■,%. ^0* ^>y.o. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ..//o (/ /4 ^^. 1.0 I.I 1.25 1*0 1.4 M 2.0 1.8 1.6 Va ^ /a O % Ca m. -: o % ■^# / Photographic Sciences Corporation .^ iV s Q V N> «• O^ ;v ^ % A> ^%'- 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 1 4580 (716) 872-4503 ^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut canadien de microreproductions histortques 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques Tha Institute has attampjed to obtain the best original copy available fcr filming. Features of this copy which may be bibli tgraphically unique, which may alter a , of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur ^xemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exempiaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliogr&phique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiquds ci-dessous. n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Covers damaged/ Couverture andommagde □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul6e □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre dd couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur D D □ Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight bindir.g may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes □ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^colordes, tachetdes ou piqu^es □ Pages detached/ Pages d^tachdes □ Showthrough/ Transparence □ Quality of print varies/ Quality in6gale de I'impression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du materiel supplementaire □ Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible D Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 fitm6es d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppldmentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. IPX 14X 18X 22X \ I I I I \ \ I \ \ I \ T/" 26X 30X 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grSce d la gdndrositd de: Bibliothdque nationale du Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettet^ de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmaga. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant par le premier plat Qt en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second pict, selon le cas. Tous les autres exe'nplaires originaux sont filmds en commengant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — •► (meaning "CON- TINUED "). or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent etre filmds d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul cliche, il est filmS d partir Je Tangle sup^rieur gauche, de gauche ck droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 32X 1 2 3 4 5 6 -y\K. nAii- REPLY Qg PR KIITGSFORD To the strictures on volume III ©f the History of Canada In the Review of Historical Puhllcations relating- to Ca- -nada, (From Queen's Quarterly, July 1897 KIiIGST0K:I897 urn mmm t jL , :% a. .jU Reprinted from Queen's Quartkki.v, Vol. V , No. i. July, 1897. REPLY OF DR. KINGSFORD. TO THE STRICTURES ON VOLUME VIII. OF THE HISTORY OF CANADA In THE REVIEW OF HISTORICAL PUBLICA- TIONS RELATING To CANADA. ANY writer of a history, which embraces a period of importance, must look for differences of opinion to be entertained on many points included in his narrative ; but he has the right to expect that such views are expressed with fairness and courtesy, and that the criticism to which he may be subjected is not ad- vanced upon personal, but upon literary grounds. There is more than one school of thought in the estimate of public events and of public men, but there is only one standard of right and wrong, which in no case can with impunity be violated. The unfairness and the absence of honest representation with regard to the last volume of my history shown in the late publication issued under the authority of the University of Toronto bring this view forcibly into prominence*. Unless for the circumstance that the attack, * University of Toronto Studies in History. Review of Historical Publications Relating to Canada. Edited by George M. Wrong, M.A., Professor of History in the University of Toronto. Vol. i, pp. 10-13. ■y* I P-^ ', "k w 38 QUEEN'S QUARTERLY. it cannot be called a criticism, had been made under this au- thority, I should treat with disregard the opinions expressed, for there is little in the article to command respect or attract atten- tion. Written anonymously, the editor of the publication must be responsible for its arrogance of tone, its acerbity of expression, and (what is of greater importance as affecting his character as a Professor of History) for the erroneous views it expresses regard- ing the facts of history and the superficial information it displays, Only that the statements made appear with the imprimalur of his University, I should allow them to pass unnoticed. Given to the world under the authority of the Senate, I feel called upon to reply lest my silence should be construed as an acceptance of