Chapter III: Part 3

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:—

“Clux Délices près de Genêve.

“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.

“I am, with respect, Sir, &c.,
“VOLTAIRE.

“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.

“RICHELIEU.”

“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.”

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.

“J. BYNG.

“On board His Majesty’s ship _Monarque_, in Portsmouth harbour, March
14, 1757.”

It is a singular and melancholy fact, that in the very month of June, 1756, when the order had gone to Gibraltar to arrest Byng and bring him home to his trial and death, one of the admiral’s nephews, Robert Byng, was among the hundred and twenty-three victims who perished from suffocation in the black-hole of Calcutta.

To the honour of the Byng family, their patriotic character and public spirit were no wise lessened by the sad treatment of the unfortunate admiral. They have continued to bear themselves with high credit and honour down to the present day, and their very conduct, showing the worth and dignity of the race, is another proof of the injustice done their relative. The admiral’s two elder brothers were Pattee, second Viscount Torrington, who acted efficiently as Paymaster-General in Ireland; and George, third Viscount Torrington, who was a general officer of repute, and whose grandson George, sixth and late Viscount Torrington, was a vice-admiral of the blue. Admiral John Byng had another brother, the Hon. Robert Byng, who was Commissioner of the Navy and Governor of Barbadoes, and whose two grandsons were the honest old George Byng, Esq., for fifty six years M.P. for Middlesex; and Sir John Byng, G.C.B., a field marshal in the army, who was one of the glories of the Peninsula and Waterloo. His heroic conduct in many a Peninsular battle, and particularly at Waterloo, obtained for him twice the thanks of Parliament, and eventually the Viscountcy of Enfield and the Barony and Earldom of Strafford. The present head of the house of Byng, George, seventh Viscount Torrington, has held and still holds high office under the Crown; his next brother, Major the Hon. Robert Barlow Palmer Byng, of the Bengal Native Infantry, an officer of great merit and ability, fell gloriously in India, in 1857, while leading his regiment against the mutineers. The present viscount’s third brother, the Hon. James Byng, in another public capacity, as the able chairman of the South-Eastern Railway Company, has rendered to the community services of the greatest value. In fine, the unfair cruelty which Admiral Byng underwent, the little wrong he had done, and the very merits of his family, make his putting to death a very sorrowful and a but little creditable recollection in the annals of our navy.

THE TRIAL OF LORD GEORGE SACKVILLE.

In the reign of George II. it became quite a fashion for both king and people to run down to degradation, and even to death, any commander who should be unsuccessful through even a mere fault of judgment or misapprehension of the circumstances under which he might be acting. Admiral Byng was a sad and shameful instance of this kind of treatment towards men who were honourably doing their best in the public service. Another example is afforded in General Lord George Sackville, the subject of the following trial, who was pursued with full the same malignity as Byng, and who would have undoubtedly perished in the same way had the sentence of the court-martial been stretched to a similar extent. The general’s fault, after all, was but a mistake—though a bad one, certainly—amid a confusion of orders; and the king, as in Byng’s case, showed no little ingratitude, for Lord George’s father had, like Byng’s father, Lord Torrington, rendered essential benefits to the House of Hanover. In fact, there is so much of a parallel character in the two trials of Byng and Sackville—so much, too, showing the singular spirit of the age—that they must be read together; and, therefore, in this series, the court-martial on Lord George comes appropriately after that on Admiral Byng.

