I am curious. "A species of guerilla warfare" is the term used by Captain Butler in 1905 ( don't see that the phrase is notably contemptuous).

It's specifically the use of the word "species" where I see the implied contempt for Sir Sidney's guerrilla war residing. I admit that it is subtle in form, but, the English army's contempt for Sir Sidney knew few bounds. Here, the boundary that Butler didn't want to cross was decorum; "species" is simply the placeholder for something like "miserable" or "dirty." He was being contemptuous in a polite way.

The English army commanders at Sicily were openly contemptuous of Smith. This contempt came from the fact that Sir Sidney had (at Acre) and was again here (Italy) infringing on their turf: land warfare. That Smith was successful, especially against Napoleon himself, only went to make their resentment all the worse. Of course, this was layered on top of the rivalry that each service held for the other.

Be sure to read the rest of Butler's article. There is nothing but negatives regarding Smith. In terms of the services Smith's command rendered to the success of the Army at Maida, it's like the navy wasn't even there or in anyway involved in the operation.

Partisan warfare: form or function? My opinion comes from understanding the thinking of the Austrians and they abhorred the thought of partisan warfare; any thought of nationalism was to be suppressed. Of course, Napoleon was of this same opinion. And, I'm pretty sure that the same applies to the English generals in Sicily, although they did present their objection to the Calabrian insurgency due to the negative effects on the better class of inhabitants. But, the plain truth is that Fox had no intention of supporting any involvement on the mainland. His only concern was holding Sicily for the benefit of England in the Med.