Contract of Alderman Baker for Victualling the
Troops--Parliamentary Inquiries limited to Minorca--Byng’s
Sentence produces various impressions--It is referred to
the Judges--Conduct of the Judges on the Case referred to
them--Conduct of Fox--The Admiralty signs the Sentence--The
Sentence notified to the House of Commons--Mr. Pitt demands Money
for Hanover--Lord George Sackville declares for Pitt--His Motives
for so doing--Approaching Execution of Byng--Debate in the House
of Commons on his Sentence--Members of the Court-Martial desirous
to be absolved from their Oaths--The Author urges Keppel to
apply to the House of Commons--Sir Francis Dashwood applies for
Keppel--The King’s Message--Court-Martial Bill passes the House.
Feb. 7th.--The younger of the brothers carried the war into another
quarter, attacking Alderman Baker on a contract he had obtained
from the Government for victualling the troops in North America;
and falling severely on his uncle Newcastle, whom he abused, with
more outrage than wit, in a very florid strain of satiric irony.
Fox defended Baker; Nugent, his patron: Baker on a subsequent day
vindicated himself, and cleared the fairness of his contract.
George Townshend and the Tories were displeased with these
hostilities to Newcastle, who they feared would be driven to unite
with Fox, with whom the Duke consulted for the defence of Baker.
His Grace and Fox being already complicated in the late measures,
a new accession of common interest might renew their league. These
apprehensions operated so strongly on Fox’s enemies, that great
coldness was shown on the matter of inquiries; and when George
Townshend could no longer in decency defer to call for papers
previous to the examination, as he did at last, February 8th, the
inquisition seemed affectedly limited to the loss of Minorca, on
which subject, Newcastle and Fox had had leisure for months to
remove from all offices whatever papers could be supposed to affect
them. All discussion of the neglects in America, so extensive, so
numerous, and so easily to be proved, were cautiously avoided.
Indication sufficient, that the late Ministers had left no evidence
against themselves, was, that in a Parliament constituted almost
entirely of their friends, not a single objection was made by
any of their dependents against the scrutiny into their conduct.
The most upright Ministers had never met popular attacks with
indifference--were Newcastle, Anson, Fox, more bold, or more
innocent, than any of their predecessors? The farce of national
justice had never appeared in more glaring colours: Mr. Byng had
been kept a close prisoner from the instant of his arrest; thirty
witnesses that he had demanded had been denied to him; every
evidence that could possibly affect him had been produced--when the
more powerful criminals were to be charged, a single part of their
administration was selected, papers were demanded by guess, and it
was left to the discretion of offices full of clerks, all creatures
of the late Ministers, to send, omit, secrete, mangle, what part of
those papers they pleased. No Committee was appointed to conduct
the inquiry, nobody empowered to procure or manage evidence, or
even to examine whether what was so partially demanded, was not
still more partially granted. Mr. Pitt protracted a commodious
gout--George Townshend, the other mock-champion of the people, was
negotiating with Lord Granby, to unite the patriot Minister with
the late chief of the criminal Administration.
During these clandestine treaties and juggles, the sentence
pronounced on the Admiral grew a serious affair. The first
impression taken was, that he must be pardoned. Many lawyers
declared the sentence was illegal: at St. James’s it was received
as definitive: the Sovereign, the Duke, Princess Emily, and their
train, treated the notion of mercy as ridiculous; and no whispers
from any of their late partizans breathed a more gentle spirit on
the Court. At the Admiralty, on the contrary, a very different
temper discovered itself. Admiral West, the friend of Pitt, and
relation of Lord Temple, loudly demanded a revision of the 12th
Article; and though, he said, he would not decline immediate
service to which he was appointed, he declared his resolution
of resigning, unless the Article was abrogated. Admiral Smith,
natural brother of Lord Lyttelton and Sir Richard, who had been
President of the Court-Martial, and was really a humane though
weak man, wrote the most earnest letters to his brothers, to
interest themselves in the safety of Mr. Byng, as the only method
of quieting his (Smith’s) conscience. The Peer, blindly devoted to
Newcastle and Hardwicke, returned an answer, that, to say no worse
of it, did not breathe more humanity into a conscience already
wounded.
Sir Richard, on the contrary, interested himself warmly for the
condemned; and Lord Temple took part enough to make it a measure in
the Admiralty to refuse to sign the warrant for execution, unless
they were better satisfied on the legality of the sentence--if
their consciences could be tranquillized by such opiates as the
casuists of Westminster Hall could administer, Lord Hardwicke had
no apprehension but the warrant might still be signed. Accordingly,
the King referred the sentence to the Judges; and as there was no
difficulty but what they could solve by pronouncing an absurdity
legal, they soon declared, that a sentence, which acquitted of
two crimes, and yet condemned, without specifying a third, was
very good law. And thus, without an instance of interpreting a
_new_, _obscure_, and _doubtful_ statute in the most unfavourable
sense, and contrary to the stream of precedents by which criminals
recommended to mercy were constantly pardoned, the people of
England (that some revengeful men might be gratified, and some
guilty men might have their crimes atoned by the sacrifice of
another man) obtained the alarming precedent of a sentence
pronounced by implication! And this was the more alarming, as it
was known that the word _negligence_[76] had been proposed in the
Court-Martial, and had been rejected by them. Consequently, they
had thought it their duty to condemn for _no_ crime; and the Judges
discovered the virtue of a crime in words, which the persons who
framed the sentence had intended should _not_ express it.
What added to the criminality of the Judges was, that the
young Lord Torrington, the Admiral’s nephew, having petitioned
the Admiralty for leave for his uncle to appeal against so
unprecedented a sentence, they desired to see his reasons, and
having received them, laid them before the King and Council, by
whom they were referred to the Judges. The Judges, who had desired
to see all the sentences in capital cases that had been given
by Courts-Martial since the Revolution, excused themselves from
examining Lord Torrington’s arguments, equally referred to them
by the Council. One can hardly avoid saying on such inconsistent
behaviour, that the Judges knew what was the inclination of the
Council on the different papers referred to their consideration;
and that they accordingly rejected an appeal from a novel sentence,
which they pronounced law from precedents which had all taken their
rise under the abrogated law.
There had been periods when Fox would not have suffered such
casuistry in the profession to pass uncensured:--what was the part
he now took?--It was not, in truth, an age to expect that a Regulus
should exhort his country to pursue measures which would advance
his own destruction. Few men would devote themselves, when other
victims were marked for sacrifice. We will suppose, that Mr. Fox,
implicated in the miscarriages of the last year, might not be sorry
to see the busy timidity of Newcastle, or the dark councils of
Hardwicke, transferring his, their own, and Anson’s neglects and
mismanagements to Mr. Byng, and sweeping Court, Navy, Parliament,
and Law, into a combination to cut off a man whom they had made
obnoxious to the nation, because he was so to themselves--but what
more crooked policy was that, which, not content with sheltering
itself behind Mr. Byng, sought to ruin Mr. Pitt too, by painting
him to the multitude as the champion of the condemned Admiral? It
is irksome to me to tell what whispers, what open speeches, what
libels, Mr. Fox and his emissaries vented to blacken Mr. Pitt and
Lord Temple, for feeling symptoms of humanity towards a traduced, a
condemned, a friendless man! Hardwicke moved steadily towards his
point, the death of the criminal:--Fox sported with the life of
that criminal, and turned mercy itself into an engine of faction
to annoy his antagonist. Had Mr. Pitt effectually interposed,
had the seal been set by his influence to Mr. Byng’s pardon,
(however generous morality would scorn the office,) policy might
have excused Mr. Fox for traducing such humanity:--but previously
to make mercy impossible, by making it dangerous, by making it
odious!--I know not where ambition would stop, if it could leap
over such sacred sensations!
February 16th.--The day after the Judges had given their opinion
on the sentence, the King in Council referred that opinion to the
Admiralty. The King signs no sentence himself: where he does not
interpose his prerogative of pardon, execution follows of course.
In naval affairs, the Lords of the Admiralty sign the warrant. Lord
Temple had dropped hints to the King in favour of Byng, but with
more reserve with regard to the prisoner, than towards the majesty
of the sovereign, to whom at one time he said in his closet, with
a contemptuous sneer, “And if he dies well, what will _you_ say
then?” It was applied so _ad hominem_, that the King interpreted
it as a reflection on his own courage. The Admiralty thus pushed,
and weighing on one hand the unpopularity of a direct refusal to
sign, and on the other the authority of the Judges, which had been
given at their request, determined to comply. That very night Lord
Temple, Dr. Hay, and Elliot, signed the sentence, and sent it to
Portsmouth, ordering execution on the 28th. Admiral Forbes, in
every part of his conduct uniformly amiable and upright, refused
peremptorily to sign it.
While Mr. Byng was thus pursued or given up by his countrymen,
our enemies acted a very different part. Voltaire, hearing of
the Admiral’s trial, sent from Switzerland to the Court-Martial,
a letter which he had casually received some time before from
Marshal Richelieu, in which the latter spoke with encomiums on
the behaviour of the English Commander:--but they, who had been
so ready to censure Mr. Byng on the dispatch of his antagonist
La Galissonière, were far from being equally forward to give any
weight to Richelieu’s testimonial in his favour.
Feb. 17th.--Mr. Hunter, of the Admiralty, notified to the House
of Commons the sentence pronounced against one of their members.
The Speaker produced a long roll of precedents for expelling him
before execution, lest his disgrace should reflect on the House.
Lord Strange objected, good-naturedly, that this would be heaping
cruelty, and seemed to exclude mercy, while yet there was an
opening to it. Sir Francis Dashwood, a man distinguished by no
milkiness of temper, connected with no friends of the prisoner,
took this up strongly, and moved to call for the letter of the
Court-Martial. Fox objected, that this would look like a censure
on that Court. Sir Francis denied that he meaned it in that
light. His view, he said, was, by considering the warmth of their
recommendation, to lead to some application for mercy. Mr. Pitt
seemed to favour that purpose, and lashed _novel_ proceedings in
Courts-Martial; and said he hoped that the letter, when produced,
might lead the House to do something on that mortal twelfth
Article: and he mentioned with disdain anonymous letters that he
had received, threatening him as a favourer of Mr. Byng. Fox, to
waive all humane impressions, called for the Order of the Day. Sir
Francis would have renewed his Motion, but the House did not seem
inclined to receive it; and it was lost.
Mr. Pitt had come that very day to the House of Commons for the
first time since his illness, and as it was the first time since he
was Minister of his acting there in office, it could not fail of
being remarked, that he dated his Administration with a demand of
money for Hanover. He delivered a message from the King, desiring
support for his Electoral Dominions and for the King of Prussia.
One cannot say which was most ridiculous, the richest Prince in
Europe begging alms for his own country, or the great foe of that
country becoming its mendicant almoner. The next day he opened
the message, the purport of which was to ask 200,000_l._; and
he endeavoured to torture some consistence out of his conduct,
sometimes refining, and when that would not do, glossing it over
with what he would have put off for confident honesty. He succeeded
better in attempting to divert reflections from himself to the
Empress-queen, who, he said, if it had not been for the blood and
treasure of Britain, would not have had it in her power to be
ungrateful now.
He was seconded by Lord George Sackville, who affected to say he
spoke only for form; yet talked forcibly on his _now_ seeing a
prospect of carrying on the war with success, as great part of the
money was to be given to the King of Prussia--a better method
than subsidiary treaties. Fox acted moderation; said, he should
never provoke altercations, nor yet would ever decline them: it was
sufficient to him that his part had been a _consistent_ one. He had
been told, indeed, that the German measures of last year would be a
mill-stone about the neck of the Minister:--he hoped _this German_
measure would be an ornament about the Minister’s neck! It was in
truth the greatest instance of courage and capacity, and promised
stability to Mr. Pitt’s Administration. Pitt replied, that he only
rose again to show he would keep his temper and his word; though
Mr. Fox’s reflections were but an ugly presage of his kind wishes
to the new Administration. For Minister--the word never belonged
so little to anybody as to himself: he had neither ministerial
power nor influence. All he had done was, having had an opportunity
of saying, “This I will do--that I will never do.” The money was
granted _nemine contradicente_--even the Tories agreeing to it--I
suppose, to prove their consistence too.
One event in this Debate requires a comment: Lord George Sackville
declared himself for Mr. Pitt: he had seemed before to attach
himself to Fox. This was the history of his variation:--the Primate
had come over to offer his service to the new Lord Lieutenant; and
both he and Lord George had paid court to Mr. Fox, and still more
to Mr. Rigby, the Duke of Bedford’s Minister. The two former had
received their assiduities cordially; Bedford himself, of a shy,
uncommunicative nature, had treated the Primate with obstinate
coldness, and absolutely declined on every occasion to talk to him
on Irish business. The Duke’s own plan was to steer impartially
between the two factions; at least for his first session.
Fox, early in the winter, had made great application to Lord George
Sackville to move for retaining the Hessians, which being agreeable
to the wishes of the Whigs, the new Ministers would have been
beaten before they could bring on any of their popular questions.
Lord George demanded previously, that the Duke of Bedford should
engage to leave the Primate one of the Lords Justices; which would
have been granted, but the Duke of Bedford himself hung off; for
though he was willing to leave him so, he would not date his
government with a promise that he thought would be so unpopular.
From that time, Fox had either not fixed what should be the Duke
of Bedford’s plan, or had been so occupied with his own situation
and animosities, as not sufficiently to attend to Ireland. Rigby,
devoted to Fox, and thinking himself sure of the Primate whenever
he should please to want him, or concluding him totally fallen, and
that his own best art of pleasing Fox would be to fling himself
into the opposite faction, headed by Lord Kildare, who had married
the sister of Lady Caroline Fox; for these, or some of these
reasons, he had not had the precaution to model his master to the
Primate’s views; who, finding himself rejected, or entertained so
as to be rejected afterwards, instantly negotiated with Pitt, and
worked his friend Lord George to list under the same colours: and
other reasons concurred to facilitate that connexion.
