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.
[83] The following is the Reviewer's mode of stating this:--"Had the
Commander-in-Chief suffered these works to be assaulted _as was eagerly
proposed to him_ on the same evening, there is no question but they must
have fallen with scarcely an effort before a single brigade."--p. 445.
[84] Vide the whole of this Correspondence in the Appendix, No. XXX.
[85] This statement and those of the General and other officers,
subsequently referred to, all of which are under the hand, and many of them
attested by the oaths of the parties, contain the facts relative to the
expedition against Plattsburg, to which those officers would have been
ready to depose before a Court-Martial.
[86] Review, p. 446.
[87] Review, p. 446.
[88] In the celebrated action between our fleet, commanded by Lord Howe,
and that of the French, on the 1st of June, 1794, whilst they were in sight
of each other, and preparing for action, the order was given for our men to
go to breakfast. See Brenton's Naval History, vol. i. p. 272-307.
[89] Review, p. 448.
[90] Notwithstanding the opinion entertained by Sir George Prevost and the
army regarding the probable fall of Plattsburg, it must be recollected that
failure was possible, and that nearly at this very period we had been
disappointed in our attempts both upon Baltimore and New Orleans. The
opinion of the Americans themselves upon this subject, will be found well
expressed in an extract from a Burlington paper (State of Vermont) of that
period, given in the Appendix, No. XXXI.
[91] Review, p. 447.
[92] Review, p. 448.
[93] Vide Appendix, No. XXXII.
[94] A further confirmation of the favourable sentiments entertained in
Canada, on the subject of Sir George Prevost's conduct and services, during
the war, will be found in the extracts given in the Appendix, No. XXXIII.
from Christie's Memoirs of the Administration of the Government of Lower
Canada, and Bouchette's Topographical Account of that Province.
[95] Sir G. Prevost's family, at the time of his decease, consisted of his
widow and three children, viz. the present Sir George Prevost and two
daughters. He likewise left two brothers, Major-General Wm. Prevost, late
Lieutenant-Colonel of the 67th regiment, and James Prevost, Esq.
Post-Captain in the Royal Navy. A monument to the memory of her husband was
erected by Lady Prevost in Winchester Cathedral, with the inscription which
will be found in the Appendix, No. XXXIV.
[96] The motives by which Sir George Prevost was actuated, upon this
occasion, are forcibly expressed in his private despatch to Lord Bathurst,
given in the Appendix, No. XXXV.
[97] Lady Prevost was the eldest daughter of Major-General Phipps, of the
Royal Engineers.
[98] A few copies of the statements above referred to, which first appeared
in the Courier of 13th Nov. 1822, were printed and distributed, under the
title of "A brief Reply to the Calumnies of the last Quarterly Review,
against the military character and reputation of the late
Lieutenant-General Sir George Prevost, Bart."
POSTSCRIPT.
Since the foregoing sheets were sent to press, some observations have
appeared in the British Critic, for May, 1823, upon the Civil
Administration of Sir George Prevost, in Canada, which may perhaps be
thought to require a brief notice. The writer of the remarks in question,
after premising that the military conduct of the late Commander of the
forces in the Canadas has been _sufficiently exposed_ in another Journal,
(the Quarterly Review) proceeds to assert, "that his domestic management of
the Colony was no less censurable. That finding that the Canadian party
gave him most trouble, his object was to obtain a temporary popularity for
his own administration, and a peaceable residence for himself, by every
possible species and degree of weak concession, which he dignified with the
name of conciliation. That the Catholic Bishop being at the head of the
party, was honoured with a seat in the Legislative Council, received a
pension of 1,500_l_. per annum, which he still enjoys, and was either
overtly or tacitly confirmed in all the usurpations of power and of
Government property, (about 40,000_l._ per annum,) upon which he had
ventured, whilst discouragement and _insult_ (a term of which the Critic
informs his readers he does not repent) were heaped upon the Protestant
Bishop and his Clergy, and upon the Loyal Members of both houses, and that
the just remonstrances of his Lordship in defence of the rights of his
Church, and which it was his first duty to protect, were represented at
home as the dictates of party spirit and political feeling."
Although the generality of most of these remarks might seem to preclude the
necessity of any reply to them, yet, as the writer, in descending to
particular statements, displays a gross want of information, it becomes
necessary to expose his misrepresentations, in order that his censures may
be rightly appreciated.
The policy of Sir George Prevost towards the Canadians, was, as the
foregoing pages will shew, adopted immediately upon his assuming his
government, and could not therefore be the consequence of any trouble given
him by the Canadian party, from whom, on the contrary, he invariably
received the most cordial support. His object in that policy was to
strengthen the hands of Government, and to avail himself, as he afterwards
did, of the whole resources of the country, in case it should be attacked.
But that any concession whatever was made by Sir George Prevost to effect
that object is altogether untrue.
