broke it; caused the republicans who were on board the transports bound for Toulon, to be arrested and loaded with irons, and consigned them to a band of assassins who, under the name of judges, condemned the greater part to death, with many others who were arrested afterwards, so that there is reason to suppose that, including those who were condemned by this junto, and those who were murdered by the populace, conducted and instigated by Cardinal Ruffo, Vicar-General of the kingdom of Naples, (who, however, himself signed this capitulation, and would have observed it had he not been prevented by Nelson,) more than 20,000 persons perished by a violent death. It is also a fact that the illustrious and brave Admiral Caraccioli was condemned to death by a courtmartial assembled by Lord Nelson on board his own ship, the Foudroyant, and not on board a Neapolitan vessel, (which circumstance alone would be sufficient to vitiate the legality of his condemnation,) and that Lord Nelson ordered him to be hung at the yard-arm of the Minerva, a Neapolitan frigate, which was accordingly done, the English Admiral having had the cruelty to refuse the only favour which Caraccioli asked, that he might die the death of a soldier. These are undoubted facts. Attempts have been made to throw doubt on the reality of the capitulation; but, besides others, Captain Foote, who signed it, published a copy of it at the end of a pamphlet, which he wrote in vindication of his character, * and in which he did not hesitate to say, that Nelson broke a solemn treaty and violated the pledge which had thus been given. After all this, there is no excuse for Lord Nelson. To say that he was instigated by that Lady Hamilton, whose name will be execrated whilst the love of virtue and of justice remains, is to allege an excuse worse than the crime itself.†

But notwithstanding all this, to endeavour, as Signor Botta does, to excuse the wickedness of the late King of Naples, Ferdinand IV., the father of the present king, and to attribute all the butcheries which were then committed, to Nelson alone-this is an instance of the vilest adulation, and of the most barefaced falsehood that was ever read in any history. 'The king,' writes the historian in his eighteenth book, who was in the Foudroyant, had too much kindness of heart to be present at these execu

See the end of a pamphlet, entitled 'Captain Foote's Vindication of his Conduct when Captain of his Majesty's Ship the Seahorse, and Senior Officer in the Bay of Naples, in the Summer of 1799. London. 1807.'

We think in no country the conduct of Lord Nelson has been more freely and fairly investigated, than in England, even by his warmest admirers. But blameable as that conduct was, we think that truth and fairness demand that Nelson should not be saddled with the crimes of his late Sicilian Majesty. He has unhappily sins enough of his own to answer for, without being charged with those of others, whose contagious company poisoned his mind, and was the sole cause of that great man's errors.

tions-he returned to Sicily. The field remained open for those who thirsted for blood."

Signor Botta, in order to conceal the truth, and to cause it to be supposed that the king came with Nelson, and withdrew from the scene of action through apprehension that he should, if he stayed, be sprinkled with the blood of his subjects, relates that the Seahorse had been taken ten months before by the Généreux, when, in fact, it was the Leander which was taken; and then cautiously avoiding the further mention of the Seahorse, he not only avoids telling how it was sent to fetch the king, in order that he might

