Narrative of the Fenian invasion of Canada

by Alexander Somerville

Correction.—On [page 112], the name of Lt.-Col. Villiers is used where it should be brigade Major Villiers. The name of the Lt.-Col. was also associated with the subject. The passage relating to Booker’s resignation at Colborne on 2nd June, and his telegrams to Col. Lowry commanding in chief, soliciting to be re-instated in the 13th Battalion should read thus: Lt.-Col. Booker on returning to Colborne, from Hamilton, evening of June 4th, telegraphed to Col. Lowry saying, “I am waiting for orders.” Brigade Major Villiers telegraphed on his behalf to the same effect. Col. Lowry replied to the Brigade Major: “What does Booker mean? He was relieved of his command at his own request, and will not be re-instated by me; Major Skinner is in command.” Booker then telegraphed to Col. Lowry: “I only asked to be relieved of the command of the Brigade, not of the 13th Battalion.” Col. Lowry replied referring him to Maj.-Gen. Napier. Booker then telegraphed to Napier and remained in Colborne until Wednesday, June 6th. Lt.-Col. Villiers had not then arrived at Colborne, nor until some time after, the date I cannot ascertain. This correction is made to obviate the mistake of introducing that officer’s name in that stage of the electric correspondence. But the main fact stands as before, which is, that Lt.-Col. Booker, left the 13th battalion early on the morning of Sunday, 3rd of June, without announcing his departure to Major Skinner, next in seniority in the battalion. The officers mentioned by Capt. Akers of “superior in rank to himself,” who had, on the evening of the 2nd, urged Booker’s removal from command, by reason of his manifest incompetence, saw him on morning of the 3rd when the force was about to be led towards the supposed position of the enemy; bear witness to his exhibition of imbecility, or whatever his malady may have been, at the railway station, as related by Mr. McGrath, manager of the Welland Railway, when he pleaded to be sent away, in his flight from Colborne, by a special train.

I have not in the proper place named it so explicitly as the circumstance demands, that Booker had reported that the 13th were demoralized, that is in a military sense unfit for duty, untrustworthy before an enemy. That is the military signification of a battalion being demoralized. The troops then at Colborne, June 3rd, 4 a. m., were about to march towards the scene of yesterday’s action; and the 13th, whether because of Booker’s slanderous report or not, yet with it resting on them, were left behind, in Colborne. There lay the stigma from which the officers on their own behalf and that of the gallant fellows of yesterday’s combat sought to be absolved before the public, through Booker’s Court of Inquiry, which, however, refused them a status in it as parties, or a place within its doors as listeners to what others said involving their interests. True, it has since been officially stated that the 13th was left there to do garrison duty. But the invidious distinction was not removed by that explanation, of the Toronto Q. O., Caledonia and York companies being taken to the scene of yesterday’s fight where an enemy was expected on the 3rd, and the 13th left out, apparently as unworthy. And there was this other set of aggravations. The Q. O. notwithstanding what Adj.-Gen. McDougal has so handsomely said at Thorold camp, (see [another page]), that brave men never calumniate their fellow soldiers, did set afloat stories at their new quarters in Fort Erie village, and in their letter-writing to Toronto, slandering the 13th. The St. Catharines Journal had a reporter at Fort Erie camp, and his ear was filled, his paper supplied in turn, with calumnious lies about the 13th and unqualified praises of the Q. O. Other volunteer companies such as Barrie and Scarboro took the story from the Q. O. and when they came to do garrison duty at Colborne along side of the 13th, about June 12th, were insolent almost beyond endurance. “If we had been in the fight,” said they, “we would not have heeded Booker’s bugle calls to retire; we would have gone on with the battle, we would.” That is each man would have taken the command upon himself.

It was about the 11th or 12th of June that Lt.-Col. Villiers met the officers of the 13th at Colborne and stated that it was the desire of Maj. Gen. Napier that Lt.-Col. Booker should resume command of the battalion. He urged that “bygones should be bygones,” but they all without exception said Lt.-Col. Booker could never command the battalion again, while they remained its officers. They were not, it seems, asked to write a letter of solicitation to have him re-instated. At Colborne, I was informed that such a request had been made. And so gave it in the Narrative written from my Notes.

The names of certain witnesses presented to Booker’s Court of Inquiry may have been considered by the Court as withdrawn. The officers of the 13th decided to have nothing to do with it when Major Skinner was refused the privilege of being present as a party to the proceedings.

I have only briefly, for want of space, referred to the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Inglis. It should have been added that when Booker contradicted him about the horse, saying “No, not on horseback, I returned to Ridgeway on foot,” or words to that effect; Mr. Inglis addressing the Court said; “Well, gentlemen, if I were on my oath I would only repeat what I have just said.”

The passage on [page 110], second paragraph: “Had he surrendered to his next in command of the 13th,, measures of precaution would have been taken,” may be misunderstood. It means that Major Skinner would have taken command of the 13th and posted its guards and night piquets. There were superior officers present. [See paragraph] beginning St. Catharines Home Guard.

That Flag. It was reported that but for the Q. O. the 13th would have lost their colours. The colours were never out of the keeping of Ensigns Armstrong and Baker and the guard told off to attend them. When the whole of the 13th went into action, right wing in front, left wing supporting, the colours took post with the reserve of the brigade consisting entirely of the unengaged companies of Q. O. When that reserve led the retreat the Ensigns of the 13th retreated with it. The story which Toronto papers first started reached New York. There the pictorial journalists added to the Toronto fiction, and made pictures of a flag of the “Queen’s Own” captured by Fenians. The Q. O. had no flag. And here, I repeat, that commanders of experience will not take flags into a wooded country upon a desultory campaign of bush-fighting. But an order to that effect should emanate from the Commander-in-chief.

[Page 98]. “Major Skinner had partially succeeded in forming a red line across the road with fixed bayonets directed against the retreat.” The Major did not state this to me and he is too conscientious to accept a statement made by others, which it seems is not strictly correct. At that point, [near log house on the map] Major Skinner and Lieut. Routh were together and endeavoured to form a party. Two lads in red, with fixed bayonets had faced round as ordered, and others seemed willing to stand by the officers, when a rush of men in green uniforms [Highlanders or U. R.’s retreating from the extreme right] pushed over them, trampling one of the lads, Parker by name, under foot. He was found by the Fenians insensible and carried into an adjoining house. In a few moments after that Major Skinner was told that Lieut. Routh was killed. The wound however, was not mortal. The Major like others who came last out of the field, expected that a re-formation of the force would be made at Ridgeway; but on arriving there he and they saw nothing of Lt.-Col. Booker, or Major Gilmore, or of any one attempting to restore order. Under these circumstances Major Skinner, and officers with him lent assistance to support some disabled men along; they could do no more at that time.

O’Neil at Nashville.—On [pages 83, 84] a letter from the Fenian General O’Neil is quoted. It was asked for in the following terms: “Hamilton Canada West, July 23rd, 1866. Sir. I am a correspondent of British newspapers resident in this city, and author of a small work soon to be published bearing some such title as ‘Somerville’s Narrative of the Fenian Invasion of Canada, June 1866.’ As such I take the liberty of writing this note and soliciting a reply to questions which to me as a truthful journalist and current historian are important.

“Before stating the questions permit me to remark that while I as a British subject deprecate and deplore your invasion of Canada, I am constrained by force of truth to acknowledge, and will in my forthcoming Narrative place the acknowledgement on permanent record that you individually, as also some of your officers and men performed acts of kindness to some of our wounded; and that you and also some of your officers interfered with persons in your force to prevent outrages on property and persons.