their correctness. I will briefly deal with the personal allusions to myself. I have to act in this case as many men have to do in a difficult po- sition. I have to throw myself on my character and refer to the text of the book. Mr. Wrong, in his barbarous English, once before this occasion wrote of me that I w.is not a " stylist," whatever the word may mean ; an expression to call forth from the Toronto press a contemptuous reproval, as he doubtless well remembers. My text can be adduced to show the character of the English I write, as well as the care taken by me to re- present what I hold to be the truth. I am told that in this book there is an excessive amount of careless writing. If the defects claitned be admitted, they must not be attributed to this cause. My sheets in form were jealously read by a friend, to whose cri- ticism they were subjected. From feelings of delicacy I do not mention his name. He is an associate of King's College, Lon- don, one of the highest honours attainable in the world of let- ters ; a graduate of Oxford, where he took high honours and ob- tained a reputation rarely surpassed : in Montreal he is known by his brilliant and learned contributions to periodical literature, by his admirable and unsurpassed translations of Horace, and, among other writings, by a volume of poems of the highest merit. He is a member of the Royal Society. Although unnamed, his identity is sufficiently plain. If I wrote bad English, he is par- ticeps criminis in allowing it to pass. He differs in his training and attainments from Mr. Wrong, as he surpasses him in learn ing, courtesy and reputation. w^mmmm REPLY OF DOCTOR KINGSFORD. 39 Who the unsigned critic may be I have yet to learn. This, however, may be said of him. He writes as one living in a petty paris!. community, imperfectly educated wi^h some superficial, miscellaneous reading ; with an unbounded admiration for ob- scure United States authorities, and with an unfathomable opin- ion of his own powers and merits ; a living example of the truth of the oft-quoted French proverb, that an toyauinc des aveujilcs les borgnes sont rots. This person complains of the want of sufficient references to my authorities. Any general accusation of this character is easily made and must go for what it is worth. In my humble judgment I have given all the referertces that are necessary. I was desirous of avoiding any complication of my text by irrele- vant and unnecessary notes, and all cumbersome repetition of fact : an essential of all narrative. Notes, indeed, as a rule, are needed only when it is necessary to enforce attention to a dis- puted fact ; or when an opinion expressed is at variance with the view generally entertained. It is likewise imputed to me as a literary crime that I have relied on what is to be found in the Canadian archives, the transcripts of the British official docu- ments of the time, which furnish a true and reliable basis for his- torical narrative. It is also made a matter of accusation that I supplemented these researches by the British writers, James and Richardson, and that I fail to cite United States authorities, ex- cept those of eighty years ago. This writer fails to allude to my reference to Mr. Henry Adams, the author of the last published history of the presidential rule of Jefferson and Madison, when I "acknowledge my many obligations to him " for his " laborious- ly collected information." [Vol. viil, p. 21.] He admits, however, that I cite the " prejudiced and untrustworthy Wilkin- son " epithets easily explained, for Wilkinson is antagonistic to his theories 01 Procter's conduct at Sackett's Harbour. Indeed, there is no point on which he fails generally to dilate, to shew, what I must be permitted to call, a vulgar acerbity in his effort to depreciate my work. He complains of my speed of production with the complacent remark, " that hasty work al- most invariably results in faulty workmanship." I have been ten years exclusively engaged upon my history. A sum in arithmetic will prove that a volume a year is no astounding effort, when the i 40 gllRKNS QUARTKRLY. whole time of a writer is given to liis subject. Four pages a day is but a moderate average of production; and 125 d.'iys of such work will give a volume of 500 pages, Icavint; 240 days for ex- amination, rer,earcb id proof reading. It is not easy to write of one's self, but I be eve that I may say with propriety that it is known to my friends that I have avoided society ; that I rose at five every morning of my life in summer and winter ; that for hours I was a daily attendant, either at the parliamentary library or at the archives branch, and that I sought information where- ever it could be gained. With these facts I am justified in con- sidering that Mr. Wrong's anonymous writer is as impertinent as he is unjust, either in pronouncing on a matter of fact of which he must be ignorant, or if knowing the facts in deliberately mis- representing them. I refer to the text of this volume for the proof of the consci- entious care witii which I have striven to write, and I challenge both editor and writer to produce a passage which they consider as " obscure and unintelligible." The very opposite is the opin- ion of men capable of judging from education, training and literary status, uninfluenced by the malignity apparent through- out this attack. I turn to the historical statements to which I feel called upon specially to reply. This writer disputes my assertion (p. 132) that Mr. Foster, the British Minister at Washington, failed to an- nounce the declaration of war by the United States to Brock in Upper Canada, leaving the fact to be communicated by the Governor-General. He takes this ground on the authority of a United States letter, which states that one Vosburgli was arrested on his return from Queenston alter delivering Foster's des- patches. Mr. McTavish is named as the " person concerned." On this slender ground he conceives he has authority for the fact that such despatch was sent by Foster to Brock. The contrary is generally considered to be the case. The first intimation Brock received of the war was from a newspaper containing the presi- dent's message confirming the news, with a communication from McTavish, McGillivray & Co., affirming the fact. The official news only reached Montreal on the 7th of July, and the following day, the 8th, was sent foward to Brock. On the loth Prevost wrote to Brock stating that from the disunion in the States the REPLY OF DOCTOR KINGSFORD. 4! " attempts on the Province must be feeble." At this time Hull was at Detroit preparing to invade Canada. There is no au- thority that Brock ever received such a despa.ch from the British minister. The party arrested may have brou^'ht letters to Canada ; the probability is that it was the communication from McTavish, a partner in the firm by which the information was sent ; indeed he is personally named as the " principal person concerned."* On the authority of a despatch from Major-General Sheaffe, that Mr. VVillcox {sic) was present at yueenston, the writer as- serts that this person was the notorious traitor, Joseph Will- cocks, who subsequently deserted to the United States, and was killed at Fort Erie towards the close of the war. There were others of the name, and very strong proof is required to establish that the " Willcox " named was the traitor Joseph Willcocks. William Willcocks was a cousin of the Baldwin family. His history is given at some length by the iate Mr. Dent in his Cana- dian Portrait Gallery [Vol. i, p. 20]. Suffice it to say that he ar- rived in New York in 1797. Subsequently he reached York (Toronto), and it was by his influence that the elder Baldwin ar- rived in Canada in 1798 ; the grandfather of Robert Baldwin. His eldest son was established in Toronto, and subsequently mar- gin order to show the want of value of the statements of this flippant, super- ficial writer, I append the narrative of the incident as given in the Life anil Corre- spondence of Sir Isntic Brock, edited by his nephew, Ferdinand 13roci< Tiipper (edi- tion of 1847, pp. 188, g). It is well knov;n that this work is based on tlie MS. long in the possession of the general's last surviving brother, Savery. Its historical value is undisputed. The work has indeed taken its place in the nation.-xl annals as a record of the man whose memory is held in universal reverence in the Dominion. The contradiction of this statement, as given in this volume on the shallow authority of a United States letter, relating a mere report, would scarcely have appeared pos- sible except from the folly of this writer, who has adduced it as a warrant for the ex- pression of a contrary opinion : " Mr. Foster, the English minister at Washington, seems to have partaken of this delusion, for it does not appear that he had taken any precautionary measures to convey to the Governor of the British North American Provinces the earliest in- telligence ot the declaration of war, on the iSthJune, i8t2 ; and, had it not been for the prudent foresight of the agent of the British North-west Company at New York, who sent the intelligence by express, it is possible that the first intimation would have been received from the mouths of the American cannon. To Upper Canada Mr. Foster transmitted no notice whatever of the war, and Major-General Brock was left to learn it officially through the circuitous and dilatory channel of the Governor-General. Happily, individual diligence made up for this unpardon- able neglect ; and the war was known by private expresses at Montreal in Lower, and at Kort George in Upper Canada on the 24th of June, or in six days after its declaration at Washington. " IWfP" 42 QUEEN'S QUARTERLY. ried Phoebe Willcocks. Two sons and four daughters accom- panied the first Baldwin to Canada. Willcocks had also children. We are told by