of wind, and should rejoice to learn from him that his expectations had been frustrated by no other cause. At day-break, on the 11th, Sir George Prevost proceeded to the quarters of Lieutenant-General de Rottenburg, (who was second in command,) in company with the Adjutant-General, and acquainted him that, as the wind was then fair, the fleet, unless prevented by accident, might soon be expected, and therefore directed him immediately to circulate the orders for the troops to hold themselves in readiness, as directed on the preceding day. This was immediately done by Captain Burke, Assistant-Adjutant-General, who personally delivered these orders to Major-Generals Brisbane, Robinson, and Power, viz. to cook, and hold themselves in readiness as on the preceding day. These orders were so delivered by Captain Burke before the fleet had made its appearance, and before the scaling of their guns was heard. It seems by the time on shore to have been about eight o'clock when the fleet was first discovered, and about nine when it rounded Cumberland head, and stood into the Bay. Orders having been given by the Commander of the forces that the batteries should open upon the enemy's works, the moment the naval action should commence, they were accordingly opened, and actually commenced the fire a full quarter of an hour before the Confiance had fired a shot at the enemy's vessels. The fire from our shore-battery was so well served, that the enemy's Lake battery, the only one which could possibly annoy our squadron, or afford protection to that of the enemy (but from which not a shot was fired in the direction of the Lake) was very soon silenced, and the men driven from it to seek shelter in the higher redoubt. Almost immediately upon the commencement of the naval action, orders were despatched for the troops to take their allotted positions for the assault of the enemy's works. In consequence of these orders, the two brigades under Major-Generals Robinson and Power, proceeded in the rear of their Bivouacs, to approach the ford of the Saranac, which it was intended they should cross and proceed through the wood, in order to conceal their movements from the enemy, whose position it was then contemplated to attack in reverse, the ground being broken and uneven, and the works much too strong to be attempted in front. Whilst these movements were making by our troops, which from their nature, must have been equally concealed from the fleet on the Lake, and from the enemy, Major-General Brisbane's brigade had formed, and was ready to force the bridge of the Saranac, on the right of the enemy's position, as soon as the troops under Generals Robinson and Power should have passed the ford, and made their appearance before the enemy's works. These movements must necessarily have required time for their completion, but no person in the army for an instant doubted that the duration of the naval action would enable the troops to accomplish the design of penetrating, by the ford, and through the road, to the foot of the works which were the object of attack. Unfortunately, during this period, and whilst the two fleets were still engaged, a wrong direction, by the mistake of the guides, was taken through the wood which led to the ford of the Saranac. As soon as the error was discovered, the troops were counter-marched, but before they could recover the right direction, full three-quarters of an hour, and perhaps an hour was lost—an invaluable portion of time, which, had not the mistake occurred, must have brought the troops to the very foot of the enemy's position. On approaching the ford, it was found to be guarded by a strong force of the enemy on the other side. At this period cheers were distinctly heard, which General Robinson supposed to proceed, either from our squadron that had been successful, or from General Brisbane's brigade advancing to the assault. Major Cochrane was therefore despatched to head-quarters to ascertain the fact, and to learn whether there were any further orders. Upon his arrival there, the fleet having at that time surrendered, Sir George Prevost most reluctantly gave the order for the recal of the troops from the attack of the forts, and it is well known to those who were in his confidence, with what poignant regret he thus sacrificed his private feelings to what he considered his paramount public duty. Upon Major Cochrane's return with these orders, he found that the troops had only been enabled to force the ford of the Saranac, and were then in the act of advancing through the wood to the enemy's position. Under these circumstances, General Robinson felt himself bound to obey the orders, and the forces retired from the attack.

Having thus given a full and correct statement of the circumstances which attended the enterprise against Plattsburg, it is necessary to notice the animadversions which have been made upon the military character of Sir George Prevost, in consequence of the unfortunate result of that expedition. In no instance has the conduct of Sir George Prevost been attacked with more virulence and injustice, than by the writer in the Quarterly Review, whose representations are, as the reader must already have perceived, in the highest degree incorrect.

The charges which have been brought forward by the Reviewer and by others are, that Sir George Prevost improperly urged Captain Downie into action before his ship was adequately prepared; that he disregarded the signal for the supposed co-operation between the army and the fleet, as solemnly agreed upon by himself and Captain Downie, and neglected to assault the fort when our fleet was engaged with the enemy; and lastly, that he did not, after the defeat of our squadron, persist in his attack upon the fort, by which it is pretended, that our fleet might still have been saved.

With regard to the accusation, that Captain Downie was prematurely hurried, against his better judgment, into an unequal contest with the enemy, the correspondence between that officer and Sir George Prevost already referred to, fully negatives any such supposition. The co-operation of the fleet being deemed essentially necessary to the success of the land-forces, Sir George Prevost was naturally anxious that Captain Downie should be prepared as early as possible to meet the enemy. It has been seen, that upon the 7th of September, Captain Downie informed the Commander of the forces, that it would take a day or two at least, before the Confiance would be in an efficient state, and that the engagement did not take place till the 11th, four days after the above communication. So far was Sir George Prevost from attempting by "taunt and inuendo"[86] improperly to hurry the fleet into action, that in his letter to Captain Downie, of the 9th of September, he says, "I need not dwell with you on the evils resulting to both services from delay, as I am well convinced you have done every thing in your power to accelerate the armament and equipment of your squadron, and I am also satisfied that nothing will prevent its coming off Plattsburg the moment it is ready." On the same day Captain Downie announced his intention of commencing an attack on the enemy's squadron the ensuing morning. Up to this time, therefore, it appears that however anxious Sir George Prevost was to make an immediate attack upon Plattsburg, for which purpose the assistance of the fleet was requisite, he never urged Captain Downie to engage the enemy while unprepared, but on the contrary, expressed his confidence that the moment the fleet was ready, it would appear before Plattsburg.

