The benighted policy of keeping in power a mawkish Sicilian Court,
saturated with the incurable vices of cowardice, falsehood,
dishonesty, and treachery, failed; and the Government of the day was
saddled with the crime of squandering human life, wealth, and energy
without receiving any commensurate return. If it was in the national
interest to involve the country in war with France, it could have
been carried on with greater credit and effect by not undertaking the
hopeless task of bolstering up a Court and a people that were openly
described by our own people who were sent to fight for them as "odious
damned cowards and villains." We had no _real_ grounds of quarrel with
France nor with her rulers. The Revolution was their affair, and was
no concern of ours, except in so far as it might harmfully reflect on
us, and of this there was no likelihood if we left them alone. The
plea of taking the balance of power under our benevolent care was a
sickly exhibition of statesmanship, and the assumption of electing
ourselves guardians of the rights of small nations mere cant. It was,
in fact, the canker of jealousy and hatred on the part of the
reactionary forces against a man, a principle, and a people.
Had those who governed this country then held aloof from the imbroglio
created by the French Revolution, observed a watchful, conciliatory
spirit of neutrality towards the French Government, and allowed the
Continental Powers to adjust their own differences, the conditions of
human existence and the hurtful administration of autocratic
governments would have been reconstituted, and the world would have
been the better for it; instead of which we helped to impose on Europe
twenty years of slaughter and devastation. Our dismal, plutocratic
rulers, with solemn enthusiasm, plunged England with all her power and
influence on the side of Prussia and her continental allies, and, in
conjunction with the Holy Alliance, pledged themselves never to lay
down arms until France was mutilated and the master-mind which ruled
her beaten and dethroned. Their task was long, costly, and gruesome.
What a ghastly legacy those aggressively righteous champions of
international rights have bequeathed to the world! But for their folly
and frenzy we should not be engaged in a European war to-day. Poor
Napoleon! He foreshadowed and used his gigantic genius to prevent it;
now the recoil has come. There are always more flies caught by treacle
than by vinegar, a policy quite as efficacious in preventing
international quarrels as it is in the smaller affairs of our
existence, provided the law which governs the fitness of things is
well defined.
Had we approached Napoleon in a friendly spirit and on equal terms,
without haughty condescension, he would have reciprocated our
cordiality and put proper value on our friendship. By wisdom and tact
the duration of Napoleon's wars would have been vastly shortened, and
both nations would have been saved from the errors that were
committed. We did not do this, and we are now reaping the consequence.
It is hardly to be expected that if hostility be shown towards an
individual or a nation either will mildly submit to it. Who can
estimate the passionate resentment of an emotional people at Nelson's
constant declamatory outbursts against the French national character,
and the effect it had throughout France?
An affront to a nation, even though it is made by a person in a
subordinate position, may bring about far-reaching trouble. Reverse
the position of the traducer of a prominent man or his nation, and it
will be easy to arrive at a correct conclusion as to the temper that
would be aroused, say, in this country. We know that during a war
passions are let loose and charges made by the combatants against each
other which are usually exaggerated, but one thing is certain, that
our soldiers and sailors have always had the well-deserved reputation
of being the cleanest fighters in the world. There have never been
finer examples of this than during the present war. But in justice to
ourselves and to the French during the Napoleonic wars, I think it was
grossly impolitic to engender vindictiveness by unjustifiable
acrimony. Up to the time that Nelson left the Mediterranean for
England, except for the brilliant successes of the Nile and the
equally brilliant capture of the balance of the French Mediterranean
fleet, and subsequently the capitulation of Malta on the 5th
September, 1800, our share in the war was an exhausting and fruitless
failure.
