[grant] THE CAPTURE OF OSWEGO BY MONTCALM 201 



Office was slow to grant. Shirley's whole defence shows that he knew 

 where the blame lay. His main line of argument is that had the 

 ample naval stores which he had provided been rushed up to the front 

 the ships could have got ready in time and Oswego rendered unassail- 

 able. Blame for this he lays on the conduct of Colonel Webb and on 

 his slowness at the "great carrying place." 1 No reply by Webb is 

 known to me to exist and his precipitate retreat after the fall of 

 Oswego and his cowardly refusal in the next year to march to the 

 relief of Fort William Henry render Shirley's accusations extremely 

 likely. 



Such is Shirley's defence. How much of the blame must be put 

 upon his own lack of organising ability is doubtful, but the conclusion 

 seems inevitable that he had fully and correctly realized that the 



1 Shirley to Fox. 



5 Sept., 1756. "At present shall only add to the state of the facts here, that 

 one unhappy consequence of the delay of the battalions, which waited for the 44th 

 Regt., was that some of the new vessels, and of the greatest force, and which were 

 much depended upon for the defence of Oswego, could not act upon Lake Ontario 

 for want of cannon." 



Shirley to Fox, 16 Sept., 1756. 



Fifteen pages of his reasons for the fall of Osewgo. 



There should have been built last year — 2 vessels of 10 guns each; 2 small 

 schooners (used as row gallies) of 10 swivels each; 3 vessels, built this year of 18, 

 16, 12 cannon; 250 whale boats of 16 men each. 



These would have been enough to keep control of the lake. Most of them 

 were ready, except 20 cannon which had waited at the Oneida carrying place. 



The whole thing was upset by Loudoun's & Abercromby's delay after Shirley's 

 supersession, which prevented Bradstreet from carrying up the remaining stores 

 and guns. "In such case the whole naval armament might have been out upon the 

 Lake Ontario, in time to have prevented the French from landing their men and artil- 

 lery near Oswego, or even from venturing to appear on the lake." 



Later in the letter he recurs to this: "I must proceed to observe that at the 

 time of its being attacked by the enemy, it was deprived of the naval armament 

 designed for its protection, by Capt. Bradstreet's being kept with the battoes, and 

 battoemen at Schenectada from the 11th July to the 12th August: for the 20 peices 

 of cannon, which lay at the carrying place, and the battoemen had been at Oswego 

 by the 1st August, which would have been the case, had it not been for that delay, 

 our whole|naval force might have been upon the lake, and prevented the embarcation 

 or at least the landing of the French with their cannon and stores near Oswego; 

 whereas for want of those 20 peices of cannon two of our best vessels were without 

 any, consequently could not appear on the Lake, and without their assistance and 

 that of our whale boats and battoemen, or at least such a part of them as was neces- 

 sary for manning the whale boats, our other vessels were not strong enough for the 

 enemy." 



Why were they detained ? News of the camp at Niaouré had been given by 

 Bradstreet to Abercrombie at Albany, on 10 or 11 July, and Webb and the 44th 

 were told to be in readiness for Oswego; but they were delayed till 12 August, owing 

 to disputes about provisions, etc., though Loudoun had arrived at Albany thirteen 

 days before. 



