SOME ACCOUNT OF THE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE LATE LIEUT.-GENERAL Sir GEORGE PREVOST, Bart. &c. &c. (continued 3)

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: