“Bloody Provost”: Discipline During the War of 1812

Canadian Military History

Volume 16 Issue 4 Article 3

2007

John R. Grodzinski Royal Military College of Canada, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh

Part of the Military History Commons

Recommended Citation Grodzinski, John R. "“Bloody Provost”: Discipline During the War of 1812." Canadian Military History 16, 4 (2007)

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canadian Military History by an authorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Grodzinski: “Bloody Provost”

“Bloody Provost” Discipline during the War of 1812

John R. Grodzinski

s a young subaltern, John Le Couteur, of the of preliminary findings, as the records of the 100 A104th Foot, left a lengthy record of his service plus British, foreign, allied and Canadian units3 in Canada between 1812 and 1817. In an entry that served in Canada between 1812 and 1815 dated 5 February 1813, when frequent inspections have not all been examined, nor have American of the guard may have given him cause to reflect records been studied to the same detail. It seeks upon his men, Le Couteur wrote: to determine the application of disciplinary measures within the overall context of the On one occasion at Fredericton, a private of the British Army, and relative to the only other large Light Company had offended deeply. He was field force deployed by the British, Wellington’s condemned to receive three hundred lashes. He was paraded and placed on the Triangle close Allied Army in the Iberian Peninsula. Was it in Front of the Light Company. He was a stout indeed discipline that soldiers were subjected fellow, on bon point. The lash lacerated his back to, or merely terror? Are our perceptions of the speedily and the blood flowed freely. He stood stern discipline faced by officers and men mere close in front of me, the inward groan, at each stereotype? Were the Irish “wild,” foreigners lash, from being stifled, went sufficiently to my difficult, and the Canadians, particularly the heart, but soon after, the Drummer, in swinging his Cat of Nine Tails, switched a quantity of blood Catholic ones, unruly? Were officers cruel? This over my Face and Belts. I fainted away like a Sick study will also compare British discipline relative girl to my own great horror and Confusion, but it to that of their enemy, the United States Army. was not unnatural after all. The Officers laughed What is apparent from even this cursory glance is 1 at me but the men did not. that courts martial were a matter of routine and the punishments awarded were the result of many In the British Army of the early nineteenth factors and not normally just harsh attitudes. century, discipline had two meanings. The first was that it “signifies the instruction and Military discipline was maintained through government of soldiers.” “Bravery,” wrote the laws and practices established by royal Charles James in 1802, “will perchance gain and parliamentary authorities. The Rules and a battle; but everyone knows that by discipline Articles for the Better Government of all His alone the long disputed prize of a war can be Majesty’s Forces, better known as the Articles ultimately obtained.” Military discipline was “the of War formed the basis of military law and were authoritative declared laws for the guidance of first promulgated in 1663. These are distinct all military men, and all military matters,” and from the Articles of War used by the Royal Navy, “the obedience to, and exercise of those laws.” which appeared in 1661. The Rules and Articles It was the “soul of all armies; and unless it is provided general instructions on the procedures established amongst them with great resolution, should an officer or soldier be arrested or placed soldiers become a contemptible rabble, and are in custody. The mechanism for dealing with them more dangerous to this very state that maintains was the court martial.4 them.”2 As a royal decree, the Articles of War and This article will examine the military discipline the sentences issued by courts martial were not of the British Army in British North America enforceable without the authority of Parliament. during the War of 1812. This is but a summary

Published by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2007 1

Grodzinski - Bloody Provost.indd 25 06/11/2007 11:35:56 AM Canadian Military History, Vol. 16 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

An 1805 treatise on courts martial which aided ofﬁcers with matters of military discipline. Many books such as these were privately published, making up for the lack of ofﬁcial manuals.

Provost could issue and carry out an immediate sentence, otherwise a matter of evidence went to court martial. Hence the term, “bloody Provost.”6

A court martial is a body convened to try an

Author’s collection offence against military discipline, or against the ordinary law, committed by a person in one of the armed services. There were three types, each with different composition and scales of punishment.

A regimental court martial was composed of three to five officers, preferably an odd number, headed by a captain with lieutenants as the other members. It had no authority to try capital offenses or officers. Sentences were confirmed by the commanding officer.

The garrison court martial had similar composition and authority, but its members came from various regiments. The governor or garrison commander approved its decisions.