An expression in Sir George Prevost's letter, of the 10th, has indeed been construed by the Quarterly Reviewer into a "taunt," which is supposed to have driven Captain Downie to an engagement against his cooler judgment. In that letter the Commander of the forces, after informing Captain Downie that in consequence of his communication of the 9th, the troops had been held in readiness since six in the morning to storm the enemy's works: thus continues, "I ascribe the disappointment I have experienced to the unfortunate change of wind, and shall rejoice to learn that my expectations have been frustrated by no other cause." It must be obvious that many other causes, independent of the wind, might have prevented Captain Downie from sailing as he had intended to do on the 9th, although the state of the wind was in fact the real cause of the delay. In consequence of the despatch used in equipping his ship, articles might have been overlooked or omitted, which at the last moment only might have been discovered to be indispensably necessary; accidents might have happened to different parts of the squadron in their progress, and even the reinforcements of soldiers from the 39th, although they had been immediately ordered upon his requisition, might not, from various circumstances, have been supplied in time. All, or any of these causes might, as they naturally did, suggest themselves to the mind of the Commander of the forces, and his anxiety to be correctly informed upon the subject, as naturally induced him to express himself to Captain Downie in the terms above stated. It is in the highest degree improbable, that Captain Downie could for a moment construe those expressions in an unfavourable sense. But whatever might have been his impression, it is evident, that a letter written on the 10th, could not have influenced the determination which he took on the 9th, of engaging the enemy the following morning.

Nor will the assertion, that Sir George Prevost disregarded the supposed signal of co-operation, and neglected to attack the fort according to his promise, be more difficult to disprove. No such signal was in fact ever arranged, nor was any such promise ever given. The destruction of the enemy's fleet being the primary object of the expedition, and until that was effected, the ulterior operations not being practicable, Sir George Prevost resolved not to assault the fort until he was satisfied that our squadron was actually proceeding to attack the enemy. Of the result of the action when the fleets were once engaged, neither the Commander of the forces, nor any one in our army allowed themselves to entertain a single doubt. That Sir George Prevost intended to assault the enemy's works simultaneously, or nearly so, with the commencement of the naval action, and that Captain Downie was aware of that determination, appears from the correspondence between those officers. But that Captain Downie should have gathered from these communications any thing like a promise or agreement on the part of the Commander of the forces to support, assist, or co-operate with him during the naval engagement, is quite impossible. Sir George Prevost had satisfied himself by personal observation, and by the most accurate intelligence, that the American fleet was anchored out of range of the batteries, and he must therefore have known that it was out of his power to offer any support to Captain Downie. To have held forth to that officer any hope or promise of assistance was consequently out of the question. It was of the first importance, with a view to the success of Sir George Prevost's operations, that the fleet should be engaged at the same time, or before the fort was assaulted, but of no consequence whatever to Captain Downie, that the fort should be attacked simultaneously with the naval force. Sir George Prevost, therefore, in his communications with the naval Commander, and particularly in his letter of the 10th, mentioned his intention of making nearly a simultaneous attack, as part of his own plan of operations, with which it was necessary that Captain Downie should be acquainted. It is highly probable, that Captain Downie inferred from this communication, that the attack on the fort which Sir George Prevost had been in readiness to make on the morning of the 10th, would be made at the time when the fleets should engage, but there is not the slightest ground for believing that this expectation led him to place any reliance upon the land attack, as a co-operation in support of the naval force, or that it induced him to hasten into action, at a time when he felt unequal to it, or unprepared for the contest. Had he considered the expressions used by Sir George Prevost, in his letter of the 10th, as importing an agreement to assist him by a simultaneous attack on shore, he would certainly have answered that communication, and have availed himself of the services of Captain Watson, who was left with him for that purpose, to express to the Commander of the forces his reliance on the promised aid, and his assurance that it was the state of the wind alone, which had prevented him from appearing with the fleet on the morning of the 10th, as he had intended. At the time when this letter was written by the Commander of the forces, he was ignorant of the causes which had delayed the fleet, and he was ignorant, likewise, of Captain Downie's further intentions, with regard to the time when he would be prepared to attack the enemy's squadron. Had Captain Downie, therefore, relied, in the slightest degree, on the co-operation of the land forces, he would have informed Sir George Prevost of the exact time when he contemplated an engagement, that the troops on shore might be prepared to second his efforts. No reply, however, was despatched by him to the Commander of the forces, who thus remained in uncertainty with regard to the actual state and condition of the squadron, and the intentions of its commander. Captain Watson, whose directions were to proceed immediately to head-quarters, with intelligence of the sailing of the squadron, should not Captain Downie have previously despatched him, did not arrive until after the fleet had made its appearance. It has, indeed, been asserted, by the Quarterly Reviewer, that the scaling of the guns of our squadron was to be the signal for the advance of the columns of attack. This misstatement appears to have arisen out of the evidence which was given before the Court-Martial on Captain Pring; for in no other place is any allusion to such a fact to be discovered. The error of that statement, which, without doubt, was unintentional, is manifest. The signal in question is said to have been concerted with Major Coore on the 10th, when, in fact, no interview or communication whatever took place between him and Captain Downie on that day; and that no such signal was mentioned to the former on the 8th, the day on which he did see Captain Downie, is a fact to which the Major (now Colonel Coore) is ready to bear witness. In all probability Captain Watson, who was with Captain Downie on the 10th, was the person who was mistaken for Major Coore, and to him Captain Downie might have communicated his intention of scaling his guns, previous to rounding Cumberland Head, in order to announce to the Commander of the forces the approach of the squadron. Whatever may have been the nature of Captain Downie's communication by Captain Watson, it is certain that it never reached Sir George Prevost.

It has thus been shewn, that there was not even an understanding between Sir George Prevost and Captain Downie, that the attack by land and sea should take place simultaneously, for the purpose of affording protection or support to our squadron, much less that there existed any "solemn agreement" to that effect. It must also be evident, from the previous statement, that the attack on shore did actually take place at the commencement of the naval action, and that the sudden and unexpected termination of the latter engagement alone prevented the prosecution of the military operations. Orders, as we have already shewn, had been given by Sir George Prevost, on the 9th, for the troops to hold themselves in readiness for the attack of the enemy's works on the morning of the 10th, and those orders were accompanied, as every military man knows, and as the Reviewer[87] himself must have known, is usual, by an order to cook, when the time will admit.[88] It has also been shewn, that early on the morning of the 11th, and before the fleet was in sight, or the scaling of their guns was heard, similar orders were circulated for the troops to hold themselves in readiness for the attack, and so well prepared were the forces on shore to make the attack, that almost at the same moment when the Confiance began to engage the enemy, the troops were in motion for the assault. Our batteries, as mentioned above, opened on the enemy's works some time before the commencement of the naval action on the part of the Confiance. Until confidently assured that the fleets would engage (and many circumstances might have intervened to prevent it even after the appearance of our squadron) Sir George Prevost felt that it would be highly imprudent in him to commence the attack; but the moment he learned that Captain Downie was actually in contact with the enemy, the troops were immediately ordered to take their position for the assault.

Although our naval official accounts of the transaction state the engagement to have lasted for two hours and a half, that is from eight o'clock in the morning until half-past ten, when the Confiance struck, the American naval account, which is corroborated by the testimony of all who witnessed the action from the shore, represents the engagement to have terminated in about an hour and a half. The American account also corresponds with the statements of our officers on shore, that our fleet did not round Cumberland Head until between eight and nine o'clock, before which time all the statements of persons on shore agree in admitting that the action did not begin on the part of our fleet. With regard to the period when the engagement terminated, all the accounts appear to coincide. It has already been shewn, that notwithstanding the unfortunate mistake of the attacking columns taking a wrong route, they had at that very period forced the ford of the Saranac, and were then in the vicinity of the enemy's works, and prepared to make an instant assault, and that the unexpected result of the naval action was the sole cause which induced Sir George Prevost to countermand that assault. It now remains to explain more fully the reasons of the Commander of the forces for giving those orders, which will afford an answer to the last charge brought against him.

It has been often and confidently asserted, that both the enemy's squadron and our own were within reach, of the guns of the works. It is not, therefore, surprising that an unfavourable impression should have been made upon the minds of many persons with regard to the policy of not persevering in an attack, which might, under such circumstances, have led to the recovery of our own fleet, or the destruction of that of the enemy. The fact of the relative situation of the two squadrons and of the enemy's works, has, like most of the other facts connected with this expedition, been grossly misrepresented. Had an opportunity been offered by a public investigation of the transaction, it could and would have been satisfactorily proved, that neither of the fleets was within the range of the enemy's guns from any part of their works, and that their own squadron was anchored more than a mile and a half from the shore.

The grounds of the Reviewer's statement upon this subject it is impossible to ascertain; but, in opposition to what he affirms[89] on the testimony of Captain Pring, and "numerous other eye-witnesses" it can be proved by testimony from on board the Confiance, as well as by officers without number on shore, that she was taken possession of within half an hour after she struck; and it can also be proved, in opposition to the decided opinion of the number of officers, who are stated to have visited Plattsburg after the peace, that the anchorage of the American squadron was not within range of the forts.

The evidence of the greater part of the General Officers accompanying the expedition to Plattsburg, who viewed the naval action; of the commanding officer, and others of the Artillery; of naval men on board of our fleet, and of various other persons on shore, could and would have been produced upon the trial of the question, had it taken place, in proof of the fact as here stated. But independently of all opinion upon the subject, is it probable or credible that the American naval Commander would have placed his squadron in such a situation, that by possibility they could be annoyed or injured from works which he saw it was the evident intention of Sir George Prevost to attack, and which he must have felt convinced would in such a case have fallen? That he was aware of the danger to which his squadron was exposed by its vicinity to the forts, appears from the circumstance before adverted to, of his having moved further into the Bay from the station which he occupied on the 6th, the day of the arrival of our troops before Plattsburg. The position which the American Commander thus took, was one in which, according to his judgment, he could not have been annoyed by the fall of the works on shore, an event for which he was prepared. This opinion was expressed in the presence of a British officer who had been made prisoner during the naval action. The same opinion was entertained by Captain Henley, of the American brig, Eagle, who had himself reconnoitred the position in which the fleet was anchored, and which upon his report was selected by the American Commander, because it was evidently out of the range of the guns from the shore. If any thing more were wanting in confirmation of this fact, it will be amply supplied by the opinions of the two officers most capable of forming a correct judgment on the subject. The following letters of Commodore Macdonough and General Macomb, the American Naval and Military Commanders, will, it is apprehended, set the question at rest in the mind of every unprejudiced person.

"Portsmouth, New Hampshire,
July 3, 1815.

"Dear Sir,

Your letter of the 26th ult. came to hand yesterday; the letter you addressed to me at Washington has not been received, or it assuredly should have been attended to.

In reply to yours of the 26th ult. it is my opinion that our squadron was anchored one mile and a half from the batteries at Plattsburg, during the contest between it and the British squadron on the 11th September, 1814.

I am, with much respect,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) J. Macdonough."
"Cadwr. Colden, Esq."

"City of New York, June 15, 1815.

"Sir,

I should have replied earlier to your letter of the 26th ultimo, had it not been mislaid amidst a mass of communications on the subject of the army.

With respect to the distance of the American squadron from the batteries at Plattsburg, I will state that it is my decided opinion that the squadron was moored beyond the effectual range of the batteries, and this I know from a fruitless attempt made to elevate our guns so as to bear on the British squadron during the action of the 11th of September last. No guns, however, were fired, all being convinced that the vessels were beyond their reach. This opinion was strengthened by observations on the actual range of the guns of the Confiance—her heaviest metal falling several hundred yards short of the shore when closely engaged with our vessels.

With a hope that this reply will be satisfactory, I subscribe myself,

Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
(Signed) Alex. Macomb."
"Cadwr. R. Colden, Esq."

"New York, August 1, 1815.