Dr. Scadding (p. 138) that a William Willcocks was a pewholder in St. James' Church in 1813. There was a third Willcocks, Charles, formerly of the Cork militia. He is mentioned by Dr. Scadding (p. 349) as having on one occasion challenged Joseph Willcocks, who failed to appear on the ground. The Joseph Willcocks, declared with the constant positive- ness of this writer to have been present at Qutenston, was a member of the House of Assembly, which opened on the 27th July and was prorogued on the 5th of August, 1812. His whole conduct was antagonistic to the theory of his presence as a de- fender of Canada on this memorable day. With one Marcle, both of whom in a few months deserted to the United States, he did all he was able to encourage gloomy forebodings regarding the war, and it was by their influence that the House, by a ma- jority of two, refused to pass the suspension of the habeas corpus act. Sixty-six days only elapsed from the prorogation of the House to the battle of Queenston Heights on the 13th of Oc- tober, and there must have been some extraordinary change in the opinions of this Willcocks for him to be present on the British side as a volunteer. Such a proceeding v/ould have been totally at variance with his previous career and the opinions he pro- fessed. His subsequent conduct is antagonistic with any such line of conduct. In the proceedings of the Parliament of 1814, which met on the 15th of Febiuary, both he and Marcle are named in the list of members as having " deserted to the enemy." Sheaffe called the Parliament of 1813 on the 25th of February ; it lasted to the 13th of March. It was after this date he deserted, and his name nowhere appears as a loyal man. Before the fact can be admitted that he was present at Queenston much stronger evidence must be given than the imperfect report quoted by this writer, that he is to be identified with the " Willcox " named by Sir Roger Sheaffe. I still adhere to my view that he was not present. If there be a fact in the history of the country which is established, it is that although Prevost commanded in the opera- ff t?EPLY OF DOCTOR KINGSFORD. 43 h tions against Sackett's Harbour, on their failure he delegated to Colonel Baynes the duty of writing the despatch describing them. The despatch of Prevost, written a few days later, does not do away with the fact : a striking contrast to his conduct at Chateauguay after de Salaberry's success, of which he assumed all the merit, althorgh not present. James, says this writer, makes the same statement. He does more. He gives the des- patch itself. This writer deems it necessary to defend Prevost's personal courage. I am not aware that it has been called in question. I may refer to what is said on this point by myself (p. 270), " that in the field he was without moral courage, irre- solute, ever shrinking from responsibility." The writer of this so-called review calls me to account for not recognizing the state- ment made by Brenton. I have not done so, for I do not con- sider him worthy of credit. He was private secretary to Pre- vost, brought with him from Halifax to fill the position from which Ryland was displaced to create the opening. All that he has written has been to vindicate the memory of his chief. His efforts in this direction were continued after Prevost's death. Thus his statements are not to be accepted in preference to the evidence of the actors in the expedition. It was Brenton who was sent to England after the disastrous retreat from Plattsburg with a despatch dated from the State of New York, although it was plain by internal evidence that it had been written in Canada. This writer is indignant that I do not attach weight to the authority of General Brown, who commanded the United States force. He shows a constant preference in this direction. He affirms in commercial language that my statement must be dis- counted on what he calls concurrent evidence, that is of Prevost himself, his secretary Brenton, and the assertions of the United Slates General Brown, that if the retreat had not been ordered, ths troops would never have regained their ships. He accuses the v/riters who describe this attack in different language, the writer of the pamphlet "Veritas," and James, tl.v- historian of the war, as being Prevost's personal enemies. They were no mae so than any other writer who may form a view unfavourable to Prevost's public character. The opinions they expressed were based on the facts as they were related, and the defence of 44 QUEEN'S QUARTERLY. Prevost made by this writer will avail little against contemporary judgment and modern investigation. He uses the words, "such writers as James, Christie and Richardson." The last named must not be confounded with the Hon. John Richardson, sup- posed to be the author of the letters of " Veritas." He was afterwards known as Major Richardson, at the time an officer of the 49th, and the author of a history of