“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.” The sentence was accompanied by the following earnest representation:-- “To the right honourable the Lords Commissioners for executing the office of Lord High Admiral of Great Britain, &c. “We, the underwritten, the President and Members of the Court-Martial assembled for the trial of Admiral Byng, believe it unnecessary to inform your Lordships, that in the whole course of this long trial, we have done our utmost endeavour to come at truth, and to do the strictest justice to our country, and the prisoner; but we cannot help laying the distresses of our minds before your Lordships on this occasion, in finding ourselves under a necessity of condemning a man to death, from the great severity of the twelfth Article of War, part of which he falls under, and which admits of no mitigation, even if the crime should be committed by an error in judgment only; and therefore, for our own consciences sakes, 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. “We are, my Lords, &c. &c.” Signed by the whole Court. From this sentence and this letter, it appears that Mr. Byng was acquitted, in the fullest manner, of cowardice, by men who (to say the best of them) were too scrupulous to acquit of a crime of which they thought him guilty, when they imagined it was their duty to condemn him for another crime, of which, it seems, they did not think him guilty. For thus unbiassed posterity will undoubtedly judge of those men. If there was any meaning in their strange procedure, it must have been this:--They thought the Admiral guilty of an error in judgment; and as from an error in judgment he had not performed all they supposed he might have done, they held him to blame--and then, believing that the Article of War intended to inflict death on all kinds of blame, they considered under what chapter of blame to rank Mr. Byng’s error. _Disaffection_ it was not, _cowardice_ it was not; the Article named but a third species, and that being _neglect_, these honest men agreed that a want of judgment was nearest related to _neglect_, and for that condemned him.