"Sir,

In reply to your letter of the 30th ult. asking the distance of the American squadron from the batteries of Plattsburg, on the 11th day of September, 1814, while engaged with the British squadron, I will state that it is my decided opinion that the American squadron was upwards of three thousand yards distant from the batteries, being confirmed in that belief from observations made on the actual range of the heaviest guns of the British ship, Confiance, when fired towards the batteries, the balls falling short upwards of five hundred yards.

With respectful consideration,

I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) Alex. Macomb."
"To Cadwr. R. Colden, Esq."

If therefore our squadron could not have been recovered, or that of the enemy annoyed or injured by the capture of their works on shore, it may be asked, what advantages could have resulted from persevering in the attack? It has been already shewn that the primary object of this expedition was the destruction of the enemy's flotilla on the Lake. Had that object been accomplished, Plattsburg might have been occupied by our troops, and from thence, with the assistance of our squadron, they might have been transported to other parts of the Lake for the further annoyance of the enemy. The loss of our squadron, however, immediately rendered all these important operations impracticable. Without the assistance of a fleet, nothing beyond the occupation of Plattsburg could have been accomplished. That Plattsburg would have fallen, neither the Commander of the forces, nor a man under him, could have entertained a doubt. The enemy were indeed strongly entrenched, and under works, which afforded complete shelter to several thousand expert marksmen, from whose fire our troops must have suffered most severely; but granting, that after a considerable loss, we had carried the enemy's works, what adequate advantages should we have gained? To retain Plattsburg was not possible without the assistance of a fleet, which would have been necessary to the provisioning of our army; a retreat, therefore, after destroying all we could not carry away, would have been indispensable. Such was, however, the state of the season and of the weather, that 24 hours delay in retiring with our troops to Canada, would not only have made such a measure dangerous, from the advance of the enemy in every direction, but would have rendered the conveyance of our ordnance and stores exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. The militia of the state of New York and Vermont were turning out, and rapidly increasing in numbers; and although in the open field our troops would justly have despised them, they would have proved most formidable in the woods, and hanging upon the flank and rear of a retreating army. Sir George Prevost knew that he had only to give the word, and that his gallant troops would accomplish all his wishes,[90] but he knew at the same time how useless the acquisition would be, and how costly the sacrifice at which it was probable it would be made. He was also bound to bear in mind the instructions of His Majesty's Government, with regard to the committal of the force under him, so necessary for the preservation of the Provinces entrusted to his care.

He therefore wisely determined to retreat, whilst retreat was practicable, and whilst it could be effected with the least possible loss. The order was accordingly given for that purpose, and such was the energy and promptitude of the execution, that the retreat was conducted without the smallest molestation from the enemy, who, in fact, were not aware of it until it was nearly completed. Notwithstanding the almost impassable state of the roads, from the rains which were falling, not a gun was left behind; and, although the subject has been much exaggerated, yet in fact only a very small quantity of provisions and stores, together with fifteen wounded men in hospital, was left to the enemy. Of deserters, the utmost amount was under 300 men, which was the consequence, not as has been falsely asserted, of the retreat,[91] but of the advance, many of them having deserted upon our entry, and as we afterwards penetrated into the American territory; a consequence which almost invariably attended every attack upon their frontier, and was most strongly manifested in Colonel Scott's expedition, in December, 1813, against part of General Wilkinson's army, when, out of a force of not more than 500 men, he lost upwards of 90 by desertion.

The exaggerated account of this retreat having induced his Majesty's government to call upon Sir George Prevost for a more particular detail of the losses attending it, it appears, by Sir George Prevost's reply to Lord Bathurst's despatch on the subject, together with the documents accompanying it, that the whole loss in killed, wounded, prisoners, and deserters, from the time of the army entering the American territory, until it was withdrawn, did not amount to 500 men. This affords a complete answer to one of the Reviewer's concluding mis-statements, that when Sir George Prevost wrote the despatch from Montreal, though dated at Plattsburg,[92] "he knew that the desertion of 800 men had attended his shameful defeat."

The unfortunate loss of our fleet, and the consequent withdrawing of our troops from the American territory, afforded an opportunity to the party opposed to Sir George Prevost's civil administration in Canada, of which they immediately and eagerly availed themselves, of circulating the most unfounded statements, and the most exaggerated accounts, with respect to both those transactions. These were industriously transmitted to England by a private ship belonging to one of Sir George Prevost's most violent opponents, and upon their arrival, and in the absence of any official accounts of the transactions to which they referred, they created a general belief that the disastrous result of the naval action had been occasioned by a want of co-operation from the shore; that the retreat had been conducted in a precipitate and disgraceful manner; that a severe loss of men, guns, stores, and provisions, had been the consequence of it; and that the whole army was indignant at the conduct of their commander. The arrival of Sir George Prevost's despatches, together with the explanations afforded, as well by them as by the person to whom they had been given in charge, could not fail to undeceive His Majesty's Government on this subject, and to convince them of the grossness of the misrepresentations which had gone forth. Had not some expressions in Sir James Yeo's letter, accompanying the account of the naval action, been construed into charges against Sir George Prevost, which, in justice to him, as well as to the public, it was deemed proper to call upon him to answer, there cannot be a doubt but that the further management of the war in the Canadas would still have been entrusted to the Commander who had hitherto so successfully conducted it. Even if the subsequent conduct of Sir James Yeo did not afford ample proof of the fact, there is not wanting other evidence to shew that the letter in question was written by him under the irritation of the moment, and in consequence of Captain Pring's communication to him of the result of the naval action, but without any intention of making a charge against Sir George Prevost, and without the most distant idea that it could be so construed. Sir James Yeo must have possessed too honourable a mind to become a guest in Sir George Prevost's family, and to partake of his attention and hospitality, had he for a moment supposed that his public letter, on the subject of the naval action at Plattsburg, could have been construed into a formal accusation. Had he really meant it as such, he would most undoubtedly, in a manly and open manner, have communicated the proceeding he had adopted to the party accused; and, under such circumstances, would, no less certainly, have refused the kindness and attention of the person of whom he had publicly expressed so unfavourable an opinion. That this must have been the case may further be inferred, from the circumstance that, although Sir George Prevost was recalled to answer the charges, amounting to three in number, supposed to be contained in Sir James Yeo's letter, it was not until more than four months after both these officers arrived in England, that the precise charges upon which he was to take his trial, were officially communicated to him, and which charges differed materially from those in Sir James Yeo's letter. Whether, under these circumstances, Sir James Yeo would have supported the charges, had the investigation taken place, cannot now be determined; but a confident appeal may be made to the intelligent reader, whether, upon the facts disclosed in these pages being made known, such an attempt must not have utterly failed.

