Part 6
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.