The responsibility for this clearly lies at the door of the Government
who planned it, and in no way attaches to Nelson and his coadjutors,
whose naval and also shore exploits could not be excelled. First, it
was a blink-eyed policy that plunged us into the war at all; and
secondly, it was the height of human folly to waste our resources in
the erroneous belief that the highly trained military men of France
could be permanently subjugated in the Mediterranean by the cowardly,
treacherous villains of which the Roman States armies and Governments
were composed. History is not altogether faithful to the truth in its
honeyed records of the ministerial pashas who tranquilly increased the
national debt, inflicted unspeakable horrors on the population, and
smirched our dignity by entering into a costly bond of brotherhood
with an inveterate swarm of hired bloodsucking weasels. Such,
forsooth! was the mental condition of the wooden souls who managed the
nation's affairs, that they allowed Nelson to add another blot to our
national history escutcheon by taking Ferdinand Bourbon's throne under
his protection. It is true that Ferdinand "did not wish that his
benefactor's name should alone descend with honour to posterity," or
that he should "appear ungrateful." So the Admiral was handsomely
rewarded by being presented with the Dukedom of Bronte and a
diamond-hilted sword which had been given to the King by his father
when he became Sicilian King. It would be nonsense even to suspect
Nelson of accepting either gifts or titles as a bribe to sacrifice any
interest that was British.
Nelson's devotion to the Court did not express itself by seeking
material recompense for the services bestowed on their Sicilian
Majesties. There were various reasons for his elaborate and silly
attentions. First, his range of instructions were wide in a naval
sense; second, his personal attachment to the King and his Consort
(especially his Consort), for reasons unnecessary to refer to again,
became a growing fascination and a ridiculous craze. His fanatical
expressions of dislike to the French are merely a Nelsonian way
of conveying to the world that the existence of so dangerous a
race should be permissive under strictly regulated conditions.
He had a solemn belief in his own superiority and that of his
fellow-countrymen. All the rest were to him mere human scrap, and his
collection of epithets for them was large and varied. His Mogul air in
the presence of aliens was traditionally seamanlike. If they failed
to shudder under his stern look and gleaming eyes, it affected
him with displeasure and contempt. The Neapolitans were fulsomely
accommodating, though Nelson, except from the Court party and a few
nobles, does not appear to have attached much value to their servile
tokens of appreciation. It cannot be said that either Nelson, his
Government, or his country were in any way rewarded by the sacrifices
made ostensibly in the interests of human rights. Under Ferdinand
Bourbon, the Neapolitan States and Sicily had no settled government.
He was a contemptible poltroon, whose throne was supported for years
by British money, men, and ships, and even with our strong support; he
was alternately fleeing to Sicily and returning again under the
formidable protection of British frigates, and, like all perfidious
cowards, his short intervals of government were distinguished by a
despotism that soon made it necessary for him to fly from the feelings
of vengeance he had called out.
Not even the power of Great Britain could prevent the kingdom of
Naples from passing from one vicissitude into another. The French took
possession of it in January 1799, and established what they called the
Parthenopean Republic. Nelson helped to retake it in June of the same
year, and put the itinerant King on the throne. The Neapolitans
occupied Rome on the 30th September, 1799. In October 1805 a treaty of
neutrality between France and Naples was carried into effect.
Ferdinand fled to Sicily again on the 23rd January of the next year,
when the master-mind came to close quarters and put an end, as I have
previously stated, to Ferdinand's kingship and tyrannical rule by
placing his brother Joseph on the throne; two years later Joseph
became King of Spain, and his brother-in-law, Joachim Murat, succeeded
him as ruler of Naples. The Neapolitans were never better governed
than during the reign of these two kings. Many wise laws were made and
enforced by a just and rigid discipline. Incompetent, weak despotism
had disappeared, and any attempt at licence was promptly subdued. The
people were put through a course of transforming education, and
gradually became law-abiding citizens. Even then, methods of carrying
on commerce took a marked change for the better, and predatory habits
were relaxed into comparative honesty, not, it may be supposed, from
virtue, but from fear of the inevitable, harsh consequences. The
public, in a general way, quickly distinguish between a strong,
capable ruler and a weak, incompetent one; and no matter how
indulgent the latter may be, they prefer the strong wholesome-minded
man to the mediocrity.
Ferdinand had none of the qualities that are essential to a man
occupying a position of authority. When the French came to take over
the government of Naples, he flew, as usual, to Sicily, and under the
continuous protection of British men-of-war was with great difficulty
kept reigning there until the end of war, when he was again put on the
throne of Naples in 1815, and forthwith commenced again his rule of
incompetency and despotism, reversing the beneficent rule of his two
able predecessors. The old reprobate died on the 4th January, 1825,
having reigned off and on for sixty-five years, largely owing to the
indulgent and costly support of the British Government.
