Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Bew, John
2016.
War, Demobilization and Memory.
p.
166.
Article contents
Arthur Wellesley and the Cintra Convention: A New Look at an Old Puzzle
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 January 2014
Extract
News of a great victory over Napoleon's forces in Portugal was published in London on the morning of September 2, 1808. The celebrations that began the night before with the firing of cannon in the parks and the pealing of the city's church bells spread from one end of the country to the other and did not subside for nearly two weeks: it was the first important victory for a British army since the war began in 1793. Ever since, the glorious Battle of Vimeiro has been associated with the name of Wellington who, as young General Sir Arthur Wellesley, won his spurs on that occasion by (in his own words) winning “a complete victory” with only half his army over “the whole of the French force in Portugal … under the command of the Due D'Abrantes in person.” Following publication of his vainglorious communiqué and the more sober official announcements, the country waited impatiently for details of the French surrender.
Historical accounts of the event are all in agreement as to what happened after the battle and who was to blame for what proved to be a fiasco in Portugal: after leading his troops to victory, Wellesley (through no fault of his own) had been superseded on the field by General Harry Burrard who, in turn, was replaced on the following day by General Hew Dalrymple. These peculiar revolutions in the command are traceable to political in-fighting at home and the vagaries of travel in the days of sailing ships and have nothing to do with the story except that it was Dalrymple not Wellesley who was in command when the armistice between the contending forces was negotiated. Dalrymple, according to the orthodox exegesis, a stubborn blunderer, negotiated the agreement with the French representative, General Kellermann, and literally gave away the hard-won fruits of Wellesley's victory.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1980
References
1 Wellesley to Castlereagh, August 22, 1808, Dispatches of Field Marshall the Duke of Wellington, Lieut. ColonelGurwood, (ed.), (London, 1837), IV, p. 115Google Scholar; Wellesley to Burrard, August 21, 1808, ibid., p. 111.
2 The Morning Post of September 2 headed the story: “Most Glorious News from Portugal, Complete Defeat of General Junot and Proposals for the Surrender of His Army”; see also Castlereagh to the king, September 1, 1808, The Later Correspondence of George III, Aspinall, A. (ed.), (Cambridge, 1970), V, p. 119Google Scholar. Wellesley's boasting emerges from an analysis of the numbers listed in the official returns of both sides in SirOman's, CharlesA History of the Peninsular War (Oxford, 1902), I, pp. 246–49Google Scholar.
3 Longford, Elizabeth, Wellington, the Years of the Sword (New York, 1969), p. 157Google Scholar.
4 Weller, Jac, Wellington in the Peninsula (London, 1973), p. 54Google Scholar.
5 Cooper, Leonard, The Age of Wellington (New York, 1963), p. 142Google Scholar.
6 Weller, loc.cit.
7 Aldington, Richard, The Duke (New York, 1943), p. 135Google Scholar.
8 Bryant, Arthur, The Great Duke (New York, 1972), p. 130Google Scholar.
9 In addition to biographers already cited, George Hooper 1889), General Lord Roberts (1895), Herbert Maxwell (1900), Philip Guedella (1931), and Charles Petrie (1956) all tell the same story. Glover's, MichaelBritannia Sickens (London, 1970)Google Scholar, is a meticulous retelling of the convention episode that suffers from the traditional limitations. Fortesque, John, Wellington (New York, 1925)Google Scholar held that “Wellington advised acceptance” and that ministers made a “scapegoat” of Dalrymple. Wellesley, understanding the precarious military balance on August 23, as usual … faced facts” (p. 109-10). Fortesque was unaware of the efforts his hero made to undo the facts. The classic studies written by contemporaries, Robert Southey, Charles William Vane (Londonderry), and William Napier, step gingerly around the question of responsibility. Each placed Wellesley in the center of the negotiations and Dalrymple emerges as a dignified, competent officer; but there is no assignment of blame to either. The definitive study of the war is Oman's, CharlesA History of the Peninsular War (Oxford, 1902)Google Scholar. He found “grave faults and mistakes on the part of Dalrymple” and exonerated Wellesley who was “ordered to sign the armistice although he privately protested its details.” See I, pp. 269-70, 275, 287.
10 Castlereagh to Canning, September 18, 1808, Harewood Mss., no. 34. The Harewood Mss are in the Sheepscar Library in Leeds and are the property of the Earl of Harewood. The Gordon Papers are in the British Library in London.
