harge
is proved, with the exception that the allegation that Lieut.-Colonel
Dennis did not allow a fire to be opened on the enemy. On this point
there is a certain amount of rebutting evidence, although the weight of
evidence seems to support the charge.

(Signed) GEO. T. DENISON. Colonel. President.

Fort Erie, 8th November, 1866.

With respect to the foregoing charges and opinion, and to the evidence
generally taken by the Court of Inquiry, His Excellency directs the
publication of the following remarks:

1. Although the order for the assembly of the Court was general in its
terms, the special memorandum of instructions furnished for the guidance
of the President and members, stated that the Court was assembled to
give Lieut.-Col. Dennis an opportunity of refuting charges which had
been "made against his personal conduct on the 2nd June, at Fort Erie,"
and directed the reception of any evidence which might tend to elucidate
the truth.

2. The only one of the above six charges which, strictly speaking, the
Court was required to consider, was the 4th, which imputed disgraceful
and cowardly conduct to the accused officer.

3. His Excellency approves of the opinion of the Court with respect to
the 1st. 3rd. 4th. 5th and 6th charges.

4. With respect to the second charge. His Excellency is of opinion that
Lieut.-Col. Dennis committed an error in judgment in removing the small
force under his command, from the means of secure retreat afforded by
the steamer, before he had ascertained with some degree of certainty the
probable force of the enemy, of whose near approach he was informed;
but if the accusation made against Lieut.-Col. Dennis in this charge be
correct, that he did so remove his force from the shelter of the steamer
for the purpose of attacking an enemy, whose numbers he knew to
be overwhelming--the proceeding savours rather of rashness than of
timidity. Had Lieut.-Col. Dennis been the coward which his accusers
would have the public believe, he would in such a case have eagerly
availed himself of the remonstrances which it is stated were made
to him, to return with the men under his command to the deck of the
steamer.

5. The first charge being one of imputed intention only, the fulfilment
of which it was not attempted to establish, was not a proper charge for
investigation by any Court.

6. The sixth charge is also an improper charge to have preferred or
investigated. No Commanding Officer would be