including the failure to consult the Junta of Porto, as the Portuguese leadership, and the provisions designed to protect those who had cooperated with the French during the occupation of Portugal. Dalrymple was clearly sensitive to the potential for friction with Britain’s ally for he requested the objections in writing, but apparently these were not forthcoming. Bernardim Freire agreed to establish Major Ayres Pinto de Souza as a liaison officer to attend on the British commander.33
Meanwhile, Lieutenant Colonel Murray had taken a copy of the terms to Admiral Cotton who insisted that the Russian fleet should not be allowed to sail free, and in effect should be excluded from the terms of any convention and subject to a separate agreement.34 Ultimately this was to involve the surrender of the Russian fleet to Admiral Cotton, on the basis it would be returned at the conclusion of hostilities, and the repatriation to Russia of its crews.35 However, when Murray returned to headquarters on 25 August with the news that Cotton objected to the proposed inclusion of the Russian fleet in the convention, Dalrymple, having called a conference with both Burrard and Wellesley in attendance, determined to tell the French that the cessation of hostilities would end at twelve noon on 28 August, given the terms were not acceptable. Murray was dispatched to Junot with this instruction, but with authorisation to extend the cessation for a further twenty-four hours if he was making progress with negotiations.
Murray did make progress in further discussions with Kellerman and on the morning of 29 August, Captain Adolphus John Dalrymple, a son of the British commander, arrived back at Ramalhal with an amended treaty agreed between Murray and Kellerman. Once again Dalrymple convened a meeting of his Lieutenant Generals.36 Objections were raised to the proposals, and a further draft containing alterations was sent back to Murray.37 Meanwhile, the cessation of hostilities ended and Dalrymple moved his headquarters into Torres Vedras. Junot accepted the convention as altered and signed the terms, together with some additional articles of an administrative nature, at his headquarters in Lisbon on 30 August.38 In ratifying the terms, he signed as Duke of Abrantes. No one may have noticed at the time, but the acknowledgment of this title was itself to cause resentment in Portugal when it became known.39
On 31 August at 7.30 am, Captain Dalrymple arrived back at Torres Vedras with the definitive treaty. Sir Hew Dalrymple convened a further meeting of his Lieutenant Generals in Burrard’s headquarters; a meeting which on this occasion did not include either Wellesley or Paget who were with their troops. Dalrymple ratified the ‘Convention of Cintra’ with no disapproval being made by those present. It was noted that Junot had failed to sign one part of the treaty, and Lieutenant Colonel Lord Proby was sent to Lisbon with both copies in order that this might be rectified.40 One copy was later returned to the British commander but meanwhile in its absence Murray was detailed to explain its substance to Pinto da Souza.
The Convention contained twenty-two articles and three supplementary articles.41 In essence, the French army was to evacuate Portugal and be transported to any French port between Rochefort and Lorient, the means for doing so to be supplied by the British government. The Convention provided for the hand over of the strong places in Portugal to the British army and for the gradual embarkation of the French army in three divisions. The execution of the Convention and its terms was to give rise to discussion and disagreement when it became known in the United Kingdom, but more immediately a number of articles became the subject of anger and dispute in Portugal, rendering its implementation fraught with difficulty. While several articles were to prove contentious between the British and their Portuguese allies, the interpretation of Article V by the French leadership and the manner in which the British command reacted gave rise to complaint and recrimination in Portugal and criticism at home. Article V provided:
The French army shall carry with it all its equipments, and all that is comprehended under the name of property of the army; that is to say, its military chest, and carriages attached to the Field Commissariat and Field Hospitals; or shall be allowed to dispose of such part of the same, on its account, as the Commander-in-Chief may judge it unnecessary to embark. In like manner, all individuals in the army shall be at liberty to dispose of their private property of every description; with full security hereafter for the purchasers.
The possibility of disagreement as between the contracting parties relating to the Articles had been recognised in the Convention, which provided for commissioners to be named by both sides to regulate and accelerate the arrangements (Article XIII), and the Convention further provided that when doubts arose on the meaning of any article, it was to be interpreted in favour of the French army (Article XIV). The latter provision was a standard one in favour of the defeated side. Dalrymple appointed Lieutenant Colonel Lord Proby as the British commissioner to work with his opposite number, General Kellerman, on 2 September.
The French command chose to interpret ‘military chest’ as set out in Article V to include public and private property seized during its occupation of Portugal, even that taken after the execution of the Suspension of Arms of 22 August. A strong protest was not long in coming. The Bishop of Porto sent Dalrymple a letter of protest on 1 September to which Dalrymple responded the following day pointing out that he had sent Bernardim Freire a copy of the terms of agreement, the basis of the Convention, and sought his views but had heard nothing in return.42 On 2 September Bernardim Freire lodged a written protest with Dalrymple asserting that the French ‘are practicing in Lisbon a species of plunder on the Publick Treasury, Museums, Arsenals, Churches, Library, as also the houses and stores of private persons, which it is my duty to communicate to your Excellency information of, that you may take such measures as you may think proper’.43
The first division of the French army was reportedly ready to embark as early as 3 September. In a taste of things to come, General Junot had sought the use of five neutral Danish vessels then in the river to carry his own ‘personal effects’ but this was declined by Proby on Darymple’s instructions.44 The disturbing reports reaching Dalrymple regarding the behaviour of the French prompted him to appoint a second commissioner to oversee the implementation of the Convention. He chose Major General William Carr Beresford, who had arrived from Madeira with the 3rd Regiment (The Buffs) after the Battle of Vimeiro.45 Dalrymple indicated to Proby that Beresford’s appointment was ‘to ease you of at least part of your vexation and labour’.46
Dalrymple’s motives in choosing Beresford over any other staff officer for the position are not clear, though his familiarity with the Portuguese and French languages combined with recognition of his administrative abilities already demonstrated in Egypt, South America and Madeira may have played their part. On arriving at the estuary of the Tagus, Beresford’s initial assignment had been to occupy the forts on the river under the terms of the Convention. This he had undertaken with the 3rd and 42nd regiments on 2 September.47 Whatever the motives, the choice of Beresford as a commissioner proved inspired. Beresford, upon taking up the post of commissioner, made an early call on Junot at his Lisbon headquarters. While they apparently breakfasted together, the meeting was perhaps not unsurprisingly a far from happy one. Writing to Wellesley, Beresford stated: ‘Junot did not appear to have taken any great liking to me, at which you will believe I am not breaking my heart.’48 One of Junot’s officers, General Thiébault, probably identified why Junot was not taken with Beresford when he wrote: ‘Beresford était un home tres poli, mais tres ferme de caractère.’49
It is interesting and perhaps indicative of his relationship with Wellesley that Beresford was writing not only to the Commander of the British army in Portugal, Dalrymple, but also to his fellow Irishman about the implementation of the Convention. An extensive correspondence took place between Proby and Beresford, on the one part, and Dalrymple, on the other, relating to the work of the commissioners, who clearly faced a very substantial challenge in their efforts to ensure that the French left only with their ‘military chest’. Most letters were signed by Beresford and Proby but a number bear the signature of just one of the commissioners.50
In their first letter to Dalrymple on the topic of their work on 4 September, Beresford and Proby outlined the issues and expressed concern that the ‘articles of the treaty’ appeared to favour the French as allowing them to keep whatever was in their possession on 30