Lastly, the general court martial was composed of not less than 13 members. It was headed by This came with the passage of the Mutiny Act a judge advocate and could impose capital in 1689, which established military law in war punishment or try an officer. Judgements of and peace, allowing the punishments under the death had to have the concurrence of nine of the Articles of War to be enforced and introducing 13 members of the court, or a two-thirds majority the taking of life or limb where warranted. The when more members were present.7 Mutiny Act was renewed annually, making it the most scrutinized of all laws in the realm. By 1812, the provisions surrounding courts Nevertheless, the prerogative power of the martial were elaborate – administration of an Crown continued until 1803, when a revised oath, proper drafting of charges, examination form of the Mutiny Act made the Articles of War of witnesses, use of written evidence and statutory, once and for all asserting the authority adjournment to allow the prisoner to prepare his 5 of Parliament over the army. defence or gain counsel. These procedures were sufficient to make any parliamentarian happy but The Articles of War were applicable in Great did little to help an illiterate soldier who found Britain and Ireland, the dominions beyond himself subject more often to custom than law. the seas and foreign places dependent upon Britain. They were applicable to every officer, Newly-arrived officers in a battalion were non-commissioned officer, soldier, volunteer, trained in these procedures by attending all unit and, in some cases, civilian attached to an army. courts martial for at least three months before They were read once in every two months – often they could be permitted to be members of such monthly – to the officers and men, along with courts.8 “whatever parts of the present or future general orders are meant to regulate the conduct of Charges could involve many things: desertion, officers and men.” If an officer, NCO or soldier insubordination, infractions contrary to standing Drawings by Eugene Leliepvre, courtesy Parks Canada was caught red-handed in the act of a crime, the orders, embezzlement, drunkenness, sexual

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol16/iss4/3 2

Grodzinski - Bloody Provost.indd 26 06/11/2007 11:35:56 AM Grodzinski: “Bloody Provost”

crimes and many more.9 The level of court If violence was involved, then the offender came martial and the punishment issued generally fit nearer to the gallows or 1,000 lashes.12 the crime. Le Couteur believed the punishments throughout the army were “tremendous in the Officers could be cashiered, receive extreme,”10 but much depended on the quality suspension of pay or rank or lose their rank and attitude of the officers making up the board, – in the age of purchase, this meant a valuable the intent of the accused and most important, commission could not be sold. A captaincy in a whether the crime involved violence. regular regiment of infantry came at a price of £1,500, while a majority in the foot guards cost In cases where the death penalty was not £6,300. Other punishments included reprimand, applicable, punishments for the rank and file or discharge from the service with ignominy. could include imprisonment, condemnation to Some 30 combatant officers were cashiered serve overseas for a fixed period or for life, extra in Iberia for cowardice, swindling merchants, drill and duty or labour, fines or as so often embezzling public funds, insulting or disobeying was the case, flogging. Punishments for minor a commanding officer, drink, brawling, tyranny infractions included carrying weights, “riding and immorality, just to name a few. An equal the horse,” restriction of privileges or various number of persons from the civil department forms of public embarrassment, which appears – commissaries, purveyors, surgeons, hospital to have been greater motivation to act properly mates, etc – were also cashiered.13 than corporal punishment.11 There was no permanent police in the If a soldier was flogged, the maximum penalty army and only during war would a provost was 1,200 lashes, a sentence issued nine times marshal, an officer of field rank, be charged to over six years in the Iberian Peninsula. Another “secure deserters, and all other criminals.” The 50 soldiers received 1,000 lashes. From 1811 provost marshal, or his subordinates, were to onwards, two other methods of dealing with “go round the army, hinder the soldiers from serious crimes were added. The first was for pillaging, indict offenders, execute the sentence soldiers who deserted but did not go over to the pronounced, and regulate the weights and enemy. Their punishment was service in a colonial measures used by the army in the field.” In the corps, such as in Africa or New South Wales. Iberian Peninsula, a provost marshal served at The second, reserved for repeat offenders or for Wellington’s headquarters, and each of the British theft without violence, involved penal servitude. divisions had an assistant-provost marshal and

Flogging (below right) was a common punishment normally administered before the offender’s regiment or garrison and delivered by the regimental drummers. Labour (below left) was another punishment given for less serious transgressions. Drawings by Eugene Leliepvre, courtesy Parks Canada

Published by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2007 3

Grodzinski - Bloody Provost.indd 27 06/11/2007 11:35:57 AM Canadian Military History, Vol. 16 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

