Four Years on the Great Lakes, 1813-1816. Don Bamford
1813.
2. His service at Kingston from his arrival on May 16, 1813, to his capture by the Americans on October 5, 1813.
3. His experiences as a prisoner of war until he returned to Kingston in July of 1814.
4. His service at Kingston and adventures in Upper Canada until September 30, 1816.
5. The latter years, following his return to England.
What happened afterwards? As noted, we really know very little of his life after leaving Canada. One can only speculate about some of his activity, as we have done in the section on his biography.
David Wingfield: The Man
A review of his own writing tells us much about David Wingfield, the man, his values, his attitudes, and some of his beliefs.
Wingfield was a descriptive writer. It is apparent that he had obtained a reasonably good education and possessed a good command of the English language. His writing style was typical of the period with much of the sentence structure being conversational. The journal itself shows the flourish of an artistic hand, replete with the then-common overuse of upper case letters and inconsistent punctuation. Judged according to today’s conventions, he had much to learn. Yet compared to other more official documents written in the same time period, his approach was at least as good as those who prepared such papers for the Crown in Upper Canada. The style and the structure of the 1835 lease for Goderich Harbour, for example, between the Canada Company and the Crown, compare closely to that used by Wingfield. These characteristics are also apparent in numerous Crown Patents as archived in their original handwritten form in the Public Archives of Ontario or those held by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources at their archives and records facility in Peterborough.
On the other hand, as to his general character, his willingness to accept responsibility, and his leadership abilities, it is easier to derive such interpretations from the content of his writings. Apparently, even though we have only his own words as evidence on the subject, he stepped forward with great courage, even for a military man. He showed an ongoing willingness to take on any assigned task and to see it through to completion. Wingfield worked quite independently at times and showed good leadership. It appears that he never had to discipline any of the men under his control. He got along well with his fellow officers and seemed to be at ease when in conversation with the American commander and officers, and with dignitaries he encountered during his stay in America.
Never did he hesitate to offer his own opinions about battle strategy. In his writing he did not show any indecision in suggesting the strengths and shortcomings of his superiors or their antagonists in the military setting. It is apparent that he could see beyond the limited horizons of his own position. Wingfield demonstrated a kind of global vision that would suggest he had the potential for promotion to a higher rank with broader responsibilities of leadership and decision-making. His commentary about battle strategies seemed to show that he could see the larger picture clearly and could consider alternative approaches that might have been more successful.
His brief expression of momentary despair and his display of deeper emotion when taken prisoner by the Americans can be forgiven. He saw all chance of promotion and the prospects for his future naval career radically altered to encompass the bleak prospect of incarceration and long-term confinement in a foreign land. He seemed temporarily, at least, to be taken quite aback. On the other hand, his apparent absence of overt emotional reaction is portrayed in his reviews of several rather gruesome, quite bloody events and battle encounters, all written in a quite matter-of-fact fashion. He seemed able to distance himself from the carnage in a particularly rational fashion.
It is obvious that he was not required to learn the modern day niceties of expressing some of his attitudes in a politically correct fashion. Witness his rather blunt observations about the Natives he encountered in the earlier days of his travels in the Lake Ontario areas. Such descriptions were not atypical of other writers of the time and reflect the blatant prejudices directed at a culture that differed from the conventional mores of a European society. Stories exaggerating the actions of Native warriors in battle were a major propaganda tool of the time, used by both sides. And seemingly he was not to recognize the destabilizing impact of European contact on the Native culture. However, given his much more analytical observations about the aboriginal peoples, as expressed later during his visits to the Manitoulin Island and Mackinac Island areas, it is clear that he was not restricted to a prejudiced and oftentimes stereotypical view. It is interesting that Wingfield ascribes negative changes that occurred in the demeanour and lifestyle of the Natives as happening only after their contacts and engagements with the Europeans who interacted with them. It is also noteworthy that he felt highly enough about one Native youngster that he arranged passage home with him at the end of his Lake Service, and placed the young lad in an English school for a period of time.
It would have been very interesting to learn about his activities when he found himself “on the beach”10 once back in England. Did he farm or pursue any trade? Was he active in civic affairs in his community? Did he keep any other form of diary? Did he write for other purposes? Did he monitor the marine traffic and the naval activity in the nearby Gloucester harbour lands? Certain information, addressed later, indicates that he had great difficulty making ends meet. He attempted to supplement his modest naval pension income as a shopkeeper, but in what goods we have no information. At this stage, we know nothing more about his labours or his recreational pursuits. We can only speculate about what he might have done either to maintain his financial solvency or to amuse himself.
David Wingfield: The Naval Officer
Likewise, we are puzzled about whether he actually remained at the rank of lieutenant throughout these years. According to military archivist Timothy Dubé of Library and Archives Canada, “William R. O’Byrne’s A Naval Biographical Dictionary, published by John Murray, 1849, lists David Wingfield, upon his 1816 return to England as Lieutenant from 20 March 1815, after which he was placed on half pay.” The O’Byrne biography states, “… on his arrival he took up a commission bearing date 20 March 1815 …”11 apparently backdated to the time just following his appointment as an acting lieutenant in the field.
While earlier references to his rank in the Wingfield journal are to master’s mate or lower, we accept that he was appointed to be acting lieutenant on February 15, 1815, at the time he was named as master of the Surprise, as he notes, just in passing, in his journal. His rank would have to be confirmed officially by the Admiralty at some time. We know from his service record that he received his official commission as lieutenant when he was discharged at half pay. It was not uncommon for a junior officer to have his rank confirmed at retirement, or even, at times, to be promoted. In Wingfield’s case, the official Officers Services12 record book shows the following: “Recommended for confirmation of Acting Order by Captain W.F.W. Owen, Senior Officer on the Lakes of Canada, inclosing parole of honour as an hostage for security of Seamen claimed by England as deserters, taken on American War Ships; and for conduct which appeared to meet his approbation on Lake Huron,” dated February 26, 1816. The same record first shows him listed as lieutenant from March 21, 1815. While there are minor discrepancies in the dates used by various secondary sources, the official record book seems to be the best reference for documentation.
Was he ever actually promoted to the rank of commander? We have not been able to document the answer to this question. We know from the records, that as late as 1860, he was still listed as a lieutenant, just four years prior to his death.
One consideration is that, simply with the passage of time, as senior officers died off, according to Merilyn Hywel-Jones, a knowledgeable United Kingdom archives researcher, Wingfield would automatically inherit the rank of commander at some juncture. However, in 1861, in the census records for that year, he was still shown as a lieutenant. Did he receive a promotion then, in the last three years of his life? To date the question remains open as supporting documentation is yet to be discovered.
Further, his death certificate describes him as a “Greenwich Pensioner.” Our knowledge indicates that some retired naval personnel, injured, ill, or otherwise disabled, entered special care at a hospital called Greenwich,