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?