the war in which he took part, and of several novels and memoirs. A careful examination of these works has in my mind proved their value ; that of Richardson especially, for it is the narrative of the events in which he participated. To speak of these writers as malicious, and as guided by personal feeling, is sheer nonsense, while it may be said of Brenton that he avowedly wrote to de- fend his patrons. With the evidence at our command I contend that my account of the operations at Sackett's Harbour is substan- stantially correct, and that very different testimony to that ad- vanced by this writer must be produced to prove that such is not the case. This writer, in his attempt to give a higher reputation to Pre- vost than I have felt it a duty to assign him, is careful not to refer to the despatch written by him after the success of dc Sala- berry at Chateauguay. I must content myself with repeating what I have said on this subject (Vol. in, p. 369) : "I do not know a more disingenuous production in military history than this despatch dated the 31st of October, 1813. The first con- sideration is why Prevost should have written it at all. The record of the action should have been made by the officer in command) de Salaberry ; but he is made to bear a thoroughly subordinate position. The conduct of Prevost in this case must be contrast- ed with his proceeding at Sackett's Harbour. The miscarriage which followed was attributable to his own orders, but to avoid the responsibility he directed his Adjutant-General to write tlie despatch, confining himself to the official duty of forwarding !t. In the latter case he appropriated to himself the laurels of de Salaberry, to which he had not the shadow of a claim." Prevost's reputation has long been determined in the mind of every enlightened student of history. His government was weak and irresolute ; it is a mercy that it did not prove disastrais. Except for the genius of Brock, Upper Canada would have been i REPLY OF DOCTOR KINGSFORD. 45 I- taken by Hull to offer a point d'appui to advance on Montreal- British power would then shortly have been reduced to the cita- del of Quebec, if the citadel itself could have been defended. Brock received no encouragement in his defence of Upper Canada. On the contrary, he was counselled by Prevost against all ac- tivity of campaign.* Brock's energetic and bold advance was the dictate alone of his own loyal and gallant nature. Pre- vost's irresolute and weak policy was that of defence. He had endeavoured to obtain an armistice until negotiations could be opened with the British government. The President declined to enter into any such arrangement. On its termination Prevost issued a proclamation. In place of speaking in the bold language of a British governor, he made an apology that the expedition against Detroit had been undertaken. t Shortly afterwards he ordered the evacuation of that post, but Brock availing himself of the discretion allowed him did not act upon the order. After Procter's disaster at the Thames on the 5th of October, 1813, Prevost's want of courage, and of that spirit of endurance by which the battle of life is won, came prominently to the surface. He was prostrated by the news and ordered the abandonment of Burlington heights, and the retreat of Vincent's force to Kingston. I venture here to reproduce what I nave said regarding this order, [p. 376.] It may be considered a specimen of the sloven- ly English that this writer attributes to me, sustained by Mr. Wrong's declaration, that I am not a "stylist." " Many powerful considerations presented themselves against the movement. There were many sick ooth at Jiurlington and York (Toronto). It was the commencement of November, when heavy rains are frequent. In modern times ' as spurs the weary traveller apace to gain the timely inn,' or as he drives over a cross country road lo pass from one main line of communication to another, we still have some experience of trying journeys, wherein every rod we move we dread to break the axle. In those days the main roads themselves were often impassable at the late season, and to have abandoned the heights was to have 'Prevost to Brock. Given in Tapper's Liti\ page 201. tTupper's Life of Btoek, p. 442. 