A question of honour? The trial of Admiral John Byng

On 14th March 1757 a detachment of Royal Marines conducted an execution by firing squad aboard HMS Monarch in the Solent; the prisoner was the Hon. John Byng, Admiral of the Blue.  A year earlier Byng had been ordered to relieve Minorca, a British possession since 1708 which was of great strategic value in Great Britain's on again, off again conflicts with France, a tradition since 1066 (and all that). Unfortunately, due to another fine British tradition, the Royal Navy had been subject to defence cuts since the 1740s and was not prepared for what was to become the first global war. Britain would follow this tradition in each of the global conflicts that followed. 

Outnumbered, outgunned, lacking sufficient marines to break the siege of Port Mahon, the capital of Minorca, Byng sailed forth. On the 20th May 1756 Byng fought an indecisive engagement off the coast of Minorca during which the fleet suffered significant damage. Although Byng remained in situ he still lacked ground forces to break the siege. After four days a council of war voted unanimously to withdraw to Gibraltar. Shortly thereafter a furious Admiralty, no doubt conscious of their culpability for Britain's readiness for war, recalled Byng to England, arrested and charged with a breach of Article 12 of the Articles of War. 

What followed aboard HMS St George was one of the most sensational courts-martial in history. Under enormous political and public pressure, the court-martial determined that Byng had not shown cowardice but had 'failed to do his utmost'  and sentenced him to death, the only sentence available. The King, George II, declined to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy and Byng fell 'a martyr to political persecution' according to his tomb. Voltaire uttered the immortal line 'pour encourager les autres' and a fierce debate began, which rages to this day as the to the legal, ethical and military legitimacy of the conviction and sentence. More ink has been spilt to defend or damn Byng in the intervening centuries than blood at Minorca. 

Alexander Kent, a student reading for an MA at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, had recently added to the debate from a very different angle with a dissertation considering 'How Honour influenced the Court Martial and Execution of Admiral John Byng'. Kent's thesis is that each party in the trial and the ultimate authority, the King were guided in the decisions they made by their own considerations of Honour. Ultimately, he suggests, the Court Martial was an effort to repair and protect the honour of those involved. 

Kent's work is an interesting reconsideration of what remains an important topic even after all this time. Whatever the legalities of the proceedings and the motives of the participants the story of Adm Byng continues to influence, perhaps unknowingly the Royal Navy and the military justice systems which grew from the Articles of War. Perhaps fatally for Byng he failed to pursue the withdrawing French fleet after the Battle of Minorca, albeit for sound reasons. However, almost ever since the Royal Navy has had a much more aggressive approach embodied by Nelson who was born the year after Byng's death. I recall from my own undergraduate work the fates of HMS Glowworm and HMS Jervis Bey, who went into action in conditions far more disadvantageous than Byng faced. Additionally, the Royal Navy's attitude to military justice system is often (in this author's experience) sterner than other services. One judge advocate with a naval background, who shall remain nameless, commenting that what we need is "quick, dirty justice". 

Kent has a lot to cover in this dissertation in order to bring to the reader the complexities of the naval situation, the political scene and notions of honour starkly different to those of our own age and he manages a fine overview. It would have been good to have more detail in relation to some of the facets of his thesis, particularly Byng's decision not to contest parts of the prosecution case on grounds of honour, a notion entirely foreign to this defence advocate. Honour is of course a very difficult term to define but on occasion there appeared a number of unsupported assertions. Although that probably displays the reader's ignorance rather than anything else. It is an interesting addition to the ongoing debate around the Byng case and a useful reminder to those who practice in the courts-martial which come after Byng to continue to re-examine the shared roots of our systems in order to guard against assumption and tradition for tradition's sake...fiat justitia ruat caelum.