mily. A formal reconciliation
took place in September, 1789; but the Duke of Clarence, as he had
then become, continued attached to the Prince of Wales's clique. Those
who know how party considerations influenced naval appointments at
that time, will in these facts find at least a partial explanation of
the cloud which then hung over Nelson.

Lord Chatham, brother of the minister to whom Prince William was not a
friend, became head of the Admiralty in July, 1788, and so remained
until after the war with France began in 1793. With him was associated
Lord Hood, between whom and Nelson there arose what the latter called
"a difference of opinion," which led to a cessation of "familiar
correspondence." The exact date at which this occurred does not
appear, but it was probably before May, 1790; for Hood refused to use
his influence to get Nelson a ship, in the armament which was then
ordered on account of a difficulty with Spain, whereas eighteen months
before he had assured him that in case of hostilities he need not fear
not having a good ship. This refusal was the more marked, because
"almost the whole service was then called out." On the same occasion,
Nelson wrote, "he made a speech never to be effaced from my memory,
viz.: that the King was impressed with an unfavourable opinion of me."
Knowing Nelson's value as an officer as well as Hood did, there can
scarcely remain a doubt that some serious indiscretion, real or
imagined, must have caused this alienation; but of what it was there
is no trace, unless in his evident siding with the prince, who was
then out of favor with both the King and the administration.

The five years--from 1788 to 1792 inclusive--intervening between the
cruise of the "Boreas" and the outbreak of war with the French
Republic, were thus marked by a variety of unpleasant circumstances,
of which the most disagreeable, to a man of Nelson's active
temperament, was the apparently fixed resolve of the authorities to
deny him employment. He was harassed, indeed, by the recurring threats
of prosecution for the West India seizures; but both the Admiralty and
the Treasury agreed that he should be defended at the expense of the
Crown,--a fact which tends to show that his subsequent disfavor arose
from some other cause than disapproval of his official action, however
some incidents may have been misrepresented. On its private side, his
life during this period seems to have been happy, though uneventful;
but