Pitt, on the commencement of his Ministry, had professed to
adhere to all his old declarations; and keeping himself retired
and secluded from all access, affected to attract no dependents,
to form no party. The Tories, who heard his professions, and saw
him condescend to no Court-arts, were charmed with a Minister
who seemed as visionary as themselves, and who threw as many
difficulties on Government as when he was in Opposition;--but the
Tories alone, as Lord George knew, could no more support a Minister
than they could demolish one; and deeming Mr. Pitt’s system too
romantic for duration, Lord George had leaned towards Fox, as
made up of more practicable elements. Indeed, when Bedford proved
as untamed as Pitt had been; and when Pitt condescended to make
room in his virtue for Hanover, Lord George, (as the Primate with
wonderful frankness avowed to Fox,) finding that Mr. Pitt “would
now pursue human measures by human means,” made no difficulty of
uniting with him. Lord George gave the same account to Fox too.
Another reason of mortal complexion had probably some sway with
Lord George--of nothing he was so jealous as of Conway. Fox had
supported the latter’s plan of Militia; and the Duke of Richmond,
brother of Lady Caroline Fox, was on the point of marrying Lady
Mary Bruce, daughter-in-law of Mr. Conway. If Lord George then
looked on the connexion of Fox and Conway as imminent and certain,
no wonder he devoted himself to the contrary faction.
As the day approached for the execution of the Admiral, symptoms
of an extraordinary nature discovered themselves. Lord Hardwicke
had forgot to make the Clergy declare murder innocent, as the
Lawyers had been induced to find law in what no man else could find
sense. Lord Anson himself, in midnight fits of weakness and wine,
held forth at Arthur’s on his anxiety to have Mr. Byng spared; and
even went so far as to break forth abruptly to Lord Halifax, the
Admiral’s relation by marriage, “Good God! my Lord, what shall
we do to save poor Mr. Byng?” The Earl replied, “My Lord, if you
really mean it, no man can do so much towards it as yourself.”
Keppel, a friend of Anson, and one of the Judges, grew restless
with remorse. Lest these aches of conscience should be contagious,
the King was plied with antidotes. Papers were posted up with
paltry rhymes, saying,
“Hang Byng,
Or take care of your King.”
Anonymous letters were sent to terrify him if he pardoned;
and, what could not be charged, too, on mob-libellists, he was
threatened, that unless Mr. Byng was shot, the city would refuse to
raise the money for Hanover.
22nd.--The Militia Bill was considered in the Committee. Mr. Conway
spoke for an hour very ably, to show how impracticable the plan
of Townshend’s Bill was, how easy of execution his own, and then
with modesty withdrew it. The Dissenters in some places petitioned
against the exercise on Sundays, but their objections were not
supported nor regarded.
On the 23rd, Keppel, More, and Dennis, three of the Court-Martial,
waited on Lord Temple, and besought him to renew their application
to the Throne for mercy; and the same day Sir Francis Dashwood
acquainted the House that he intended to move a consideration
of the twelfth Article. He said he had felt great animosity
against the unhappy sufferer from the first representations; but
his opinion was totally changed by the trial. That at most he
could only impute misjudgment to Mr. Byng. To the Court-Martial
he must impute it more strongly, who, he thought, had condemned
the Admiral unjustly. No wilful error appeared against him. His
manœuvre had been applauded: was nothing left to his judgment?
Does the twenty-fifth resolution of the Court prove that he was
negligent? The French had not waited for him: when they did not,
he crowded more sail. The Council of War they never mentioned! Did
not Mr. West approve the return to Gibraltar? Then, with increase
of seriousness, he said, the Admiral’s blood will lie at the door
of those who do not explain what they meaned by their sentence,
of which no man else could give an interpretation. And it was the
more necessary they should, as they had brought on officers an
impossibility of serving under the twelfth Article. He reverted
to the conduct of the Admiral, recapitulated some of the chief
passages of the trial, urged that there had been an appearance of
judgment in his conduct, which had only been defeated by the ships
of the French being cleaner and in better order.
One witness had deposed, that there appeared no backwardness in the
Admiral in coming to action; then, for God’s sake, of what was he
condemned? Not a murmur was heard on his return to Gibraltar. It
seems he did not hoist his top-gallant sail--_that_ was, not doing
his utmost! What a gross, shocking mistake of the Court-Martial,
to think that the twelfth Article reached to this want of a
top-gallant sail! The letter to the Admiralty he concluded had
been laid before his Majesty, where he hoped the great severity of
a blundering sentence would be properly considered--for, when it
came to be considered and construed, could any man living suppose
that the Court-Martial intended to express any blame but of error
of judgment? Sure they were at liberty to explain this! It stood in
the law that they might, but they must first be empowered by Act
of Parliament to disclose what had passed amongst them. He spoke
to their feeling, and hoped to hear the opinions of others on this
cruel sentence.
Lord Barrington rose, as he said, to speak only to the Motion on
the twelfth Article, and should lay Mr. Byng entirely out of the
question, on whose conduct he, being a landsman, could not form
an opinion: whatever favourable circumstances there were in his
case, he hoped had been, and would be represented. The Article
he justified on the necessity that had called for it. The last
war had set out with conduct at sea not very honourable, yet no
Court-Martial would condemn the offenders. This grew to be the
universal complaint. It was said nobody would be hanged but for
high treason. In a former war Kirby and Wade had been brought in
guilty of disaffection to their Admiral, and had suffered. If
the present Court-Martial misunderstood the Article in question,
neither could one be framed which they would not misunderstand. He
asked if this was a time to relax or enforce discipline? and moved
for the Order of the Day.
Doddington replied, that he had no interest in this question, but
as it touched Mr. Byng; in whose cause national justice, public
and private compassion, were concerned too. That it was impossible
to argue that ambiguities ought not to be cleared up. That for fear
of bringing on a question, he would not call for the sentence; but
he should be glad to know of what the Admiral stood condemned.
He _did_ know of what he was _not_ condemned; and that supported
him, as it was what stained neither the soldier nor the subject.
_Without doors the sentence was thought extremely cruel; and well
might people think so, when the Judges who pronounced it declared
they thought so themselves._ Perhaps it might be deemed advisable
not to carry it into execution: it certainly would be mercy to the
Judges, and to the distress of their consciences; nor would clash
with the King’s promise, who certainly never engaged his royal word
to adopt the worst construction of a doubtful law. He wished to
hear something thrown out for compassion.
This humane and pathetic speech--to the shame of our country I
may call it this _bold_ speech, considering in how unpopular
circumstances it was made--was received with an attention and
sensibility, which showed that truth and justice had been
strangers, [who] to be approved, wanted only to be known.
