The Hon. John Byng, an Admiral R.N., was the scion of a family already of high public reputation, when it was rendered illustrious in our naval annals by this admiral’s father, whose services to his country should have at least saved his son from the extreme measure of severity which was so cruelly and so unfairly dealt out to him.

This family, the Byngs of Kent, whose brilliant achievements on sea and land obtained for them a viscountcy and an earldom, both still existing—those of Torrington and Strafford—is of ancient origin, and was of note as far back as the reign of Henry VII. One member of the House, Dr. Robert Byng, was vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge in the time of Queen Elizabeth; and another, Thomas Byng, serjeant-at-law, was counsel to the same university. George Byng, Esq., of Wrotham, Kent, was M.P. for Rochester, and subsequently for Dover, in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and James I. He was great-grandfather of Sir George Byng, the illustrious admiral, the father of John Byng, the unfortunate subject of this trial. Admiral Sir George Byng, the hero of the Battle of Cape Passara, and of many other hard-fought and successful engagements, well deserves a niche in our naval temple of fame. He was a man of high spirit and honour, and of great sagacity and daring. No British officer of his time rendered more service to the cause of the Revolution or better sustained the House of Brunswick; and when his victory of Passara had annihilated the navy of Spain and forced that country to a peace, King George I. was loud in his gratitude to Byng, and, on creating him Viscount Torrington in 1721, prefaced the patent with the following preamble:—

“As the grandeur and stability of the British empire depend chiefly upon knowledge and experience in maritime affairs, we esteem those worthy of the highest honours who, acting under our influence, exert themselves in maintaining our dominion over the sea. It is for this reason that we have determined to advance to the degree of peerage our trusty and well-beloved councillor, Sir George Byng, Knt. and Bart., who, being descended from an ancient family in Kent, and educated from his youth in the sea service, hath through several posts arrived to the highest station and command in our navy by the strength of his own abilities, and a merit distinguished by our predecessors and ourselves, in the many important services which he has performed with remarkable fidelity, courage, and success. In the late vigorous wars which raged so many years in Europe—wars fruitful of naval combats and expeditions—there was scarce any action of consequence wherein he did not bear a principal part, nor were any dangers or difficulties so great but he surmounted them by his exquisite conduct and a good fortune that never failed him.... Lately, when new contentions were springing up in Italy, and the discord of princes was on the point of embroiling Europe again in war, he did, with singular felicity and conduct, interpose with our squadron, crushing at one blow the laboured efforts of Spain to set up a power at sea, and advanced the reputation of our arms in the Mediterranean to such a pitch, that our flag gave law to the contending parties, and enabled us to resettle the tranquillity that had been disturbed. It is just, therefore, that we should distinguish with higher titles a subject who has so eminently served us and his country, both as monuments of his own merit and to influence others into a love and pursuit of virtue. Know ye, therefore,” &c.

The next sovereign, George II., no less acknowledged Lord Torrington’s merit, having made him first lord of the Admiralty, and having expressed to him on many occasions how indebted he and his royal predecessor were to him. After this, the way in which George II. abandoned this great man’s son to the clamour of his enemies, seems as startling an act of ingratitude as the desertion of the earl of Strafford by Charles I.

Sir George Byng, Lord Torrington, died in 1733, leaving by his wife Margaret, daughter of James Master, Esq., of East Langdon, Kent (which lady had the good fortune to die the year before the trial of her unhappy son), a family of five sons and one daughter, of whom the two eldest sons were successively Viscounts Torrington. Robert, the third son, was ancestor of the eminent line raised to the peerage as earls of Strafford; and John, the fourth son, was the Admiral Byng of this trial; and to his career I now come.

The Hon. John Byng, fourth son of Lord Torrington, was born in 1704, and when thirteen years of age, entered the royal navy under his father’s auspices. From this time forward he seems to have been in constant active employment, and to have behaved creditably on all occasions. He was made an admiral in 1745, and he that year did good service to the Crown while commanding a squadron off the coast of Scotland, by effectually hindering any supplies of consequence being landed for the use of Prince Charles Edward and his followers. In 1755, Byng was sent in command of a fleet consisting of twenty-two ships of the line, two frigates, and two sloops, in a cruise to the westward, in hopes of intercepting the French squadron under the famous Duguay, and also the squadron of La Mothe, in its return from America. Byng, however, returned to Spithead, without having been able to effect anything, though it was allowed by all that the admiral had acted judiciously in the choice of his stations. No blame was then fixed on Byng, but this non-success was harshly remembered by the public when greater adversity fell upon him; and that happened soon after.

