It is the fate of defeated generals and
admirals to be forgotten. Everyone in
Ohio and the Old Northwest hears of the
victory of Commodore Oliver
Hazard Perry on Lake Erie in 1813, but
ordinarily remains ignorant of
the British commander he defeated.
England is a country most proficient
in ignoring unsuccessful military
figures. The fate of Perry's opponent may
not have been just, but it was typical.
Exactly what happened to him has
been clarified only by the recent acquisition
of a handful of his papers by
the William L. Clements Library of the
University of Michigan.
Briefly, the engagement of September 10,
1813, resulted from the decision
by Major General Henry Procter that
Captain Robert Heriot Barclay, com-
manding His Majesty's squadron on Lake
Erie, should leave his base at
Amherstburg in order to get needed
supplies for the army and navy at Fort
Erie. He had been delayed first by the
finishing of a new flagship, the
Detroit, of 470 tons and 19 guns, and then by lack of full
crews. The rest
of his squadron consisted of the Queen
Charlotte, 280 tons and 17 guns, and
four smaller vessels totaling 27 guns.
He had some 240 British soldiers
aboard serving as marines.
Waiting for emergence of the British,
Perry stationed himself at Put-in-
Bay with a larger squadron: two brigs,
the Lawrence and the Niagara, each
of 480 tons and 20 guns, and seven
smaller vessels with 14 guns. The weight
of metal was with Perry in close action,
but in long-range guns Barclay had
35 to Perry's 16. In effective manpower
the British had about 500 against
416 Americans.
The wind was with the British at first,
but before battle was joined the
wind shifted to favor Perry. In more
than three hours of battle, Perry
suffered his flagship the Lawrence to
be shot to pieces; he had to abandon
it for the Niagara (a most
daring shift in a small boat), which had not
given him the support expected. Before
the Lawrence could be boarded by
the British, Captain Barclay had to
strike his colors. He had lost the com-
mander of every one of his vessels, the
second in command of the Queen
Charlotte, and was himself twice wounded. In all he suffered 41
killed and
94 wounded; Perry's loss was 27 killed
and 95 wounded--83 of the casual-
ties on board the Lawrence. A
fillip was given the American hard-earned
victory by Perry's laconic message to
General Harrison: "We have met the
NOTES ARE ON PAGE 260
222 OHIO HISTORY
enemy, and they are ours--two ships, two
brigs, one schooner and one
sloop."
It was a tremendous victory for the
Americans, opening the way for the
recovery of Detroit and the invasion of
Canada. Perry cared for Barclay
at Put-in-Bay and the two became
friends. When he was able to travel, the
Englishman was paroled and made his way
to Quebec, where early in 1814
the populace presented him with an inscribed
piece of silver. He was
similarly honored in London by the
Canada merchants there. But like all
captains who lost their ships he had to
undergo court-martial. He was tried
in Portsmouth harbor in September 1814
and was "most fully and most
honorably acquitted."1
Barclay was not actually a captain in
rank. He was a commander, a rank
midway between lieutenant and captain.
Since he commanded a ship on
Lake Erie he was in fact a captain and
was so addressed. Actually he
should have been called by courtesy a
commodore, like Perry, who was only
a lieutenant in rank, because he
commanded a squadron. But Barclay's
superior, Sir James Yeo, was only a
commodore. Barclay was still a young
man. He was born in Scotland in 1784 or
1785, and testified in 1813 that
he had been sixteen years in His
Majesty's service. Reputedly he served
under Nelson at Trafalgar in 1805 and
lost an arm, although one account
suggests that he lost the arm later. He
had been sent to Bermuda early in
1813 and then in May to Canadian waters
with some veteran junior officers
and a corps of fifty British seamen,
where he came under the command of
Commodore Yeo. Command of the little
squadron on Lake Erie was offered
to Commander William Mulcaster, who
refused it because he thought it in a
poor state and undermanned. In
consequence, Barclay was ordered to Lake
Erie to take command with twenty-five
men, twelve of them Canadians.