Lord Strange said, he was at a loss to account for the
Court-Martial being so affected. He thought the article plain
enough, and to revise it would be _more absurd than anything but
the sentence_. If the Court-Martial had done justice, how would it
be just to them to alter the Article? They had puzzled themselves,
and now the House was going to puzzle the service. We had no
pretence to retry the cause. (An odd argument, if the Court had
been puzzled, and had given an absurd sentence.) If the members
of the Court would apply separately for revision, they might. For
himself, he could not agree to weaken that Article; nor would it,
he believed, be to any purpose. He had never seen a sea-sentence
that a landsman could submit to. He wished the officers of the Navy
were to be tried by a jury.
Campbell, a most humane and honest man, but who had never forgiven
Mr. Pitt and the Grenvilles the share they had in overturning Sir
Robert Walpole, and who had steadily adhered to Mr. Pelham and Fox,
as successors of that Minister, could not help saying, that the
law declared no execution could follow a marine trial, till the
whole proceedings had been laid before the Admiralty. If _they_
thought injustice had been done to Mr. Byng, would not _they_ make
earnest application for mercy?--if they made none, what must be the
conclusion?
Beckford scrupled not to say, that the sentence was thought
_cruel_; and Pitt, though owning how sensibly he felt the
difficulty of speaking on that melancholy occasion, with true
spirit avowed himself on the favourable side. The sentence, he
said, had undergone discussion; for himself, he could never have
agreed to it; but he thought the Legislature had nothing to do to
advise the King on that his peculiar prerogative, mercy. He did
wish it might be extended to the prisoner; and owned he thought
_more good would come from mercy than rigour_. That it was more
likely to flow from his Majesty, if he was left entirely free. For
the Article, he did not wish, he said, to see discipline relaxed;
but no Article could be enforced but when it was intelligible. And
this being proved so obscure, it was not for the honour of national
justice, that a sentence, issuing from its obscurity, should be
carried into execution. Were Mr. Byng condemned of cowardice
or disaffection, he himself, though single, would petition for
execution. Of all men, the Commissioners of the Admiralty ought
the least to interpose. But what indeed could add weight in the
prisoner’s favour to the recommendation of his Judges?
Campbell, pursuing his blow, said, surely they who have all the
proofs before them are the properest to enforce the recommendation
of the Judges.
Sir Francis Dashwood, perceiving an impression of tenderness made,
and unwilling to drive a majority to rigour, by furnishing them
with the triumph of carrying a question, desired leave to withdraw
his Motion on the Article; when Fox, who chose to wear, like the
day, an aspect of compassion, and at the same time to fasten
difficulty and unpopularity on the new Minister and his friends,
rose to say, that he could not comprehend the delicacy of the
Admiralty in not laying their scruples before the King. That during
the nine years that himself had been Secretary at War, it had
been his constant practice on all Courts-Martial to acquaint the
King with any favourable circumstances that had appeared. That he
had always found his Majesty disposed to lenity, and when he said
nothing, the King would ask, “Have you nothing favourable to tell
me?” Silence always implied that there was nothing. If the Lords of
the Admiralty thought the Court-Martial meaned _error of judgment_,
they ought to tell the King so. Any one Lord of the Admiralty
might; Admiral Forbes might. That in signing the warrant, never
till now had been used the words, “It is his Majesty’s pleasure.”
He recommended it to them to consider the circumstances, and inform
the King of them.
Pitt, in reply, bad him consider all that had passed for the last
six months, and then judge if the Lords of the Admiralty were the
proper persons to make representations on this case. He had no
reason to expect any tenderness to himself or his friends; and,
indeed, he supposed this speech of Fox was calculated to throw them
under difficulties _in another place_. For himself, he had too
much awe on his mind, to make so free with descriptions, as Fox had
of personal colloquies.
Fox repeated, that this had been a very undue time to change the
words, “the King’s consent,” to “the King’s pleasure.” In all late
instances _pleasure_ had never been used. That in what he had said,
he had intended to agree with Mr. Pitt. On the present occasion he
thought it particularly the duty of the Admiralty to speak out.
And as to throwing them under difficulties, the more danger there
would be in their speaking out, the more it was their duty. And
to Mr. Pitt’s complaint of want of credit in the closet, he said,
there never wanted a grain of ministerial influence to incline his
Majesty to pardon.
Pitt asked, how Mr. Fox knew what might have passed on this
occasion, when not an iota had transpired? His insinuations had
been uncandid, nor had he egged Fox on to say what had fallen
from him. The Speaker interposed; said, he disapproved these
altercations, and begged they would only speak on what concerned
the public. Hunter and Elliot produced precedents to show they had
taken the word _pleasure_ from the minutes in the books of the
Admiralty. Prince George had particularly notified Queen Anne’s
_pleasure_ on Kirby and Wade: and the latter dropped, that it was
decided by political writers, that in general Commanders-in-Chief
should not be tried but for treachery. Lord Strange spoke to order,
and to have the question read, that these discussions might be
finished. The day concluded with Fox’s saying with great solemnity,
that he had not said, and he thanked God had not heard, a word to
exclude mercy--an asseveration he had better not have made. He
had fastened the duty of representation on the Admiralty; if they
applied for mercy, the odium would be theirs.--If they did not,
the King remained in possession of pleading; that as the Admiralty
had made no application for mercy, after being publicly exhorted
to it, it was evident that they had no favourable circumstances to
represent.
The next day Pitt did move the King for mercy, but was cut very
short; nor did his Majesty remember to ask his _usual_ question,
_whether there were any favourable circumstances_? The Duke of
Bedford, whose good heart broke from his connexions, applied
too, was better heard, but with no better success. Mrs. Osborn,
the Admiral’s sister, being advised to solicit the same Duke to
present a petition from her, he excused himself, nor in all the
openings to compassion that followed did his Grace take the least
part; though he had been one of the most vehement to condemn the
Court-Martial. He was always allowed by his governors to speak as
he thought--seldom to act as he spoke. The same day seven of the
Court-Martial applied to Lord Temple to intercede for mercy; he
reported their solicitation to the King, but to no purpose.
25th.--Admiral Norris went to George Grenville, and told him he had
something on his conscience which he wanted to utter, and desired
Mr. Grenville to apply to the House of Commons to absolve them
from their oath of secrecy. Grenville did not care to meddle in
it. Norris, Keppel, and Moore, mentioned it again to him at the
Admiralty that morning; and he declining it, Moore said to him
with wrath, “Then, Sir, the Admiral’s blood will not lie on us.”
It happened that Horace Walpole, who had taken this affair much
to heart, was not then in Parliament, having vacated his seat for
Castlerising, that he might be chosen at Lynn, by desire of the
corporation, in the room of his cousin, become a peer by the death
of his father, Lord Walpole. Coming late that day to the House,
though not a member, Horace Walpole was told of the application
that had been made to Mr. Grenville, and looking for him to try to
engage him to undertake the cause, Walpole was told that Mr. Keppel
desired to be absolved from his oath as well as Norris. Walpole ran
up into the gallery, and asked Keppel if it was true? and being
true, why he did not move the House himself? Keppel replied, that
he was unused to speak in public, but would willingly authorize
anybody to make application for him. “Oh! sir,” said Walpole, “I
will soon find you somebody;” and hurried him to Fox, who, Walpole
fondly imagined, could not in decency refuse such a request, and
who was the more proper, from his authority in the House, and as a
relation of Mr. Keppel. Fox was much surprised, knew not what to
determine, said he was uncertain--and left the House.
