Nelson

by John Sugden

  33. Jervis to Nelson, 13/7/1796, NMM: CRK/11.

  34. Nelson to Fanny, 1/9/1794, 24/10/1794, Monmouth MSS, E828, E835.

  35. Fanny to Nelson, 30/9/1794, 2/11/1794, Add. MSS 34988.

  36. Nelson to Fanny, 12/10/1794, Monmouth MSS, E834; Fanny to Nelson, 7/11/1794, Add. MSS 34988; Edmund Nelson to Nelson, 3/9/1795, Monmouth MSS, E612.

  37. Nelson to Fanny, 17/1/1795, Monmouth MSS, E843.

  38. Nelson to Drake, 28/4/1796, Monmouth MSS, E987.

  39. Edmund Nelson to Fanny, 13/12/1793, NMM: AGC/18/2; Edmund to Nelson, 5/8/1795, 3/12/1795, Monmouth MSS, E611, E615; Edmund to Fanny, 9/6/1793, undated 1793, 29/7/1794, 19/8/1796, Monmouth MSS, E635, E637, E640–E641; M. Eyre Matcham, Nelsons of Burnham Thorpe, pp. 105, 108, 118.

  40. Edmund to Nelson, 5/8/1795, Monmouth MSS, E611; Fanny to Nelson, 2/11/1794, 17/12/1794, Add. MSS 34988.

  41. Fanny to Nelson, 10, 16/12/1794, Add. MSS 34988.

  42. Edmund Nelson to Nelson, 1/1/1795, in James Stanier Clarke and John McArthur, Life and Services, 1, p. 291; Nelson to Marsh and Creed, 28/10/1794, Sotheby’s Catalogue, 29/2/1971. Enmeshed in the riviera campaign Nelson accidentally missed his gift to the Burnham poor in 1795. See also Nelson to his father, 19/8/1796, D&L, 2, p. 244, and Public Characters, p. 7.

  43. Fanny to Nelson, 2/11/1794, 10, 17/12/1794, Add. MSS 34988

  44. Nelson to Clarence, 19/1/1795, NMM: AGC/27; Nelson to Pollard, 6/2/1795, D&L, 2, p. 4; Nelson to Fanny, 23/1/1795, Monmouth MSS, E844; court martial, 21–28/1/1795, ADM 1/5332.

  45. Nelson to Fanny, 25/2/1795, Monmouth MSS, E847; Nelson to Hamilton, 26/2/1795, Morrison, Hamilton and Nelson Papers, 1, p. 202; Nelson to Hood, 25/2/1795, Monmouth MSS, E277.

  46. Elliot to Portland, 5/4/1795, FO 20/7.

  47. For Caraccioli see Hotham to Hamilton, 2/3/1795, NMM: HML/13, and Hamilton to Hotham, 19/2/1795, 23/7/1795, NMM: HML/10B.

  48. Nelson to Fanny, 10/3/1795, Monmouth MSS, E850.

  49. Nelson to Goodall, 12/3/1795, D&L, 2, p. 18.

  50. Nelson’s journal (Add. MSS 34902: 54–9), 55, which, with the logs of the Agamemnon, is the principal source for his part in the battle, but another view from the same ship is given by Hoste to his father, 20/3/1795, NMM: MRF/88/1. Hotham to Stephens, 16/3/1795, ADM 1/393, is the official dispatch. On the French side, see Letourneur’s report to the Committee of Public Safety, 16/3/1795, in Maurice Jollivet, Anglais dans La Mediterranée, pp. 118–21. Secondary accounts of this and Hotham’s subsequent engagement are given by William James, Naval History, vol. 1; A. T. Mahan, Life of Nelson, chap. 5; and (for the battle off Genoa) E. Chevalier, Histoire de la Marine Française, pp. 171–82. My narrative of the action in March is also based upon logs of the Bedford (ADM 51/1116), Britannia (ADM 51/1155), Captain (ADM 51/1107 and NMM: ADM/L/C51), Courageux (ADM 51/1103), Diadem (ADM 51/1111), Illustrious (ADM 51/1124), Inconstant (ADM 51/1179), Princess Royal (ADM 51/1113), and St George (ADM 51/1119).

  51. The older studies of the French navy by Jurien de la Gravière and Chevalier need to be reconsidered in light of recent studies by Jonathan R. Dull and William S. Cormack.

  52. Nelson to William, 25/3/1795, Add. MSS 34988. Statements of the strength of the Ça Ira vary. The day after her eventual capture her captain (Coudé) seems to have given her strength as eighty guns and thirteen hundred men (Hotham dispatch). Nelson was inconsistent. He variously claimed that the Ça Ira had eighty-four guns, and formerly eighty-four but now ninety-two guns. For statements, see the journal (n. 50 above), which exaggerates the weight of the French against the English pound, and Nelson to Fanny, 14/3/1795, 1/4/1795, Monmouth MSS, E851, E855. John Gibson of the Fox, who was with the British prizes until 17 March, said the Ça Ira actually mounted ninety long guns and four carronades and housed thirteen hundred men (Gibson to Elliot, 18/3/1795, NMM: ELL/138). To complicate matters, a prize court attempted to establish the numbers of men on board the Ça Ira because head money, based on the complement of a prize warship, was due the captors. For these proceedings Captain Coudé deposed on 22 April that his ship had been manned by one thousand and sixty (HCA 32/550).

  53. The contribution of Fremantle’s Inconstant is largely taken from his ship’s log. It has attracted little comment in secondary sources, but contemporaries justly rated it with Nelson’s achievement in the same battle. French prisoners spoke ‘with great admiration’ of the conduct of both captains, and Augustus Montgomery of the Courageux noted that the Ça Ira ‘was fired at in a very gallant manner by Captain Fremantle of the Inconstant, and Captain Nelson also exchanged a few broadsides with her’. See Elliot to Windham, 2/4/1795, Add. MSS 37852, and Montgomery to Udny, 18/3/1795, Add. MSS 39793; and Montgomery to Elliot, 20/3/1795, NMM: ELL/138. Fremantle, like Nelson, considered Hotham’s own contributions timid, and wrote that the admiral had ‘grown too old, and has not nerves sufficient for the situation in which he is placed’ (Fremantle to William Fremantle, 24/3/1795, CBS, D-FR/45/2).

  54. Add. MSS 34902: 56; Nelson to Elliot, 5/4/1795, D&L, 2, p. 27.

  55. Nelson to Locker, 21/3/1795, D&L, 2, p. 20.

  56. Nelson to William, 25/3/1795, Add. MSS 34988.

  57. Elliot to Portland, 19/3/1795, 5/4/1795, FO 20/7; A. M. W. Stirling, ed., Pages and Portraits, 2, p. 318.

  58. Journal, Add. MSS 34902.

  59. Journal, Add. MSS 34902.

  60. Nelson to William, 25/3/1795, Add. MSS 34988. The distinguished French naval historian Jean-Pierre Baptiste Edmond Jurien de la Gravière, Sketches, p. 93, admits the French dismasting fire to have been ‘a vicious [deplorably inefficient] system of gunnery’. For useful discussions of the subject see NC, 4 (1800), pp. 143–8, 222–6; Michael Lewis, Social History of the Navy, pp. 369–70; and Peter Padfield, Guns at Sea, pp. 90–2, 121.

  61. Nelson to Fanny, 12/4/1795, Monmouth MSS, E856; Nelson to Suckling, 22/3/1795, Add. MSS 22130.

  62. Journal, Add. MSS 34902. Others also noted French gun tactics. The captain’s log of the Princess Royal (ADM 51/1113) reported the French ‘firing hot shot and otherwise very high to disable our ships’.

  63. Jollivet, Anglais dans La Mediterranée, p. 120. For the last point see Brame to Grenville, 14, 16/3/1795, FO 28/11; and Udny to Hamilton, 20/3/1795, Add. MSS 39793.

  64. Nelson to Fanny, 14/3/1795, Monmouth MSS, E851; Edward Pelham Brenton, Naval History, 1, pp. 310–11; Montgomery to Udny, 18/3/1795, Add. MSS 39793; Nelson to Clarence, 15/3/1795, NMM: AGC/27. Nelson and Hotham gave the total complements of the prizes as two thousand three hundred, but Gibson put the figure at two thousand one hundred and the French captains themselves as low as 1,981 (Gibson to Elliot, 18/3/1795, NMM: ELL/138; HCA 32/550). However, Hotham also said that thirteen hundred French prisoners were taken, including three hundred sick and wounded (Hotham to Elliot, 26/3/1795, NMM: ELL/140), which, working from his figure for the total complement, implies that one thousand French had been killed on board the Ça Ira and Censeur. Such a figure is far too high. The highest direct estimates of the French casualties, in killed and wounded, are those of Lieutenant Gibson, who said the Ça Ira lost four hundred and fifty and her consort three hundred and fifty. Thirty-one British prisoners from the Berwick were found on the Ça Ira and liberated.

  65. Nelson to Fanny, 14/3/1795, Monmouth MSS, E851. Figures for British casualties given in the ships’ logs, Hotham’s dispatch and by James vary. The Princess Royal log, for instance, listed her casualties as twenty-two, twice as many as those counted by James. James’s list of British casualties for the two days of battle totals seventy-four killed and 284 wounded.

  66. Nelson to Fanny, 14/3/1795, Monmouth MSS, E851.

  67. Elliot to Windham, 2/4/1795, Add. MSS 37852.

  68. Nelson to Fanny, 1/4/1795, Monmouth MSS, E855.

  69. Hotham to the fleet, 18/3/1795, Add. MSS 34904; Tyler to Margaret Tyler, 28/3/1795, in William Henry Wyndham-Quin, Sir Charles Tyler, p. 67; Diadem log, ADM 51/1111; Nelson to Suckling, 22/3/1795, Add. MSS 22130; Nelson to Hamilton, 24/3/1795, Monmouth MSS, E39. />
  70. Nelson to Goodall, 15/3/1795, NMM: XAGC/8. I attach no importance to the other alleged post-battle exchange between Nelson and Hotham. According to Hotham’s nephew, who was not in the fleet at the time, Nelson complained that the Neapolitan Tancredi had got in his way during the engagement and asked that Captain Caraccioli be reprimanded (Stirling, Pages and Portraits, 1, pp. 74–5). It was unlike Nelson to begrudge gallant conduct, and not long before he had expressed his great affection for the Italian officer (Nelson to Hamilton, 19/12/1794, Morrison, Hamilton and Nelson Papers, 1, p. 197). There are no other references to the Tancredi impeding Agamemnon in the battle, and during the decisive stage of the action the Neapolitan ship was two vessels astern of Nelson, behind Hotham’s own Britannia. Moreover, no adverse comments about Caraccioli appear elsewhere. Although the Tancredi sustained six casualties in the battle, Montgomery said that Caraccioli ‘did his best, and . . . if circumstances had permitted . . . would have done himself honour’, which suggests that the Italian had little opportunity to get into the fight. Hotham reported that Caraccioli behaved with ‘activity and spirit’ (Udny to Hamilton, 20/3/1795, Add. MSS 39793; Hotham to Hamilton, 16/3/1795, NMM: HML/13; Hamilton to Hood, 4/4/1795, NMM: HML/10B). I believe that the story of Nelson’s reproof, written long afterwards, was an inaccurate reflection of the tragic subsequent relationship between the two men.

  71. Nelson to Fanny, 1/4/1795, Monmouth MSS, E855.

  72. Nelson to Suckling, 22/3/1795, Add. MSS 22130; Jurien de la Gravière, Sketches, p. 96; Elliot to Portland, 5/4/1795, FO 20/7.

  73. Nelson to Hamilton, 7/4/1795, Monmouth MSS, E40.

  74. Nelson to Fanny, 1/4/1795, Monmouth MSS, E855; Goodall to Nelson, 8/11/1795, Add. MSS 34904.

  75. Nelson to Fanny, 7/6/1795, Monmouth MSS, E862.

  76. Nelson to Pollard, 2/7/1795, NMM: 75/102; Nelson to Fanny, 28/4/1795, Monmouth MSS, E860; Nelson to Clarence, 16/4/1795, Add. MSS 46356.

  77. Nelson to Suckling, 7/6/1795, D&L, 2, p. 40; Nelson to William, 8/6/1795, Add. MSS 34988; Spencer to Hood, 20/3/1796, Add. MSS 75793.

  78. Sketches of Troubridge are given in W. H. Fitchett, Nelson and His Captains, and Kennedy, Nelson and His Captains.

  79. Nelson to his father, 24/4/1795, Add. MSS 34988; Nelson to Locker, 4/5/1795, D&L, 2, p. 34.

  80. Nelson to Suckling, 20/6/1795, D&L, 2, p. 44.

  81. For the trial see ADM 1/5333, and Wyndham-Quin, Sir Charles Tyler, pp. 73–7.

  82. Udny to Drake, 8/7/1795, Add. MSS 46826; Nelson to Fanny, 9/7/1795, Monmouth MSS, E866; Hotham to Nepean, 14/7/1795, ADM 1/393; Hoste to his mother, 24/9/1795, NMM: MRF/88/1; logs of the Agamemnon, Ariadne (ADM 51/1128), Meleager (ADM 51/1210) and Moselle (ADM 52/3236).

  83. Nelson to Locker, 8, 14/7/1795, D&L, 2, p. 49.

  84. Elliot to his wife, 28/7/1795, NLS, 11050: 31; Collingwood to Blackett, 31/8/1795, Edward Hughes, ed., Private Correspondence, p. 69; Hood to Nelson, 13/8/1795, Add. MSS 34937; account of a lieutenant of the Victory in James, Naval History, 1, pp. 269–70. For Hotham’s dispatch see Hotham to Nepean, 14/7/1795, ADM 1/393.

  85. Elliot to his wife, 28/7/1795, NLS, 11050: 31; Nelson to Fanny, 9/7/1795, Monmouth MSS, E866; Nelson to William, 29/7/1795, Add. MSS 34988.

  86. Nelson to Clarence, 15/7/1795, NMM: AGC/27; James, Naval History, 1, p. 270; James Greig, ed., Farington Diary, 1, pp. 198–9 n. In addition to sources already mentioned, refer also to the logs of the Britannia (ADM 51/1119), Victory (ADM 51/1105), Defence (ADM 51/1131), Culloden (51/1130), Cumberland (ADM 51/1108), Princess Royal, (ADM 51/1125) and Agamemnon.

  87. Hotham to Nepean, 15/7/1795, ADM 1/393; Add. MSS 34933: 45.

  88. Nelson to Elliot, 27/7/1795, NMM: ELL/138. Cornwall Reynolds had succeeded John Roxburgh as surgeon of the Agamemnon after the former had been discharged an invalid.

  89. Nelson to Dixon Hoste, 22/6/1795, Monmouth MSS, E297.

  90. Fremantle to William Fremantle, 1/7/1794, CBS, D-FR/45/2.

  91. Nelson to Fanny, 31/10/1794, 12/11/1794, 17/1/1795, Monmouth MSS, E836–E837, E843; Michael Duffy, ‘Samuel Hood, First Viscount Hood’, p. 272.

  92. Nelson to Hamilton, 1/2/1795, Morrison, Hamilton and Nelson Papers, 1, p. 201; Nelson to Clarence, 19/1/1795, NMM: AGC/27; Nelson to Fanny, 16/4/1795, NLTHW, p. 206; Nelson to Locker, 18/6/1795, D&L, 2, p. 43; Hood to Stephens, 29/3/1794, ADM 1/392. The logs of the period contain numerous references to the issue of citrus fruits. For example, the Leda brought sixteen cases of oranges and lemons from Naples to the fleet in December 1793. Admiral Jervis, who eventually succeeded Hood as commander-in-chief in the Mediterranean in 1795, has sometimes been credited with maintaining a high level of health in his ships, but it is debatable whether he added anything to the regimen that already existed. The Brame papers of 1795–6, for instance, show that Nelson was already relying heavily upon lemons and onions as well as fresh provisions to keep his men healthy (SRRC, 112/16/33). Moreover, it was Nelson who first raised the issue between the two, writing in May 1796 that he supposed the admiral ‘must be interested in whatever concerns the health of seamen’ and reporting his acquisition of thousands of fresh lemons (Nelson to Jervis, 30/5/1796, NMM: JER/1–2a). For Nelson’s later interest in the health of seamen, see James Watt, ‘Naval Surgery in the Time of Nelson’, p. 26.

  93. Discussions of the line of battle are given in Brian Tunstall and Nicholas Tracy, Naval Warfare; John Creswell, British Admirals; Nicholas Tracy, Nelson’s Battles; and Michael Duffy and Roger Morriss, eds, Glorious First of June 1794.

  XXI Drifting to Leeward (pp. 564–604)

  1. Nelson to Trevor, 28/4/1796, Monmouth MSS, E987. The Honourable John Trevor, then in his mid-forties and married to a clergyman’s daughter, later succeeded his brother to become third Viscount Hampden.

  Very few of the extensive sources for this chapter have been previously explored. For Nelson’s own papers, see Add. MSS 34962 (Nelson letter book); Add. MSS 34902 and 34933 (miscellaneous Nelson correspondence); Add. MSS 34904 and 34952 (Nelson’s correspondence for 1795–6, although some documents in the last file are damaged and unreadable even under ultraviolet light); Add. MSS 34941 (letters of De Vins, Beaulieu and others); Monmouth MSS, E987 (Nelson letter book, 1796); D&L, vols 1 and 7; NLTHW; various documents in NMM: CRK/14; and the log books of the Agamemnon (see chap. 17, n. 2). Nelson’s relations with the fleet were also traced through ADM 1/393–394; Add. MSS 34938 and NMM: CRK/11 (Jervis’s letters to Nelson); NMM: JER/1–2a (Jervis papers); Add. MSS 31159 (Jervis’s letter book), which supplied some of the documents to Edward P. Brenton, John, Earl of St Vincent, vol. 1; and papers of George Cockburn in NMM: MRF/D/6 and MRF/D/9. The diplomatic context has been supplied by FO 28/11–15; FO 67/17–21; NMM: CRK/4 (Francis Drake’s letters to Nelson); Joseph Brame’s letter book and papers in SRRC, 112/16/31 and 112/16/33; and Add. MSS 46822–30 (Drake papers). Among the latter, volumes 46826 (Udny correspondence), 46827 (letters from De Vins and Wallis) and 46828 (letters and complaints of Castiglione) contain the most documents relating to naval operations. The Elliot papers in the National Maritime Museum (NMM/ELL) are also essential sources for the campaign, especially volumes 101 (Trevor), 124 (Brame), 125 (Drake), 138 (Nelson) and 141 (Jervis). Drake’s letters to Sir William Hamilton may be found in Add. MSS 39793, and other papers relevant to the Neapolitan contribution can be found in NMM: HML.

