Sir Edward Hawke and Admiral Saunders were ordered to supersede Mr. Byng, whom they were instructed to send home under arrest. By this time the popular clamour and indignation were so extremely violent that government were afraid some of it would be directed against themselves unless they placed it beyond doubt that they were resolved to proceed against Mr. Byng without the least delay, and in the most rigorous manner. The admiral landed at Portsmouth. At every place that he passed through he was hooted by the mob. On the road to Greenwich Hospital, where he was to remain until his trial, he was guarded as if he had been guilty of the most heinous crime, while that part of the hospital where he was confined was most scrupulously and carefully fortified, the government taking care that all their precautions to prevent his escape should be made known. On December 27th, 1756, the court martial assembled on board the _St. George_ in Portsmouth Harbour, and on January 15th, 1757, the evidence concluded. The opinion of the court was that "the admiral did not do his utmost to relieve the garrison of St. Philip, and that during the engagement he did not do his utmost to take, seize, and destroy the ships of the French king, and assist such of his own ships as were engaged." They therefore came to the following resolution:-- "That the admiral appears to fall under the following part of the twelfth article of the articles of war, viz.--'or shall not do his utmost to take or destroy every ship which it shall be his duty to engage, and to assist and relieve all and every of His Majesty's ships which it shall be his duty to assist and relieve': and as that article positively prescribes death, without any alternative left to the discretion of the court, under any variation of circumstances, resolved that he be adjudged to be shot to death at such time, and on board such ship, as the lords commissioners of the Admiralty shall direct; but as it appears by the evidence of Lord Robert Bertie, Lieutenant-colonel Smith, Captain Gardiner, and other officers of the ship, who were near the person of the admiral, that they did not perceive any backwardness in him during the action, or any marks of fear or confusion, either from his countenance or behaviour, but that he seemed to give his orders coolly and distinctly and did not seem wanting in personal courage, and from other circumstances the court do not believe that his misconduct arose either from cowardice or disaffection, and do therefore unanimously think it their duty most earnestly to recommend him as a proper object of mercy." Not only in their resolution did the court martial recommend him to mercy, but in the letter which accompanied a copy of their proceedings to the board of Admiralty they expressed themselves strongly to the same effect.