Drawings by Eugene Leliepvre, courtesy Parks Canada Left: Many commanding ofﬁcers found public embarrassment enhanced discipline better than corporal punishment. Here a Canadian soldier displays discomfort as he “rides the horse.” Above: High illiteracy resulted in ofﬁcers routinely reading out the Articles of War to their personnel. As a result, ignorance of the law was not an acceptable defence. This image shows personnel from the Canadian Voltigeurs.

staff. There was no equivalent to the Cavalry Staff Corps or Provost in the field, although embodied cavalry may have been assigned this role on occasion.16

The paucity of officers in some localities created problems in enforcing discipline. In later a detachment of the Cavalry Staff Corps. 1812, General Brock reported having too few The latter was a temporary, ad hoc unit created regular officers to sit on courts martial and in April 1813 with four 132-man troops in Spain sought permission for Canadian militia officers and two more in Britain.14 to sit for personnel of line units. He also inquired whether he had the properly constituted authority While maintenance of discipline in Spain was to approve court martial proceedings of the challenging, it was even more difficult in North militia, which was particularly important as America, where the vastness of the territory Brock found the militia to be “unruly.”17 resulted in many small, isolated detachments among which communication was extremely Although complete statistics have not been difficult. British North America comprised the compiled, a brief survey of specific disciplinary two Canadas, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, problems offers several interesting insights. It the Islands of Prince Edward and Cape Breton, must be emphasized that while the death penalty Newfoundland and the Bermudas. The forces was given to regular soldiers serving in Canada, assigned to the Captain-General and Governor in there is no record of that sentence being given to Chief, Lieutenant-General Sir George Prevost, also any member of the militia, even though they were grew considerably during the course of the war. subject to it under the provincial Militia Acts and With fewer than 10,000 troops in 1812, Prevost offences did occur specifically calling for it.18 The had by December 1814 almost 50,000 men, not focus of this study lies with British and Canadian counting Canadian regulars or militia.15 regular units and embodied and provincial units formed for the duration of the war and, to all Prevost had four officers serve as deputy- intents and purposes, treated as regular troops judge advocate on his staff at various times and subject to the Articles of War. during the war, while there was an acting provost marshal and a provost of prison for the militia in The Glengarry Light Infantry was raised Upper Canada. In Lower Canada, several junior in 1812 as a “regular” Canadian regiment in officers served as deputy-judge advocate on the British service until it was disbanded in 1816.

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol16/iss4/3 4

Grodzinski - Bloody Provost.indd 28 06/11/2007 11:35:59 AM Grodzinski: “Bloody Provost”

The unit’s first inspection report for July 1812 Foot and from campaigning at Martinique and reported regular courts martial, with corporal Walcheren.23 punishments commuted to solitary confinement in jail. In 1812, the Voltigeurs experienced a mutiny due to false promises made by Captain Perrault During the war, at least 22 Glengarries were while recruiting his company. Typical sentences charged with desertion. Three were sentenced included prison, heavy fines and hard labour. to death and their sentences were remitted to One deserter was forced to march through the transportation or return to regimental duty. ranks with a log attached to his feet. Absence Private John Mitchell was sentenced to death, without permission was punished by eight days but his sentence was commuted, in recognition of of detention on bread and water. Detention could his distinguished service at Fort George in 1813. either be in the guardhouse or a brig at St. Jean. Left: Many commanding ofﬁcers found public embarrassment Six other Glengarries were transported to New One voltigeur who insulted his officer, spent 18 enhanced discipline better than corporal punishment. Here a South Wales.19 months in jail.24 Canadian soldier displays discomfort as he “rides the horse.” Above: High illiteracy resulted in ofﬁcers routinely reading out the Private Davis deserted late in 1814, returned Sometimes, disciplinary problems were dealt Articles of War to their personnel. As a result, ignorance of the law to the regiment in January 1815 and was with in other ways. One soldier of the 104th was not an acceptable defence. This image shows personnel from sentenced to 300 lashes. Private Varnham thought he could negotiate the 80 or 90 miles of the Canadian Voltigeurs. received 105 of 250 lashes awarded for one aboriginal forest of New Brunswick and reach the crime, only to receive another 300 for desertion United States from Fredericton. He was close to and theft. Varnham and Davis deserted again and death four days later when he was found by some both were sentenced to transportation for life.20 natives who returned him to his barracks. Rather than lay charges, the colonel of the 104th waited Sergeant John McGinnis and Private John until the man could walk again and brought him Peachy came to the attention of their commanding before the regiment. The colonel made a speech officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Battersby, and the about the heinousness of desertion and then had commander in Upper Canada, Major-General the man march slowly between the ranks of the de Watteville, over a song they had composed, regiment, groaning most of the time, wearing the which Battersby claimed was disrespectful of filthy overdress from his adventure over clean the Glengarries. De Watteville did not agree, but underclothes. Every part of the poor man’s body concurred the pair should be court martialled. had been prayed upon by flies, bugs and insects. Peachy’s fate is not recorded, but McGinnis was His face was a mass of inflamed sores, no eyes reduced to private.21 distinguishable. After that, there were no more desertions through the woods.25 Courts martial continued well after the war ended and in the first six months of 1816, the Disciplinary measures were not restricted to Glengarry’s reported no less than 53 regimental the rank and file. As the 1st, 8th, and 100th Foot courts-martial alone!22