France and England had been acting hostilely to each other for some time prior to the 18th April, 1756, when the French invaded the then British possession of Minorca, and war was formally declared between the two nations. Thus began that great contest which was to end so gloriously for this country with the conquest of Canada; but like most great contests in which England has been engaged, not forgetting the Peninsular and Crimean wars, the Government in the beginning was but little prepared for the majesty of the enterprise. The Newcastle, a feeble administration, ruled England, and Pitt, the future Lord Chatham, was in open opposition, awaiting with eagle eye the moment when he was to swoop and seize the reins of government. The following account of the weak conduct of the Ministry, as given by Smollett, graphically describes the state of affairs:—

“Under the cloak of an invading armament, which engrossed the attention of the British nation, the French were actually employed in preparations for an expedition, which succeeded according to their wish. In the beginning of the year, advice was received that a French squadron would soon be in a condition to sail for Toulon: this was afterwards confirmed by repeated intelligence, not only from foreign gazettes, but also from English ministers and consuls residing in Spain and Italy. They affirmed that the Toulon squadron consisted of fifteen or twenty ships-of-the-line, with a great number of transports; that they were supplied with provisions for two months only, consequently could not be intended for America; and that strong bodies of troops were on their march from different parts of the French dominions to Dauphiné and Provence, in order to be embarked. Notwithstanding these particulars of information, which plainly pointed out Minorca as the object of their expedition, notwithstanding the extensive and important commerce carried on by the subjects of Great Britain in the Mediterranean, no care was taken to send thither a squadron of ships capable to protect the trade, and frustrate the designs of the enemy. That great province was left to a few inconsiderable ships and frigates, which could serve no other purpose than that of carrying intelligence from port to port, and enriching their commanders by making prize of merchant vessels. Nay, the Ministry seemed to pay little or no regard to the remonstrances of General Blakeney, Deputy-Governor of Minorca, who, by repeated advices, represented the weakness of the garrison he commanded in St. Philip’s Castle, the chief fortress on the island. Far from strengthening the garrison with a proper reinforcement, they did not even send thither the officers belonging to it, who were in England upon leave of absence, nor give directions for any vessel to transport them, until the French armament was ready to make a descent upon that island.

“At length, the destination of the enemy’s fleet being universally known, the Ministry seemed to rouse from their lethargy, and, like persons suddenly waking, acted with hurry and precipitation. Instead of detaching a squadron that in all respects should be superior to the French fleet in the Mediterranean, and bestowing the command of it upon an officer of approved courage and activity, they allotted no more than ten ships-of-the-line for this service, vesting the command of them in Admiral Byng, who had never met with any occasion to signalise his courage, and whose character was not very popular in the Navy; but Mr. West, the second in command, was a gentleman universally respected for his probity, ability, and resolution. The ten ships destined for this expedition were but in indifferent order, poorly manned, and unprovided with either hospital or fire-ship. They sailed from Spithead on the 17th day of April, 1756, having on board, as part of their complement, a regiment of soldiers to be landed at Gibraltar, with Major-General Stuart, Lord Effingham, and Colonel Cornwallis, whose regiments were in garrison at Minorca, about forty inferior officers, and near one hundred recruits, as a reinforcement to St. Philip’s fortress.”

Byng, after arriving at Gibraltar, wrote to the Lords of the Admiralty, loudly and justly complaining of the state of the magazine, supplies, and other preparations there. He besides signified his opinion that even if it should be found practicable, it would be very impolitic to throw any men into St. Philip’s Castle at Minorca, as it would only add to the number that must fall into the hands of the enemy. These unpleasant reflections are supposed to have irritated the Lords of the Admiralty, and to have led them to shift the blame from themselves upon the officer who had thus dared to complain of their conduct.

The result of an expedition so wretchedly arranged might almost be anticipated. The failure was sad indeed. Byng sailed from Gibraltar, and discovered the French fleet off Minorca, then sorely pressed by the invading French forces, under the Duke of Richelieu. The admiral did not attempt to land any troops there. He, on the 20th May, 1756, made a signal to bear away two points from the wind and attack the enemy. The second in command, Rear-Admiral West, found it impossible to obey this command, but bearing away with his division seven points to the wind, he fell on the French ships opposed to him with such impetuosity, that had he been, it was urged, promptly sustained by the rear under Byng, a complete victory, in all probability, would have been the consequence. This, however, was not done. Byng, from his anxiety to preserve his line entire, kept so far back, that he took little part in the engagement. The French admiral, M. le Comte de la Galissonnière, captured no English ships, but seemed well content to avoid a closer fight, and went off at his leisure. On the following day the two fleets were no longer in sight of each other, and Byng having called a council of war, it was resolved, that as the enemy was much superior in the weight of his metal and the number of his men, it was not practicable to relieve the fortress of St. Philip’s, and it was decided to return to Gibraltar.

Meanwhile the inhabitants of Minorca had experienced great joy when Byng and his fleet appeared in sight; the double defeat of Galissonnière and his fleet at sea, and Richelieu and his troops on land, was fondly anticipated, when lo! the French fleet was seen to return to its old station off Port Mahon, and the news came that Byng had been foiled by the French admiral. In consequence of this failure on the part of Admiral Byng, General Sir William Blakeney, K.B., the British commander at Minorca, after a protracted and heroic resistance, which inflicted on the besiegers a loss of 5,000 men, capitulated to the Duke of Richelieu on honourable terms.