With regard to the naval action on Lake Champlain, we are unwilling to say more than may be necessary for the vindication of the character and conduct of Sir George Prevost. The real causes of the disastrous result of that affair, were such, as particularly belong to naval actions, and which, when they do occur, must materially influence the issue of the conflict. It is not a little remarkable, that the naval Court-martial on Captain Pring and his officers, should have overlooked or disregarded these causes; and it is greatly to be regretted, that they should have thought themselves justified in ascribing the disaster to the conduct of Sir George Prevost, and in passing so severe a censure upon an officer of another service, of whose orders and instructions they must necessarily have been ignorant, and who was neither present to defend himself, nor amenable to their jurisdiction. It is clear that it was Captain Downie's intention, on going into action, to lay his own ship, in the size and strength of which he seemed to place great confidence, along side of the American Commodore; but the unfortunate failure of the wind, before he could accomplish this object, obliged him to anchor at a distance of more than half a mile from his opponent; the same circumstance also induced Captain Pring, in the Linnet, to take his situation still farther from the enemy. But even this disadvantage would probably not have been attended with the consequences which afterwards ensued, had Captain Downie's invaluable life been spared, and had all under him done their duty. The Finch, in going into action, grounded out of the line of fire, and was shortly afterwards taken possession of by the enemy. The gun-boats, when the action commenced, were considerably distant from the enemy's line, and slowly pulling up in apparent confusion. The Chub, very shortly after the action, having her cables shot away, drifted into the enemy's line, and was obliged to surrender. The Confiance, it would thus appear, being left nearly alone to bear the brunt of the whole action; the greater part of the enemy's fire being directed against her; the two schooners gone, and the gun-boats, with the exception of two or three, taking no part in the contest, it is not to be wondered at, that against such fearful odds, the men could not be kept to their guns, and that, notwithstanding the exertions and bravery of the officers, she was compelled to surrender. The real causes of the disaster must, therefore, be sought for in the unfavourable circumstances under which the action commenced; in the squadron's not taking the station which Captain Downie had designed they should; in the early loss of that officer; the grounding of the Finch; the surrender of the Chub, and the desertion of the gun-boats—circumstances more than sufficient to account for the capture of our squadron, without having recourse to a reason which the gallant Downie would have scorned to assign, and which we have already shewn to be without the slightest foundation—namely, the want of a co-operation from the army. Had even the gun-boats done their duty, the result of the action might, and probably would, have been widely different, as the men on board of the Confiance assigned it as one reason for their refusing to stand to their guns, that the gun-boats keeping at a distance, the whole fire of the enemy was directed against the Confiance. The Commander of these gun-boats, it is to be observed, was so sensible of his own misconduct, that he shortly after the action, made his escape from Kingston, and was not afterwards heard of. The removal of Captain Fisher from the command of the Lake Champlain squadron, precisely at the period when it was about to be employed in the service before mentioned, was particularly unfortunate; and it was no less so that his zealous offer to Captain Downie, to serve under him in command of the gun-boats, could not be accepted by that officer.

In the month of March, 1815, Sir George Prevost received the despatch communicating to him the Prince Regent's pleasure, that he should return to England to answer the charges preferred against him by Sir James Yeo, and a commission was, at the same time, transmitted to Lieutenant-General Drummond, revoking the appointment of Sir George Prevost as Governor-in-Chief and Commander of the forces in the Canadas, and authorizing General Drummond to assume, provisionally, the chief civil and military command of those Provinces. By this measure, Sir George Prevost was compelled either to remain for six weeks, until the navigation of the St. Lawrence should be open—a private individual in the country over which he had so lately presided as its chief magistrate, and exposed to the observations of all who had been hostile to his measures,—or to encounter at a most inclement season the fatigue and dangers of a journey, to be performed, frequently on foot, through the wilderness to New Brunswick. His high and honourable feelings did not permit him to hesitate for a moment as to the course which it was his duty to pursue, and he immediately quitted his government. It was no inconsiderable consolation to him, under circumstances like these, to know that he carried with him on his departure the regret and the good wishes of the inhabitants of Canada, which were manifested, not only by the different addresses and letters[93] which were presented to him upon this occasion, but in a still more striking manner, by the terms of a vote of the House of Representatives, who proposed to present to their late Governor-General a service of plate of the value of 5,000l. This munificent act, though honoured with the approbation of the Prince Regent, was not carried into effect, in consequence of a refusal to accede to it on the part of the legislative council.[94]

On the arrival of Sir George Prevost in England, in the month of May, 1815, it was evident that his constitution had suffered a fatal injury. His health had yielded to the excessive fatigues of his journey to New Brunswick, and his illness was aggravated by the delays which he experienced in urging forward the investigation which he so earnestly desired. Notwithstanding all his efforts, the Court-martial was not directed to assemble before the month of January, 1816—a delay which proved fatal to his hopes. He died on the 5th January, 1816, in the 49th year of his age.[95]

