This complicated and difficult path of deception had to be trod, because the offence was not one of common error, readily pardoned if discovered, but because the man betrayed, whatever his faults otherwise, had shown both the culprits unbounded confidence and kindness, and upon the woman, at least, had been led by his love to confer a benefit which neither should have forgotten.

FOOTNOTES: 

[6] The Paget Papers, vol. i. pp. 253, 257.

[7] British minister to Tuscany.

[8] There were some Neapolitan frigates in Leghorn, but the royal family were never willing to trust them.

[9] Life of Lord Minto, vol. iii. pp. 147-150.

[10] Malmesbury’s Memoirs, vol, ii. p. 24.

[11] Mrs. St. George’s description of Lady Hamilton has already been given, ante, vol. i. p. 380.

[12] Miss Knight mentions the same ceremony occurring in Vienna.

[13] Life of Lord Minto, vol. iii. pp. 242-243.

[14] This letter, with another, appears in the Alfred Morrison “Collection of Autograph Letters” (Nos. 472, 473).  It is purposely given entire, except immaterial postscripts.

[15] Table-Talk of Samuel Rogers.

[16] The author is indebted to Prof.  J. Knox Laughton for some extracts from Hotham’s diary.

[17] Beckford’s Memoirs, London, 1859, vol. ii. p. 127.

[18] Locker’s Greenwich Gallery, article “Torrington.”

[19] Nicolas, vol. ii. p. 353.  The present writer believes this lady to have been Lady Berry, wife of Nelson’s flag-captain, who gave Nicolas much of his information.

[20] The author is indebted for this anecdote to Mrs. F.H.B.  Eccles, of Sherwell House, Plymouth, the daughter of the “little Fan” who told it.

[21] Morrison.  The Hamilton and Nelson Papers, Nos. 777, 778, 779.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE EXPEDITION TO THE BALTIC AND BATTLE OF COPENHAGEN.—­NELSON RETURNS TO ENGLAND.

FEBRUARY—­JUNE, 1801.  AGE, 42.

The trouble between Great Britain and Denmark, which now called Nelson again to the front, leading to the most difficult of his undertakings, and, consequently, to the most distinguished of his achievements, arose about the maritime rights of neutrals and belligerents.  The contention was not new.  In 1780 the Baltic States, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, being neutrals in the war then raging, had combined to assert, by arms, if necessary, certain claims advanced by them to immunity from practices which international law had hitherto sanctioned, or concerning which it had spoken ambiguously.  These claims Great Britain had rejected, as contrary to her rights and interests; but, being then greatly outnumbered, she temporized until the end of the war, which left her in possession of the principles at stake, although she had forborne to enforce them offensively.  The coalition of the Baltic States, at that time, received the name of the Armed Neutrality.