Caroline died on the 7th September, 1814, and to her abiding credit
she condemned the action of the Court of Vienna for severing the bond
of union between the Emperor Napoleon and her granddaughter, Marie
Louise. She declared vehemently that it was the duty of the latter to
break the prohibition by assuming disguise and tie her bed-sheets
together and lower herself out of the window, and make her way
quickly, in face of all obstacles, to where her husband was. Marie
Louise was not a lady of unyielding morals, and at that particular
time her Hapsburg, licentious mind was not centred on the misfortunes
of her husband, but on Neipperg, who was employed to seduce her.
Caroline told Baron Claude François de Meneval, Napoleon's private
secretary, that she had reason at one time to dislike the Emperor, but
now that adversity had come to him, she forgot the past.
Had this same spirit of rightness and wisdom been adopted by Marie
Louise's father and his allies, as was so nobly advocated by the
sister of Marie Antoinette, there would have been a clean sheet in
history about them, though it is obvious in many quarters that the
historians have extended all the arts of ambiguity and delusion to
make them appear flawless benefactors. Therefore one has to take all
the circumstances handed down from many varied sources, reliable and
unreliable, and after mature thought form conclusions as one's
judgment may direct as to the merits and demerits of every phase that
is recorded. Hence exhaustive research and long-reasoned views lead me
definitely to the conclusion that there is not much that we can put to
the credit of either their wisdom or humanity. My plain opinion is
that they acted ferociously, and although always in the name of the
Son of God, that can never absolve them from the dark deeds that stand
to their names. Nor is it altogether improbable that all the nations
that were concerned in the dreadful assassination are now paying the
natural penalty of their guilt. Natural laws have a curious roundabout
way of paying back old scores, though the tragic retribution has to be
borne more often than not by the innocent descendants of those who
have, in the name of the Deity, violated them.
The Duke of Thunder was proud of the Sicilian meaning of his title,
and so were his sailors, who loved the thrilling effect of anything
that conveyed the idea of being associated with a formidable power
that devastated every other force that stood in its way. For the most
part, Nelson's sailors had great faith in his naval genius. He had led
them many times to victory, and they did not forget the glory that
attached to themselves. He planned the strategy, but it was they that
fought and won the battles. The Duke of Thunder was a fine title to
fight under. A name has frequently done more damage to a foe than
glittering bayonets. But Nelson in no degree had the thunder element
in him, so far as we are able to judge by the descriptions given to us
of him. He was a dashing, courageous, scientific genius, gifted with
natural instincts, disciplinary wisdom, deplorable sentimentality, and
an artificial, revengeful spirit of hatred that probably became real
under the arbitrary circumstances of war, but, I should say, was
rarely prominent. His roaming attacks on the French were probably used
more for effect, and had, we hope, only a superficial meaning. But be
that as it may, it detracts from the dignity of an officer occupying,
as he did, a distinguished position to use language and phrases such
as are common in the forecastle or on the quarterdeck of a sailing
merchantman in the early days before the introduction of steamers.
Here are a few quite amusing outbursts which do not produce the
impression of coming from a person known to fame as the Duke of
Thunder:--On the 1st October, 1801, the preliminaries of peace with
France were signed. When Nelson heard of it he thanked God, and went
on to say, "We lay down our arms, and are ready to take them up again
if the French are insolent." He declares there is no one in the world
more desirous of peace than he is, but that he would "burst sooner
than let any damned Frenchman know it." But it was too much for his
anti-French sentiments when he heard that their Ambassador's carriage
had been dragged by the London mob. He wrote to his medical man, and
asked if he could cure madness, for he had gone mad to learn "that our
damned scoundrels dragged a Frenchman's carriage." And he hoped
nevermore to be dragged by such a degenerate crowd; which was
exhibiting in a characteristic way his high opinion of himself. "Would
our ancestors have done it?" he asks, and then continues: "The
villains would have drawn Buonaparte if he had been able to get to
London to cut the king's head off." The writer has a definite opinion
that Bonaparte would have had a boisterous reception, and that it
might have cemented a friendship that would have been a blessing to
the tired world, and especially to the two warring nations.