The King of Naples did not go away to avoid the spectacle of the executions, but he came to applaud, and to order them. Signor Botta, assigning no dates to the several transactions, writes the above quoted passage before he speaks of the executions, and even before he mentions that of Caraccioli, so that it might appear that the King came with Nelson, and returned when the latter insisted upon the violating of the capitulation. The Italian text, which we have consulted, stands, purposely, as follows:- Il Rè che era sul vascello Inglese il Fulminante, non sofferendogli l'animo di veder i supplizi che si preparavano, se ne tornava in Sicilia. Rimase il campo libero a chi voleva sangue.' This shows still more clearly that Signor Botta meant to insinuate that the King came to the bay of Naples before the executions were determined on or begun. But the fact is just the reverse. Nelson came into the bay of Naples, but not with the king; he broke the capitulation on the 24th of June, and put the republicans who had capitulated in irons on board the English vessels, hung the illustrious Caraccioli, and caused his body to be thrown into the sea on the 29th of June; and on the preceding day he had ordered Captain Foote to go with his vessel, the SEAHORSE, to Palermo, to conduct the king and the court to the bay of Naples. Foote accordingly went to Palermo, but the king was pleased to come in a Neapolitan frigate, the Sirena, escorted, however, by the Seahorse, and arrived in the bay of Naples, on the 10th of July. He then went on board the Foudroyant, and remained there till the 9th of August, as Lord Nelson himself testifies. On the 9th of August I brought his Sicilian majesty back, having been upwards of four weeks on board the Foudroyant.' -Nelson's Life, by Clarke, vol. ii., p. 4.) And when his majesty returned, and Nelson returned with him to Palermo, it was for no other purpose but to celebrate the festival of Santa Rosalia. He came, then, when the punishments had begun with that of Caraccioli, and not for the purpose of preventing, but of commanding, them. He approved of the assassination of Caraccioli; he nominated a commission of persons whose characters were, by common consent, regarded as execrable, (and that is allowed even by Signor Botta,) to try the republicans. In the first place, he declared that the capitulation ought not to be observed, protesting (and that was a shameless falsehood) that he had not authorised Cardinal Ruffo, whom he had appointed Vicar-General of the kingdom, and whom he bountifully rewarded for what he had done, to grant any capitulation. He remained on board the Foudroyant with pleasure, in the midst of the squadron on board of which were detained his subjects whose destruction he was commanding. This havoc was continued for a year through the whole kingdom of Naples, nor did he interpose to prevent it, but, on the contrary, constantly refused to put an end to it.

At Palermo the king passed his time in amusements and pleasures, whilst Naples was in mourning. Nelson also enjoyed these amusements, notwithstanding the worthy Trowbridge thus wrote to him: 'I dread, my Lord, all the feasting at Palermo. I am sure your health will be hurt. If so, all their saints will be damned by the navy. The king would be better employed digesting a good government......There are upwards of 40,000 families who have relations confined. If some act of oblivion is not passed. there will be no end of persecution....... Constant efforts are made to get a man taken up in order to rob him.' Thus wrote Trowbridge, who refused to arrest the Duke di Cansano, ambassador at Rome, and other Neapolitans in Civita Vecchia, although he had orders to do so, saying, 'I will never become the executioner of the vengeance of the Queen of Naples.'-Miss Williams' Sketches, vol. i., p. 201,

come

come to sanction the punishments, but confounds the intellect of any one who may read in another author that such was the case, by first relating that the Seahorse was taken, so that it might appear an error to state that it was despatched to bring the King of Naples from Palermo. Nevertheless, it was the Seahorse, commanded by Captain Foote, which reduced to a capitulation, not only Castello Novo, and Castello d' Uovo, but also Castellamare and Ravigliano. Its name perpetually occurs in all the documents relating to this war, described at length by the historian;-but Signor Botta never mentions it! Nor could he, on the other hand, have been ignorant that the Leander had been taken. He enumerates this ship among the English vessels which fought at Aboukir, and mentions it among those which, as he relates in the seventeenth Book of his History, were given up by the French in the capitulation of Corfu. *

We will not waste our time in proving that the expressions which we used, on quoting those words of the historian, in which he praises the kind heartedness' of the King of Naples, were not too strong. To the honour of humanity, few men have ever been more ignorant, or more false, or more cruel, or more bloodstained, than the late King of Naples; and, at the present time, no one but the King of Spain is his parallel.-For the satisfaction of those of our readers who care for proofs on this point, we refer them to the note below. †

We are, really, both wearied and grieved to have to expose so

many

The Leander was surrendered to the Russians, and Paul, then Emperor, restored it to his Britannic Majesty, as a new pledge of his friendship.-See Monthly Register of Naval Events, vol. ii., p. 377.

