honour. If it had been his good fortune to die before the fall of Oswego
his name would have been handed down to future times as a perfect mirror of
chivalry--a knight without fear and without reproach. It is sad to think
that a career hitherto without a blot should have been marred with repeated
acts of cruelty and breaches of faith. On both counts of this indictment
the Marquis of Montcalm must be pronounced guilty; and in view of his
conduct at Oswego, and afterwards at Fort William Henry, the only
conclusion at which the impartial historian can arrive is that he was
lamentably deficient in the highest attributes of character.

Fort Oswego was surrendered on the 14th of August. By the terms of
capitulation the sick and wounded were specially entrusted to Montcalm,
whose word was solemnly pledged for their protection and safe conduct. How
was the pledge redeemed? No sooner were the British deprived of their arms
than the Indian allies of the French were permitted to swoop down upon the
defenceless prisoners and execute upon them their savage will. The sick and
wounded were scalped, slain, and barbarously mutilated before the eyes of
the Marshal of France, who had guaranteed that not a hair of their heads
should fall. Nay, more; a score of the prisoners were deliberately handed
over to the savages to be ruthlessly butchered, as an offering to the manes
of an equal number of Indians who had been slain during the siege.

Such are the unimpeachable facts of the massacre at Oswego. It is not
probable that these proceedings on the part of the Indians were agreeable
to the feelings of Montcalm, or that he consented to them with a very good
grace. The noble representative of the highest civilization in Europe
could scarcely have taken pleasure in witnessing the hideous massacre
of defenceless women and children. But he was anxious to retain the
co-operation of his red allies at any cost, and had not the moral greatness
to exercise his authority to restrain their savage lust for blood. It has