James FitzGibbon was born in Ireland in 1780, the son of a farmer and weaver. At age fifteen he joined a Yeomanry Corps (volunteers for local defence) and two years later was appointed to the rank of sergeant. In 1798 he was inducted into the Tarbert Fencibles, an Irish regiment raised for home service only, with the promise of appointment as pay-sergeant. His regiment was sent to England for garrison duty, and in August 1799 he was drafted into the 49th Regiment with the rank of sergeant. He served at Egmont-op-Zee as well as in the expedition against Copenhagen. At Egmont-op-Zee he was taken prisoner by the French and until he was exchanged in January 1800, he tried to learn the language.[5] Arriving in Canada with the regiment in 1802, he was already a confirmed admirer of Brock, who encouraged him to improve his education and loaned him books for that purpose. The colonel also obtained promotions for him without the purchase of commissions.[6] FitzGibbon admitted that he wrote the 1845 letter from memory so it is possible — indeed, probable — that he embellished the event, perhaps having in mind Brock’s quick removal to Fort George when he learned of the mutiny there.[7] Whatever the truth about this action, what is clear is Brock’s attitude toward desertion: it was a major crime and he would act against it as quickly and decisively as possible.
Scarcely had the deserters been captured when Brock learned of a conspiracy being plotted at the fort that if carried out would have been very serious indeed. Some twelve disaffected soldiers plotted to seize their officers, confine them to their quarters and perhaps even harm Sheaffe, plunder ammunition, and then desert to the American shore. Again, Brock rushed over from York, took command at the fort, arrested the conspirators, and sent them, as well as earlier deserters, to Quebec for trial. This conspiracy, he learned, had spread to troops at Chippawa, a small post above Niagara Falls, and at Fort Erie. All he could do in response was reduce the garrisons at those places. (Where he sent the men is unclear.)
He proposed other solutions such as removing the 49th from Fort George because troops there were tempted by the proximity to the United States to escape from the harshness of army life. However, since most posts in Upper Canada were near the American border, Brock turned to other proposals. He suggested strengthening the law against those who encouraged desertion, which was done by the Upper Canadian Legislature in 1804.[8] While he was on leave in England (1805–06), Brock proposed the creation of a veteran’s battalion whose soldiers should be stationed at frontier posts. The British Army already had nine battalions of veterans and, possibly because of Brock’s suggestion, in December 1806 a 10th Royal Veteran Battalion would be created to serve in North America.[9] Its members had served with other regiments but were still fit for garrison duty. The regiment would arrive at Quebec in the summer of 1807. Brock was an officer who gave some thought to the lives that soldiers led, often brutal, harsh, and lonely, and who tried to find ways of improving their lot.
An early example of his helping young soldiers was his encouraging FitzGibbon to get an education. Another example, out of many, is shown in a letter he wrote to his brothers on November 19, 1808. In it he explained that he had prevailed on Sir James Craig, the commander of the troops in the Canadas, to appoint Sergeant Robinson “to a situation in the commissariat at Sorel, worth 3s. 6d. a day with subaltern’s lodging money and other allowances. He married a Jersey lass, whose relatives may inquire for him.”[10]
Meanwhile, Brock had to deal with the deserters and mutinous plotters in accordance with normal practice of the period (i.e., by court martial).[11] The trials were held at Quebec and after being found guilty, seven men were shot in March 1804, one was pardoned, and the remainder transported to Barbados. When Brock received the news of the executions he ordered the garrison of Fort George under arms and read them the letter. Then he spoke to the men, “Since I have had the honour to wear the British uniform, I have never felt grief like this, as it pains me to think that any members of my regiment should have engaged in a conspiracy which has led to their being shot like so many dogs!” [12] His evident concern for his men, while still maintaining discipline, suggests one of his great gifts as a commander. It is likely that the men and officers of the 49th would long remember that emotional scene.
“Desertion from the British Army in North America was a problem of major proportions and incalculable costs. Nowhere else in the empire did so many men flee the colours so easily.”[13] Along the Niagara River, British soldiers could be enticed by the apparent opportunities for land and employment in the United States as well as the apparent ease of crossing both above and below the Falls. Colonel John Graves Simcoe (first lieutenant governor of Upper Canada) had written about this problem in 1793 and it continued during the War of 1812.[14] In fact, forces on both sides of the border would be plagued by desertion (see the Underhill incident).
Whatever the general situation, the problems in the Fort George garrison had arisen under Sheaffe’s command and so, inevitably, questions of his responsibility were raised. The prisoners complained about his “harsh and severe treatment” of them when on duty. Brock, refusing to put the major blame on Sheaffe, wrote to Lieutenant-Colonel Green that Sheaffe’s “manner of addressing the men on the least irritation, must be allowed to be unfortunate, and to that failing must be attributed, in a great measure, the ill will which some men have expressed toward him. There is also another cause which ought not to be omitted,” Brock went on, “whenever the command of the Regiment devolved by my absence on Colonel Sheaffe, he unquestionably required more from the non-Commissioned Officers than I knew was useless to expect from them. He did not sufficiently study the character of the men and his ardent zeal made him seek … after perfection where it is not to be found — Serjeants, for trifling errors, were too often reduced … He likewise perhaps was frequently tiresome in the exercise in the field by which the men became disgusted with what they should have taken delight to practice.”[15] Brock mainly blamed “the temptations which are perpetually offered to the unwary soldier” by the proximity of the United States, but he also sought to save Sheaffe’s career. General Hunter thought of showing open disapproval of Sheaffe’s conduct, an action that would have checked the lieutenant-colonel’s career or even have ended it. Brock disagreed and urged Hunter to act frankly: either tell Sheaffe he was unworthy of command and let him resign or treat him with confidence and hope he would change his behaviour. Brock accepted his junior officer’s imperfections, which arose from zeal rather than from malice or incompetence. His argument saved Sheaffe’s career, for Hunter wrote in the margin of Brock’s letter that Sheaffe was “to proceed to York to take command there.”[16] It would be interesting to know how Sheaffe felt toward Brock.[17]
There is anecdotal evidence of the contrast between Sheaffe’s treatment of soldiers under his command and Brock’s treatment. Here is how Tupper presents the contrast:
An old pensioner, who served many years in the 49th, and was at Fort George during the conspiracy, tells us that the men were displeased at objections being made to their visiting the town of Niagara; at their being allowed to fish only in their white trowsers; and at other petty sources of annoyance — moreover, that the four black holes were constantly full. He adds that Colonel Brock, on assuming the command, allowed the men, in proper uniform, to visit the town freely; to fish in their fatigue dresses; and even to use their muskets to shoot the wild pigeons, which flew over in countless numbers, on condition that they provided their own powder and shot.[18]
This recollection suggests that while Brock was willing to allow the men a degree of latitude in their activities, he maintained rules so that the troops could be in no doubt that they were still subject to army discipline. Whatever the source of his leadership qualities, he demonstrated early in his army career that he was a very good leader of men. He also enjoyed Sheaffe’s company, for when Sheaffe was at York and Brock at Fort George, Brock wrote that his absence, “deprives me of a favourite guest.”[19]
Fortunately, Brock was able to enjoy some of the pleasures and social activities of Upper Canada. He engaged in what might be loosely described as horticultural activity when some fruit trees sent by General Hunter arrived at Fort George and Brock wrote to Green