The time pressed, the Speaker was going to put the question for the
Orders of the Day, after which no new Motion can be made; it was
Friday too; the House would sit neither on Saturday nor Sunday, and
but a possibility of two days remained to intercept the execution,
which was to be on Monday; and the whole operation of what Keppel
should have to say, its effects, the pardon if procured, the
dispatch to Portsmouth, and the reprieve, all to be crowded into
so few hours! Walpole was in agony what step to take--at that
instant he saw Sir Francis Dashwood going up the House; he flew
down from the gallery, called Sir Francis, hurried the notification
to him, and Sir Francis, with the greatest quickness of tender
apprehension, (the Speaker had actually read the question and put
it while all this was passing,) called out from the floor before
he had time to take his place, “Mr. Speaker”--and then informed
the House of Mr. Keppel’s desire that some method might be found
of empowering him and the other members of the Court-Martial to
declare what had been their intention in pronouncing Mr. Byng
guilty.
Sir John Philipps opposed the Motion, saying, the cause was not
before the House. George Townshend approved the question, saying he
seconded it, not pleading so much for mercy to the prisoner, as to
his Judges. Pitt rose and begged the House would consider seriously
before they proceeded on so nice a matter: he wished first to see
a direct application to the House. For himself, he should probably
smart for it; he had received a menacing letter that very morning.
He addressed himself to Keppel, wished he would break through his
bashfulness and rise: it would be a foundation to him to vote for
the Bill demanded; and then he should despise threats. Keppel rose.
Dennis, a member of the Court-Martial, and of Parliament, was
present, but had refused to join with Keppel in the application.
The latter spoke with great sense and seriousness; declared, he
did desire to be absolved from his oath; he had something on his
mind that he wished to say. Many others of the Court-Martial, he
said, had been with him that morning, and exhorted him to make the
demand. Sir Richard Lyttelton said, another had been with him to
the same end; and read a letter from the President, Admiral Smith,
entreating him to move in the same cause. He then injudiciously
went into the case of Mr. Byng, which, he said, he should think
murder, if this method was not followed. Ellis had difficulties,
he said; it ought to be known if the whole body desired this.
It ought to be considered, that their opinions had been given in
confidence of secrecy. Sir R. Lyttelton replied, Admiral Smith says
they are all willing to be dispensed from their oath.
Lord Strange said, he had always been averse to meddling with Mr.
Byng’s cause in Parliament, yet it was very difficult to avoid it,
now the Judges themselves desired it. To refuse this dispensation
to them would be a cruelty his blood ran cold at. Then the oath
of secrecy being read, Thornbagh, a foolish man, who knew to do
nothing but what he had sometimes seen done, moved for the Orders
of the Day. Sir Francis Dashwood reprimanded him severely; and the
House behaved with great decency: the Duke of Newcastle’s faction
with total silence. Campbell, whose natural goodness could not on
a surprise prefer the wrong side to the tender one, said, he rose
for fear of being included in his opinion of the other day. He
thought the Bill so necessary now, that he wished to have it read
three times directly. George Grenville thought the members of the
Court-Martial might speak without the Bill, as their oath only
forbad them to divulge the opinion of any single man. Lord George
Sackville was of the same opinion, and wished what had passed might
be communicated to his Majesty without any address in form.
Keppel professed he had still doubts whether he could speak
without a dispensing Act. Mr. Conway agreed with Lord George, and
thought that such members of the Court-Martial as were in town
ought to have a day to consider on it. Pitt said, he honoured
Mr. Keppel for his doubt; wished him to consult with his friends
that night; and told him, that in regard to them the House would
sit the next day. For himself, he should in their case have no
hesitation to speak without the Act, as they only desired to tell
where it was most proper for them to tell: he hoped they would
lay their sentiments at his Majesty’s feet the next morning. Some
other opinions of no consequence following, Lord George Sackville
begged the Debate might end, that Mr. Keppel might go immediately
and consult his friends. Sir Francis Dashwood said they were not
all in town; Mr. Keppel hoped if the major part were, it would be
sufficient. The Speaker proposed that nothing of what had passed
should be inserted in the votes.
26th.--A Cabinet Council was held to consider what was proper
to be done on Mr. Keppel’s demand. Pitt told the King, that the
House of Commons wished to have the Admiral pardoned. He replied
shrewdly and severely, “Sir, _you_ have taught me to look for
the sense of my subjects in another place than in the House of
Commons.”--However, it was determined that sentence should be
respited for a fortnight, till the Bill could be passed, and his
Majesty acquainted with what the members of the Court-Martial
had to say. A temporary reprieve was accordingly dispatched to
Portsmouth; and Mr. Pitt the same day delivered a message to the
House of Commons, that his Majesty having been informed that
a Member of that House had in his place declared that he had
something of weight to say, which it was proper his Majesty should
know, his Majesty had accordingly postponed execution till the
matter could be cleared up. It had been objected in Council, that
the words _Member in his place_ would give offence, as unusual and
inconsistent with the liberty of speech in Parliament, the Crown
being supposed to have no knowledge or cognizance of what is said
there. Pitt treated the objection with scorn; and, unluckily,
commenced his Administration with a German subsidy and a breach of
privilege.
Fox had immediate notice by Rigby from the Duke of Bedford of
what had passed in Council, and came armed to attack Pitt on this
indiscretion. Pitt had no sooner delivered the Royal Message,
than Fox rose cavilling. He desired to have the Message read
again:--there were words in it that struck his ear in a very
extraordinary manner! _The King having been informed that a
Member in his place!_ Who informed him? Who betrayed to the Crown
what was said in Parliament? What Minister was so ignorant as to
advise the Crown to take notice of having had such intelligence?
Did Ministers dare to avow that they made representations of the
speeches of particular men? Indeed, it had now been done for a
laudable purpose; but by the same rule might be practised for a
bad one; and on no account must be suffered to strengthen into a
precedent. He desired to be showed one instance since the reign of
James the First, where the privileges of Parliament had been so
sported with.
Pitt replied with great indignation, that the time had been too
pressing to consult precedents. He had not thought the life of a
man was to be trifled with while clerks were searching records.
He had founded himself on a peculiarity of case, that was its own
precedent, and could be so to no other: a precedent that could
never be extended but by a wicked Parliament. He had been doing his
duty in Parliament the day before, had heard the momentous doubts
of Mr. Keppel, and had represented them:--_he should have been
ashamed to run away basely and timidly, and hide his head, as if
he had murdered somebody under a hedge_. It had been the sense of
the House, that what had passed should be laid before his Majesty;
and he had accordingly thought it _his_ duty to represent it. What
would Mr. Fox have done? _not_ have represented it? “You, sir,”
said he, to the Chair, “may enter it with proper caution.” He
appealed to the House, if what he had done had not been directly
implied; and concluded, that he was ready to undergo the correction
of the House.