That Sir George Prevost was a zealous, active, and faithful servant to his king and country, the preceding pages are amply sufficient to prove. The defence of Dominica, and the preservation of the Canadas against greatly superior forces, attested his merits as officer, and excited the admiration of some of the first soldiers of the age. His system, upon both occasions, was necessarily a defensive one; and he has, therefore, lost much of that eclat which attaches to more active operations. But had his field of action been different, he would, doubtless, have displayed the same gallant and enterprising spirit which distinguished him on former occasions, and particularly when he led the assault on Morne Fortunée, in the island of St. Lucie. Of his total disregard of personal considerations, and of his readiness to sacrifice his own fame for the promotion of the great interests committed to him in America, there cannot be a stronger proof than that afforded by his conduct at Plattsburg. He must have been well aware that the capture of the works, especially after the loss of the fleet, would be considered by the public in general as a brilliant exploit, which could not fail to add to his military reputation; and he must also have foreseen the popular outcry which the resolution he adopted would occasion. But those personal feelings gave way to considerations of far greater weight in the mind of a wise, humane, and honourable soldier. Sir George Prevost had justly calculated the consequences of his probable success—a great loss of valuable lives, the immediate abandonment of his conquest, and an unavoidable and difficult retreat. Although these considerations were far from obvious, and not of a nature to be justly appreciated by the public at large, he chose, without hesitation, that line of conduct which his judgment and heart approved, and, notwithstanding his conviction that this determination would necessarily expose him to much unmerited odium, he resolutely adopted it. His subsequent recal, and premature decease, were undoubtedly the consequences of this measure; but his country will not fail, finally, to do justice to the purity of his motives, and, on an impartial review of his conduct, to rank him amongst its ablest and most faithful defenders.[96]

As a civil governor, Sir George Prevost had the gratification of knowing that he was invariably esteemed and respected by the people over whom he was placed. His zeal and devotion to his duties, both in his civil and military character, were eminently conspicuous. No personal considerations, no fatigue, no dangers, ever interfered with what he esteemed the good of the service. Over the public interests he watched with the most sedulous attention. In private life, he was remarkable for the purity of his moral character, for the generosity of his heart, and for his pleasing and conciliatory manners.

In consequence of the lamented death of Sir George Prevost, at the very period when he was on the point of substantiating, before a competent tribunal, his innocence of the charges preferred against him, the care of his honour and reputation devolved upon his widow; nor did she neglect this sacred trust. Soon after Sir George Prevost's decease, his brother, Colonel William Augustus Prevost, addressed a letter to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, in which, after stating the distressing situation in which Sir George Prevost's family were placed, he requested that an investigation of his brother's conduct might be ordered before a court of inquiry. A reference to the Judge-Advocate was made upon the subject, who was of opinion that such an inquiry could not properly be instituted. Immediately after this determination, Lady Prevost represented, by letter, to the Commander-in-Chief, the painful circumstances in which she was placed. She intreated his Royal Highness to extend his protection to herself and her family, and to procure from His Royal Highness the Prince Regent a gracious consideration of their claims, to such marks of distinction as might be due to the memory of the deceased. The receipt of this letter was acknowledged by the Commander-in-Chief, who assured Lady Prevost, that he would gladly do any thing calculated to alleviate her distress, but that he declined interfering with the Prince Regent on the subject, to whom he was of opinion it could only be regularly submitted by His Majesty's ministers.

A memorial was accordingly drawn up by Lady Prevost, which was submitted to the Prince Regent through the regular channel. His Royal Highness, having taken the same into consideration, was graciously pleased publicly to express the high sense entertained by him of the services of Sir George Prevost; conferring, at the same time, as a mark of his approbation, additional armorial bearings to the arms of his family.

The following grant of heraldic distinctions appeared in the London Gazette of 11th September, 1816.

"Whitehall, September 3rd.—His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, taking into his royal consideration the distinguished conduct and services of the late Lieutenant-General Sir George Prevost, Baronet, during a long period of constant active employment in situations of great trust, both military and civil, in the course of which his gallantry, zeal, and able conduct were particularly displayed at the conquest of the island of St. Lucie, in 1803, and of Martinique, in 1809; as also, in successfully opposing, with a small garrison, the attack made in 1805 by a numerous French force upon the island of Dominica, then under his government; and while Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief of the British provinces in North America, in the defence of Canada against the repeated invasions perseveringly attempted by the American forces during the late war; and His Royal Highness being desirous of evincing, in an especial manner, the sense which his Royal Highness entertains of these services, by conferring upon his family a lasting memorial of His Majesty's royal favour, hath been pleased, in the name and on the behalf of His Majesty, to ordain that the supporters following may be borne and used by Dame Catherine Anne Prevost, widow of the late Lieutenant-General Sir George Prevost, during her widowhood; viz. "On either side a grenadier of the 16th (or Bedfordshire) regiment of foot, each supporting a banner; that on the dexter side inscribed "West Indies," and that on the sinister, "Canada;" and the said supporters, together with the motto servatum cineri, may also be borne by Sir George Prevost, Baronet, son and heir of the said late Lieutenant-General, and by his successors in the said dignity of a baronet, provided the same be first duly exemplified according to the laws of arms, and recorded in the Herald's office. And His Royal Highness hath also been pleased to command, that the said concession and especial mark of Royal favour be registered in His Majesty's College of Arms."

Whilst the impartiality of His Majesty's Government towards the servants of the public is strongly evidenced by the recal of Sir George Prevost from his command in the Canadas, under the circumstances before stated, their sense of justice is no less strongly manifested by the above grant of posthumous honours to his family, whose feelings of satisfaction were greatly heightened by the gratifying manner in which His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was pleased to express himself upon this occasion, in the following letter.

"Horse Guards, 17th September, 1816.

"Madam,

"I have to acknowledge the receipt of your Ladyship's letter of the 12th inst., and to assure you that I am highly gratified to find that His Majesty's Government has adopted a measure grateful to your feelings and honorable to the memory of your late distinguished husband.

I am, Madam,
Your most obedient servant,
(Signed) Frederick."
Lady Prevost.