Lord George Sackville, afterwards Lord George Germain and first Viscount Sackville, belonged to one of the noblest and most ancient families in England. He was the third son of Lionel Cranfield, K.G., seventh Earl and first Duke of Dorset—an eminent Whig statesman, who began his career of devotion to George I. and George II. by taking across the sea to them, the one Elector and the other Prince of Hanover, the Order of the Garter and their act of naturalisation. Dorset went again, when Queen Anne died, to announce to the elder George his accession to the throne. The duke died Master of the Horse to George III. in 1768. His son Lord George Sackville’s earlier career may be briefly told. He was born the 26th January, 1716, and his name of George came from the king, George I. himself, who was his godfather. After the then usual education of persons of rank which had made of him a polished gentleman, Lord George Sackville was named in 1734 Clerk of the Privy Council in Ireland, while his father was Lord-Lieutenant there. In 1737, he obtained a commission in the army, and thus commenced his military career, which was to be checked so unluckily. In 1740 he was made the colonel of a regiment of foot, and soon after aide-de-camp to the king. He showed himself a good soldier, and won much distinction at Dettingen and Fontenoy. He was afterwards with the Duke of Cumberland in Scotland, where he mainly contributed to the suppression of the Rising of ’45. He was after that Secretary of State under his father, for the second time Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and he sat in the Irish Parliament as member for Portarlington. He became a Lieut.-General of the Ordnance in 1757, and so high had his reputation risen, that in 1758 he was appointed to succeed Charles, second Duke of Marlborough, a distinguished military leader, as commander-in-chief of the British forces in Germany, then acting under Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick. This brings us to the Battle of Minden. England, and, indeed, almost all Europe, were at the time fiercely engaged throughout the globe in that memorable war which our ally the King of Prussia, at Rosbach and elsewhere, and our own generals, Clive at Plassy and Wolfe on the Heights of Abram, were to make illustrious for ever. On the Continent the Duke of Cumberland, the sanguinary duke of Culloden, had been cutting somewhat of a poor figure, and latterly England confined herself, in the European part of the contest, to sending British troops as auxiliaries to her allies. These troops were commanded in chief, in 1758 and 1759 as stated, by Lord George Sackville, but, somehow or other, he could not approve of or agree with his generalissimo, Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, George H.’s relative, and Prince Ferdinand in consequence owed him a spite. With the famous Lieutenant-General the Marquis of Granby, who acted under him, Lord George was also not on the best of terms. Amid such a state of feeling among the commanders of the allies, the Battle of Minden was fought and won by them against the French, under Marshal de Contades, on the 1st August, 1759. The action, which was a tremendous struggle, commenced at five in the morning and raged with varied success during the day, but it is to the latter portion of the contest that the reader’s attention should, as far as Lord George Sackville was concerned, be directed.

After much firing on both sides, the allied army, advancing in eight columns, occupied the ground between Halen and Hemman, and the space between the last village and Dodenhausen was filled with Vangenheim’s corps. Against this force the enemy directed their principal effort on the left; but the Duke de Broglie experienced a severe check from a battery of thirty cannon prepared by the Count de Buckeburg, Grand Master of the Artillery, which, under his directions, were fired with admirable effect. Towards the right of the allies, six regiments of English infantry and two battalions of Hanoverian guards had to sustain the charge of the French carabineers and gendarmerie. Such, however, were their firmness and courage, that every corps of cavalry, as well as infantry, that assailed them on the left and in the centre not only failed of piercing their ranks, but was itself absolutely broken. The cavalry on the right had no opportunity of engaging. They were destined to support the infantry of the third line, and consisted of the British and Hanoverian horse, commanded by Lord George Sackville, whose second was the Marquis of Granby. They had been posted at a considerable distance from the first line of infantry, divided from it by a scanty wood that bordered on a heath. During the action they were ordered up, but through some error, and this was the offence charged on Lord George Sackville, did not arrive in time to take part in the struggle. Originally it was not intended that they should be engaged, and there was no occasion for their services. About noon the French gave way, and withdrew from the field of battle. They were pursued to the ramparts of Minden, having lost a great number of men, with forty-three large cannon and many colours and standards. The loss of the allies was much less severe. On the following day the garrison of Minden surrendered at discretion, when many French officers who had been wounded in the engagement fell into the hands of the victors.

Immediately after the victory, Prince Ferdinand published orders relative to the troops under him, and by confining himself to complimenting the Marquis of Granby, clearly implied a severe reflection on that nobleman’s superior in command, Lord George Sackville; and the rumour flew to England at once that the complete rout of the French was prevented by Lord George, through cowardice or disobedience, not charging at the opportune moment with the cavalry under his command. Lord George was furious at the imputation. He flung up his appointments and demanded a court-martial. The sensation the whole affair caused is so well described by Smollett, that I cannot do better than borrow from that historian the following graphic account:—

