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 August (the date the French signed 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