The news of this triumph for France was received at the Court of Versailles with transports of joy, and was celebrated throughout the French dominions with vast and continued public rejoicings. One can easily conceive how, on the other hand, England was shocked and humiliated by the intelligence of events so disparaging to her pride and power. The whole nation was seized with grief and anger, and the people were furious against the Ministry in the first instance; but the Cabinet averted from themselves the general wrath by meanly and cruelly sacrificing Admiral Byng to the popular clamour.

Admiral Sir Edward Hawke and Admiral Saunders were dispatched to Gibraltar to supersede Admirals Byng and West, and to place them under arrest, and send them home to England. Byng, on his arrival at Portsmouth, was immediately placed in strict confinement, and every indignity was shown him. It is believed that Byng’s despatches were received on the 16th of June, the day on which the two admirals sailed from Portsmouth to supersede him; but they were not published till the 26th June, and then not as written by Byng, but with omissions and interpolations. On Byng’s arrival at Portsmouth, his youngest brother, the Hon. Colonel Edward Byng, hastened down to meet him, but was so shocked with the outcries he everywhere met with from the mob, that, being of a very delicate constitution, he fell ill in the presence of his incarcerated relative, and died the following day in convulsions. From Portsmouth Admiral Byng was brought to Greenwich, and there subjected to very harsh imprisonment in a garret of the Hospital. The Ministry seemed determined to degrade the man before they slew him. In the month of December, 1756, their victim was removed back to Portsmouth to await his trial. That occurred on the 28th of December, 1756. The court-martial appointed for the investigation assembled on that day, and was held every day afterwards, Sundays excepted, till the 27th of January, 1757, inclusive, and was composed of the following members:—

President:

Vice-Admiral Thomas Smith, known in the Navy by the name of “Tom of Ten Thousand.”

Rear-Admirals:

Francis Holbourne, afterwards an admiral, a lord of the Admiralty, and Governor of Greenwich Hospital.

Thomas Broderick, afterwards an admiral.

Harry Norris, afterwards an admiral.

Captains:

Charles Holmes, afterwards an admiral.

William Boys.

John Simcoe.

John Bentley, afterwards an admiral and a knight.

Peter Denis, afterwards an admiral.

Francis Geary, afterwards an admiral and a baronet.

John Moore, afterwards an admiral, K.B., and a baronet.

James Douglas, afterwards an admiral and a knight.

Hon. Augustus Keppel, afterwards a very eminent admiral, created Viscount Keppel.

The charges against Admiral Byng were seventeen in number, and the court agreed upon thirty-seven resolutions, of which the five last imputed blame to Byng, the principal being that, during the engagement, he did not do his utmost to take, seize, and destroy the ships of the French king, and assist such of his ships as were engaged.

The statute law under which Byng was charged was the 12th article of the 22 George II., cap. 33, which enacted that

“Every person in the fleet, who, through cowardice, negligence, or disaffection, shall in time of action withdraw, keep back, or not come into the fight or engagement, or shall not do his utmost to take or destroy every ship which it shall be his duty to engage and to assist and relieve all and every of His Majesty’s ships or those of his allies, which it shall be his duty to assist or relieve, every such person so offending, and being convicted thereof by the sentence of a court-martial, shall suffer death.”^[9]

The actual points only upon which his conviction depended were these:—1st, Whether he made any unnecessary delays with the fleet under his command, from the time of sailing from St. Helen’s, April 6, to the time of his arrival at Minorca, May 19, 1756; 2ndly, Whether he did all that was in his power to do, agreeable to his instructions, to relieve St. Philip’s fort upon his arrival there; and, 3rdly, Whether he did his utmost to distress the enemy on the day of battle. As a preparative to the evidence relating to these particulars, it is necessary to give this important portion of his instructions:—

“If, upon your arrival at Gibraltar, you shall not gain intelligence of a French squadron having passed the Straits, you are to go on without a moment’s loss of time to Minorca; or if, in consequence of such intelligence, you shall detach Rear-Admiral West, as before directed, you are to use equal expedition in repairing thither with the ships which shall remain with you; and if you find any attack made upon that island by the French, you are to use all possible means in your power for its relief. If you find no such attack made, you are to proceed off Toulon, and station your squadron in the best manner you shall be able, for preventing any French ships getting out of that port, or for intercepting and seizing any that may get out; and you are to exert the utmost vigilance therein, and in protecting Minorca and Gibraltar from any hostile attempt.”