Fox replied with as much temper as the occasion seemed to call for
resentment, (but it is not always true that one is most angry when
one is most in the wrong,) that he did not think his observation
had been indecent. That he would now say nothing to Mr. Pitt’s
charge, but would prove his own conduct good-natured. Had he said
some things that Mr. Pitt had said, he should have thought his
nature base. It had not been necessary to express _a member of
the House in his place_. Yet if the Speaker could think of any
palliative way of entering it in the journals, he should never
think of it more.
Pitt said, the manner had been chosen to show the public that
every method had been taken to ease the mind of his Majesty: and
Lord Strange bore him testimony, that the communication had been
intended by the House: and however Parliament would take it, he
knew it was manly and right.
Mr. Keppel then said, that the definitions given the day before of
the oath had engaged his utmost attention: and he had represented
as well as he could to some of his brethren what latitude it had
been thought they might take in dispensing with it: but they were
not altered in the least, and till an absolving Act should pass,
could say nothing.
“Do they still desire the Act?” said Lord Strange. “Could
anybody,” replied Keppel, “mention what weight they had on their
minds, and not desire it still?”
The Speaker then, trimming between Pitt and Fox, declared himself
extremely hurt with the words, pronounced them wrong, and of most
dangerous consequence, and what had always been reckoned breaches
of privilege;--he was satisfied there had been no bad intention in
it. He knew Mr. Pitt would as soon lose his hand, as violate the
rights of Parliament--indeed, there had been no necessity for the
words in question; the message might have been worded differently;
but he would pawn his soul there had been no wrong design in it. It
might be entered, observing that objections had been made to the
offensive phrase; the necessity of which might be stated too. For
Mr. Fox, he had done his duty, and himself would do public right
to him. “I did the same justice to Mr. Pitt,” said Fox. General
Conway agreed that there had been little occasion to describe so
particularly what had passed; and he asked whether it was necessary
to enter the whole of the Message.
“The House,” said the Speaker, “may enter what it pleases; but
it is a Message sent solemnly by the King, and I never knew an
instance of overlooking it.” George Grenville went farther, and
said, he would never consent to have it entered defectively.
Beckford called the Bill so unpopular a measure, that he wished
to have it imputed to the House of Commons, not to the King, who,
he desired it might be reported, had yielded to it unwillingly,
and only for the sake of justice: Pitt he commended. Sir Francis
Dashwood, with much more sincerity, said he was glad of the Bill,
come how it would. It was gracious of the King to give room for
it, and wise of his Ministers. Fox asked, now the respite was
granted, whether it were not better to wait for a petition from the
Court-Martial before the Bill was passed? better to wait at least
till Monday for some material information, which might be hinted
in the petition. Sir Francis replied, that the very words of the
Message from the Crown were, that a respite was granted _till_
the Bill should pass. Would it be decent, after such a message,
to say we will postpone the Bill, however, till the Court-Martial
petitions? If six only of the thirteen should desire the Bill,
would you not grant it? The House cried, “No, no!”--as if it was
justice due to the consciences of an indefinite, and not of a
determined number!
Nugent said, his constant opinion had been, that the Admiral was
sentenced for error of judgment only; and the oath he thought only
a conditional one.
Fox, after refining much on the oath, said it was impossible but
at the desire of the _whole_ number, to permit some to disclose
the opinions of others. Each man might tell his own motives. At
least, let the desires of the majority be taken. He then asked if
it was proper that a set of Judges should go about for three weeks,
_hearing solicitations from the friends of the prisoner_, and then
come and complain of their own sentence? For his part, his feeling
sometimes operated upon his reason, and, he supposed, did on that
of others. See, then, whither solicitation and bribery might go.
The King desires to have his doubts cleared up--_but don’t let
this Bill go immediately to pardon_. Give way to the Bill--what
was to follow would be a subsequent consideration. The Court had
gone no farther than to acquit the Admiral of cowardice. He hoped
the Parliament would ask the King for the examination, either, to
rescind the sentence or _to order a new trial_. He had not, he
said, run away basely the day before, but from his judgment: Mr.
Keppel had told him what he meaned to do. He did not think himself
necessary to every council, and had foreseen what confusion would
follow. He had not voted against the Bill, and said, “Let Mr. Byng
die on Monday.” He _had_ gone away, his compassion struggling
with his reason. On consideration, he had returned like a man to
the hard part. If the King had felt, was it not proper he should
feel too? He begged care might be taken not to establish this
measure for a precedent; nor could it be reasonable to frame a new
Article of War, because the Court-Martial had not understood the
present. He should be for the Bill, though he would not (like Mr.
Pitt) declare that most good would follow from pardon. Hearing
a great Minister say so, he thought pardon was determined. Yet,
for himself, he should have left the merit of it to the King’s
mercy--_but now it was the act of the Minister_. He still wished
to see more grounds for the Bill. He would not require any of the
members of the Court, he would only enable such as thought fit, to
discover what had passed. Something extraordinary he would have to
conclude this extraordinary act.
The art and abilities of this speech are evident: it will be much
more difficult to discover in it _the good-nature_ he had promised
to display.
Nugent expressed his disapprobation of _two_ trials. Pitt declared
he would speak very shortly and clearly; sometimes, he owned,
he did speak too warmly. He gave much commendation to Mr. Fox’s
speech, though he did not foresee the same consequences; nor
would he decide, whether in the present instance Fox’s reason
or good-nature had got the better. He defended Mr. Keppel’s
behaviour, which had sprung from former proceedings, not from
solicitation. [For] himself, [he] did not wish the Admiral saved
out of compassion, but out of justice: “for how,” said he, “can it
be for my interest to take the part I now do?--I look only at the
sentence. Is it so necessary that he should be executed just now?”
On the other hand he would not give time for the Court-Martial
to be tampered with. Like Fox, he had wished for better grounds;
but when Mr. Keppel rose and pronounced what he did, it was
irresistible. It became the unanimous opinion of the House to
yield to his emotions. Some even would have passed the Bill that
very day. Nor had anything ever come before Parliament that almost
commanded such rapidity. “Ought not,” said he, “Mr. Byng, ought not
his family, to be put out of that cruel situation? ought not the
King? ought not the Court-Martial, some of whom were on the point
of sailing to America? Why hang this matter up for some days, in
which the fate of the nation might be decided?” There was nothing
of party in this--any number that were willing to tell, ought to be
heard: might not they want to say that they had thought themselves
bound to find error of judgment capital? To them he would have the
Article explained. He feared, if this was pending too long it might
produce riots.