46 QUEEN'S QUARTERLY. left the sick to the mercy of the enemy, with the ordnance, stores, baggage and provisions, which could not have been moved. The necessity of leaving the sick behind to be cared for by the invaders would have suggested the avoidance of every act which might cause irritation on their part. Thus the stores could not have been destroyed when the retreating general asked that the sick he would have left behind him might be fed and cared for. There was also the abandonment of the strong position at Bur- lington heights, confidently believed to be unassailable when gar- risoned and provisioned. Kingston, likewise, was short of provisions at the time, and the arrival of the western force would have led to much privation and have extended to results entirely unforeseen. In civil life there was the painful consequence of subjecting the whole population to military occupation, to the exactions, enforced contributions and remorseless severity of the United States as conquerors. A council of war was held at Burlington heights, and it was resolved not to abandon the position but to hold the ground occupied, and await events." Prevost appropriated to himself the credit of introducing the war money bills. According to Sir. Gordon Drummond, the proposition had its origin with Commissary-General Robinson, and was simply countenanced by Prevost as Governor-General. Plattsburg is too painful a recollection in Canada to these days to need comment. The very word is an epitaph for the chief actor in the disgrace. Sir George Prevost. Such, briefly described, is the man, the defence of whom has been undertaken by the writer of the article, and countenanced by the Professor of History of Toronto University in a publication brought out under the auspices of the Senate. I do not conceive that the puny arguments in their pages will in any way modify the view expressed in Canadian history with regard to this per- sonage, even if enforced in the lectures of the professor. A similar defence is also offered for Procter, who was tried by court-martial for his disgraceful conduct on the Thames. Al- though the light sentence passed on him was confirmed, it was most unacceptable to tlie Horse Guards, and only acquiesced in, from the impossibility of reassembling the court ; while the general officer commanding in Canada was desired to convey to REPLY OP DOCTOR KlNGSFORD. M General Procter the Prince-regent's high disapprobation of his conduct. Even this writer does not attempt to defend his condi'ct on the Thames ; he however brings into prominence, the 'energy and decision ' with which the attack was made against General Win- chester on the 21st of January, 1813, at Frenchtown. There is no question to be raised on this point. The objection is urged against his mode of attack. Procter's generalship led him to commence the assault of the position with 3 pdrs. Had a man like Harvey beer in command he would as at Stoney Creek, have stormed the entrenchments with the bayonet, for the United States force had been surprized. The attack, having been opened by artillery, permitted the United States infantry to occupy the banquette from which they poured upon the advancing British troops a destructive fire. The consequence was that out of a force of 500 men 24 were killed and 158 wounded, making a total of 182 casualties. The writer says little of the advance on Fort Meigs on the River Maumee. He, however, unwarrantably assigns the failure of Procter's attempt to his Indian contingent. He is silent with regard to the dej '.orable attack of Sandusky, in which Procter's deficiency in the qualities of a great commander is painfully shewn. I must follow the example given me in the cursory no- tice of these events by referring the reader to my volume (viii. pp. 302-309), and by stating that I in no way modify the opin- ions I have expressed on these two events. From the length which this paper is attaining I do not deem it necessary to enter into a critical examination of the battle of Chrystler's, and it is not important whether or not this writer considers some of the details a misconception, as they are given by me. The main features of the campaign remain uncontra- dicted. On the points into which I have entered, I have shewn the little claim to respect the opinions of this person present, when he treats of the leading events of the war, and the characters of two of the most prominent actors in its history. But what is to be said of the petty spite and meanness which gloats over some misprints of names and dates, plainly typo- graphical errors, or at the worst, as shown by the text, slips 48 QUEEN'S QUARTERLY. of the pen of the author ? Anyone of fairness would recognize them to be errors of accident, and not make them a matter of reproach. They occur more or less in every book which contains: many hundred names and dates in the 6oi pp. of text. No one trained in literary work, who owes his position to his own merit and experience, but would be guided by sympathy with a work of importance exacting thought, research and continuous labour. No one, except from malignity of purpose, would think of parading his discovery of such faults with evident feelings of mean satisfaction. Many are so plainly the fault of proof-reading as to be unworthy of comment such as g5th for 98th, 44th for 4gtli, Baccus for Backus, Rainsfeld for Rainsford, Bambridge for Bainbridge, Fort Talbot for Port Talbot, and many such slips. I leave to the writer and the professor of history their enjoyment of the satisfaction they experience at their enumeration of mistakes, which I feel as little