“At a Court-Martial, assembled on board his Majesty’s ship St. George, in Portsmouth harbour, upon the 28th of December, 1756, and held everyday afterwards (Sundays excepted), till the 27th of January inclusive—
| Present, | ||
| Thomas Smith, Esq., Vice-Admiral of the Red, President; | ||
| Francis Holburne, Esq., Rear-Admiral of the Red; | ||
| Harry Norris, Esq., Rear-Admiral of the White; | ||
| Thomas Brodrick, Esq., Rear-Admiral of the Blue; | ||
| Captains, | Charles Holmes, | Francis Geary, |
| William Boys, | John Moore, | |
| John Simcoe, | James Douglas, | |
| John Bentley, | Hon. Augustus Keppel. | |
| Peter Denis, | ||
The Court, pursuant to an order from the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty to Vice-Admiral Smith, dated December 14, 1756, proceeded to inquire into the conduct of the Hon. John Byng, Admiral of the Blue squadron of his Majesty’s Fleet, and to try him upon a charge, 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 withdraw or keep back, and 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 for that he did not do his utmost to relieve St. Philip’s Castle, in his Majesty’s island of Minorca, then besieged by the forces of the French King, but acted contrary to, and in breach of, his Majesty’s command; and having heard the evidence and the prisoner’s defence, and very maturely and thoroughly considered the same, they are unanimously of opinion, that he 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 twelfth article of an Act of Parliament of the twenty-second 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 positively prescribes death, without any alternative left to the discretion of the Court, under any variation of circumstances, the Court do therefore hereby 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, most earnestly to recommend him as a proper object of mercy.”
The sentence was accompanied by the following earnest representation:—
“To the right honourable the Lords Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain, &c.
“We, the underwritten, the President and Members of the Court-Martial assembled for the trial of Admiral Byng, believe it unnecessary to inform your Lordships, that in the whole course of this long trial, we have done our utmost endeavour to come at truth, and to do the strictest justice to our country, and the prisoner; but we cannot help laying the distresses of our minds before your Lordships on this occasion, in finding ourselves under a necessity of condemning a man to death, from the great severity of the twelfth 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 only; and therefore, for our own consciences sakes, 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.
“We are, my Lords, &c. &c.”
Signed by the whole Court.
From this sentence and this letter, it appears that Mr. Byng was acquitted, in the fullest manner, of cowardice, by men who (to say the best of them) were too scrupulous to acquit of a crime of which they thought him guilty, when they imagined it was their duty to condemn him for another crime, of which, it seems, they did not think him guilty. For thus unbiassed posterity will undoubtedly judge of those men. If there was any meaning in their strange procedure, it must have been this:—They thought the Admiral guilty of an error in judgment; and as from an error in judgment he had not performed all they supposed he might have done, they held him to blame—and then, believing that the Article of War intended to inflict death on all kinds of blame, they considered under what chapter of blame to rank Mr. Byng’s error. Disaffection it was not, cowardice it was not; the Article named but a third species, and that being neglect, these honest men agreed that a want of judgment was nearest related to neglect, and for that condemned him.