I just wanted to thank everyone who helped me out with research on Naples in 1799. The forum is a great resource of collective knowledge. The book itself, Nelson at Naples, has been published in the UK. A number of people have already disagreed with the conclusions. I hold that any conclusion is debatable , so I just wanted to summarize here why I think Nelson did commit a crime in 1799.

The pro-Nelson position, articulated by Mahan and many more recent supporters, was that the admiral did no wrong by either breaking a truce or annulling a capitulation which the signatories on the Allied side had no right to ratify. My position is that:

1. When Nelson arrived in the bay a treaty of surrender had been signed and partially carried out.
2. The signatories (Ruffo, Foote, Baillie, Ahmed Kapudan) were authorized to sign on behalf of the powers they represented. Ruffo was vicar-general, Foote had taken over from Troubridge on the Naples station, Baillie was commander of the Russian marines and Ahmed commander of the Turkish contingent. Moreover, the French signed for the rebels, Mejan of the 27th Light brokering the treaty (so Ruffo, who had been told not to treat with rebels, was following the letter of his instructions).
3. The treaty was acted upon already. The rebels in the forts had pulled back from their advanced positions, they had released their prisoners, many of the rebels had (under guarantee of safeguard) decided to leave the forts and go home, others had signed a obbligo penes acta (a contract with the government agreeing that they viewed themselves as exiles), some republicans had embarked on the transports that were being gathered, and the Russian contingent was advanced to the gates of the forts.

Nelson then arrived on 24 June, argued with Ruffo, told the republicans that he would not consent to them coming out, changed his mind, brought them out with arms and baggage and ferried them over to the transports. Only then did he inform them that the treaty was null and void and handed them over to the Bourbons for processing.

In my view it was wrong of Nelson to annul a treaty (not a truce) which was already being put into effect. However, in a much overlooked point, he actually broke the laws of war after he annulled the treaty. In 1799 those laws governing capitulations were explicit: if at any point after signature a treaty of surrender was annulled then the enemy would have to be replaced “in the position which they stood previous to the treaty”. There are a few examples of garrisons being restored in such situations, as I am sure contributors here will know.

What is interesting is that Nelson’s officers (Hood, Hallowell and Duckworth in particular) seem to have wanted Nelson to restore the rebels to their forts when he annulled the treaty. Charles Lock informed General Graham that

“Had the convention to be derogatory to His Sicilian Majesty’s honour and more advantageous than the circumstances of the Jacobins entitled them to expect, there was one obvious course, which was to replace affairs in the status quo and to recommence hostilities. The officers charged with the ungrateful service of disarming these unhappy men engaged to reduce them in 24 hours if they might be permitted to reinstate them in their strongholds.”

What is even more surprising is that the court in Palermo also thought Nelson would do this. Acton, who effectively ran the government, telling Hamilton that “Lord N. shall have all the chiefs of our good people with him he will concert with our officers the best method for the castles of the rebels in order that they should be taken instantly …”.

I make other arguments, that Nelson decoyed the rebels out by offering the expectation they would leave for Toulon, that he was abetted by the Hamiltons, and that he had various motives for hating the Neapolitan rebels. But now, on cool reflection, I think the central point is that Nelson broke a valid treaty and then deliberately avoided restoring the garrisons to their positions so that he could hand them over for immediate punishment. That was quite a crime in 1799.