The Detroit was under
construction, and Barclay pleaded with Yeo for
more crewmen. He was sent only Captain
Robert Finnis, but was promised
more. Provisions were diminishing at a
fast rate for Procter's army and
his numerous Indian allies. Finally in
September with everyone on reduced
rations, Procter advised Barclay that he
would have to risk battle in order
to get supplies. To make up his deficit
of men, Procter gave him soldiers
to serve as marines. If more sailors
were coming, Barclay could not wait
for them. Hence he sailed to disaster.
By the time the court-martial was over,
the British naval force on Lake
Champlain had taken a lacing from
Commodore Macdonough and peace
negotiations were in progress. The
treaty of Ghent was signed on December
24, 1814. Barclay's reputation seemed to
be unsullied, but unfortunately
his name became involved in a political
clash in parliament. In November
COMMODORE PERRY'S CAPTIVE 223
the Duke of Buckingham (then a marquis)
asked in the house of lords
for the court-martial proceedings
against Barclay, not to dispute the verdict
but "to shew the inadequacy of our
force on the Lakes at the time."2 To his
surprise the navy office refused, on the
ground argued by Lord Melville, first
lord of the admiralty, that the story
was incomplete without the current
court-martial of General Procter and an
explanatory letter from Sir James
Yeo critical of Barclay's having ever
left Amherstburg(!), both of which
were daily expected. The Earl of
Bathurst now muddied the water by
declaring that nothing should be spread
on the journals of the house that
was prejudicial to the military and
naval service of the country. He even
blamed Barclay for seeking a battle with
an inferior force, which confused
the issue by questioning the decision of
the court-martial. Lord Grenville
declared the real suspicion was that the
admiralty had failed to equip and
man the Lake Erie flotilla and now
wanted to hide its dereliction. After
these exchanges and upon the
understanding that Melville would produce
all the documents in the near future,
Buckingham withdrew his motion.
Now that a question had been raised, the
Earl of Darnley moved next
day that various papers he specified be
produced by the naval office con-
cerning its conduct of the war in
America, including supplies to Canada.
The motion passed. Obviously the
opposition was looking for a scapegoat
for Britain's poor performance in the
war with the United States. Suspicion
spread.
In the house of commons on December 1,
Mr. Horner asked for an
accounting of the vessels on the lakes
of Canada and for the court-martial
of Barclay. He was persuaded to delay
the second request. Mr. Whitbread
accused the ministry of wanting to elude
an inquiry, "as if afraid their
guilt would come out."3 Nevertheless,
the matter was delayed until after
the Christmas recess and the signing of
the peace treaty. When parliament
reconvened in February 1815, Lord
Darnley renewed his motions, including
a request for the minutes of Barclay's
court-martial. Melville now denied
that British ships were insufficiently
manned, but admitted they did not
have the "picked men"
available to the Americans! Further debate seems
to have dissolved under the cloud of
Napoleon's escape from Elba and
the approach of a climactic campaign.
All that remained, apparently, was
rancour in the mind of Lord Melville
that associated the opposition's
needling with the name of Captain
Barclay.
Seven years went by and Barclay remained
a commander in rank and
without a ship. He now felt himself
unjustly neglected and prepared to
take action toward gaining promotion. In
a long letter dated at Edinburgh,
February 13, 1822, to his friend Sir
John James Douglas, Barclay said:
224 OHIO
HISTORY
I have been for some time considering of
the propriety of making some sort
of application to the Duke of Buckingham
to see if he could now obtain for me
that promotion which he, by motion and
speech in the house of Lords (in con-
junction with Mr. Whitbread doing the
same in the house of Commons) in 1814
on the subject of my defeat upon Lake
Erie was accessory to being withheld
from me.
Barclay was crediting the duke with a
larger role than he had innocently
played; Lord Darnley had been more the
gadfly. It was true that Samuel
Whitbread had stung the admiralty, but
was unavailable now because he
had committed suicide in 1815.
