Sir Thomas Troubridge's opinion of the Neapolitans is again shewn in the following letter to Lady Hamilton :

"My dear Madam,

"Malta, March 30th, 1800.

"I have just received your very obliging letter from Palermo, desiring me to say whether I would have a pension in this country or England. I have been so long here, and seen so much of the Neapolitan Government, that I well know they have no intention of doing anything. As I have before written both Lord Nelson and your Ladyship to say I would take nothing in this country. As for England, that is out of. the question. If the Queen has any intention and power to do anything, a very moderate sum at my own disposal, given at once, would content me; a large pension is out of the question. I am still very ill, and confined to my cabin, and have a prospect of returning to my country with a broken constitution and my purse much lighter for serving the King of Naples; but, I thank God, uncontaminated in my principles. I am no stranger to Acton's duplicity, but I will no more trouble myself about the set. Adieu, and believe me, dear Madam,

"Your truly obliged and faithful friend,

"T. TROUBRIDGE."

At Palermo, Nelson met with Major Perkins Magra, the British Consul at Tunis, whose ability and energy in the public service he had always much admired, and he took the opportunity afforded by the Major's return, to write to the Dey of Algiers, and claim the restitution of a vessel laden with corn from Palermo to Malta, which had been seized.1 The Major brought a letter of introduction to Lady Hamilton from Governor Ball :

"My dear Madam,

"Major Magra will have the honour of presenting this to your Ladyship, and of assuring you how much you are our theme. I am sorry to hear that you have had a finger ache, but I hope it was of short duration. I hear that you are very

See Appendix, No. III.

gay, and his Grace and Sir William in good health. The Major possesses military talents, and appears to feel for our very critical state, which he can detail fully to you. I never can despond while under the auspicious flag of his Grace de Bronté, and I do all I can to make every body feel as sanguine. God bless your Ladyship. I have the honour to be, with great respect,

"7th November."

"Your much obliged,

"ALEXANDER JOHN BALL.

In January, 1800, Lord Keith placed the port of Genoa in a state of blockade. The campaign in Italy was to open on the 25th of February.

CHAPTER XI.

1800.

IN March, 1800, Lord Nelson received intelligence by a courier, from Constantinople, that the Ministers of England and Russia, had refused to ratify a Convention entered into between the Porte and the French General, to permit the French army to return to Europe. This determination was in accordance with the view Lord Nelson always entertained on this subject, which now became one of no little uneasiness to all parties concerned. From documents lately printed,1 it appears that at El Arish, on the 24th of January, 1800, a Convention was signed by Moustapha Rasched Effendi, Moustapha Reffichi Effendi, two commissioners appointed on the part of the Grand Vizir, and by General Desaix, and Monsieur Poussielgue, Commissioners appointed on the part of General Kléber, by whom it had been agreed that the French troops, then in Egypt, should evacuate that country, and be allowed to return to France. Sir Sidney Smith has been very generally considered as a principal agent, or contracting party in this Convention ; but it appears that the Commissioners of the Grand Vizir, and of General Kléber, met on board the Tigre (Sir Sidney Smith's ship), and that they agreed to refer all disputed points to the opinion of Sir Sidney, reserving to themselves the right of rejection or adoption. His signature

1 Mr. Barrow's Life and Correspondence of Sir Sidney Smith, Vol. i. p. 383, and Vol. ii. p. 1-79.

2 The Grand Vizir invested the Capitan Pasha and Sir Sidney Smith with full powers to do whatever they might judge for the best, and had them both at the same time invested with two fine pelisses, in the presence of all the grandees and banditti. See Letter of John Keith, Esq. to Tooke, Esq., June 27th, 1800,

in Barrow's Life of Sir W. Sidney Smith, Vol. i. p. 395.

was not called for, nor given to any one point of the Convention.

In a letter to Lord Nelson, dated from the Ottoman camp, El Arish, January 30th, 1800, Sir Sidney Smith says:"Your Lordship will observe I have not signed it, the execution of most of the articles depending solely on the Ottoman Government, and on the discipline which may be preserved in the Turkish army. I have, however, reserved to myself that right of arbitration, which the confidence, both of the Grand Vizir and General Kléber, most unequivocally expressed, may enable me to exercise; and I have now only to endeavour to prevent any untoward circumstances from again causing the sword to be drawn in this quarter, after it has been thus happily sheathed, by the moderation, humanity, and sound policy of these two highly distinguished chiefs."1

On the 8th of January, Lord Keith addressed a letter to the French General Kléber, communicating to him that he had received positive orders from his Majesty not to consent to any capitulation with the French troops, which he, the General, commanded in Egypt and Syria, at least unless they laid down their arms, surrendered themselves prisoners of war, and delivered up all the ships and stores of the port of Alexandria to the Allied powers. Lord Keith was ignorant of the order Lord Grenville had given to the Earl of Elgin, our ambassador at the Porte, to permit the Convention to go on, though not exactly upon the terms first proposed. Lord Grenville thought the terms of capitulation too advantageous to the French, and that Sir Sidney Smith was not authorized to enter into, or give his sanction to such an agreement in his Majesty's name. But as the Convention had been entered into, and if annulled, the enemy's situation could not be resumed as it before stood, his Majesty was unwilling to lower the regard due to the public faith, and therefore directed his officers to abstain from every act inconsistent with the engagements to which Sir Sidney had erroneously given the sanction of his name. The Ambassador at the Porte was therefore left to settle with the Porte upon a form of

'Barrow's Life of Sir W. Sidney Smith, Vol, ii, p. 7.

passport, to be given in the name of his Majesty as an ally of the Porte. By this means his Majesty took no part in the treaty, but carefully abstained from offering any impediment to the execution of it.1

Sir Sidney Smith was, it is evident, placed in an awkward predicament, by the sanction he had given to the terms of the Convention. His firm friend, Earl Spencer, then at the head of the Admiralty, after receiving his explanations upon the subject, wrote to him as follows:-"I shall satisfy myself with saying, in general, that your explanations and defence are so far completely satisfactory to my mind, as to prove that you have throughout acted in the manner which to you appeared the best; and, though I think you seem to have been under an error, with respect to the continuation of your power as a Plenipotentiary (an error, by the by, into which I am not surprised that you were led by the communications you received from Lord Elgin), and though I also differ considerably with you in the opinion you seem to have formed of the probable result of the return of Kléber's army into France, I cannot help allowing, that you acted upon very strong grounds, and that, upon the whole, if it were possible that we here could have been in complete possession of all those grounds, for the purpose of forming a determination on the subject, the Convention of El Arish would most probably have been carried into execution."

The receipt of Lord Keith's letter, and the refusal to ratify the Convention, occasioned an immediate renewal of hostilities on the 20th of March. The Turks were defeated, and much blood was spilt.

Sir Sidney Smith, in a letter to Lord Keith, dated April 5th, 1800, says, that General Kléber, after having notified his intention to renew hostilities, attacked the Vizir's advanced posts, on the morning of the 20th of March, in the vicinity of Cairo. The French opened a fire of sixty pieces of cannon on the Turkish advanced posts; the Turks advanced in bodies of from 50 to 100 men, and skirmished with the French line, which remained steady till these were either

1 Letter of Lord Grenville to Lord Elgin, March 28th, 1800. Life of Sir W. Sidney Smith, Vol. ii. p. 13.