Henley, the Attorney-General, endeavoured still to show that the
Bill was unnecessary, and that the members might dispense with
their oath. He suggested that the Bill might be rejected in the
other House; and asked, who was to examine the members of the
Court-Martial?
Doddington said, he had sought compassion and relief--had found
compassion even when _he_ called; but relief could only come
constitutionally through justice. The Court-Martial indeed did at
last perceive that they might have been mistaken. Were he in their
place, he should not have waited for a Bill--he should have thought
a life was to be saved at any rate.
Legge declared himself free from any bias one way or other. Had
Mr. Byng been found guilty, nobody would be more ready to condemn
him: but it appeared that _he was only a sacrifice to discipline_;
and we must not imagine that we should draw down blessings on our
Fleets by human sacrifices. He begged that, by adhering to the
letter of this Article, demonstrated to be both obscure and severe,
they would not prevent Courts-Martial from bringing in nobody
guilty.
Martin proposed that the members of the Court should be asked
directly, if they had meant error of judgment: and then, if they
thought error of judgment capital.
Lord George Sackville begged the Debate might finish, as the
longer the question was agitated, the more difficulties would be
started. Potter accordingly brought in the Bill, and it was read
the first time. Fox then asked Mr. Keppel, which of his associates
had empowered him to make the demand? He named, _Holmes_, _Norris_,
_Geary_, and _Moore_. Fox said he asked this, because it was
reported that none of the members desired to be absolved from
their oath. The Bill was read the second time. Fox said, the
King’s message prescribed a separate examination on oath; he hoped
that direction would be observed. Potter moved to proceed to the
Committee on the Bill. Lord Strange and Haldane objected; but Pitt
asking if they wished to detain Holbourn, Broderick, and Holmes at
home at so critical a time; and how they could proceed on Monday,
if their difficulties were not then stated in the Committee; it was
agreed that the Committee should immediately sit; and Fox said,
that now it was agreed to have the Bill, the sooner it should pass
the better. He moved, and was seconded by Pitt, that the members of
the Court-Martial should be examined on oath. It was then settled
that they were to disclose what they had to say only to the King
and Council: that they should only tell the motives of their own
behaviour, not those of others. George Grenville added a clause,
that they should not be obliged to speak, if not willing. The Bill
went through the Committee, and was ordered to be reported on
Monday.
It may easily be imagined what variety of passions were excited by
this extraordinary affair. Curiosity to know what black management
had left such[77] scruples on the minds of some of the Judges of
the Court-Martial, was the common and natural consequence: the
very novelty of tools of power sinking under a consciousness of
guilt, or under the conviction of having unwittingly been made
the tools of power, was sufficient to raise the utmost attention.
The few poor well-wishers of the condemned saw a gleam of truth
darting upon a prison which they had scarce ventured to incur the
odium of approaching--and if there had been such black management
(a question scarce admitting an _if_, considering all that had
preceded and all that followed) the actors in so dark a tragedy
undoubtedly did not feel the most pleasing sensations from the
illustration that now seemed unavoidable. The latter description
of men appeared to be in danger of changing unpopular situations
with the Admiral--they were soon the only satisfied class, the only
triumphant--for by the very next day after the Bill had been read
in the House of Commons, by Sunday evening it was blazed over the
town, that the four sea-officers named by Mr. Keppel disclaimed
him, and denied having empowered him to apply in their names. Mr.
Pitt was thunderstruck--and well he might: he saw what consequences
Fox would draw from this disavowal. Enquiry was made into the
truth of the report. Holmes and Geary persisted that they had not
commissioned Keppel. Sir Richard Lyttelton, an intimate friend of
the latter, applied to him, and, as Sir Richard himself told me
within an hour after he had seen Geary, begging him to consider
the injustice and dishonourableness of retracting what he had
authorized Keppel to say; he replied in these very words, “_It will
hurt my preferment to tell_.”
Can I pass over these words cursorily?--or rather, do they want
a comment? What dissertation could express more fully than
they do themselves all they contained? Who had power to stop a
sea-officer’s preferment? would it hurt his preferment to tell what
affected no[78] powerful man with guilt? Did those words imply
that he had nothing to tell? As thick a veil as was drawn over
the particulars of this transaction, can it be doubted but that
particulars there were of a heinous dye? And though Mr. Keppel’s
scruples were treated as idle, though it was asserted that he had
nothing to tell, though he saw Mr. Byng die, without telling; did
not that attention of Geary to his interest supply articulation to
Mr. Keppel’s conscience?--a fact that I shall mention presently,
when the father[79] of the man whose power Geary dreaded, asked
for a day of peculiar significance, will explain and cannot in
the nature of things be disjoined from that sagacious captain’s
conception of what interests were concerned to impose silence on
the Court-Martial.
Monday, 28th.--The Bill was reported, and Potter moved to have
it read the third time; when Fox rising, said, he heard some
information was going to be given, which ought to precede any
progress in the Bill. Holmes, a brother of one of the four, said,
he had heard something had passed on Saturday, which he supposed
the gentleman that had occasioned it would stand up and explain.
Keppel rose, and said, he had particularized the names of four,
who he understood and did believe had commissioned him to move the
House on their behalf. That Holmes had said, “Sure you mistook
me!” Another of them said the same. He argued it with them; they
persisted, and said he had mistaken: Holmes adding, “I am easy
in my mind, and desire to say nothing farther.” That he believed
it would be useless to call Mr. Holmes. That for Geary, he was
not absolutely off nor on, but should have no objection to speak
if all were compelled. For the other two, Norris and Moore, they
were desirous to abide by what they had said; that they had even
written him a letter, in which they said, “The world says we have
varied, but we desire to adhere to what we told you.” He read their
letter, in which were these words: “We do authorize you to solicit
for the Bill.” For himself, he thought his honour clear: when he
had first spoken, it was from the uneasiness of his mind. He was
told his oath did not bind him: he thought it did. If the House
would think fit to relieve him, he should be glad. When he signed
the sentence, he thought he did right--he had since been startled
at what he had done.
Thus, of the four named, two adhered: one (Geary) did not prove
that Keppel mistook him. Whether he mistook Holmes must remain a
doubt--it is scarce probable that Holmes had been very positive
against the measure: Keppel would scarce have named a man, who
was far from agreeing with him. That it will remain a doubt
too, whether there had not been unwarrantable practices in, or
even with, the Court-Martial, is the fault of those who stifled
conscientious evidence. Charity itself would grow suspicious, had
it observed all I observed; and yet I give but as suspicions what
I do not know was fact. That some wished for time to practise
afterwards on the Court-Martial; that Geary was willing to be
practised on; and that some _were_ practised on before they
appeared in the House of Lords, can, I think, never be a doubt more.