The Provincial Corps of Light Infantry or the Canadian Voltigeurs were known for their strict discipline. Their commander, Lieutenant-Colonel Charles-Michel de Salaberry, was stern, a characteristic gained from his service with the 60th

Desertion was a serious crime resulting in service in a colonial corps or penal servitude. Deserters who joined the enemy’s ranks faced execution. During the war 1,570 British regulars deserted units in Upper and Lower Canada, while approximately 5,000 soldiers deserted from the US Army. Here members of the Canadian Voltigeurs search for deserters. Drawing by Eugene Leliepvre, courtesy Parks Canada

Published by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2007 5

Grodzinski - Bloody Provost.indd 29 06/11/2007 11:35:59 AM Canadian Military History, Vol. 16 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

Five men were executed at La Prairie on 2 November 1813 for desertion. Execution was the rarest form of punishment in the British Army and generally awarded to repeat offenders Library and Archives Canada Library and or for desertion to the enemy in time of war. Here, the sentenced soldier kneels on his cofﬁn, while a chaplain reads a prayer, as the members of a regiment witness the proceedings.

moved onto the field at Chippawa on 5 July 1814, Army posts, it was customary to have a brick or Lieutenant Michael O’Flanagan of the 8th Foot wood dungeon, “usually dark, unheated, damp lagged behind and then lay down on the ground and without adequate ventilation,” known as the before disappearing. He was court-martialled “black hole.”29 and cashiered.26 Another officer, Captain William Brereton, commanding a company in the 1st During 1814, Brigadier-General Winfield Foot, also fell behind, and his company went Scott oversaw what was likely the most rigorous into action led by its senior subaltern. The court collective training camps conducted by the US accepted Brereton’s appeal that he had fallen Army. Discipline was strict. Units in camp “were behind due to exhaustion. One can imagine the broken into a habit of subordination” and the only tension during the general courts martial, given trouble came from, as Scott wrote, “worthless the number of officer casualties suffered during miscreants.”30 the battle.27 The British did not flagrantly make use As a young country, the United States looked of the death penalty and considered corporal abroad for inspiration in creating its army. punishment as the last means of salvaging a poor The American Articles of War were created soldier. Execution by firing party was reserved in 1776 and revised in 1804 to make them almost exclusively for deserting to the enemy, compatible with the Constitution. Limits were but could be awarded for mutiny and striking a placed on corporal punishment – a maximum sergeant or an officer. Hanging was for all capital of 50 instead of 100 lashes were permitted. offences except desertion to the enemy. During the Further reforms introduced for 1805 provided Peninsular War, 78 British soldiers (52 British, a statute of limitation of two years, forbad the remainder foreigners), out of a maximum “concubinage,” playing at cards and dice and strength of approximately 60,000 total, were “frequent intoxication,” none of which were executed by firing squad. Another 40 caught in accepted by Congress. Passage of the new bill flagrante delicto committing crimes such as was delayed for two years when an argument over murder, theft or assault were hanged.31 ordering soldiers to cut or crop their hair crossed into the realm of federal authority. The new American practise was different. Flogging Articles of War were finally passed in 1806.28 was suspended – not outlawed – in 1812, but the death penalty was used much more readily. It is generally held that service in the United In 1812, when the American Regular Army States Army was less harsh than that of Britain. numbered 19,000 troops, four sentences of The accepted narrative would suggest a more execution were issued, with three being reprieved. liberal approach towards discipline and in the The next year, with the army at 23,000 men, there case of corporal punishment this was true. were 43 executions authorised and 11 reprieved. However, during the War of 1812, federal service During 1814, when the army reached a height was unpopular, desertion rife and even though in strength of about 31,000, 160 sentences of two blanket pardons were granted during the war, execution were made and only 14 reprieved. stiffer discipline was instituted which included Finally in 1815, 53 soldiers were sentenced for beatings and other harsh treatment. At Regular execution and 29 reprieved. Being executed for 30