“No subject so much engrossed the conversation and passion of the public as did the case of Lord George Sackville, who had by this time resigned his command in Germany, and returned to England, the country which, of all others, it would have been his interest to avoid at this juncture, if he was really conscious of the guilt, the imputation, of which his character now sustained. With the first tidings of the battle fought at Minden, the defamation of this officer arrived. He was accused of disobeying orders, and his conduct presented as infamous in every particular. These were the suggestions of a vague report, which no person could trace to its origin; yet this report immediately gave birth to one of the most inflammatory pamphlets that ever was exhibited to the public. The first charge had alarmed the people of England; jealous in honour, sudden and rash in their sentiments, and obstinately adhering to the prejudices they have espoused. The implied accusation in the orders of Prince Ferdinand and the combustible matter superadded by the pamphlet writer kindled up such a blaze of indignation in the minds of the people, as admitted of no temperament or control. An abhorrence and detestation of Lord George Sackville, as a coward and a traitor, became the universal passion, which acted by contagion, infecting all degrees of people, from the cottage to the throne, and no individual who had the least regard for his own character and quiet would venture to preach up moderation, or even advise a suspension of belief, until more certain information could be received. Fresh fuel was continually thrown in by obscure authors of pamphlets and newspapers, who stigmatised and insulted with such virulent perseverance, that one would have imagined they were actuated by personal motives and retained by mercenary booksellers, against that unfortunate nobleman. Not satisfied with inventing circumstances to his dishonour in his conduct on the last occasion, they pretended to take a retrospect view of his character, and produced a number of anecdotes to his prejudice, which had never before seen the light, and, but for this occasion, had, probably, never been known. Not that all the writings which appeared on this subject contained fresh matters of aggravation against Lord George Sackville. Some writers, animated by a hope of advantage, or hired to betray the cause they undertook to defend, entered the lists as professed champions of the accused, assumed the pen on his behalf, devoid of sense, unfurnished with materials, and produced performances that could not fail to injure his character among all those who believed that he countenanced their endeavours, and supplied them with the facts and arguments of his defence. Such, precisely, was the state of the dispute when Lord George arrived in London. While Prince Ferdinand was crowned with laurel, while the King of Great Britain approved his conduct, and as the most glorious mark of that approbation invested him with the Order of the Garter; while his name was celebrated through all England, and extolled in the warmest expressions of hyperbole, above all the heroes of antiquity; every mouth was open to execration of the late commander of the British troops in Germany. He was now made acquainted with the particulars of his imputed guilt, which he had before indistinctly learned. He was accused of having disobeyed three successive orders he had received from the general, during the action of Minden, to advance with the cavalry of the right wing, which he commanded, and sustain the infantry that were engaged; and, after the cavalry were put in motion, of having halted them unnecessarily, and marched so slow, that they could not reach the place of action in time to be of any service; by which conduct the opportunity was lost of attacking the enemy when they gave way, and rendering the victory more glorious and decisive. The first step which Lord George took toward his own vindication with the public was in printing a short address, entreating them to suspend their belief with respect to his character until the charge brought against him should be legally discussed by a court-martial; a trial which he had already solicited, and was in hopes of obtaining. Finding himself unable to stem the tide of popular prejudice, which flowed against him with irresistible impetuosity, he might have retired in quiet and safety, and left it to ebb at leisure. This would have been generally deemed a prudential step by all those who consider the unfavourable medium through which every particular of his conduct must have been viewed at this juncture, even by men who cherished the most candid intentions; when they reflected upon the power, influence, and popularity of his accuser; the danger of aggravating the resentment of a sovereign, already too conspicuous; and the risk of hazarding his life on the honour and integrity of witnesses who might think their fortunes depended upon the nature of the evidence they should give. Notwithstanding those suggestions, Lord George, seemingly impatient of the imputation under which his character laboured, insisted upon the privilege of a legal trial, which was granted accordingly, after the judges had given it as their opinion that he might be tried by a court-martial, though he no longer retained any commission in the service.”

The court-martial thus earnestly demanded by Lord George was held at the Horse Guards at the end of March and beginning of April, 1760. The court consisted of the following members:—

Lieut.-General the Hon. Sir Charles Howard, K.B., President (a general
in 1765).

„ „ John Campbell, Earl of Loudoun (a general in 1765).

„ „ Lord Delawarr (Sir John West, K.B., afterwards Earl of
Delawarr, and in 1765 a general).