be amply provided with the sinews of war. The British cavalry, under Colonel Floyd, was now in so weak a state that they were sent to recover their strength and numbers in the Carnatic, till the army was again in readiness to march towards the garrison of Seringapatam; and the exertions of the Colonel and officers commanding regiments of light cavalry were certainly highly meritorious. It was now generally admitted, that our victories were of little value, when unsupported by a respectable body of horse to follow the enemy after his defeat.

(To be continued.)

THE SWORD.

"TWAS the battle-field, and the cold pale moon
Looked down on the dead and dying,

And the wind pass'd o'er, with a dirge and a wail,
Where the young and the brave were lying.

With his father's sword in his red right hand,

And the hostile dead around him,

Lay a youthful chief; but his bed was the ground,
And the grave's icy sleep had bound him,

A reckless rover, 'mid death and doom,
Pass'd a soldier, his plunder seeking;
Careless he stept where friend and foe
Lay alike in their life-blood reeking.

Drawn by the shrine of the warrior's sword,
The soldier paused beside it;

He wrench'd the hand with a giant's strength,
But the grasp of the dead defied it.

He loosed his hold, and his English heart

Took part with the dead before him,

And he honor'd the brave who died sword in hand,
As with soften'd brow he leant o'er him.

"A soldier's death thou hast boldly died,

A soldier's grave won by it;

Before I would take that sword from thine hand,
My own life's blood should dye it.

"Thou shalt not be left for the carrion crow,
Or the wolf to batten o'er thee;
Or the coward insult the gallant dead,
Who in life had trembled before thee!"

Then dug he a grave in the crimson earth
Where his warrior foe was sleeping;
And he laid him there in honor and rest,
With his sword in his own brave keeping.

VOL. III.

L. E. L.

EXTRACTS FROM NAVAL HISTORY.-No. II.

Courts-Martial.

WE purpose confining this paper solely to one subject, and shall be guided in our selection by the peculiarity of the cases, as likely to establish precedents for future occasions.

The following is given as having involved two questions which are now set at rest; 1st. Whether a peer is amenable to trial by court-martial; and, 2dly. As to the power of the Lords of the Admiralty :

The Earl of Torrington in the Year 1690.

A difficulty arose in the manner of bringing Lord Torrington to trial. The king seemed determined that it should be by court-martial; but the Earl's friends maintained that he ought to be tried by his peers. A doubt was also started as to the power of the Lords of the Admiralty. It was admitted that the Lord High Admiral of England might have issued a commission for trying him; yet it was questioned whether any such authority was lodged in the Commissioners of the Admiralty; and although some great lawyers gave their opinion in the affirmative, still it was judged expedient to settle so important a point by authority of parliament. A new law was accordingly made declarative of the power of the Commissioners of the Admiralty. Immediately after the passing of this act, the Commissioners directed a court-martial to be held for the trial of the Earl of Torrington, and on the 10th of December it assembled on board the Kent frigate, at Sheerness. His lordship, who is stated to have defended himself with great clearness of reason, and with extraordinary composure of mind, was unanimously acquitted.

Admirals Matthews and Lestock, 1745.

The only peculiarity in this case is the circumstance of the House of Commons having addressed his Majesty to the following effect:

"That he would be graciously pleased to give directions that a courtmartial may be held, in the most speedy and solemn manner, to inquire into the conduct of Admiral Matthews, Vice Admiral Lestock, Captains Purnish, Norris, Williams, Ambrose, Frogmore, and Dilke, in and relating to the late engagement between his Majesty's fleet and the combined fleets of France and Spain off Toulon, and to try them for the same."

In consequence of this address, his Majesty issued orders to the Board of Admiralty to assemble courts-martial as soon as possible, which was complied with.

Stat. 2 William and Mary, sess. 2. chap. 11, on the Articles of War relative to Courts-martial.

Whilst the court-martial on Admiral Lestock was sitting, a very singular circumstance is stated to have happened, namely, the arrest of the President (Rear Admiral Mayne), by virtue of a writ of capias, issued out of the Court of Common Pleas, in consequence of a verdict which had been obtained by Lieutenant Fry, of the Marines, against the Rear Admiral and others, for false imprisonment and ill treatment in the West Indies, by means of an illegal sentence passed by a court-martial against him, of which they were members.

The court were highly offended at their President being arrested; and, without considering the superiority of the civil court, entered into resolutions which were very severe and disrespectful against the Lord Chief Justice; these, with a remonstrance, were forwarded to the Lords of the Admiralty. Their lordships laid the proceedings of the court-martial before his Majesty, who ordered the Duke of Newcastle to write as follows to the Lords of the Admiralty, viz. :

"That His Majesty expressed great displeasure at the insult offered to the Court-Martial, by which the military discipline of the navy is so much affected; and the King highly disapproves of the behaviour of Lieut. Fry on the occasion. His Majesty has it under consideration what steps it may be advisable to be taken on this incident."

The Chief Justice no sooner heard of the resolutions of the court-martial than he caused each individual member to be arrested, and was proceeding legally to assert and maintain the authority of his office, when the process was stopped by the following submissive apology being sent to the Lord Chief Justice, signed by the President and all the members of the court:

"As nothing is more becoming a gentleman than to acknowledge himself to be in the wrong as soon as he is sensible he is so, and to be ready to make satisfaction to any person he has injured; we, therefore, whose names are under written, being thoroughly convinced that we were entirely mistaken in the opinion we had conceived of Lord Chief Justice Wilkes, think ourselves obliged in honor, as well as justice, to make him satisfaction as far as it is in our power. And, as the injury we did him was of a public nature, we do in this public manner declare that we are now satisfied that the reflection cast upon him in our resolutions of the 16th and 21st May last, were unjust, unwarrantable, and without any foundation whatsoever; and we do ask pardon of his lordship, and of the Court of Common Pleas, for the indignity offered both to him and the court."