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol16/iss4/3 6

Grodzinski - Bloody Provost.indd 30 06/11/2007 11:36:00 AM Grodzinski: “Bloody Provost” Author’s collection and Heritage, Department of National Defence After C.H.J. Forster, courtesy Directorate of History After C.H.J. Forster,

Although flogging had been suspended in the US Army as an inducement to recruiting, some officers, such as Brigadier-General Winfield Scott, devised punishments that were just as painful and used the death penalty more readily than their British counterparts. Major-General Henry Proctor, who held senior command in Upper Canada, was tried for incompetence and received a an infraction was more likely in the United States 32 public reprimand that was read out before every regiment Army at the time, than in the British. in the British Army. Discipline was not reserved only for junior officers or the rank and file. Courts-Martial also energetic qualities, which must be required for every officer, but especially of one in the involved senior officers. Following his defeat responsible situation in which the Major-General at the Battle of the Thames in the fall of 1813, was placed. Major-General Henry Proctor faced five charges of carelessness and gross incompetence. The court While one might conclude that the British were marital sat in Montreal from December 1814 to looking for a scapegoat, the composition of the January 1815 and consisted of an impressive board would suggest Procter received a fair board of 16 officers, four of whom were major- hearing from an intelligent and experienced group generals. Included was Lieutenant-Colonel of officers, very much his peers.33 Charles de Salaberry, of Châteuaguay fame. The board cleared Procter of the first charge, and The popular image of the British soldier found him guilty of the remainder. They found is of a down-trodden figure, who had every Procter had in many instances, been “erroneous advantage of service against him and facing brutal in judgment,” and in several cases, deficient. discipline. Hollywood and Wellington’s detractors Proctor was sentenced to suspension from rank have contributed to this, regularly reminding and pay for six months and public reprimand. us of a remark made privately by the Duke in The Prince Regent remitted the suspension from November 1831 of how the army was recruited rank and pay, but upheld the public reprimand, – “ours is composed of the scum of the mere scum which was read out before every regiment in of the earth,” but they often forget to follow with the army. The reprimand expressed the Prince “it is only remarkable that we should be able to Regents’ “high disapprobation” of Procter’s make so much of them afterwards.”34 Discipline conduct and his was harsh in the British Army, and, even more so in the United States Army. The level of discipline regret that any officer of the length of service, was the result of many factors, the character of and of the exalted rank which he has attained, the leaders being most important. Furthermore, should be so extremely wanting in professional knowledge, and so deficient in those active and as the Napoleonic Wars continued, the British

Published by Scholars Commons @ Laurier, 2007 7

Grodzinski - Bloody Provost.indd 31 06/11/2007 11:36:00 AM Canadian Military History, Vol. 16 [2007], Iss. 4, Art. 3