Furthermore, Yeo was also dead. Anyway,
Barclay was now asking Douglas to
explain the situation to the Duke of
Buckingham, confident that if the duke
would speak to Lord Melville the
delayed promotion would be made of
"an officer who had been, both by
friends and foes, admitted to have done
his duty with zeal and courage
proportioned to the difficulty of the
most arduous service committed to his
charge," Barclay modestly
concluded. To refresh Douglas' and the duke's
recollection of the event, Barclay enclosed
copies of two documents. One was:
Extract of the general order issued by
Lieut. General Sir George Prevost Bart.,
Governor General of the Canadas &c
on the defeat of His Majesty's Squadron
on Lake Erie under the command of Capt.
Robert Heriot Barclay in Septr. 1813.
[The late Governor Prevost had censured
Procter for his retreat and defeat at
the battle of the Thames in October
1813.]
His Excellency considers it an act of
justice to exonerate most honorably from
this censure the brave soldiers of the
right division of the army, who were
serving as marines on board the squadron
on Lake Erie. The commander of
the forces having received the official
report of Capt. Barclay, of the action which
took place on Lake Erie on the 10th
Septr., when that gallant officer from circum-
stances of impelling necessity, was
compelled to seek the superior force of the
enemy and maintain an arduous and long
contested action under circumstances
of accumulating ill fortune.
Capt. Barclay represents that the wind,
which was favorable early in the day,
suddenly changed, giving the enemy the
weather gage, and that this important
advantage was, shortly after the
commencement of the action, heightened by
the fall of Capt. Finnis, the commander
of the Queen Charlotte, in the death of
that intrepid and intelligent officer
Capt. Barclay laments the loss of his main
support. The fall of Capt. Finnis was
soon followed by that of Lieut. Stokoe
whose country was deprived of his
services at this very critical period, leaving
the Queen Charlotte in the command of
Provincial Lieut. Irvine who conducted
himself with courage, but was limited in
experience to supply the place of such
an officer as Capt. Finnis, and in
consequence this vessel proved of far less assist-
ance than might be expected.
The action commenced about a quarter
before 12 o'clock, and continued with
great fury until half past two, when the
American commodore quitted his ship,
COMMODORE PERRY'S CAPTIVE
225
which struck shortly after to that
commanded by Capt. Barclay (the Detroit).
Hitherto the determined valour of the
British squadron had surmounted every
disadvantage, and the day was in our
favor; but the contest had arrived at that
period when valour alone was
unavailing--the Detroit and Queen Charlotte were
perfect wrecks, and required the utmost
skill of seamanship, while the com-
manders and several officers of every
vessel were either killed or wounded, and
not more than fifty British seamen were
dispersed in the crews of the squadron,
and of these a great proportion had
fallen in the conflict.
The American Commodore made a gallant
and but too successful effort to
regain the day; his second largest
vessel, the Niagara, had suffered little, and
his numerous gunboats, which had proved
the greatest source of annoyance,
were comparatively uninjured.
Lieutenant Garland, 1st lieut. of the
Detroit, being mortally wounded previous
to the wounds of Capt. Barclay obliging
him to quit the deck it fell to the lot
of Lieut. Inglis, to whose intrepidity
and conduct the highest praise is given,
to surrender His Majesty's ship, when
all further resistance had become un-
availing.
The enemy by having the weather gage
were enabled to choose their distance,
and thereby avail themselves of the
great advantage they derived in a superiority
of heavy long guns. But Capt. Barclay
attributed the fatal result of the day to
the unprecedented fall of every
commander and second in command, and the
very small number of able seamen left in
the squadron at a moment when the
judgment of the officers and skillful
exertions of the sailors were most eminently
called for.
To the British seamen Capt.
Barclay bestows the highest praise, "That they
behaved like British seamen." From
the officers and soldiers of the regular
forces, Capt. Barclay experienced every
support within their power, and states
that their conduct has excited his
warmest praise and admiration.
Deprived of the palm of victory when
almost within his grasp, by an over-
whelming force which the enemy possessed
in reserve, aided by an accumulation
of unfortunate circumstances, Capt.
Barclay and his brave crew have by their
gallant daring and self-devotion to
their country's cause, rescued its honor and
their own even in defeat.
