the Convention). The French, they wrote, seemed to be intent on taking everything other than military and naval arsenals and ships.51 The commissioners went on to list some of the categories of moveable property that the French were seeking to take. These included:
i) valuables belonging to HRH the Prince Regent;
ii) valuables taken from churches. In many cases church plate appears to have been melted down into bars of bullion;
iii) valuables taken from individuals;
iv) the contents of the royal libraries;
v) a sum of approximately £22,000 from the Depósito Público, which was made up of monies belonging to individuals.52
A day later the commissioners added a further complaint, namely that the French were still appropriating the revenues of the country.53 Wellesley was obviously consulted. He opined that the property to be carried off by the French was ‘limited to military baggage and equipments and that the French must restore what had been taken from churches and individuals’.54
An unnamed diarist visited Beresford’s house in Lisbon on 6 September and reported:
On our arrival at Lisbon, we visited General Beresford, at whose house we met Lord Paget, his aides de camp, and Colonel Graham. We here found that nothing could surpass the audacity of the attempts which had been made by the French to carry off all the articles of value which could be found in Lisbon, whether public or private property. They had actually packed up two state carriages, the property of His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex; but at the remonstrance of General Beresford, they were compelled to relinquish their booty.55
Beresford and Proby were able to make some progress in negotiations with General Kellerman. On 6 September they reported that the French had conceded that they were not entitled to keep anything other than military baggage and private property, and that public property appropriated since the first day of the truce must be restored. The monies taken from the Depósito Público were to be replaced. The artefacts taken from the royal and public libraries and museums would be restored ‘if insisted upon’ but Kellerman suggested many of the items from the museums were in fact duplicates and were items they did not have in Paris and that it was in the interest of all that scientific examination take place. The commissioners sought instructions from Dalrymple who responded that ‘the French have no right to carry off plunder of any sort, at least not in its original form’. Dalrymple complimented Beresford and Proby on the firm manner in which they were executing their mission, at the same time confirming that the articles which were allegedly duplicates must not be removed.56
Indeed, 6 September may have been a critical day in the sequence of events. On that day Dalrymple received a deputation from the merchants of Lisbon and noted that their ire was directed almost as much against the English as against the French. They also wrote to him in strong terms expressing their outrage.57 The anger of the Portuguese was summed up by José de Abreu Campos:
Our churches plundered of their ornaments, the royal palaces damaged, the royal treasury plundered, and in general, the people reduced to such poverty and misery, as to render the streets and squares of the capital impossible; nothing of this is taken into consideration. Yet these objections are of extreme importance, as an example not to be passed with impunity … The safeties of monarchies depends on not letting their rights be invaded without punishing the offender, and the consequence of permitting such crimes with impunity will occasion incalculable misfortune.58
Bernardim Freire had lodged a protest as soon as he had heard of the terms of the Convention, even before he had received a written copy of the document. In doing so he listed particular criticisms and concerns. He made the point that the Portuguese should have been, but were not included, as a party. Furthermore, since he had not been consulted he declined to take any responsibility for its terms.59 A formal protest was not long in forthcoming. In a lengthy Memorial of 3 September, Bernardim Freire pointed out that the British army was in Portugal as an auxiliary force at the invitation of the Portuguese government and that accordingly discussions with the French should have been in conjunction with the Portuguese.60 Further, he complained that certain stipulations in the Convention, such as the surrender of forts to British rather than Portuguese troops, were such as could only have been made if Portugal was a conquered country. Dalrymple was urged to explain that this happened only to avoid friction between French and Portuguese troops. Objection was also made to the proposals to allow those who had cooperated with the French to remain in Portugal, in circumstances where they would not have to answer for their actions. To these complaints was added a general one regarding the plundering by the French continuing to take place in Lisbon.61 This Memorial was followed a day later by an article-by-article complaint.62
Further protests were received at British headquarters. Lieutenant General Dom Francisco da Cunha Menezes, Count of Castro Marim and Monteiro-mor, Governor of Algarve, who commanded the army of the south, wrote in the first instance on 9 September to Admiral Cotton seeking his intervention to prevent the French leaving the port of Lisbon.63 Cotton passed on the correspondence to Dalrymple. In an arguably cavalier approach, Dalrymple took the view that he was only required to discuss matters with the government of the country; and the Supreme Junta of Porto was not so appointed. Of course, Junot had dissolved the Council of Regency so Dalrymple had a point, but that was to ignore the fact that the Monteiro-mor had been a member of that Council, and therefore a member of the government. Nevertheless, Dalrymple was sensitive to the issue of plunder and its potential for friction. When Kellerman called to his headquarters at Oeiras on 6 September to complain of the demands made by commissioners Beresford and Proby, Dalrymple told him in their presence that if any person from the General-in-chief to the lowest person in the French army should prove guilty of plunder, that person would forfeit the benefit of the treaty and be considered a prisoner of war.64
Pressure was mounting on Kellerman, and following further representations from Beresford and Proby, Junot issued an Ordre du Jour dated 6 September. This directed every person having private property, whether in pictures or other moveables, to restore them immediately to the owners. For some time the French had maintained they were entitled to keep melted down church plate in their possession prior to the signing of the truce, but ultimately Junot conceded it should not be taken out of the country but should be used to pay the debts of the French army. Dalrymple felt that providing this offer was implemented it was fair.65 Beresford and Proby were clearly making some progress, as was testified by Charles Stewart writing to his brother, Castlereagh, then Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, on 8 September having arrived in Lisbon the previous day:
I found Proby and Beresford hard at work endeavouring to make these robbers disgorge their plunder and I hope they have in part succeeded although much remains to be done & it is impossible things can have been worse managed on our side than they have been. When Proby was first sent in to see the articles of the Treaty executed, he was not even furnished with a copy of it and owned to Sir Hew his complete incompetence to manage so intricate an affair especially as there were parts of the convention he did not understand – many points unsettled. Sir Hew however persevered in sending him in with plein pouvoirs, & no treaty. The French endeavoured to impose a spurious one and this he detected. Beresford at last came in and since his arrival things have gone on better. He has got back the museum and £25,000 taken from the Deposito Publico [sic], during the time the treaty was going on. They are now at issue on the Church Plate … The Duc D’Abrantes is the greatest robber of the whole and set the example by seizing everything in every shop and house without payment.66
Junot may well have been ‘the greatest robber of the whole’ but he was also extremely astute, reportedly using two mints to convert melted down church plate into Napoleon D’Ors, thus enabling him to claim they were part of his military baggage.67
The British, pushed by the Portuguese, set about investigating the persistent allegations of plunder and to this end established a three-man Committee for