Lady Prevost having thus satisfactorily accomplished the great wish of her heart, the vindication of her husband's injured fame, was almost immediately afterwards attacked by an alarming disorder, evidently occasioned by her severe afflictions, under which, after suffering for several years, she finally sunk in 1821.[97] The family of Sir George Prevost, deprived by an untimely death of one parent, and called upon to witness the calamitous state of the other, were neither able nor willing, under such circumstances, to enter into any further discussion upon the merits of their father's conduct, in reply to the anonymous attacks made upon it. They knew that in the opinion of every unprejudiced person, his military character had been fully redeemed from the obloquy cast upon it, by the high and honorable approbation bestowed upon it by his Sovereign, and they had hoped that this strong attestation to Sir George Prevost's worth would have sheltered his name from further attack or reproach. The article in the Quarterly Review having disappointed them in this reasonable expectation, it has become imperative upon them to prepare the present statement. Whatever were the objects and motives of the Reviewer, it is certainly not too much to say, that he has deliberately advanced charges which he knew to be unfounded. The just feelings of indignation which every page of the article in question is calculated to excite, were restrained by the persuasion alone, that it was only requisite that the real facts of the case should be made known, to rescue the memory of an honorable and gallant officer from the aspersions thus wantonly cast upon it. In the Reviewer's assertions, with regard to the preparations for the war; the care of our Provincial Marine; the orders given to the subordinate Commanders; the attack upon Sackett's Harbour; the reinforcing of General Procter's division; the neglect of Captain Barclay's demands; the successes of General Vincent, Lieutenant-Colonel Harvey, and others; the disposal of the troops which arrived from Bourdeaux, and the expedition against Plattsburg; in all of these instances, the Reviewer has been convicted, by the most unimpeachable evidence, of shameful inaccuracy, and in many of them of gross ignorance and of wilful misrepresentation. In ascribing to the Commander of the forces in the Canadas "vacillation, indecision, and error" at the commencement of the war, it has been shewn that the Reviewer was totally ignorant of, or misconceived the grounds and motives of his policy and conduct, which in the very instances selected by the critic for censure, received the pointed approbation of His Majesty's Government. To "the want of talent, energy, and enterprise," of which the Reviewer has not scrupled to accuse Sir George Prevost in the prosecution of the war, have been opposed the various measures in which his vigilance and foresight were conspicuous, in planning and directing those successful operations, the merit of which the Reviewer would give to the subordinate Commanders alone. To the charge of neglecting to preserve our marine ascendancy on Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, which the Reviewer has styled "the most fatal and palpable error" of Sir George Prevost, and the one in which his imbecility of judgment and action was most flagrant, a reply has been given not only by facts, in direct contradiction to his assertions, but by the letters of the Naval Commanders on both Lakes; the one from Sir James Yeo, who commanded in chief, in strong approbation of the general attention of the Commander of the forces to the Marine service, and the other from Captain Barclay, directly asserting the falsehood of the Reviewer's statement. The true causes of the failures at Sackett's Harbour and at Plattsburg, which have been so unjustly attributed to Sir George Prevost's misconduct, have been distinctly pointed out, and the wisdom and energy of his proceedings, upon both those expeditions, clearly established. To the Reviewer's laboured attempts throughout the whole article, to prove that Sir George Prevost was not the real defender of the Canadas, an answer has been given, by shewing, that for three campaigns those provinces were preserved, whilst he held the chief command in them, from the persevering attempts of a powerful and superior enemy, and that to his unwearied efforts, the inhabitants repeatedly expressed their firm conviction that they were mainly indebted for their safety.

The expression of concern and indignation with which the appearance of this Review was instantly met amongst all who were in any degree qualified to form a judgment upon the subject, was highly consolatory to the wounded feelings of Sir George Prevost's family. They have in particular, the greatest satisfaction in presenting to the public the two following letters, addressed to the present Sir George Prevost, by Sir Herbert Taylor, and by Earl Bathurst.

"Horse Guards, Nov. 15th, 1822.

"Sir,

"I am directed by the Commander-in-Chief to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant, containing a statement,[98] "which the family of the late Lieutenant-General Sir George Prevost have felt themselves called upon to make public, in reply to a wanton and malignant attack which has been recently made in an article of the Quarterly Review upon his military character and reputation."

"His Royal Highness orders me to assure you, that it has not been without great concern and indignation that he has noticed the ungenerous and cowardly attack to which you advert: ungenerous, because, even if it had been borne out by facts, it was calculated to wound most deeply the feelings of respectable and amiable individuals who had not provoked it; cowardly, as being directed by an anonymous libeller against the memory of an officer whose premature death had alone deprived him of the benefit of an investigation into accusations which he was prepared to meet, with the confident expectation that he could successfully refute them. His Royal Highness' sentiments upon the character, conduct, and services of the late Sir George Prevost, have, upon a former occasion, been conveyed to his family. Those of His Majesty's Government, in approval of his distinguished services, his gallantry, zeal, and able conduct, are recorded in a public act of His Majesty's, dated 4th September, 1816, which you have inserted in your statement. To that record His Royal Highness conceives that you may with confidence appeal for a refutation of the calumnies recently published; and having adverted to that document, so honorable to the memory of the late Sir George Prevost, His Royal Highness considers that he needs only to add, that nothing has since the date of it come to his knowledge, which can shake the opinion he then entertained in perfect unison with the sentiments therein expressed.

I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient humble servant,
(Signed) Ht. Taylor."
"Sir George Prevost, Bart.
Oriel College, Oxford."

"Cirencester, Nov. 13, 1822.

"Sir,

"I have had the honour of receiving your letter, inclosing a statement which you inform me that the family of the late Lieutenant-General Sir George Prevost consider themselves compelled to make public, in reply to some attack which has recently been made upon his memory.

"In returning the statement, I can only say that I read with the utmost regret the cruel attack which has been so unwarrantably made in the Quarterly Review upon your Father's memory, and can well understand the anxiety which his family must feel to refute it as soon as possible.

I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient humble servant,
(Signed) Bathurst.
"Sir George Prevost, Bart.
Oriel College, Oxford."