11 Castlereagh to Stewart, September 14, 1808, Portland to Castlereagh, September 4, 1808, Castlereagh to Dalrymple, September 4, 1808, Correspondence, Despatches, and Other Papers of Viscount Castlereagh (London, 1851)Google Scholar, (hereafter C.C.), VI, pp. 421-25. The King to Canning, September 4, 1808, Correspondence of George III, V, p. 119Google Scholar.
12 Portland to Castlereagh, September 5, 1808, C.C. VI, p. 424.
13 Sun, September 20, 1808 and following; Morning Post, September 19, 20 and following. “Arthur Wellesley signed only out of a sense of discipline and subordination,” said the Morning Post on the 28th, and joined the backstairs slander of Dalrymple: “Hew Dalrymple did not even have the capacity of a common drillsergeant …” The Courier, also defending Wellesley, charged that the campaign against him was a device to discredit the government (September 29).
14 Grey to Brougham, September 29, 1808, The Life and Times of Lord Brougham Written by Himself (New York, 1871), I, p. 286Google Scholar.
15 Perceval to Canning, September 16, 1808, Harewood Mss., no. 33.
16 Wellesley to Castlereagh, August 23, 1808, Supplementary Despatches of the Duke ofWellington, edited by his son (London, 1860), VII pp. 122–24Google Scholar.
17 Wellesley to Wellesley-Pole, August 24, 1808, Camden Miscellany, XVIII, 3rd series, LXXK, p. 6. It is clear that Wellesley intended portions of these letters for publication.
18 Sun, September 29, 1808. For details on tunneling information and money to compliant editors and publishers in this period, see Aspinall, A., Politics and the Press (London, 1949)Google Scholar. About Yorke and his mentors, Lord Sidmouth wrote: “If [his] paper receives any further encouragement from ministers all those who give it will deserve to be hanged.” Ibid., p. 88. Wellesley-Pole revealed in 1812 that the government never sent less than fifteen thousand pounds to Irish newspapers alone. Ibid., p. 140. Paragraphs on Wellesley and the convention were doctored in his favor in the pages of the Dublin Correspondent. Ibid., p. 266. A general policy provided secret service money, favorable quotas of official advertisements, or priorities in news items to cooperative proprietors of English and Irish newspapers. See Gray, Denis, Spencer Perceval, The Evangelical Prime Minister (Manchester, 1963), p. 134Google Scholar.
19 Wellesley-Pole to Wellesley, September 30, 1808, Supplementary Despatches, VI, pp. 143–44Google Scholar.
20 Castlereagh to Dalrymple, September 21, 1808, C.C. VI, p. 447; Castlereagh to the king, September 1808, Correspondence of George III, V, p. 127Google Scholar.
21 Courier, January 9, 1809.
22 Courier, and Sun, government subsidized newspapers, refused at first to be associated with the unpopular Wellesley cause. See Gray, , Spencer Perceval, p. 182Google Scholar.
23 The Times, September 21, 1808.
24 Independent Whig, October 9, 1808. Aside from the open ministerial papers (the Courier became an important exception toward the end of the year), London's leading newspapers, The Times, Examiner, Morning Chronicle, andCobbett's Political Register remained bitter critics of official policies relating to the convention and the campaign to clear Wellesley.
25 Canning to Bathurst, September 16, 1808, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of Earl Bathurst, p. 76.
26 Canning to Perceval, September 17, 1808, Harewood Mas., no. 32.
27 Canning to Perceval, September 17, 1808, ibid.
28 Canning to Portland, September 17, 1808, ibid.
29 Canning to Castlereagh, September 17, 1808, ibid.
30 Canning to Castlereagh, September 17, 1808, ibid.
31 Castlereagh to Perceval, September 18, 1808, Perceval Papers, no. 146, vii, 6. (Papers in the possession of David Holland, made available through the Record Office, House of Lords, London.)
32 A. Granville Leveson Gower to Bessborough, October 2, 1808, Letters of Granville Leveson Gower, CountessGranville, (ed.), (London, 1917), II, p. 334Google Scholar.
33 Bessborough to G.L.G., September 27, 1808, p. 331.
34 Frederick to Gordon, October 16, 1808, Add. Mss. Gordon Papers, 49472. The Gordon papers are in the British Library in London.
35 Frederick to Gordon, October 16, 1808, ibid.
36 Frederick to the Marquess of Buckingham, November 23, 1808, Memoirs of the Court and Cabinets of George the Third, Duke of Buckingham and Chandos (ed.), (London, 1855), IV, p. 252Google Scholar. This writer believed that all hopes for Wellesley's future were now “an empty bubble … it is all over with him.”
