thinking her the finest child he had ever seen.  She is become of that age when it is necessary to remove her from a mere nurse and to think of educating her....  I shall tell you, my dear Emma, more of this matter when I come to England, but I am now anxious for the child’s being placed under your protecting wing.”  With this letter (or, possibly, with another written the same day) was found an enclosure, undated and unsigned, but in Nelson’s handwriting.  “My beloved, how I feel for your situation and that of our dear Horatia, our dear child...."[21]

The indifference to incidental consequences which was shown by Nelson, when once he had decided upon a course of action, was part of his natural, as well as of his more distinctively military character; but in this connection with Lady Hamilton he must have felt intuitively that not only her reputation—­which probably was his first care—­was involved, but his own also.  The hospitality, the attention, the friendship, extended to him at Naples and Palermo, were not from Lady Hamilton only but from her husband also, in whose house he lived, and who to the end, so far as the records show, professed for him unbounded esteem and confidence.  This confidence had been betrayed, and the strongest line of argument formerly advanced, by those who disputed Lady Hamilton’s being the mother of the child, has become now Nelson’s severest condemnation.

“However great was Nelson’s infatuation,” says Sir Harris Nicolas, “his nice sense of honour, his feelings of propriety, and his love of truth, were unquestionable.  Hence, though during a long separation from his wife on the public service in the Mediterranean, he so far yielded to temptation as to become the father of a child, it is nevertheless difficult to believe that he should for years have had a criminal intercourse with the wife of a man of his own rank, whom he considered as his dearest friend, who placed the greatest confidence in his honour and virtue, and in whose house he was living.  Still more difficult is it to believe, even if this had been the case, that he should not only have permitted every one of his relations, male and female,—­his wife, his father, his brothers, his brothers-in-law, his two sisters, and all their daughters,—­to visit and correspond with her, but even have allowed three of his nieces to live for a considerable time with her; have ostentatiously and frequently written and spoken of her ‘virtuous and religious’ character,—­holding her up as an example to his family; have appointed her the sole guardian of his child; have avowedly intended to make her his wife; have acted upon every occasion as if the purity of their intimacy was altogether free from suspicion; and in the last written act of his life have solemnly called upon his country to reward and support her.  An honourable and conscientious man rarely acts thus towards his mistress....  Moreover, Nelson’s most intimate friends, including the Earl of St. Vincent, who called them ‘a pair of sentimental fools,’ Dr. Scott, his Chaplain, and Mr. Haslewood, were of the same opinion; and Southey says, ’there is no reason to believe that this most unfortunate attachment was criminal.’”