The ruler of the French nation, in spite of Nelson's views, would have
made a better ally than enemy. But it often happens that nations, as
well as individuals, lose their psychological opportunity. And we will
risk a belief that if Nelson and Bonaparte met they would have found
an affinity between them that would have made the two men friends.
Southey says that the title "Duke of Thunder" is essentially
applicable to Nelson, but the writer has failed to find anything to
warrant such an opinion.
Nelson's professional pride was for ever being needlessly hurt by
Admiralty tactlessness. He had good reason on many occasions to take
offence at their clumsiness. One of numerous grievances was Sir Sydney
Smith being, to all appearances, put over him. He wrote to Lord St.
Vincent, and reminded him that he was a man, and that it was
impossible for him to serve in the Mediterranean under a junior
officer. St. Vincent prevailed on him not to resign, but Sir Sydney
Smith wished to carry out a policy towards the French in Egypt which
Nelson hotly disapproved, and he commands him on no account to permit
a single Frenchman to leave the country. He considered it would be
madness to permit a band of thieves to return to Europe. "To Egypt,"
he says, "they went of their own accord, and they shall remain there
while he commanded the squadron. Never will he consent to the return
of one ship or Frenchman. I wish them to perish in Egypt, and give an
awful lesson to the world of the justice of the Almighty." It will be
observed how characteristically sailorly he is in his leanings on
Divine monopoly in punishing the "bloody Corsican" for his wickedness
in waging war against Britain. His profound belief was that the
Almighty presided over our destinies then, just as the German Kaiser
claims that He is presiding over his national affairs now; and, as I
have pointed out before, each of the belligerents calls upon Him in
beseeching reverence as a Divine compatriot, to give this Almighty
power to aid in demolishing their common foe, who has broken every law
of God and man. This form of blasphemy is as rampant now as it ever
was. It is not a hungry belief in God that gives the initial impulse
for human slaughter. It is a craving lust for the invention of all
that is devilish in expeditiously disposing of human life.
The international democracies who are devoting so much attention to
political ascendancy should distribute their power in a way that would
make it impossible for weak Governments, composed of mediocrities and
bellicose rulers of nations, to make war whenever their impertinent
ambitions are impressed with the sanguinary rage of conflict.
All wars mutilate civilization, and put back by many generations any
advance that may have been made in the interval between one butchery
and another. The working people of all nations could and should
combine to stop the manufacture of every implement of warfare, and
make it a treasonable offence for any ruler or Government again to
advocate war as a means of settling disputes. This law must of
necessity be binding upon all the Powers, big and little. What a
mockery this gospel of brotherhood has been in all ages! Is it an
ideal ambition to bring it about? Of course it is, but we cannot catch
the spirit of Christ and preach the gospel of pity, and commit hideous
murder at one and the same time! hence the impudence of expecting a
Divine benediction on warfare.
All sorts of public and private honours and testimonials were
conferred upon Nelson during his stay at Hamburg on his way home after
the mortifications caused by the elusive French fleet, Calabrian
brigands, and the alluring attractions of the Court of Naples and
Sicily. One hundred grenadiers, each six feet high, waited at table
when he was being banqueted. The owner of a Magdeburg hotel where he
stayed made money by setting up a ladder outside Nelson's sitting-room
and charging a fee for mounting it and peeping at the hero inside the
room. An aged wine merchant at Hamburg offered him through Lady
Hamilton six dozen bottles of Rhenish wine of the vintage of 1625. It
had been in his own possession for fifty years, and he hoped that some
of it would be allowed to flow with the blood of the immortal hero, as
it would then make the giver happy. Nelson shook hands with the old
man, and consented to receive six bottles, provided he would dine with
him next day. A dozen were sent, and Nelson put aside six, saying that
it was his hope to win half a dozen more victories, and that one
bottle would be drunk after each.