The whole of the instructions, together with a letter from the Admiralty, relative to the taking on board Lord Robert Bertie’s regiment of Royal Fusiliers, some letters from Admiral Byng to the Admiralty, dated at Gibraltar, respecting the state of the place and the intelligence he had there received, and also the minutes of a council of war held there on what was proper to be done in consequence of the orders delivered by him to the governor, with the opinion of the chief engineers at Gibraltar in regard to the throwing of succours into St. Philip’s Castle, were all read in court before the examination of witnesses began. It then became a question, from what time the enquiry into the conduct of the prisoner should commence, and it was agreed by a majority of eleven to two, that it should commence from the time the squadron sailed from St. Helen’s. A short paper of the prisoner’s was then read to the following effect:—“That he had earnestly wished the arrival of the time for inquiring into his conduct, and doubted not of evincing the falsehood of all the artful and malicious aspersions that had been cast upon him by his enemies; that he had a very sensible pleasure in considering the abilities and integrity of his judges; and that, relying with an entire confidence on their candour and impartial justice, he would not delay the proceedings of the court a moment.”

The evidence was voluminous. The following is the most important part, as it bore against and for the Admiral:—

Rear-Admiral West was sworn and examined:

Court: What distance do you imagine the Ramillies (Admiral Byng’s ship) might be from the Buckingham (Admiral West’s ship) at the time of the engagement with the French fleet?—Admiral West: I believe about three miles.

Court: Do you think the admiral and the rear could have come up to the assistance of the van, and come to as close an engagement with the enemy?—Admiral West: I knew of no impediment to the contrary; but I cannot presume to say there was no impediment; nor I would not be understood to mean there was none.

Court: How was the wind and weather?—Admiral West: The wind was very calm, and the weather exceeding fine.

Court: Could you keep your lower ports open?—Admiral West: Yes, I could; and I knew of but one ship that could not, and that was the Deptford, who lowered her ports occasionally.

Court: Did you see any fire from Admiral Byng’s ship during the engagement?—Admiral West: When I was looking towards the Intrepid, which was in distress astern, off her I saw some smoke, which might very probably be from the admiral’s ship, or some of his division; but I was not able to discover at what ship it was directed.

Admiral Byng: Was it not in the power of the enemy to decline coming to a close engagement, as the two fleets were situated?—Admiral West: Yes, it was; but, as they lay to our fleet, I apprehended they intended to fight.

Admiral Byng: Are you of opinion that the forces on board the fleet could have relieved Minorca?—Admiral West: I believe they could not.

Admiral Byng: Were not some of the ships deficient in their complement of men?—Admiral West: Yes.

Admiral Byng: Were not some of the ships out of repair?—Admiral West: Yes.

Admiral Byng: Was not the fleet deficient, in point of force, with the enemy?—Admiral West: Yes.

General Lord Blakeney examined. He was eighty-seven years of age, and had been created an Irish peer for his defence of St. Philip’s Castle.

Admiral Byng to the Witness: Do you think the forces I had with me could have been landed at Minorca?—Lord Blakeney: Yes; I think they might very easily be landed.

Admiral Byng: Was not some fascines thrown in the way?—Lord Blakeney: Yes; but they were such as I think might easily have been destroyed.

Court: If the admiral had attempted to land the men, would it not have been attended with danger?—Lord Blakeney: Danger! most certainly. It could not be so easy as stepping into this ship. I have been upwards of fifty years in the service, and I never knew of any expedition of consequence carried into execution but what was attended with some danger; but of all the expeditions I ever knew this was certainly the worst.

Admiral Byng: Had not the French a castle at the point, which might have prevented the landing of the troops?—Lord Blakeney: Not on the 20th of May; and the enemy were then in such distress for ammunition that they fired stones at the garrison.

Admiral Byng: Do you think that the officers and few men I had on board the fleet could have been of any great service to the garrison?—Lord Blakeney: Yes, certainly, of great service; for I was obliged, at the time, to set a great number of my men to plaster the breaches.

Captain Everett examined:

Court: What time did you see or discern the island of Minorca?—Captain Everett: We got sight of Minorca about six o’clock on the morning of the 19th of May.

Court: What was your nearest distance from St. Philip’s Castle?—Captain Everett: About eleven or twelve o’clock in the forenoon of the 19th of May, we were about two leagues distant from St. Philip’s Castle, and I believe that was the nearest distance I was to it.

Court: What time was the French fleet first discovered?—Captain Everett: About two or three in the afternoon of the same day (the 19th of May), the French fleet were seen distinctly standing to the westward, but I cannot pretend to say at what distance.

Court: How did the British fleet stand at that time?—Captain Everett: To the S.E., the wind at S.S.W.; moderate fine weather.

Court: What time did you see the French fleet preparing for engagement?—Captain Everett: On the 20th of May, between eight and nine o’clock in the morning.

Court: At what distance was the Ramillies from the Buckingham at the time of the engagement?—Captain Everett: I believe about three or four miles.

Court: Could the Admiral and the rear come up to the assistance of the van, and come to as close an engagement with the enemy?—Captain Everett: I am of opinion that the Admiral’s division might have carried all their sail, and thereby assisted the van, and prevented them from receiving so much fire from the rear of the enemy.

Saturday, the 1st of January, the Court being sitting, Lord Blakeney appeared, in consequence of Admiral Byng’s request, about nine o’clock in the morning, when the Admiral proposed the following question:—

Admiral Byng to Lord Blakeney: If I had landed the troops, do you think it could have saved St. Philip’s from falling into the hands of the enemy?

Lord Blakeney: It is impossible for me to pretend to answer that question with any certainty; but really I am of opinion that, if they had been landed, it would have enabled me to hold out the siege till Sir Edward Hawke had come to my relief.

Then the four first-lieutenants of the Buckingham, Admiral West’s own ship, were examined, and they all agreed that they did not know of any impediment to prevent Admiral Byng and his division from coming to the assistance of the van, which was closely engaged and raked by the enemy’s rear as they came up, and that they did not see the admiral go to a close engagement with the enemy, agreeable to his own signals.

Captain Everett was cross-examined:

Court: If Admiral Byng had come to a close engagement, do you think a complete victory might have been obtained?—Captain Everett: Why, really I think there was all the reason in the world to expect it, it being very well known that Admiral West beat off two of the enemy’s ships, though he had but five ships to their six, and their metal much heavier.

Court: How was the wind?—Captain Everett: An exceeding fair gale.

Court: Had you too much or too little?—Captain Everett: Neither. Just enough, and no more.

Captain Young examined:—

Court: Could the admiral and his division, as the wind was then, if they had set all their sails from the time the signal for engaging was made, and bore away properly, could they have come to a close engagement with the enemy?—Captain Young: Yes, they certainly could; the French were laying-to for us. I went down only under my topsails, and I don’t know why they could not have added sail in proportion to the distance and going of their ships.

Captain Cornwall examined:

“I went,” said he, “to my window abaft, to take a view of the fleet when in line of battle, and was extremely surprised to see the admiral and his division at so great a distance on the weather quarter; and seeing the Intrepid in great distress, and no signal given for removing her out of the line, I went to her assistance; and, after getting her out of the line, fell into her station, and engaged the Foudoyrant, the French admiral, being the ship which I imagined fell to my lot in the then line of battle.”

He also said he knew of no impediment to prevent the admiral’s engaging at a proper distance, any more than the rest of the fleet.

General Lord Robert Bertie (son of Robert, first Duke of Ancaster, and a scion of the great family of Bertie, now Earls of Lindsey and of Abingdon) was sworn and examined, and proved an important witness for the prisoner:—

Court: Where was you stationed?—Lord R. Bertie: Upon the quarterdeck with the admiral.

Court: If the officers and recruits that were intended for Minorca had been landed, do you think they would have saved Fort St. Philip’s?—Lord R. Bertie: No; I think they were of greater service on board the fleet.

Court: Was you on board the quarterdeck with the admiral in the engagement?—Lord R. Bertie: Yes; but upon informing the admiral that I discovered one of our own ships through the smoke upon the lee bow of the Ramillies, and which ship I was apprehensive the Ramillies would fire into without seeing her, I was detached by the admiral between decks to stop the firing.

Court: Did you discover any signs of fear or confusion in the admiral?—Lord R. Bertie: No, far from it; he expressed an impatience to engage the enemy.

Court: How near were you to the enemy at the time of the engagement?—Lord R. Bertie: We were so near the enemy as to be hulled by them, and many of the enemy’s shots passed over us.

Court: Did you ever hear any murmurings, or complainings, by any of the officers or men on board, upon a supposition that the admiral had not done his duty?—Lord R. Bertie: No; I never heard anything like it.

Lord Robert Bertie’s examination being finished, Colonel Smith, who was also upon the quarterdeck with the admiral, was examined next, who confirmed what Lord Robert Bertie had said in every particular; and he also added that a shot from the enemy passed between him and Lord Robert Bertie as they were abaft the mainmast, which took off the head of a timber upon the deck, and went through the hammocks in the main shrouds. Captain Gardiner, of the Ramillies, testified that Byng showed quite the reverse of fear, and there was naught to allege against his personal behaviour.

The admiral addressed the court in his defence, commencing thus:—

“Gentlemen,—The articles of the charge exhibited against me are of such a nature, that everything that can be supposed interesting to a man is concerned in the event of this cause. My character, my property, and even my life, are at stake; and I should, indeed, have great reason to be alarmed, were not I conscious of my innocence, and fully persuaded of the justice and equity of this court.”

After urging the circumstances already brought out in his favour, he concluded as follows:—

“So far, then, I hope it will appear to the court, that neither knowledge of my profession, prudence in conducting the expedition, nor duty to my king and country, appear to be deficient in me.

“When, then, from the inferiority of the English, nothing could be reasonably expected but misfortune and disgrace; or if, by the greatest efforts of good fortune, victory should declare for our fleet, that no advantage could be drawn from it; when the risk of losing the whole fleet was the result of an unanimous council of war; and the nation, considering the real state of the English and French navies, so little able to sustain a loss of that kind; when Gibraltar would have been left defenceless, and fallen of course to the enemy, could the seeking the French admiral, by a commander who foresaw these probable consequences with not only an inferior, but a shattered fleet, and no other ships in the Mediterranean to reinforce him, have been justified in the judgment of men who have studied the nature of military achievements, or according to the rules and observations of ancient and modern writers on this head?

