That the capture of His Majesty's late squadron was caused by the very defective means Captain Barclay possessed to equip them on Lake Erie; the want of a sufficient number of able seamen, whom he had repeatedly and earnestly requested of Sir James Yeo to be sent to him; the very great superiority of the enemy to the British squadron; and the unfortunate early fall of the superior officers in the action. That it appeared that the greatest exertions had been made by Captain Barclay, in equipping and getting into order the vessels under his command; that he was fully justified, under the existing circumstances, in bringing the enemy to action; that the judgment and gallantry of Captain Barclay in taking his squadron into action, and during the contest, were highly conspicuous, and entitled him to the highest praise; and that the whole of the other officers and men of His Majesty's late squadron conducted themselves in the most gallant manner; and did adjudge the said Captain Robert Heriot Barclay, his surviving officers and men, to be most fully and honourably acquitted.—Rear-Admiral Foote, President.
No. XXV.[106]
Court-martial on General Procter, p. 113.
Horse Guards, 9th September, 1815.
At a General Court-martial, held at Montreal, in Upper Canada, on the 21st December, 1814, and continued by adjournments to the 28th January, 1815, Major-General Henry Procter, Lieutenant-Colonel of the 41st Regiment, was arraigned upon the undermentioned charges, viz.
1st, "That the said Major-General Procter, being entrusted with the Command of the Right Division of the Army serving in the Canadas, and the retreat of the said Division from the Western Parts of Upper Canada having become unavoidable from the loss of the Fleet on Lake Erie, on the 10th September, 1813, did not, immediately after the loss of the Fleet was known by him, make the Military arrangements best calculated for promptly effecting such retreat, and unnecessarily delayed to commence the same until the Evening of the 27th of the said Month, on which Day the Enemy had landed in considerable force within a short distance of Sandwich, the Head-Quarters of the said Division, such Conduct on the part of the said Major-General Procter, endangering the safety of the Troops under his Command, by exposing them to be attacked by a force far superior to them, being contrary to his Duty as an Officer, prejudicial to good Order and Military Discipline, and contrary to the Articles of War."
2d. "That the said Major-General Procter, after commencing the retreat of the said Division on the said 27th September, although he had reason to believe that the Enemy would immediately follow it with very superior numbers, and endeavour to harass and impede its March, did not use due expedition, or take the proper measures for conducting the said Retreat, having encumbered the said Division with large quantities of useless Baggage, having unnecessarily halted the Troops for several whole Days, and having omitted to destroy the Bridges over which the Enemy would be obliged to pass, thereby affording them the opportunity to come up with the said Division, such conduct betraying great professional incapacity on the part of the said Major-General Procter, being contrary to his Duty as an Officer, prejudicial to good Order and Military Discipline, and contrary to the Articles of War."
3d. "That the said Major-General Procter did not take the necessary measures for affording security to the Boats, Waggons, and Carts, laden with the Ammunition, Stores, and Provisions, required for the Troops on their retreat, and allowed the said Boats, Waggons, and Carts, on the 4th and 5th October, 1813, to remain in the rear of the said Division, whereby the whole, or the greater part of the said Ammunition, Stores, and Provisions, either fell into the Enemy's hands, or were destroyed to prevent their capture, and the Troops were without Provisions for a whole day previous to their being attacked on the said 5th of October; such conduct on the part of the said Major-General Procter being contrary to his duty as an Officer, prejudicial to good Order and Military Discipline, and contrary to the Articles of War."
4th. "That the said Major-General Procter having assured the Indian Chiefs in Council at Amherstburgh, as an inducement to them and their Warriors to accompany the said Division on its retreat, that on their arrival at Chatham, they should find the Forks of the Thames fortified, did nevertheless neglect fortify the same; that he also neglected to occupy the Heights above the Moravian Village, although he had previously removed his Ordnance, with the exception of one six-pounder, to that position, where, by throwing up works he might have awaited the attack of the Enemy and engaged them to great advantage; and that after the intelligence had reached him of the approach of the Enemy on the Morning of the said 5th of October, he halted the said Division, notwithstanding it was within two miles of the said Village, and formed it in a situation highly unfavourable for receiving the Attack which afterwards took place, such conduct manifesting great professional incapacity on the part of the said Major-General Procter, being contrary to his Duty as an Officer, prejudicial to Good Order and Military Discipline, and contrary to the Articles of War."
5th. "That the said Major-General Procter did not on the said 5th day of October, either prior to, or subsequent to, the Attack by the Enemy on the said Division on that day make the Military dispositions best adapted to meet or to resist the said Attack, and that during the Action, and after the Troops had given way, he did not make any effectual attempt in his own person, or otherwise, to rally or encourage them, or to co-operate with and support the Indians who were engaged with the enemy on the right, the said Major-General Procter having quitted the Field soon after the Action commenced, such Conduct on the part of Major-General Procter betraying great professional incapacity, tending to the defeat and dishonour of His Majesty's Arms, to the sacrifice of the Division of the Army committed to his charge, being in violation of his Duty, and unbecoming and disgraceful to his Character as an Officer, prejudicial to good Order and Military Discipline, and contrary to the Articles of War."