British weakness in Upper Canada. Lundy's The strengthening of the American forces in the spring caused Drummond to expect a renewed attack upon Upper Canada. He held that the preparations which were being made on Lake Champlain and the operations about Plattsburg were merely for the purpose of deceiving Prevost. The Governor, however, was too careful of the interests of Lower Canada to accede to this view. This being so, the British forces on the Niagara frontier remained few and divided; and, when the Americans again crossed the frontier, Fort Erie was soon compelled to surrender. A determined resistance made by the British at Chippawa (May 5) ended in the loss of onethird of their forces and the abandonment of that fort. Queenston was also evacuated, Fort George being made the British head quarters. The American general, Jacob Brown, had intended, after capturing the British forts, to co-operate with Commodore Chauncey on Lake Ontario; but Chauncey was unable or unwilling to help, and remained cooped up in Sackett's Harbour till after the battle of Lundy's Lane. Disappointed in his first plan of campaign, Brown determined by a rapid march to surprise the British forces stationed at Burlington Heights. The vanguard of the British forces advanced on July 25 to Lundy's Lane, near the Niagara Falls. On July 24 Drummond had arrived at Fort Niagara. Advancing to the front, he countermanded the retreat, which had been ordered from Lundy's Lane, and determined to hold that position against the advancing Americans. The battle of Lundy's Lane was the most fiercely contested of the war, and was claimed by both sides as a victory. Inasmuch, however, as the Americans abandoned their camp and retreated in some disorder, the battle can rightly be claimed a British victory. None the less the American naval superiority on Lakes Ontario and Champlain enabled their forces to perform in two days what the British took from sixteen to twenty days in doing by marches from Kingston. More over there was a serious risk of deficiency of supplies for Upper Canada. Its resources were exhausted, and there was need of large imports from abroad before the closing of navigation. Two-thirds of the meat supplied came Want of from the United States; and at any moment Congress supplies. might close this channel. Sickness, want of provisions, and the increasing strength of the enemy were producing their inevitable results. Drummond was unable to induce the militia or the Indians to come forward, and he regarded his prospects with some apprehension. Two regiments, as reinforcements, might save the situation, but Prevost would not, or could not, assist. On the other hand, the command of Lake Ontario was again passing into the hands of the British, and the appearance at Montreal in July and August. of the Peninsular veterans, who had been sent to Canada, prevented active measures from being taken by the Americans. Fort Erie was evacuated by them in the beginning of November, and the campaign of 1814 in Upper Canada closed without any operations of a decisive character. against A successful expedition from Nova Scotia against the coast Expedition of Maine was made in the same year. In Lower Canada, Plattsburg. a large force having now been got together, offensive operations were necessary. The British army advanced upon Plattsburg, situated on the western side of Lake Champlain, the Americans retiring before them. Prevost, deeming the co-operation of the fleet on Lake Champlain necessary for success, made no attempt in the absence of the vessels to overpower the weak American force under General Macomb. A brave sailor, Captain Downie, was in command of the British flotilla. He had only recently taken the command, and the ships were by no means ready for action; but pressed by Prevost he attacked the American ships on September 11. His death and the misbehaviour of the militia on board the gunboats decided the fate of the day. Prevost maintained that with the defeat of the fleet the further prosecution of the enterprise became impossible. Consequently the British troops made an inglorious retreat, and the only attempt during the Canadian War at handling a conResponsi- siderable body of troops ended in a miserable fiasco. The bility of indignation amongst the British was great, and there was Prevost. general sympathy with Yeo, who pressed forward the charges against the Governor. A furious controversy has raged round his reputation. He died before full investigation could be made of the facts by a court martial; nor is it fair that he should be condemned by the findings of a naval court martial to which he was no party. His reputation was vindicated by the Duke of Wellington, who wrote to Sir George Murray (December 24): Whether Sir George Prevost was right or wrong in his decision at Lake Champlain is more than I can tell; though of this I am certain he must equally have retreated . . . after his fleet was beaten, and I am inclined to think he was right. I have told the ministers repeatedly that a military superiority on the lakes is a sine qua non of success in war on the frontier of Canada.' None the less, the conclusion cannot be resisted that Prevost was wholly without that singleness of aim by which alone great things can be accomplished. The French Canadians have taken a natural pride in shielding the reputation of the Governor, who was their best friend till the advent of Lord Elgin; but the verdict of history can hardly assign Prevost a place among the heroes of the war of 1812. Treaty of It is unnecessary here to note the doings on sea and on American soil, which belong to a general history of the war; but by this time there was a general desire for peace on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Treaty of Ghent, signed on December 24, 1814, and ratified on February 18, 1815, at Washington, was welcomed by both combatants. By 1 Duke of Wellington to Sir George Murray, December 22, 1814, Dispatches, ed. by Col, Gurwood, vol, xii, p. 244. this treaty the status quo ante bellum was restored. The Orders in Council already belonged to past history, and nothing was said with respect to the thorny questions of impressment and desertion. Both sides began with extravagant demands, but neither side was in earnest, and both recognized that the game had been drawn. The Americans so far carried off the honours that their victories of Lake Erie and Lake Champlain seemed to show that naval superiority which the Duke of Wellington affirmed to be the condition precedent of success. From the point of view of military Character science the war had been of little importance. On the of war. American side, especially, its history could not be regarded with much satisfaction. With leaders who, for the most part, were unable to lead, and with followers, who were often unwilling to follow, great results were not to be expected. The British, on the other hand, were, till near the end of the war, paralysed by an inferiority of numbers; and though men such as Brock, Harvey, de Salaberry, and Drummond, and engagements such as Queenston, Chrystler's Farm, Chateauguay, and Lundy's Lane, invested the story with a halo of romance, the general results of the war to Great Britain were somewhat disappointing. Hence both the United States and Great Britain have shown unwonted readiness to ignore its details. In Canada alone, as we have seen, have its memories been rightly prized. AUTHORITIES The Canadian War of 1812, by C. P. Lucas, C.B. Oxford, 1906. Documentary History of the Campaign upon the Niagara Frontier, collected and edited for the Lundy's Lane Historical Society, by Lt. Col. E. Cruikshank. Brymner, op. cit. 1893 and 1896. Official Letters of the Military and Naval Officers of the United States during the War with Great Britain, 1812-1815, edited by J. Brannan. Washington, 1823. Christie, op. cit. vol. ii. Kingsford, op. cit. vol. viii, pp. 115-598. Position of CHAPTER VIII THE LOWER CANADIAN ASSEMBLY AND THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT HAD politicians known the ways belonging to their peace Canadians, the close of the war might have meant the beginning of happier relations between the French and English in Upper Canada. Political controversy had been by no means altogether ended during it; but the general loyalty of the French Canadians had come out well from the ordeal. In this state of things they complained with some reason that they were treated as foreigners, and that the Government was entirely composed of English officials, whose aim was to set the Governor against the French Canadian majority. A suggestion was made in an address to the Prince Regent, dated November 18, 1814, that appointments to the Executive Council should be made from the most influential members of the Assembly; by which means the two parties would be united and national animosities would cease. It was pointed out that the French Canadians were far more interested in the maintenance of the British connexion than were the English in the province, who had the same language, religion, and manners as their American neighbours. In the same spirit the Assembly asserted its imperial patriotism and extolled Prevost, who had known how to find in the devotion of a brave and faithful people, unjustly calumniated, sufficient resources to baffle the plans of a numerous and confident enemy. The blood of the children of Canada had flowed, mingled with that of the brave soldiers sent to help them. Between the departure of Prevost and the arrival of Sir |