↑ We shall only mention two or three facts characteristic of the King's personal cruelty. Whoever may wish to see more may, if he has courage to do it, read other instances of it in a book, which was attributed to one Cuoco, a Neapolitan, of much talent and information, which is entitled Memorie per servire alla storia dell' ultima Rivoluzione di Napoli.' Whilst Ferdinand was in the Bay of Naples, the Commission of pretended Judges, (but most shamefully prostituted was this venerable name,) by order of the Court divided the prisoners, who were on board the vessels, into three classes-one of which consisted of those who were to be tried for capital offences, (and these were afterwards all condemned and hanged); the second, of those who were to enter into security to go into perpetual exile under pain of death; and the third, of those who were allowed to justify their conduct. When the division was made, and when those who were comprised in the second class had already subscribed their obligatiou, and were ready to depart, orders were issued that ten of them should be detained and transferred to the first class; then two others, notwithstanding their engagement to go into banishment, were transferred in the same manner, and taken out of the vessels which were waiting for a wind to convey them to Toulon. One of the last mentioned was a certain Eleonora Pimentel Fonseca, one of the most accomplished ladies of her time, who, by the special order of the King, was hanged in despite of all exertions to save her. Amongst others who were condemned to death, and executed, were several youths of sixteen and seventeen years of age, and of the first families; as, for instance, a son of the Duke of Cassano, another of the Duke of Riario, a son of the Marchese di Genzano, be

many faults, the more so, as, notwithstanding all the mildness of expression, and the mercy which we can exercise, we must at last prove that the historian does not write the truth. It is neverthe

sides many more. Now it happened that three brothers, descended from one of the first families, (and we are sorry that we have forgotten their name, but the fact we have heard related as certain,) were all condemned to death. Their poor mother, who was very well known to the King, presented herself before him to supplicate for the pardon of her sons. This barbarian had the cruelty to answer her that he would pardon two; but that'he would have one for himself,' that is to say, that he was determined that one must die, and that he left the choice to her. As may be easily believed, the poor mother was unwilling to make the selection: but somebody advised her to petition that the two elder might be spared, in the certainty that the third, who was only sixteen years old, would be saved on account of his tender age. She did so; and her youngest son was inhumanly put to death, the King obstinately refusing to grant him his pardon. A young lady, of the name of San Felice, during the existence of the Republic, discovered that a counter-revolution was plotted by the Royalists, which was to begin by a general massacre of the Republicans, among whom was her lover. To save his life, she informed him of the plot, which was thus frustrated, for this she was condemned to death. The first wife of the present King of Naples was at this time brought to-bed of a little girl. When King Ferdinand went to visit the Princess, the latter, who had taken an interest in the fate of San Felice, placed a petition for her pardon on the head-band of the new born Princess. It is the custom of the Court never to deny a request made in this manner. When this child was presented to the King, he, observing the petition, said, as he took it up- Oh, yes! I grant any thing you wish, provided it be not San Felice's pardon.' His daughter-in-law was so angry that she would not speak to him, and San Felice was hanged. Let this suffice to show how ferocious was the character of the late King of Naples, whose kind-heartedness is now extolled by the impartial historian, Signor Botta! This is only a sample of the kind-heartedness of the late King of Naples. The blood which was spilt in the whole of his continental states, at this period, was most precious to Italy, being that of men distinguished and known through all Europe for their talents. It would be tedious to enumerate them. But the physician, Cirillo, must not be forgotten, who was one of the most skilful practitioners of his time, and was condemned to death on this occasion, though he was one of those who had capitulated, and was physician to the King and Queen of Naples, to Lady Hamilton, and to Nelson himself. Nevertheless, he was beheaded at the age of seventy years, because he would not sue for pardon, saying, that if his life would not be spared through a sense of justice after he had capitulated, he would not be indebted for it to the pardon of any one. This is what Lord Nelson called playing the fool;' (Life by Clarke, vol. ii., p. 188.) adding, that Cirillo would have been saved, had he been willing to confess. And does an English Admiral approve of the executing of an individual because he is unwilling to make a confession? and are there biographers who commend him for this? If his confession was unnecessary, why was it called for? And if it was necessary, and he did not make it, why was Cirillo, nevertheless, beheaded? It is matter of deep concern that a reverend divine like Dr. Clarke, and an LL.D. like M'Arthur, should defend not only the conduct of Lord Nelson, but also that of the Neapolitan assassins on this occasion. And is it thus that history is to be written? By what authority did Nelson assemble a courtmartial on board the Foudroyant to try Caraccioli? Ánd by what authority did he cause its sentence to be executed? What would those who defend Lord Nelson for having commanded this assassination, (for, to speak plainly, such it was,) have said, if Caraccioli had been an Englishman, and Nelson a Neapolitan? Every thing appeared to be fairly and honourably conducted,' say the abovementioned biographers. Now, be it known that Caraccioli was condemned solely on his own confession, that he had commanded a republican vessel against the king, BUT THAT HE HAD BEEN COMPELLED TO Do so. And, according to the criminal law of Naples, this confession could not be divided, but it was necessary to prove the offence independently of the confession thus qualified. The Doctor of Laws must have known this; as he must have known that no one can be condemned 'fairly and honourably,' without having a counsel, which Caraccioli had not. less

6

less our duty to do it from our sense of justice, and from our love for Italy, both so abused and violated by Signor Botta; and we cannot omit a particular inquiry into the character and conduct of this good King of Naples. He was the most faithless man that ever existed, with the exception of some historians of our day. On his ascending the throne, in 1759, he swore to maintain the constitution of Sicily as it had been established from time immemorial. He afterwards swore, on the 1st of August, 1812, fidelity to the new constitution of Sicily which was then established. He again swore to maintain that constitution on the 22nd of October, 1814. He swore, we know not how many times, in 1820, to maintain the Spanish constitution which was proclaimed at Naples in that year. Now, of all these oaths taken by him and his most worthy son, the present king, not one was kept by either of those illustrious personages. Signor Botta, speaking of the constitution given to Sicily in 1812, and of its subsequent abolition, is not ashamed to write thus:

'A peine les évènemens de 1814 eurent-ils replacé Ferdinand sur le trône de Naples que ce prince abolit d'un seul mot la constitution, non seulement sans résistance, mais même sans déplaisir de la part du peuple. . . . . Ferdinand assura que la constitution avait été imposée par la violence; Bentinck soutint qu'elle était l'expression de la volonté publique. . . . . Nous sommes devenus grands parleurs et fort ambitieux en Europe; c'est donc une institution vicieuse que celle qui confère à des assemblées nombreuses le pouvoir populaire, c'est à dire le pouvoir qui doit continuer le gouvernement et protéger le peuple. Le caractère actuel des Européens a fait un poison de ce remède ; je ne sçais même ce que deviendrait l'Angleterre sans ses bourgs pourris, autre abus énorme, au moyen duquel toutefois l'Angleterre se soutient.' (Lib. xxvi.)

This most exact historian here begins, as usual, with a great error of a year, in point of time, confounding the year 1814 with the year 1815, it not being till the latter period that Ferdinand was restored to the throne of Naples. We notice this error, not so much on account of its intrinsic importance, as to show the fidelity of the historian. His history embraces the period from 1789 to 1814. If he supposes that the constitution of Sicily was abolished by King Ferdinand in 1814, and not in 1815, it follows that he may speak of this abolition as having happened in the period of which he had undertaken to write; whereas, if the truth must be told, he had no occasion to record the events of 1815, as they were beyond the limits which he had prescribed to himself. Referring its abolition to 1814, he is enabled, in speaking of it, to pay his court to the family of the Bourbons in particular, and to the race of despots in general, and represent, as an act acceptable to the people, the act of a tyrant destitute of honour and faith,

and