The family of the late Sir George Prevost, justly proud of the sentiments thus expressed by such high authorities upon his character and conduct, consider any further attempt to vindicate his fame as altogether unnecessary. In sanctioning the present publication, they have been actuated solely by the pure motive of rescuing the reputation of their father from unmerited reproach. Called upon by every feeling of filial affection to expose the injustice of the cruel aspersions which have been cast upon his memory, they trust that their endeavours will not be fruitless, and that the impartial readers of these pages will be convinced that the merits of Sir George Prevost were not confined to the private virtues which endeared him to his family and friends, but that in public life, as a Civil Governor and a Military Commander, he deserved the esteem and approbation of his country.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Vide the Quarterly Review for October, 1822, p. 405.

[2] Vide Beatson's "Naval and Military Memoirs," vol. iv, p. 518, Appendix, No. I.

[3] Mr. Gibbon to Mr. Holroyd.—"Let me tell you a piece of Lausanne news. Nanette Grand is married to Lieutenant-Colonel Prevost. Grand wrote to me; and by the next post I congratulated both father and daughter. There is exactness for you.—Beriton, Oct. 31st, 1765." Vide Gibbon's Miscellaneous Works, vol. i. p. 439.

[4] See Appendix, No. II.

[5] Vide Letter from the Duke of Portland, Appen. No. III.

[6] Vide Appendix, No. IV.

[7] Vide Appendix, No. V.

[8] Vide accounts of the capture of St. Lucie and Tobago, from the Annual Register, Appendix, No. VI.

[9] Vide extracts from letters, Appendix, No. VII.

[10] Vide Appendix, No. VIII.

[11] Vide account of this expedition from the Annual Register, Appendix, No. IX. Also the public despatches and letters, No. X.

[12] Vide letter from H. R. H. the Duke of York to the Earl of Camden, Appendix, No. XI.

[13] Vide Appendix, No. XII.

[14] Vide the resolutions, Appendix, No. XIII.

[15] Vide the resolutions, and the letter of the chairman general Prevost, Appendix, No. XIV.

[16] Vide the resolutions, Appendix, No. XV.

[17] Vide extract from the Dominica Journal, Appendix No. XVI.

[18] Vide the public despatches, and letters from Lord Castlereagh, Appendix, No. XVII.

[19] Vide the addresses and answer, Appendix, No. XVIII.

[20] Vide Appendix, No. XIX.

[21] Vide Appendix, No. XX.

[22] Vide Review, page 413.

[23] Vide Quarterly Review, p. 413.

[24] Review, p. 413.

[25] Review, p. 413.

[26] Review, p. 414.

[27] Ibid. p. 413.

[28] Ibid. p. 409.

[29] Review, p. 410.

[30] Review, p. 411.

[31] Review, p. 411.

[32] Review, p. 414.

[33] Review, p. 411.

[34] Review, p. 414.

[35] Review, p. 415.

[36] Review, p. 413.

[37] Review, p. 418.

[38] Review, p. 414.

[39] Ibid. p. 415.

[40] Review, p. 415.

[41] Review, p. 415.

[42] Ibid.

[43] Review, pp. 415, 416.

[44] Review, p. 412.

[45] Vide the Addresses in the Appendix, No. XXI.

[46] Review, p. 417.

[47] Review, p. 411.

[48] Review, pp. 418, 419, 420.

[49] Vide the Report in the Appendix, No. XXII.

[50] Review, p. 419.

[51] Review, p. 418.

[52] Review, p. 420.

[53] There cannot be a stronger contradiction to the Reviewer's assertion, that the order to retreat was precipitate, than the fact which was known to every officer engaged in the expedition, that after the last assault, and before any order was given for the retreat or re-embarkation of the troops, a flag of truce was sent into the town, with a summons for the surrender of the place, and that some time necessarily elapsed before a refusal was received to that demand. It was not until after the return of the officer with that refusal, and when all hope of the co-operation of the fleet had been relinquished, the artillery still not having been landed, that the order was given for the re-embarkation of the troops.

[54] Review, p. 419.

[55] Vide Appendix, No. XXIII.

[56] Review, p. 425.

[57] Vide Review, p. 426.

[58] Review, p. 427.

[59] Review, p. 425.

[60] Review, p. 427.

[61] Review, p. 427.

[62] Review, p. 427.

[63] "I have had the honor to receive your letters of the 9th and 18th inst. The first I received at York on my way to the centre division, and I cannot refrain from expressing my regret at your having allowed the clamour of the Indian warriors to induce you to commit a part of your force in an unequal and hopeless combat.

"You cannot be ignorant of the limited nature of the force at my disposal for the defence of our extensive frontier, and ought, therefore, not to count too largely upon my disposition to strengthen the right division."

[64] Review, p. 428.

[65] The order here alluded to by Capt. Barclay, is contained in a letter from the Adjutant-General, Col. Baynes, to General Procter, dated the 18th Sept. 1813, nine days after the naval action had taken place, and before the account of it had reached Sir George Prevost. This letter was written in contemplation of the necessity of General Procter retiring from Amherstburgh, in consequence of the difficulties of his situation, in which case it was thought advisable that an action should be risked.

[66] Vide Appendix, No. XXIV.

[67] Vide the Proceedings of the Court-martial, Appendix, No. XXV.

[68] Review, p. 432.

[69] Review, pp. 433, 434.

[70] Ibid, pp. 438, 439.

[71] Vide General Orders, Appendix, No. XXVI.

[72] Review, p. 440.

[73] Vide Extracts in the Appendix, No. XXVII.

[74] Review, p. 441.

[75] Review, pp. 440, 441.

[76] Review, p. 441.

[77] Review, p. 442.

[78] Ibid. p. 443.

[79] Review, p. 443.

[80] Ibid.

[81] As a confirmation of this statement, the reader is referred to an extract from a Letter addressed by Major-General Kempt to Sir George Prevost upon the subject of the intended attack on Sackett's Harbour, of which General Kempt was to have taken the personal command. Appendix, No. XXVIII.

[82] The extract from a letter addressed by Sir James Yeo, to Sir George Prevost, given in the Appendix, No. XXIX. will shew his opinion of the manner in which the Lake Champlain Squadron was manned.