satisfaction in recognizing, as they are gratified in pointing out. There is, however, an asserted error on the part of this writer and accepted by his editor which is simply astounding. It is stated tliat on page 130 of my volume Marcle is given by mis- take for Mallory in the paragraph in which I stated that Will- cocks and Marcle had deserted to the enemy. If the writer had referred to the journals of 1814, on the meeting of the house on the 15th of February, he might have read that on the roll of the members being called, six were absent : Wilson sick ; McDon- nell, Clench and McGregor prisoners with the enemy ; while Abraham Marcle and Joseph Willcocks are mentioned as having deserted to the enemy. This correction of so-called error on the part of the writer is not the blunder of a proof reader ; it is simply a proof of ignorance of the records of the Upper Canada legislature on the part of the writer and editor. Objection is made that I have increased the number of my volumes by giving a narrative of the American revolution- ary war, with a long description of the disputes with the United States which led to the declaration of war of 1812 ; that I have included the account of the capture of Washington, the attack on Baltimore and the battle of New Orleans ; further that I have included in my history an account of the naval actions. I have to reply simply that I felt it a duty so to act. I cannot be ac- REPLY OF DOCTOR KINGSFORD. 49 cused of pilfering tlie labours of others. Even those unfriendly to me cannot arraign me for the crime of " padding out " my pages. Indeed the labour bestowed on this portion of my history was by no means of small account. The explanation I have to offer is that I considered it essential that in the Dominion we possess a correct knowledge of these events for they form a part of the history of tiie continent indispensable to the comprehension of our own national position. The American revolution was the parent of the settlement of Upper Canada. The operations at Washington, and at New Orleans, with the naval actions, form a part of the war in which Canada bore so distinguished a part. Not only do I entertain no feeling of regret that I have included these narratives in my his- tory, but I claim recognition for having rendered a national ser- vice in having written of these events so that no misrepre- sentation concerning them may arise. Every writer of a work of this character which has occupied upwards of ten years of his life must himself be the judge of the principles by which he will be guided. He cannot hope always to have on his side even critics friendly to him. He must throw his bread on the waters and trust to the future for the fair appreciation of his motives, and the just estimate of his labours. This writer expresses himself arbitrarily on the point that I have failed to consult American authorities, and that there is a de- ficiency of notes and references. On these two points the writer is entitled to his opinion. I only consider it necessary to reply that I am not impressed with it ; whatever my defects, in my own view they do not lie in this direction. I am called in question for being deficient in allusions to the social and industrial life of the people, the condition of agricul- ture, the increase of commerce, the development of trade. This writer fails to bear in mind that the volume he has seen fit to call in question includes the period 1808-1815, seven years only • that it is devoted to the events which led to the war, and to the war itself. Accordingly it was not the place for such considera- tions. If reference be made to the other volumes, he will find these subjects treated to the extent that it is possible. If the writer has any general knowledge of Canadian history he must know that there is scanty allusion to these points in contempor- 5° gUEP:N'S QUARTERLY. aneous literature, and tliat reliable information regarding them is by no means widely given. The people of Upper Canada, in the early years of settlement, were so occupied in the struggle of life as to give little thought to " progress" in the enlarged mean- ing of the word, except so far as it influenced their own fortunes ; and what leisure they possessed was principally occupied by the part taken by them in political life. As to the mission of John Henry, I conceive that I have bestowed all the attention upon its details, that they call for. I do not recognize that it exercised so wide an influence as to demand a moie extended allusion than I have given to it. It attracted some attention at the time in the United States and created some excitement tor a long period, but it was without permanent effect. I cannot accept the view that it had great direct influ- ence in the creation of the feeling which led to the declaration of war. The length to which this paper has reached suggests that I should bring it to a close. There may be points in the onslaught