Part 7
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).
„ „ The Hon. James Cholmondeley (distinguished at the battle of Falkirk, a general in 1770, son of George, second Earl Cholmondeley).
„ „ The Hon. James Stuart.
„ „ Earl of Panmure (William Maule, of Kelly, a general in 1770).
„ „ Earl of Ancrum (Sir William Henry Kerr, K.G., afterwards fourth Marquis of Lothian and a general in 1770: distinguished at Fontenoy and Culloden).
„ „ Earl of Harrington (William, second earl, a general in 1770).
„ „ James Abercromby (a general in 1772).
„ „ Earl of Albemarle (Sir George Keppel, K.G., third Earl of Albemarle, and brother of the famous Admiral Keppel. He was aide-de-camp to the Duke of Cumberland at Fontenoy, and was commander-in-chief at the reduction of the Havannah).
„ „ Francis Leighton (second son of Sir Edward Leighton, Bart.).
„ „ Lord Robert Manners (son of John, second Duke of Rutland, and a general in 1772).
Major-General Edward Carr (a lieut.-general in 1760).
„ „ Earl of Effingham (Thomas Howard, second earl, and deputy earl marshal; a lieut.-general in 1760).
„ „ Lord Robert Bertie (who had behaved so kindly to Admiral Byng at his trial; son of Robert, first Duke of Ancaster; in 1777 a general).
„ „ Julius Cæsar (who, while with the allied army in Germany, died from a fall from his horse in 1762).
Charles Gould, deputy judge-advocate (afterwards, in 1771, judge-advocate and a knight and baronet, ancestor of Lord Tredegar).
The charge against Lord George was:—“That he, being a lieutenant-general in His Majesty’s army in Germany, under the command of Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, and being by his instructions (which were read in court) directed to obey the orders of the said Prince Ferdinand, did notwithstanding, on August 1, 1759, disobey the orders that were sent to him by his Serene Highness.”
The deputy judge-advocate, Mr. Gould, in a short speech, explained the nature of the charge, and observed that by his lordship’s not advancing with the cavalry, agreeably to repeated orders sent him by three aides-de-camp, a signal opportunity was left of ruining the French army, and the cavalry were thereby prevented from gathering the laurels which the infantry had prepared.
The evidence which bore most upon the charge was as follows: