d to have "affected to
cheer." I give this as a notable case whereby two innocent people were
threatened with ruin and disgrace by the poisonous slander circulated
for both private and political ends and fostered by the worthless
husband of a virtuous and amiable woman.

It is common knowledge that Nelson and Sir William Hamilton were
assailed by the same stinging wasps as Melbourne and Mrs. Norton (if
it be proper to make a comparison), but they were different types of
men living in a different atmosphere and under different
circumstances. It is true that Nelson had scruples about the unwisdom
of his unconventional connection with Lady Hamilton, and, big-hearted
fellow that he was, he would have struggled hard to avoid giving pain
to his relations and friends; and who knows that he did not? For
though his actions may belie that impression, his whole attitude was
reckless, silly, and whimsical. To whatever extent he may have had
scruples, he certainly did not possess the faculty of holding his
inclinations in check. Indeed, he made no secret of the idea that
"every man became a bachelor after passing the Rock of Gibraltar," and
in this notion he carried out the orthodoxy of the old-time sailor.

He disliked marriage and loved glory, and being a popular hero, he was
forgiven all his amorous sins, which were by many looked upon as being
part of his heroism. His laughable efforts to obscure the facts might
have satisfied those who wished to rely on Hamilton's benedictory
absolution, had not Nelson and Emma, as I have already said, left
behind them incriminating letters and documents which leave no doubt
as to what they were to each other. The great Admiral industriously
destroyed much of the massive correspondence, but had overlooked some
of the hidden treasures. Lady Hamilton promised to destroy all hers,
but failed to do so. Hence the documentary proof written by his own
hand and that of Emma's cancels Nelson's childish device to throw a
too critical public off the scent.

Nelson was alternately weak, nervous, careless, and defiant in his
attitude in regard to public opinion concerning his private life. He
at one time asserted the right of living in any way he might choose,
and resented the criticism of a few cackling busybodies, even though
it was not in accordance with the views of the late Mr. Edward Cocker.
It was his affair, and if his ideas differed from those of his
critics, it was no business of theirs. His in