upon my work upon which I have not touched ; nevertheless I conceive that I have vindicated my claim that my record of the war of 1812 merits different consideration than has been accord- ed to it in the publication of Toronto university. I do not quarrel with the theory that opinions differing from mine should be expressed. Such a contradiction of view invariably presents itself in every department of literature and science. We may do our best to carry out the Horatian maxim: — " Deniqus sit quidvis, simplex dnmtaxat et unum." But, to repeat another of his sayings, " qtiandoque bonus dormitat Homems." The best of us often fail in our purpose and but partially achieve success. I feel, however, justified by every canon of criticism in denying the assertion that I have written hastily, and without care ; and that I neglected authorities which, had I consulted them, would have led me to express opinions different to those I have written. I must concede that it would have been more desirable if the proof reader's errors of dates, and the orthography of the uncom- mon names, of which much is said, did not call for remark. I do not desire to explain them away ; I can only regret that they present themselves to give ground for unfriendly comment. REPLY OF DOCTOR KINGSFORD. 51 They do not, however, constitute what is called faulty proof reading. I may say that, while tny friend allowed me to appeal to his overtaxed time to watch my language and expression of thought, to correct any slip of grammar and any cumbersome- ness of expression that might have glided into the narrative, he undertook no critical watchfulness over the dates and names only to be met in the bye-paths of historic literature. Otherwise, I had no assistance in this work. My daughter laboriously copied my MS. and aided me in the proofs in the matter of orthography, or drew my attention to that which she considered obscure. My work has been performed single-handed, under what circum- stances it will little interest the reader to learn. It was undertaken as a national work. I can with much satisfaction say that in all quarters of j-urnalism in the Do- minion it has received full recognition from writers whom I had no power of influencing. Equally in the mother country it has been as kindly received by the press of world-wide celebrity, the conductors of which knew me only by my name as appearing on the title page. In any circumstance the history certainly deserves a better fate than that accorded by the individuals who have con- sidered it in the University publication. I do not recognize on the part of either writer or editor the possession of the erudition, reading, or critical capacity, to enable them to judge of such a work. As the editor of an un- signed article Mr. Wrong is responsible for the opinions it ex- presses, justifying Prevost and Pi cter, which suggests a very superficial acquaintance with Canadian history. He brings to my mind Professor Truffles in the play of Douglas Jerrold of " Time Works Wonders," which half a century ago caused great atten- tion in the theatrical world : "What are you doing. Truffles?" asked a friend, for the Professor is supposed to have fallen on evil days." " I am giving lectures in Chinese," answers Truftles. " Do you know Chinese ?" " I teach it." The text of the paper suggests that in some such spirit Pro- fessor Wrong labours at his duties in the chair of history in To- ronto University, especially as it is known that he has made the slight, imperfect, sketchy, insufficient work of Greswell a text book: ^pp 52 gUEENS QUARTER!, V. a book devoid of all infortimtion, written in tito spirit of a maga- zine article to give condensed, superficial information regardinjj Canada to the members of the Imperial Institute. That such u proceeding should have been admitted by the Senate, and not called in question by the minister of education seems marvellous. Under any circumstances, even of failure, the labour bestowed upon such a work as I have now completed, the last two volumes are in the printer's hands and will appear before the close of the year, should command consideration and forbearance, even in dealing with its shortcomings. Certainly it should not be disin- genuously misestimated. These two persons are the solitary in- stances of injustice and misrepresentation among those who have written on it. Not simply on my own behalf, but in the cause of literature, I enter my protest against unknown men of no status in literature arrogantly assailing the labours of a public writer, on no ground but their own weak device ; and, what is more important, against the propagation of false, erroneous and untenable views regard- ing our national history ; against setting admittedly reliable evi- dence at defiance ; against the attempt to set up a critical house of cards doomed to be prostrated by the first breath of the con- tempt which it has called forth. William Kingsford, I I I