(Signed) Edward Baynes
Adjt. General
Although mistaken about Perry's
superiority in long guns, Prevost's sum-
mary is reasonably accurate. The second
document was a copy of an excerpt
from the "Court Martial assembled
on board His Majesty's ship Gladiator
in Portsmouth Harbour on the ninth day
of September 1814." After listing
the officers who served as members of
the court and exhibiting the charge,
namely the capture of Barclay's
squadron, the proceedings continued:
The Court proceeded to inquire into the
cause and circumstances of the capture
of His Majesty's late squadron and to
try the said Captain Robert Heriot Barclay,
his surviving officers and seamen late
belonging thereto for their conduct on
226 OHIO
HISTORY
that occasion, and having heard the
evidence produced and compleated the
inquiry and having maturely and
deliberately weighed and considered the whole,
the court is of opinion 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 to be sent to
him, the very great superiority of the enemy
to the force of the British squadron,
and the unfortunate early fall of the superior
officers in the action; that it appears
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 into 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 doth adjudge the
said Captain Robert Heriot Barclay, his
surviving officers and men to be most
fully and most honorably acquitted
accordingly.
Signed by the Court.
The court was mistaken about "the
very great superiority of the enemy,"
but that is not the question here. It
did reflect on Yeo and the admiralty
office. Whatever Douglas did or did not
do, he apparently did not approach
the Duke of Buckingham, for on May 22,
1822, Barclay wrote again to
Douglas advising him on the favor asked:
My friend Col. Macdonnell has succeeded
in bringing me to the notice of the
Duke of Buckingham through his brother
and [!] law Lord Arundell. His grace
perfectly recollects the affair, and has
expressed very great regret at the evil
consequences his interference had,
unintentionally upon his part, brought upon
me; and that he will be happy to serve
me in any future application I make to
Lord Melville. That is my will as far as
it goes; but you know the difficulty is
how to bring an application to bear upon
Lord Melville, without renewing the
feeling, which is pretty well laid now,
which formerly operated against me in
the mind of Lord Melville. I have
therefore written a fully explanatory letter to
Macdonnell, one which he may shew to Lord
Arundell, and I have pressed upon
him that it would be best that the Duke
should feel fully convinced in his own
mind that he was the cause, and that he should not allude in
any way to politics,
but make his request to Lord Melville a
personal favor; as an amends due from
him, the Duke, to me whom, tho' in
ignorance, he has deprived of promotion.
If therefore you have access to His
Grace, pray try him on that tack also, because
his pride as well as his honor will be
enlisted in the cause, for it seems he piques
himself on the nobleness of his nature
& manly character. I have no kind of
doubt, but that he will succeed, if he
earnestly sets about it, & with Lord Arundell
on the one hand, and your friends on the
other he cannot fail in being engaged
heartily in the cause.
COMMODORE PERRY'S CAPTIVE 227
It would seem that Barclay was asking a
good deal of the innocent duke,
who had not been the primary critic of
the admiralty in 1814. Whether
Buckingham did intervene with Lord
Melville is not known, but something
happened. Still holding the old rank of
commander, Barclay was given
command of the bomb vessel Inferno (75
crew) on April 12, 1824.
Possibly it made a short cruise, but six
months later, on October 11, it was
paid off.4 Three days later,
according to the Navy List, Barclay was pro-
moted to post captain, which was duly
reported in the Gentleman's Magazine
for January 1825 (p. 79). Post captain
was a real rank, entitling the
holder to command a ship, and was
distinct from the temporary or courtesy
rank of captain that might be extended
on special occasion. However,
although Barclay was not yet forty, the
admiralty continued to leave him
ashore.
He died a dozen years later on May 8,
1837, aged fifty-two. No account
of him is found in the Dictionary of
National Biography. His battle on Lake
Erie is noticed in William James, Naval
Occurrences of the Late War
(London, 1817) and in Capt. Edward P.
Brenton, The Naval History of
Great Britain (London, 1825), Volume 5.
THE AUTHOR: Howard H. Peckham is the
director of the William L. Clements
Library
at the University of Michigan.