“The utmost advantage could have been but a prolongation of the siege, without the least probability of raising it; because the fleet, unable to keep the seas, must have retreated to Gibraltar, the port of Mahon being still commanded by the enemy’s batteries.”

After consultation, the court came to the unanimous opinion—

“That Admiral John Byng did not do his utmost to relieve St. Philip’s Castle; and also that, during the engagement between His Majesty’s fleet under his command, and the fleet of the French king, on the 20th of May last, he did not do his utmost to take, seize, and destroy the ships of the French king, which it was his duty to have engaged, and to assist such of His Majesty’s ships as were engaged in fight with the French ships, which it was his duty to have assisted; and do therefore unanimously agree that he falls under part of the 12th article of an Act of Parliament, of the 22nd year of his present Majesty, for amending, explaining, and reducing into one Act of Parliament the laws relating to the government of His Majesty’s ships, vessels, and forces by sea; and as that article prescribes death, without any alternative left to the discretion of the court under any variation of circumstance, the court do thereby unanimously adjudge the said Admiral John Byng to be shot to death, at such time and on board such ship as the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty shall direct.

“But as it appears, by the evidence of Lord Robert Bertie, Lieutenant-Colonel Smith, Captain Gardiner, and other officers of the ship who were near the person of the admiral, that they did not perceive any backwardness in him during the action, or any marks of fear or confusion, either from his countenance or behaviour, but that he seemed to give his orders coolly and distinctly, and did not seem wanting in personal courage; and, from other circumstances, the court do not believe that his misconduct arose either from cowardice or disaffection, and do therefore unanimously think it their duty earnestly to recommend him as a proper object of mercy.”

The court-martial went further, for in transmitting a copy of their proceedings to the Board of Admiralty, they likewise sent their lordships a letter, which concluded in these terms:—

“We cannot help laying the distresses of our minds before your lordships on this occasion, in finding ourselves under the necessity of condemning a man to death from the great severity of the 12th Article of War, part of which he falls under, and which admits of no mitigation, even if the crime should be committed by an error in judgment; and therefore, for our own consciences’ sake, as well as in justice to the prisoner, we pray your lordships in the most earnest manner to recommend him to His Majesty’s clemency.”

The king and his ministry met this representation and other applications in behalf of Admiral Byng by referring the legality of the judgment of the court-martial to the consideration of the twelve Judges at Westminster, who were unanimously of opinion that the sentence was legal. This was really doing nothing. It was not the strict literal correctness of the sentence that was doubted, but Byng’s friends mainly looked to that mercy which was the attribute of the sovereign. The Lords of the Admiralty, on the Judges giving their decision, signed a warrant for Byng’s execution: two lords, however, nobly, to their own detriment and loss of place, refused to concur in the proceeding. These were Admirals West and Forbes.

Captain, afterwards Admiral, Lord Keppel (who on a future day was to be subjected to a similar trial) made a last effort to save Byng, and got a temporary respite, by stating in the House of Commons, of which he was a member, that he and other members of the court-martial desired to be released from their oath of secrecy, that they might reveal the grounds on which they recommended Byng to mercy. A bill was accordingly brought into the House of Commons for that purpose, and it passed with little opposition; but being carried to the Lords, it was there so vigorously opposed that it was thrown out on the second reading.

The following admirable letter was addressed by the Hon. Mrs. Osborn, Byng’s sister,^[10] to the Lords of the Admiralty:—

“My Lords,—The judges having reported to His Majesty in council, that the sentence passed on my unfortunate brother is a legal one, permit me to implore your lordships’ intercession with His Majesty for his most gracious mercy, and to hope your lordships will not think an afflicted sister’s application ill-founded, in a case so hardly circumstanced, and which the judges (though by the severity of the law they thought themselves obliged to pronounce the fatal sentence) have so earnestly recommended to your lordships’ humanity; to your justice I will not presume to add, though in their letter to your lordships they say, ‘that in justice to the prisoner, as well as for their own conscience’ sake, they recommend him to His Majesty’s mercy.’

“The court-martial, my lords, seemed to have acquitted my unhappy brother of cowardice and disaffection, and, therefore, it is presumed he stands sentenced under the head of negligence. It is not fitting, perhaps, that a wretched woman, as I am, should offer any arguments in my brother’s relief to your lordships, who are masters of the whole: but what criminal negligence, my lords, can there have been, in which neither cowardice nor disaffection have had a part? What criminal negligence can there have been, since his judges thought it incumbent on them, for their own conscience’ sake, and in justice to the prisoner, to recommend him to His Majesty’s mercy?