found they could not waste manpower by killing Headquarters: A Study of the Administrative Problems their soldiers or beating them to death, so found in the Peninsula, 1809-1814 (London: Oxford University Press, 1957), pp. 153, 154, 161; Hitsman, The other means to maintain order. If an army from Incredible War of 1812, p.25; “Notes on Cavalry Staff this period can be defined as a rabble waiting Corps,” Charles Hamilton Smith, Wellington’s Army to be let loose, then perhaps this application of (London: Greenhill Books, 2002). discipline was the most economical and in the 15. Hitsman, The Incredible War of 1812, pp.25, 295. 16. L. Homfray Irving, Officers of the British Forces in end, the most just. Canada during the War of 1812-15 (Langley: Western Canadian Distributors Ltd., 1992), pp.19, 35, 102. 17. Brock to Baynes, 4 August 1812 and Brock to Prevost, 4 August 1812, in E.A. Cruickshank, ed., Documents Notes Relating to the Invasion of Canada and the Surrender of Detroit, 1812 (Ottawa: Government Printing Bureau, 1912). 1. Donald E. Graves, ed., Merry Hearts Make Light Days: 18. Guitard, Militia of the Battle of Chateauguay, p.60; The War of 1812 Journal of Lieutenant John Le Cotour, William Gray, Soldiers of the King: The Upper Canadian 104th Foot (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1994), Militia, 1812-1815 (Erin: Boston Mills Press, 1995), pp. p. 80. 28, 29. 2. Charles James, Military Dictionary (London: Military 19. Winston Johnston, The Glengarry Light Infantry, 1812- Library, 1802), entry for Discipline. 1816 (privately published), p.78. 3. Between 1812 and 1815, two British cavalry regiments, 20. Ibid., p.78. one or more battalions from 47 infantry regiments, 14 21. Ibid., p.79. foreign and allied corps (including Canadian regular 22. Ibid., p.78. units), several battalions of Royal and Colonial Marines, 23. Stuart Sutherland, His Majesty’s Gentlemen: A 21 companies of Royal Artillery, a rocket troop, seven Directory of British Regular Army Officers in the War companies of Royal Sappers and Miners and various of 1812 (Toronto: ISER Publications, 2001), entry for other minor units served in Canada. There were also de Salaberry. numerous incorporated and provincial units raised for 24. Guitard, Militia of the Battle of Chateauguay, various periods of the war and units of the sedentary pp.59-60. militia that served as well. See J. Mackay Hitsman, The 25. Graves, Merry Hearts Make Light Days, p.81. Incredible War of 1812, edited and revised by Donald 26. General Court Martial, Montreal, 18 February 1815, E. Graves (Toronto: Robin Brass Studio, 1999), pp. Library and Archives of Canada (LAC) RG 8, vol.167, 299-301 for a list of these units. It should be noted that p.197. militia units in Atlantic Canada are not shown. 27. Torrens to Prevost, 17 June 1815, LAC RG 8, vol.167, 4. Arthur Swinson, A Register of the Regiments and Corps p.79. of the British Army - Appendix, “The Mutiny Act, 1689” 28. Theodore J. Crackel, Mr. Jefferson’s Army: Political and (London: The Archive Press, 1972), pp.315-317; James, Social Reform of the Military Establishment, 1801-1809 Military Dictionary, entry for Articles of War; N.A.M. (New York: New York University Press, 1987), pp.43, Rodger, Articles of War (Kenneth Hampson, 1982), 85-87. pp.7-8. 29. René Chartrand and Donald E. Graves, The United 5. Richard Glover, Peninsular Preparation: The Reform States Army of the War of 1812, A Handbook, of the British Army, 1795-1809 (Cambridge: The (unpublished manuscript, 1986), p.51; Hare, Military University Press, 1963), pp.170-171. Punishments in the War of 1812, p.231. 6. James, Military Dictionary, entry for Articles of War; 30. General Order, 31 May 1814, Left Division Order Book, Rules and Article for the Better Government of All His New York State Library. Majesty’s Forces (London, 1826), p.53. 31. Oman, Wellington’s Army, 1809-1814, pp.237, 239, 7. James, Military Dictionary, entry for Courts Martial; 244-248. Glover, Peninsular Preparation, p.171. 32. Hare, Military Punishments in the War of 1812, 8. James, Military Dictionary, entry for Courts Martial. p.238. 9. Glover, Peninsular Preparation, p.174. 33. For an excellent summary and assessment of these 10. Graves, Merry Hearts Make Light Days, p.80. proceedings, see Hitsman, The Incredible War of 1812, 11. Michelle Guitard, The Militia of the Battle of the p.343. A different view is provided in Sandy Antal, Chateauguay: A Social History (Ottawa: Parks Canada, A Wampum Denied: Proctor’s War of 1812 (Ottawa: 1983), p.60; John S. Hare, “Military Punishments in the Carleton University Press, 1997), pp.371-374. War of 1812,” Journal of the American Military Institute, 34. Phillip Henry Stanhope, Conversations with Wellington, Vol.IV, No.4 (Winter 1940), p.230; Carol M. Whitfield, 1831-1851 (London: Oxford University Press, 1938), Tommy Atkins: The British Soldier in Canada, 1759- p.178. 1870 (Ottawa: Parks Canada, 1981), p.73. 12. Sir Charles Oman, Wellington’s Army, 1809-1814 John R. Grodzinski teaches history at the (London: Greenhill Books, 2006), pp.238, 245. 13. Oman, Wellington’s Army, pp.238-242. Royal Military College of Canada where he is 14. General Orders, April 1813; S.G.P. Ward, Wellington’s also a doctoral candidate.

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol16/iss4/3 8

Grodzinski - Bloody Provost.indd 32 06/11/2007 11:36:01 AM