The Catholic Bishop, though his character and influence well entitled him
to that distinction, was _not_ honoured with a seat in the Legislative
Council during the government of Sir George Prevost, nor did he receive
during that period a pension of 1,500_l._ per annum. In 1775, the British
Government granted to the then Catholic Bishop a pension of 200_l._ per
annum. In the year 1778, a further sum of 150_l._ per annum, was given to
the same Bishop for the hire of the Episcopal Palace at Quebec, for public
offices. These two sums were continued to the subsequent Bishops, and
constituted the only income received by them from Government, until the
arrival of Sir George Prevost in Canada. During his administration, His
Majesty's Government was pleased to _increase_ that salary to the sum of
1,000_l._ per annum, in favour of M. de Plessis, the present Catholic
Bishop, "as a testimony," to use the words of Lord Bathurst, in his
despatch upon the subject, "of the sense which His Royal Highness the
Prince Regent entertained of the loyalty, and good conduct of M. de
Plessis, and of the other Catholic clergy of the Province."
The charge that Sir George Prevost either tacitly or overtly confirmed the
Catholic bishop in all the usurpations of power and of government
property, upon which he had ventured, is so obscurely worded, that it is
difficult to give it a distinct answer. The privileges and possessions of
the Catholic clergy were assured to them at the period when Canada became a
British province, and the present Catholic bishop is not in possession of
any property, nor does he exercise any power which his predecessors have
not enjoyed since that period with the knowledge and concurrence of all
former governors of the Province, and of His Majesty's Government. The
"accustomed dues and rights" of the Catholic clergy of Canada, are formally
secured to them by the act of 14 Geo. 3. c. 83, Sec.. 5.
To the assertion, positive in proportion to its want of proof, that the
Protestant Bishop and his clergy, and the loyal members of both Houses,
were treated with insult, it will be merely necessary to answer, that Sir
George Prevost was incapable of treating any person, much less those of a
sacred character and profession, with indignity or insult--and a confident
appeal is made to the Protestant clergy of Canada, and to the loyal members
of both Houses, against an insinuation as base as it is groundless.
To the critic's charge of general mismanagement in the affairs of the
Colony, a reply, if any were wanting, will, it is trusted, be found, in the
foregoing pages; in the approbation of His Majesty's Government of the very
policy which this writer so acrimoniously condemns, and in the highly
flattering testimonials to the merits of Sir George Prevost's civil
administration, which he received not only from the Canadians, but from the
most respectable of the English inhabitants.
It is evident that the writer of the article in the British Critic has
blindly adopted the prejudices and feelings of the Quarterly Reviewer
towards Sir George Prevost, and as he appears to dwell with particular
complacency upon the exposure which he imagines to have been made of that
officer's military character, he is justly entitled to share in the
disgrace which must attend his coadjutor's failure, and in the odium which
will always attach to the anonymous traducer of departed merit.
APPENDIX.
No. I.
_Extract from Beatson's Naval and Military Memoirs of Great Britain, vol._
iv. _p._ 518-529.
Upon the first alarm of the enemy being on the coast, General Prevost
exerted himself to the utmost, to increase and strengthen the
fortifications of the town of Savannah; and was most ably seconded in his
operations, by Captain James Moncrieffe of the engineers, and Captain Henry
of the navy. Orders were sent to the Hon. Lieutenant-Colonel Maitland, who
was posted with a considerable detachment of troops at Beaufort, and to
Captain Christian, of his Majesty's ship Vigilant, to repair as soon as
possible to Savannah, with the troops, ships, and galleys, then at Port
Royal island. Unfortunately, the express with these orders was intercepted
by some of the rebel patrols; and, previous to the arrival of a second
messenger, the enemy had time to seize on the principal communications
between the two places. This rendered the junction of that detachment with
the garrison, upon which alone any hope of defending Savannah could be
reasonably founded, a matter extremely precarious, difficult, and
dangerous. Happily, however, the abilities of Colonel Maitland, and the
zeal of the troops under his command, powerfully aided by the professional
skill of Lieutenant Goldesborough, of the navy, who was thoroughly
acquainted with the various creeks, inlets, and cuts, with which the
interior navigation of this country abounds, overcame every obstacle in
their way. The battery at Tybee was destroyed; the leading marks for the
bar were cut down; and the little naval force there was held in readiness
to run up the river Savannah, as soon as the French fleet were seen making
for the mouth of it.
On the 9th, the whole of the French fleet anchored off the bar: and on the
10th, four frigates weighed and came to Tybee anchorage. M. d'Estaing had
got from Charlestown, a large supply of small craft, into which he put his
troops; and they proceeded into Ossabaw inlet, and made good the
debarkation of their forces at Bowley, 13 miles from Savannah, under cover
of four galleys. The French frigates prepared, at the same time, to advance
up the river.
Captain Henry and the naval department were employed, from the 10th to the
13th, in conveying to Savannah part of the guns and ammunition of the Rose
and Fowey, in vessels which General Prevost had sent down for that purpose.
On the 13th, both frigates being much lightened, sailed over the Mud-flat
to Five Fathom Hole, from which the remainder of their guns and ammunition
were conveyed up to the town, which is only three miles distant. The Comet
galley, Keppel brig, and some armed vessels, were so placed as to cover the
passage of Colonel Maitland, with the forces under his command, from Port
Royal, through Wallscut. On the 14th and 15th, the seamen completed the
important business of landing the cannon and ammunition from the ships and
small vessels: and they were appointed to the different batteries, under
the command of Captains Henry, Brown, and Fisher, of the navy. Some masters
of transports, and the master of a privateer, with their men,[99] made
voluntary offers of their service; as did Mr. Manley; merchant of Jamaica.
Their offers were accepted; and they had their posts assigned them. The
marines were incorporated with the grenadiers of the 60th regiment.