Not only were parts of Admiral Byng's letter withheld from the public, but the letter itself, though said to have been received on June 16th, was not inserted in the Gazette till the 26th of that month. The hired writers in the pay of the ministry were instantly set to work to censure his conduct in the most violent and inflammatory language. One fact was particularly pointed out and most strenuously insisted upon as a proof of personal cowardice; from the returns of the killed and wounded on board of the different ships it appeared that on board the Ramillies, Admiral Byng's own ship, there was not one man either killed or wounded.
Sir Edward Hawke and Admiral Saunders were ordered to supersede Mr. Byng, whom they were instructed to send home under arrest. By this time the popular clamour and indignation were so extremely violent that government were afraid some of it would be directed against themselves unless they placed it beyond doubt that they were resolved to proceed against Mr. Byng without the least delay, and in the most rigorous manner.
The admiral landed at Portsmouth. At every place that he passed through he was hooted by the mob. On the road to Greenwich Hospital, where he was to remain until his trial, he was guarded as if he had been guilty of the most heinous crime, while that part of the hospital where he was confined was most scrupulously and carefully fortified, the government taking care that all their precautions to prevent his escape should be made known.
On December 27th, 1756, the court martial assembled on board the St. George in Portsmouth Harbour, and on January 15th, 1757, the evidence concluded. The opinion of the court was that "the admiral did not do his utmost to relieve the garrison of St. Philip, and 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 own ships as were engaged." They therefore came to the following resolution:—
"That the admiral appears to fall under the following part of the twelfth article of the articles of war, viz.—'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 which it shall be his duty to assist and relieve': and as that article positively prescribes death, without any alternative left to the discretion of the court, under any variation of circumstances, resolved that he be adjudged 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 most earnestly to recommend him as a proper object of mercy."
Not only in their resolution did the court martial recommend him to mercy, but in the letter which accompanied a copy of their proceedings to the board of Admiralty they expressed themselves strongly to the same effect.
Notwithstanding these repeated, strong, and earnest representations of the opinion and wishes of the court martial, the lords of the Admiralty contented themselves, when they laid before His Majesty a copy of the proceedings, with transmitting the letters of the court martial; hinting, indeed, a doubt respecting the legality of the sentence, because the crime of negligence, for which alone Admiral Byng was condemned, did not appear in any part of the proceedings. When the sentence was known, George, Lord Viscount Torrington, a near relation of the admiral's, presented two petitions to His Majesty; and his other friends interested themselves in his behalf: but the people were so clamorous and violent that it would scarcely have been safe to have pardoned him; however, in consequence of the representation of the lords of the Admiralty respecting the doubtful legality of the sentence, His Majesty referred it to the twelve judges, who were unanimous in their opinion that it was legal. The next step was to transmit this opinion to the lords of the Admiralty, in order that they might sign the warrant for the execution. All the lords signed it, except Admiral Forbes, who entered his reasons for his refusal.
Admiral Forbes was not the only naval officer who resolutely and honourably stood forward and protested against the sentence passed upon Admiral Byng. Mr. West, who had been second in command under him in the Mediterranean, and who on his return was appointed one of the lords commissioners of the Admiralty, and soon afterwards commander-in-chief of a squadron destined for a secret expedition, on the very day sentence was passed on Admiral Byng wrote official and private letters, declining these appointments on account of the treatment of Admiral Byng.
When the warrant was signed, Mr. Keppel, one of the members of the court martial, rose in his place in the House of Commons, and prayed, on behalf of himself and some other members of the court, that they might be released from their oath of secrecy, in order to disclose the reasons which had induced them to pass sentence of death upon Admiral Byng; as, probably, by this disclosure, some circumstances might come out that would prove the sentence to be illegal. To this the Commons agreed, and an order was sent down to Portsmouth to respite the execution of the admiral until March 14th. The House of Lords, however, after interrogating the members of the court martial who were responsible for the bill, unanimously rejected it.
On his way to receive sentence on board the St. George Admiral Byng told some of his friends that he expected to be reprimanded, and possibly he might be cashiered; "because," added he, "there must have been several controverted points: the court martial has been shut up a long time, and almost all the questions proposed by the court have tended much more to pick out faults in my conduct than to get a true state of the circumstances; but I profess I cannot conceive what they will fix upon."