  2. Nelson to Fanny, 2/12/1795, 19/4/1796, Monmouth MSS, E878, E892; Anthony Brett-James, General Graham, p. 66.

  3. Nelson’s arrival in Genoa was reported in Brame to Nepean, 18/7/1795, SRRC, 112/16/31.

  4. For the convoy, see Drake to Elliot, 25/7/1795, NMM: ELL/125.

  5. Hotham to Nelson, 17/5/1795, enclosed in Drake to Grenville, 8/8/1795, FO 28/12.

  6. Nelson to Collingwood, 31/8/1795, D&L, 2, p. 77; Nelson to Suckling, 27/7/1795, D&L, 2, p. 61; Nelson to Fanny, 25/8/1795, Monmouth MSS, E870.

  7. Nelson, 12/11/1795, NMM: CRK/14; Nelson statement, November 1795, NMM: CRK/14; Drake to Nelson, 23, 25/7/1795, 18/9/17
95 and 7/1/1796, NMM: CRK/4; Nelson to Cockburn, 19/7/1795, NMM: MRF/D/9. For the Genoese reaction see also Nelson to Drake, 22/8/1795, NMM: AGC/17/2; Drake to Nelson, 1 and 8 (2 letters)/9/1795, 7/1/1796, NMM: CRK/4; and Nelson to Cockburn, 12/9/1795, NMM: MRF/D/9. Although Nelson contravened Hotham’s orders, he had interim authority from Drake, who told him that it was ‘extremely beneficial to the king our master’s service that you should to the utmost of your power stop all trade and communications between neutral places and France and places occupied by the armies of France until you receive further instructions from the Commander in Chief’ (Drake to Nelson, 18/7/1795, NMM: CRK/4). From the beginning of the campaign Nelson formed a close partnership with Drake, who learned on 19 September that he had been appointed to represent Britain at the Austrian headquarters at Vado. The two coordinated their movements and opinions. ‘I hope you will be at Vado when I get there, as we must make another attack on the general [De Vins],’ Drake wrote (Drake to Nelson, 19/9/1795, NMM: CRK/4).

  8. Drake and Trevor to Hotham, 22/7/1795, enclosed in Hotham to Nepean, 29/7/1795, ADM 1/393; Nelson to Hotham, 28/7/1795, Add. MSS 34902; Hotham to Cockburn, 21/7/1795, NMM: MRF/D/9; Hotham to Spencer, 4/6/1795 and August 1795, Add. 75780.

  9. Nelson to Hotham, 22/7/1795, Add. MSS 34962; Drake to Grenville, 25/7/1795, FO 28/11; Trevor to Grenville, 24/7/1795, FO 67/17; Drake to Nelson, 29/7/1795, NMM: CRK/4; Brame to Grenville, 23/7/1795, SRRC, 112/16/31. The application for the Neapolitan flotilla can be followed in Trevor to Hotham, 2/7/1795, NMM: HML/11; Hotham to Hamilton, 16/7/1795, 17/8/1795, NMM: HML/13; Hamilton to Hotham, 23/7/1795, 29/8/1795, NMM: HML/10B; Nelson to the Neapolitan commander, 1/10/1795, NMM: JER/1–2a; and Add. MSS 39793: 104, 106, 131.

  10. Nelson to Drake, 3/8/1795, Add. MSS 34962; Drake to Nelson, 25, 29/7/1795, 4, 7, 10/8/1795, 7/11/1795, NMM: CRK/4. The logs of Nelson’s ships give the most comprehensive day-by-day picture of the naval campaign. They were the frigates Ariadne (ADM 51/1128), Meleager (ADM 51/1210), Southampton (ADM 51/1125 and 1131), Inconstant (ADM 51/1179), Lowestoffe (ADM 51/1121 and 1133), Flora (ADM 51/1167), Romulus (ADM 51/1130) and Tartar (ADM 52/3509); the brigs and sloops Moselle (ADM 51/4475 and ADM 52/3236), Speedy (ADM 51/1243) and Tarleton; and the Resolution (ADM 51/4492) and Mutine (ADM 52/3240) cutters. I have not traced a log for the Tarleton.