1749. This year the Admiralty were first authorized by Act of Parliament to grant commissions to flag officers or commanders-in-chief abroad, to assemble courts-martial in foreign parts.

Admiral Keppel, 1778.

On the 15th of this year, a bill was passed, on a motion

made by Admiral Pigot, for the above court-martial to be permitted to sit on shore.

The trial of Admiral Bing, in 1757, must be in the recollection of most of our readers; but there are so many peculiarities about it, and it is in itself so highly interesting, that it would be unpardonable to pass it over in a paper of this kind, which is meant for the young, not for the experienced. The court first assembled on the 27th Dec. 1756, ViceAdmiral Thomas Smith* being President, and continued to sit until the 28th Feb., when, on summing up the evidence, it appeared to the court, that Admiral Bing had fallen under the following clause of the 12th Article of War:

"Or shall not do his utmost to take or destroy every ship which it shall be his duty to engage; and assist and relieve all and every of His Majesty's ships which it shall be his duty to assist and relieve."

This article of war left no discretional power in the court, as it expresses, "that every person so offending, and being convicted thereof by the sentence of the court-martial, shall suffer death." The court, therefore, adjudged Admiral Bing to be shot to death, but recommended him to mercy, it appearing by the evidence of Captain Gardiner, and other officers, who were near the admiral's person, during the action, that he did not show the least sign of cowardice or disaffection, but gave his orders with the greatest firmness and resolution.

The legality of the sentence was referred to the twelve judges, who were of opinion that it was legal, upon which it was ordered to be put into execution; but some of the members expressing a desire to be released from their oath, having something to disclose, relative to the sentence, which greatly affected their consciences, a respite was granted for a fortnight, and his Majesty signifying his desire that a bill should be passed for that purpose, both houses of parliament complied with it. Several members of the court-martial were accordingly examined upon oath, at the bar of the House of Commons. The question put to them was,

"Whether they were of opinion that they had some particulars to reveal, relative to the case of Admiral Bing, and the sentence passed upon him, which they judged necessary for his Majesty's information, and which they thought likely to incline his Majesty to mercy."

The following circumstance has been mentioned respecting Admiral Smith, who was generally known in the service by the name of Tom of Ten Thousand. When he was a Lieutenant on board the Gosport in Plymouth Sound and her Captain on shore, Mr. Smith directed a shot to be fired at a French frigate, which, on passing, had neglected to pay the usual compliment to the flag. The French Captain considering this as an insult offered to his flag, lodged a complaint against Mr. Smith, who was tried by a court-martial and dismissed the service. His spirited conduct was, however, so much approved of by the nation, that he was promoted at once to the rank of Post Captain.

Three of the members declining to make any answer to this question, the house unanimously rejected the bill. Orders were then given to carry the sentence into execution, and Admiral Bing was accordingly shot on board the Monarch, in Portsmouth Harbour, the 14th March, 1757.

Admiral Forbes, who was at this time a Lord of the Admiralty, is stated to have refused to sign Admiral Bing's death warrant, for the following manly reason:

"It may be thought great presumption in me to differ from so great an authority as that of the twelve judges; but when a man is called upon to sign his name to an act which is to give authority to the shedding of blood, he ought to be guided by his own conscience, and not by the opinions of other

men.

"In the case before us, it is not the merit of Admiral Bing I consider. Whether he deserves death or not is not a question for me to decide, but whether his life can be taken away by the sentence pronounced upon him by the court-martial, and after having so clearly explained their motives for pronouncing such a sentence, is a point alone which has employed my serious consideration.

"The 12th Article of War, on which Admiral Bing's sentence is grounded, says (according to my understanding of its meaning), That every person who, in time of action, shall withdraw, keep back, or not come into fight, or who shall not do his utmost, &c., through motives of cowardice, negligence, or disaffection, shall suffer death.' The court-martial does, in express words, acquit Admiral Bing of cowardice and disaffection, and does not name the word negligence. Admiral Bing does not, as I conceive, fall under the letter or description of the 12th Article of War. It may be said that negligence is implied, though the word is not mentioned, otherwise the court-martial would not have brought his offence under the 12th Article, having acquitted him of cowardice and disaffection; but it must be acknowledged that the negligence implied cannot be wilful negligence,-for wilful negligence in Admiral Bing's situation, must have either proceeded from cowardice or disaffection, and he is expressly acquitted of both these crimes. Besides, these crimes, which are implied only, and not named, may indeed justify suspicion and private opinion, but cannot satisfy the conscience in case of blood.

"Admiral Bing's fate was referred to a court-martial; his life and death were left to their opinions. The court-martial condemned him to death because, as they expressly say, they were under the necessity of doing so by reason of the letter of the law, the severity of which they complained of, be cause it admits of no mitigation. The court-martial expressly say that, for the sake of their consciences, as well as in justice to the prisoner, they most earnestly recommend him to his Majesty's mercy. It is evident, then, that, in the opinion and consciences of the judges, he was not deserving of death. "The question then is, shall the opinions, or the necessities, of the courtmartial determine Admiral Bing's fate? If it should be the latter, he will be executed contrary to the instructions and meaning of the judges; if the former, his life is not forfeited. His judges declare him not worthy of death; but mistaking either the meaning of the law, or the nature of his offence, they bring him under an article of war which, according to their own description of his offence, he does not, I conceive, fall under; and then they condemn him to death because, as they say, the law admits of no mitigation. Can a man's life be taken away by such a sentence?-I would not willingly be misunderstood, and have it supposed that I judge of Admiral Bing's deserts. This was the business of a court-martial, and it is my duty to act according to my conscience, which, after deliberate consideration, assisted by the best