Fox assured Mr. Keppel that his character was not affected by what
Holmes and Geary had said: the Bill indeed was affected by it: yet
what he would have done for five, he would do for three; that is,
if the three would petition for it. Of the Court-Martial, seven, he
observed, were in town. Of them, Holbourn had declined to meddle;
Dennis had withdrawn from the House; Holmes declared himself easy
in his mind; Geary had desired not to speak, unless the whole
number did. Thus a majority of those in town did not approve the
Bill. He therefore desired that the three willing ones would sign
a petition, saying, in their opinions they had something to tell
material for the King’s information. If it was not material enough
to have the sentence reversed, but only that they might explain
their own motives, he should not think the Bill necessary.
Nugent said, though not one should apply, the absurdity of the
sentence was glaring enough to call for the Bill. Fox interrupted
him, speaking to order--the sentence was not before the House.
Nugent replied, every man in the House had read the sentence--could
they, who, in conscience, honour, and justice, had signed the
letter for mercy, refuse to speak if their mouths were opened?
Fox said, the sentence and letter ought first to be called for.
The sentence was on oath, the letter not. He affirmed he did not
believe they had anything material to say. Would Mr. Keppel say he
thought it material?
Velters Cornwall condemned the Bill, and said, Mr. Byng had undone
one Ministry, was going to undo another: the King had been advised
ignobly and unwisely.
Colonel John Fitzwilliam, who had never opened before in
Parliament, came with much importance and a list of questions to
examine Mr. Keppel; but they were so absurd and indecent, that
at every one the House expressed their disgust by a groan--such
were, “Had he not voted Mr. Byng to be shot because he thought
he deserved it? Did he not think so still? Would his conscience
be easier after he had spoken?”--It is sufficient to say of this
man, that his character was hateful. In the Army he was odious as
a spy and creature of the Duke. That very morning he had passed
two hours with Mr. Keppel, labouring to divert him from his
purpose. Stanley severely censured Fitzwilliam, observing that he
had put many questions to Keppel, which he was under oath not to
discover, and from which this Bill was calculated to absolve him:
and he took notice sensibly, (of what seemed to have been totally
overlooked,) that _any man who is to die, has at least a right
to know for what he is to die_. Fox urged, that the words of the
Royal Message were, “because their discovery may show the sentence
to be improper.” From Mr. Keppel’s present silence, he inferred
that there was nothing material to be discovered. He moved to call
Norris and Moore, to hear if what they had to say would affect
the sentence. But Sir Francis Dashwood objected, that this was
the very question which the House was passing the Bill in order to
have answered. Mr. Keppel (who Mr. Fox might have suspected had had
other solicitations than from the _relations_ of the Admiral) rose,
and said, he would explain himself as fully as he could:--when he
signed, he thought he did right--he would go further--no, he had
better not--had uneasiness, or would never have signed the letter
of intercession--the explanation of the Article has increased his
inquietude--he had rather it should be thought poor weakness than
a desire of giving trouble. He concluded with these words: “_I do
think my desire of being at liberty does imply something great, and
what his Majesty should know._” The House was struck:--Fox said,
“I am satisfied. Afterwards I shall propose means to prevent such
Bills for the future.”
Charles Townshend, who had taken no part hitherto, and who had
followed Mr. Pitt into a system built on the ruin of Mr. Fox, said,
to the surprise of everybody, that he had intended to second Fox,
but was content too. He congratulated the House on obtaining these
grounds for their proceedings by Mr. Fox’s means. His brother,
offended at this wonderful declaration, told him, if he had been
present the first day, he would not have wanted those grounds.
Charles appealed to the House, if first, second, or third day, they
had been so fully explained. Pitt, still more provoked, said,
with the utmost contempt, and with the most marked accent, no man
of common sense or common integrity could say this matter had been
opened on any other foundation--yet he wished Charles Townshend joy
that _his conscience_ was made easy. But how did it appear that the
King was so misinformed? “May I,” added Pitt, “fall when I refuse
pity to such a suit as Mr. Keppel’s, justifying a man who lies in
captivity and the shadow of death! I thank God, I feel something
more than popularity; I feel justice!” The Message, he owned, had
been disorderly, and he was under correction for it, yet it was
strict truth. For this attack, it went to the very veracity of a
man: but he did not, like Fox and Townshend, go upon hearsay. For
his part, if his country were safe that day twelvemonth, he should
pray that Mr. Fox might be in his place, nor would he use those
miserable arts that are employed to prop a wretched station. He
congratulated the House on that act of necessary justice. His equal
wish was, that Mr. Byng might live or die to the satisfaction of
the nation.
Fox, sneering and insulting, said, he was glad Mr. Pitt had heard
commendations of him from Mr. Charles Townshend[80]--indeed they
had a little ruffled Mr. Pitt’s temper. By his wishing to continue
in the Administration for a twelvemonth, he seemed to think he
_could_ save this country. For himself, he had not been driven
out; he had had reasons for retiring. Since, had he obstructed
any public measure? Had _he_, _totidem verbis_, _proposed_ some
questions that had been _opposed_ last year, they would have
been opposed again: he had chosen rather to retire; and in the
distressed situation of his country, would not oppose; unless he
saw measures carried on destructive to England, or distressful
to his Majesty. His own consistence should be _literal_, lest
afterwards he should not have parts enough to show it was
_substantial_--indeed, he had never understood a Court.
The Speaker observed, that two-thirds of what both had said, was
nothing to the question. Pitt replied, that he was surprised at
being coupled with Mr. Fox, who had spoken five times, he but
once--yet Fox had not been suppressed. “Could I,” said he, “sit
silent under the accusation of misinforming the King?” The Speaker
vindicated himself, talked of his unbiassed impartiality and
integrity; and the Bill passed, Cornwall dividing the House with 22
more against 153; and it was sent to the Lords.
FOOTNOTES:
[76] Indeed they could not with much consistence condemn him of
neglect, after they had previously and unanimously voted the
following resolution, which was their 25th:
“The Court are of opinion, that while the Ramillies (the Admiral’s
own ship) was firing in going down, the Trident and ships
immediately ahead of the Ramillies proved an impediment to the
Ramillies continuing to go down.”
It was proved, too, beyond contradiction, that he could not foresee
that the French fleet would not stay for him, as they remained with
their sails aback to the mast; and that he must have been up with
them in ten or fifteen minutes, if the impediment had not happened
from the Trident and Princess Louisa.
[77] I do not mean to say that none of the Judges on the
Court-Martial had really been convinced that by the severity of
the law they could not acquit the Admiral, though they thought him
guilty of only a momentary error of judgment.
[78] I say, _powerful man_, not _man in power_, for Lord Hardwicke,
Lord Anson, the Duke of Newcastle, &c., were not then in place--but
them Geary must have meant, for he could not fear disobliging Mr.
Pitt and Lord Temple by speaking out, when it was his silence that
prejudiced them. It was plain Geary thought, what happened so soon
afterwards, that the command of the Admiralty would still be in
Lord Anson.
[79] [Lord Hardwicke. Lord Anson had married his daughter. It must,
however, be admitted, that our author’s language in this passage is
as obscure as his reasoning is unfair and inconclusive.--E.]
[80] Mr. Pitt, loud enough to be heard by half the House, cried
out, “I wish you joy of him.”