“I must submit to your lordships, whether it be the meaning of the law that every kind of negligence, wilful or not, should be punished with death. If so, it is not for me to make an observation on the law; if not, a negligence arising neither from cowardice, disaffection, nor wilfulness, ought not, according to the spirit and intention of the law, to be deemed capital.

“Why, my lords, should my poor brother suffer, when both the sentence by which he is condemned, and the letter to your lordships, by which he is so strongly recommended to His Majesty’s mercy, fully prove that his judges did not deem him deserving the punishment they thought themselves obliged to sentence him to? I hope your lordships will not think he ought to suffer, either under a law unexplained or doubtful, or under a sentence erroneously passed, if the law has been misunderstood; and if my unfortunate brother has been condemned under the 12th Article, according to the spirit and meaning of which he should not have been condemned, I submit to your lordships whether his life should be the forfeit.

“If there is a doubt on the principles and motives that induced the court-martial to entreat the intercession of your lordships with His Majesty for mercy, I submit to your lordships whether these motives should not be more fully explained before it be too late. It would be needless to mention the usual course of His Majesty’s mercy to the condemned, upon the application of his judges, if my unhappy brother’s case had circumstances particularly unfavourable to it; but, on the contrary, for the reasons I have ventured briefly to offer, and the many others that must occur to your lordships, his case appears to be uncommonly hard, and well deserving that mercy to which his judges have so earnestly recommended him. I hope I shall stand excused, if I beseech your lordships’ immediate intercession with His Majesty in his behalf.—17th February, 1757.”

This letter passed unheeded.

Byng prepared himself for death. He was ordered to be executed on board the Monarque in Portsmouth harbour, on the 14th March, 1757.

Two illustrious Frenchmen also interfered to rescue Byng. The one was Voltaire, ever humane whatever his faults might be; and the other was the Duke of Richelieu, a Marshal of France, the successful invader of Minorca.

The Marshal Duke of Richelieu wrote in French; but M. de Voltaire wrote in English. Voltaire’s letter, and the duke’s translated, run as follows:—

“Sir,—That I am almost unknown to you, I think ’tis my duty to send you the copy of the letter which I have just received from the Marishal Duke of Richelieu: honour, humanity, and equity, order me to convey it into your hands. This noble and unexpected testimony from one of the most candid as well as the most generous of my countrymen, makes me presume your judges will do you the same justice.

“To the Hon. J. Byng, Esq.”

“Sir,—I am very sensibly concerned for Adm. Byng; I do assure you whatever I have seen or heard of him does him honour. After having done all that man could reasonably expect from him, he ought not to be censured for suffering a defeat. When two commanders contend for victory, tho’ both are equally men of honour, yet one must necessarily be worsted, and there is against Mr. Byng but his being worsted, for his whole conduct was that of an able seaman, and is justly worthy of admiration. The strength of two fleets was at least equal; the English had 13 ships and we 12, much better equipped and much cleaner. Fortune that presides over all battles, and especially those that are fought at sea, was more favourable to us than to our adversaries, by sending our balls into their ships with greater execution. I am persuaded, and it is the generally received opinion, that if the English had obstinately continued the engagement their whole fleet would have been destroyed.

“In short, there can be no higher act of injustice than what is now attempted against Admiral Byng, and all men of honour, and all gentlemen of the army, are particularly interested in the event.

“I received this original letter from Marishal D. de Richelieu, the 1st of January, 1757, in witness of which I have signed my name.

Voltaire, in one of his satirical works, observes that Admiral Byng was put to death “pour encourager les autres.”

On Sunday morning, the 13th of March, 1757, Captain Montague having received a warrant from Admiral Boscawen for Admiral Byng’s execution to take place next day, gave it to the Marshal of the High Court of Admiralty to read to him; Byng calmly heard it, and remarked, with some warmth, that the place appointed by the warrant was upon the forecastle. “Is not this,” said he, addressing himself to his friends, “putting me upon the footing of a common seaman condemned to be shot? Is not this an indignity to my birth, to my family, and to my rank in the service? I think I have not been treated like an officer in any instance since I was disgraced, excepting in that of being ordered to be shot.” He appeared much disturbed at this circumstance, and looked upon it as a grievance. His friends, fearing it would not be altered, because the warrant was expressly worded so, represented to him that it appeared to them no impropriety; but they hoped he would think the place immaterial and beneath his notice, and not let any such consideration break in upon his tranquillity of mind. He then composed himself again, and replied, “It is very true, the place or manner is of no great importance to me; but I think living admirals should consult the dignity of the rank for their own sakes. I cannot plead a precedent; there is no precedent of an admiral or a general officer in the army being shot. They make a precedent of me, such as admirals hereafter may feel the effects of.”

At his last dinner on that Sunday he was cheerful as usual, and in the evening he ordered a small bowl of punch to be made; and when all were seated round the table, he helped every one, and taking his own glass with a little punch in it—“My friends,” said he, “here are your healths, and God bless you all. I am pleased to find I have some friends still, notwithstanding my misfortunes.” When he had drank, and set his glass down, he added, “I am to die to-morrow; and as my country requires my blood, I am ready to resign it, though I do not as yet know what my crime is. I think my judges, in justice to posterity and to officers who come after me, should have explained my crime a little more, and pointed out the way to avoid falling into the same error I did. As the sentence and resolutions now stand, I am persuaded no admiral will be wiser hereafter by them, or know better how to conduct himself on the like occasion.”

The following day he spent a considerable part of the morning in the state-room by himself, then came out and sat down with the marshal and breakfasted composedly as usual. His dress was a plain cloth suit of a light grey mixture, such as he had always worn after he received his order of suspension in Gibraltar Bay, having there taken off his uniform, which he immediately threw into the sea as soon as he had read the suspending order.

The Monday on which Byng suffered death was most stormy; and amid the clash of the elements came the clash of the discharge which shot down a brave British admiral, not for any moral crime, but for that which an act of Parliament had strangely made a capital offence—viz., an error of judgment.

Orders had been given for all the men-of-war at Spithead to send their boats, with the captains and all officers of each ship, accompanied with a party of marines under arms, to attend the execution. They, in pursuance of that order, rode from Spithead, and made the harbour a little after eleven o’clock, with the utmost difficulty and danger, it blowing a prodigious hard gale, the wind at W.N.W., and ebbing water. It was still more difficult to get up so high as the Monarque lay, on board which ship the admiral was to suffer. Notwithstanding it blew so strong and the sea ran very high, there was a prodigious number of other boats round the ships on the outside of the men-of-war’s boats, which last kept off all others. Not a soul was allowed to be on board the Monarque, except those belonging to the ship. Admiral Byng, accompanied by a clergyman who attended him during his confinement, and two gentlemen, his relations, walked out of the great cabin to the quarterdeck, where he was to be shot, on the larboard side, a few minutes before twelve o’clock. He was dressed in a light grey coat, white waistcoat, white stockings, and a large white wig, and had in each hand a white handkerchief. He threw his hat on the deck and kneeled on a cushion. One of his friends attended him to this cushion, and offered to tie the bandage over his eyes; but having a white handkerchief ready folded in his hand, he replied, with a smile on his countenance, “I am obliged to you, sir,—I thank God I can do it myself; I think I can—I am sure I can;” and he tied it behind his head himself. He then dropped the other handkerchief as a signal, on which a volley from six marines was fired, five of whose bullets went through him, and he was in an instant no more. The sixth bullet went over his head.

It could not be two minutes from his coming out of his cabin till he fell motionless on his left side. He died with great resolution and composure, not showing the least sign of timidity. The spectators were amazed at the intrepidity of his behaviour, and scarcely could refrain from tears—even the common seamen, one of whom having stood all the while full of attention, with his arms crossed, cried out, with a kind of enthusiasm, when he saw him fall, “There lies the bravest officer in the navy.”

The Ramillies, the ship which was the admiral-ship of Byng in his fatal engagement in the Mediterranean, was riding at her moorings in the harbour, and about half an hour before he suffered she broke her mooring chain, and only held by her bridle, which was looked upon as a wonderful incident by people who did not consider the high wind at the time.

The admiral just before his execution read and delivered to William Brough, Esq., Marshal of the High Court of Admiralty, a paper couched in the following terms:—

“Sir,—These are my thoughts on this occasion. I give them to you, that you may authenticate them, and prevent anything spurious being published that might tend to defame me. I have given a copy to one of my relations.

“A few moments will now deliver me from the virulent persecution, and frustrate the farther malice of my enemies. Nor need I envy them a life subject to the sensation my injuries and the injustice done me must create. Persuaded I am, justice will be done to my reputation hereafter. The manner and cause of raising and keeping up the popular clamour and prejudice against me will be seen through. I shall be considered (as I now perceive myself) a victim destined to divert the indignation and resentment of an injured and deluded people from the proper objects. My enemies themselves must now think me innocent. Happy for me, at this my last moment, that I know my own innocence, and am conscious that no part of my country’s misfortunes can be owing to me. I heartily wish the shedding my blood may contribute to the happiness and service of my country, but cannot resign my just claim to a faithful discharge of my duty according to the best of my judgment, and the utmost exertion of my ability for His Majesty’s honour and my country’s service. I am sorry that my endeavours were not attended with more success, and that the armament under my command proved too weak to succeed in an expedition of such moment.

“Truth has prevailed over calumny and falsehood, and justice has wiped off the ignominious stain of my supposed want of personal courage or disaffection. My heart acquits me of these crimes. But who can be presumptuously sure of his own judgment? If my crime is an error in judgment, or differing in opinion from my judges; and if yet the error in judgment should be on their side, God forgive them, as I do; and may the distress of their minds, and uneasiness of their consciences, which in justice to me they have represented, be relieved and subside, as my resentment has done.

“The Supreme Judge sees all hearts and motives; and to him I must submit the justice of my cause.