Another aged man, whose ideals were of a different and higher order,
came along. He was a German pastor who, at eighty years of age or
thereabouts, had travelled forty miles with the object of getting
Nelson to write his immortal, name in his Bible. The venerable
Lutheran prelate, with a grateful heart, asked to be allowed to
record his blessing and admiration for the gallant British Admiral by
stating to him, amongst other modestly selected phrases, that "he was
the Saviour of the Christian world." The pastor's fervent testimony of
his work and his mission touched Nelson on a tender spot. In his
rough-and-ready way, he believed in the efficacy of prayer, and he
knew when the old man, bowed down by age, parted from him that he
would be steadfast in his petitions to the Giver of all mercies that
he should be held in His holy keeping, body and soul. The story is an
example of fine healthy devotion, free from sickly cant, though the
logic of successfully squandering rich lives or even bravely
sacrificing your own (as every commander risks doing) is a mysterious
reason for the person who is successful in casting away human
lives--even though they be those of an enemy--having the title of "the
Saviour of the world" conferred upon him!
The writer's idea of how to establish and advance the Christian faith
is to keep out of war, and the best method of doing this is for the
electorate to choose men to govern who are highly gifted with
diplomatic genius. Nearly all wars are brought about through
incompetent negotiators, and the wastage of life and property in
carrying on a war is certainly to be attributed to men who are at the
head of affairs being mere politicians, without any faculty whatever
for carrying out great undertakings. They are simply mischievous
shadows, and merely excel as intriguers in putting good men out of
office and themselves in. It is the selection of men for the posts
they are eminently suited to fill that counts in any department of
life, but it is more manifestly important in affairs of Government.
For instance, nothing but disaster can follow if a man is made
Chancellor of the Exchequer who has no instinct for national finance,
and the same thing applies to a Foreign Secretary who has no knowledge
of or natural instinct for international diplomacy. At the same time,
an adroit commercial expert may be utterly useless in dealing with
matters of State that are affected by trade. The two positions are
wide apart, and are a business in themselves. The writer's view is
that to fill any department of State satisfactorily the head should
have both political and commercial training, combined with wholesome
instinct. I don't say that trade is altogether affected by the kind of
Government that is in power, but bad trade and bad government combined
make a terrific burden for any nation to carry.
Service men, in the main, measure and think always from a military or
naval point of view. Some of them have quite a genius for organizing
in matters concerning their different professions. Take the late Lord
Kitchener. In Army matters he was unequalled as an organizer but
abominably traduced. Then there is Lord Fisher, who easily heads
everybody connected with the Navy, as a great Admiral who can never be
deprived of the merit of being the creator of our modern fleet. He
combines with a matchless genius for control a fine organizing brain.
The politician, with his amateurish antics, deprived the British
Empire of the services of an outstanding figure that would have saved
us many lives and many ships, without taking into account the vast
quantity of merchandise and foodstuffs that have perished. It is not
by creating confusion that the best interest of the nation is served,
either in peace-time or during war. Those robust rhetoricians who
massacre level-headed government and substitute a system of make-shift
experiments during a great national crisis do a wicked public
disservice. I have no time to deal with these superior persons in
detail, but I cannot keep my thoughts from the terrible bitterness and
anguish their haphazard experiments may have caused. The destroying
force will eat into the very entrails of our national life if some
powerful resolute personality does not arise to put an end to the
hopeless extemporizing and contempt for sober, solid, orderly
administration. The truth is that, if a government or anything else is
wrongly conceived, natural laws will never help it to right itself,
and it ends in catastrophe. Such governments are inflicted on us from
time to time as a chastisement, it is said, for our national sins, and
the process of disintegration is deadly in its effects. The only
consoling feature of it is that history is repeating itself with
strange accuracy, as may be verified by a glance into the manuscripts
of Mr. Fortescue at Dropmore. Herein you will find many striking
resemblances between the constitution of the Government then and the
tribulation we are passing through at the present time. One important
event of that period has been avoided up to the present; none has
demanded a settlement of his differences by means of a duelling
contest, as did Castlereagh and Canning.[14] They had a coalition of
all the talents then as they presume to have now, though there has
been no real evidence of it, either in or out of Parliament.