TRIAL OF ADMIRAL BYNG.

Of all the transactions that distinguished this year, the most extraordinary was the sentence executed on admiral Byng, the son of that great officer who had acquired such honour by his naval exploits in the preceding reign, and was ennobled for his services by the title of lord viscount Torrington. His second son, John Byng, had from his earliest youth been trained to his father’s profession; and was generally esteemed one of the best officers in the navy, when he embarked in that expedition to Minorca, which covered his character with disgrace, and even exposed him to all the horrors of an ignominious death. On the twenty-eighth day of December his trial began before a court-martial, held on board the ship St. George, in the harbour of Portsmouth, to which place Mr. Byng had been conveyed from Greenwich by a party of horse-guards, and insulted by the populace in every town and village through which he passed. The court having proceeded to examine the evidences for the crown and the prisoner, from day to day, in the course of a long sitting, agreed unanimously to thirty-seven resolutions, implying their opinion, that admiral Byng, during the engagement between the British and French fleets, on the twentieth day of May last, did not do his utmost endeavour 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, which it was his duty to have assisted; and that he did not exert his utmost-power for the relief of St. Philip’s castle. They, therefore, unanimously agreed that he fell under part of the twelfth article of an act of parliament passed in the twenty-second year of the present reign, 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 prescribed death, without any alternative left to the discretion of the court under any variation of circumstances, they unanimously adjudged the said admiral John Byng to be shot to death, at such time, and on board of such ship, as the lords commissioners of the admiralty should please to direct. But as it appeared, by the evidence of the officers who were near the admiral’s person, that no backwardness was perceivable in him during the action, nor any mark of fear or confusion either in his countenance or behaviour; but that he delivered his orders coolly and distinctly, without seeming deficient in personal courage; and, from other circumstances, they believed his misconduct did not arise either from cowardice or disaffection, they unanimously and earnestly recommended him as a proper object of mercy. The admiral himself behaved through the whole trial with the most cheerful composure, seemingly the effect of conscious innocence, upon which, perhaps, he too much relied. Even after he heard the evidence examined against him, and finished his own defence, he laid his account in being honourably acquitted; and ordered his coach to be ready for conveying him directly from the tribunal to London. A gentleman, his friend, by whom he was attended, having received intimation of the sentence to be pronounced, thought it his duty to prepare him for the occasion, that he might summon all his fortitude to his assistance, and accordingly made him acquainted with the information he had received. The admiral gave tokens of surprise and resentment, but betrayed no marks of fear or disorder, either then or in the court when the sentence was pronounced. On the contrary, while divers members of the court-martial manifested grief, anxiety, and trepidation, shedding tears, and sighing with extraordinary emotion, he heard his doom denounced without undergoing the least alteration of feature, and made a low obeisance to the president and the other members of the court, as he retired.

The officers who composed this tribunal were so sensible of the law’s severity, that they unanimously subscribed a letter to the board of admiralty containing this remarkable paragraph:—“We cannot help laying the distresses of our minds before your lordships on this occasion, in finding ourselves under necessity of condemning a man to death, from the great severity of the twelfth article of war, part of which he falls under, which admits of no mitigation 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 lords of the admiralty, instead of complying with the request of the court-martial, transmitted their letter to the king, with copies of their proceedings, and a letter from themselves to his majesty, specifying a doubt with regard to the legality of the sentence, as the crime of negligence, for which the admiral had been condemned, was not expressed in any part of the proceedings. At the same time, copies of two petitions from George lord viscount Torrington, in behalf of his kinsman admiral Byng, were submitted to his majesty’s royal wisdom and determination. All the friends and relations of the unhappy convict employed and exerted their influence and interest for his pardon; and, as the circumstances had appeared so strong in his favour, it was supposed that the sceptre of royal mercy would be extended for his preservation; but infamous arts were used to whet the savage appetite of the populace for blood. The cry of vengeance was loud throughout the land: sullen clouds of suspicion and malevolence interposing, were said to obstruct the genial beams of the best virtue that adorns the throne; and the sovereign was given to understand, that the execution of admiral Byng was a victim absolutely necessary to appease the fury of the people. His majesty, in consequence of the representation made by the lords of the admiralty, referred the sentence to the consideration of the twelve judges, who were unanimously of opinion that the sentence was legal. This report being transmitted from the privy-council to the admiralty, their lordships issued a warrant for executing the sentence of death on the twenty-eighth day of February. One gentleman at the board, however, refused to subscribe the warrant, assigning for his refusal the reasons which we have inserted by way of note, for the satisfaction of the reader. 401 [See note 3 H, at the end of this Vol.]

Though mercy was denied to the criminal, the crown seemed determined to do nothing that should be thought inconsistent with law. A member of parliament, who had sat upon the court-martial at Portsmouth, rose up in his place, and made application to the house of commons in behalf of himself and several other members of that tribunal, praying the aid of the legislature to be released from the oath of secrecy imposed on courts-martial, that they might disclose the grounds on which sentence of death had passed on admiral Byng, and, perhaps, discover such circumstances as might show the sentence to be improper. Although this application produced no resolution in the house, the king, on the twenty-sixth day of February, sent a message to the commons by Mr. Secretary Pitt, importing, that, though he had determined to let the law take its course with relation to admiral Byng, and resisted all solicitations to the contrary, yet, as a member of the house had expressed some scruples about the sentence, his majesty had thought fit to respite the execution of it, that there might be an opportunity of knowing, by the separate examination of the members of the court-martial, upon oath, what grounds there were for such scruples, and that his majesty was resolved still to let the sentence be carried into execution, unless it should appear from the said examination, that admiral Byng was unjustly condemned. The sentence might be strictly legal, and, at the same time very severe, according to the maxim, summum jus, summa injuria. In such cases, and perhaps in such cases only, the rigour of the law ought to be softened by the lenient hand of the royal prerogative. That this was the case of admiral Byng appears from the warm and eager intercession of his jury, a species of intercession which hath generally, if not always, prevailed at the foot of the throne, when any thing favourable for the criminal had appeared in the course of the trial. How much more then might it have been expected to succeed, when earnestly urged as a case of conscience, in behalf of a man whom his judges had expressly acquitted of cowardice and treachery, the only two imputations that rendered him criminal in the eyes of the nation! Such an interposition of the crown in parliamentary transactions was irregular, unnecessary, and at another juncture might have been productive of violent heats and declamation. At present, however, it passed without censure, as the effect of inattention, rather than a design to encroach upon the privileges of the house.