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._"