37 Castlereagh's faith in Wellesley probably traced to the early successes in India and the siege of Copenhagen in 1807. Beginning in 1806, Wellesley was in charge of planning an invasion of South America. He was put in command of the expedition to Venezuela which, as a result of his suggestion, was diverted at the last minute to Portugal. For details see his memoranda in Supplementary Despatches, VI, pp. 35–82Google Scholar.
38 G.L.C. to Bessborough, October 8, 1808, Granville Leveson Gower, op.cit., p. 339.
39 The Times, September 19, 1808.
40 The Times, September 20, 1808.
41 Ibid., September 29, 1808.
42 Examiner, September 25, 1808.
43 The Times, September 23, 1808.
44 Political Register, September 10, 1808.
45 Wellington to Gleig, April 6, 1831, Gleig, George Robert, Personal Reminiscences of the Duke of Wellington (London, 1904), p. 59Google Scholar.
46 Castlereagh to Wellesley, September 30, 1808. Suplementary Despatches, VI, p. 143Google Scholar; Wellesley-Pole to Wellesley, September 30, 1808, ibid. p. 144.
47 Political Register, October 15, 1808.
48 Auckland to Lord Grenville, September 29, 1808, Historical Mss. Commission, The Mss. of J.B. Fortescue Preserved at Dropmore, IX, p. 220Google Scholar, (hereafter Dropmore Papers).
49 Ibid.
50 Auckland to Grenville, October 10, 1808, Ibid. pp. 223-24.
51 Castlereagh to A. Wellesley, September 26, 1808, C.C., VI, p. 453.
52 See Court and Cabinets of George III, IV, pp. 257–58Google Scholar.
53 Thomas Grenville to Lord Grenville, October 7, 1808, Dropmore Papers, IX, p. 222.
54 Portland to Richard Wellesley, September 7, 1808, The Wellesley Papers (London, 1914), I, p. 240Google Scholar.
55 Auckland to Grenville, September 20, 1808, Dropmore Papers, IX, p. 216.
56 Buckingham to Richard Wellesley, September 25, 1808, Wellesley Papers, I, p. 241Google Scholar.
57 Temple to Buckingham, November 4, 1808, Court and Cabinets of George II, IV, p. 274Google Scholar.
58 Court and Cabinets of George III, IV, pp. 257–58Google Scholar.
59 Buckingham to Wellesley, October 7, 1808, Supplementary Despatches, VI, p. 148Google Scholar; Earl Temple to Wellesley, October 9, 1808, ibid., p. 158.
60 Auckland to Lord Grenville, October 10, 1808, Dropmore Papers, DC, pp. 223-24.
61 Auckland to Lord Grenville, October 11, 1808, ibid.
62 Marques Wellesley to Earl Temple, September 20, 1808, Court and Cabinets of George III, IV, p. 258Google Scholar. But Wellesley knew better as early as September 17. An acquaintance who had been told on the 16th that Sir Arthur had nothing to do with the armistice and who went next day to question him further, was told that the marquess had “left town.” ibid., p. 251.
63 Wellesley to Castlereagh, October 6, 1808, Dispatches, IV, pp. 161–62Google Scholar.
64 The decision to accept the treaties seems to have been taken before the arrival of the confirming documents and was never altered despite the stunning impact of the terms. See Castlereagh to the king, September 15, 1808, Correspondence of George III, V, p. 124Google Scholar.
65 Canning to the king, September 28, 1808, ibid., pp. 133-36.
66 Castlereagh to Stewart, September 4, 1808, C.C. VI, pp. 421-23.
67 Canning to Castlereagh, December 28, 1807, extract in Instructions to SirCotton, Charles from the Admiralty, “Papers Presented to the House of Commons Relative to the Russian Fleet in the Tagus and to the Convention Concluded with the Russian Admiral,” British Sessional Papers, H.C., 1809, XII, p. 274Google Scholar, no. 2.
68 Castlereagh to Admiralty Commissioners, April 16, 1808, ibid., p. 278, no. 7.
69 Assigned to Dublin, Wellesley paid frequent visits to London for meetings with the Venezuelan revolutionary, Francisco Miranda, with whom plans were finalized for a British assault on South America. As chief adviser to the minister for war and colonies it seems likely that Wellesley was privy to the admiralty proposals, but I have seen no evidence that links him directly to the plan for ridding Portugal of the Russian fleet.
70 Admiralty Commissioners to Cotton, April 16, 1808, Sessional Papers, ibid., p. 279, no. 8; Cotton to Wellesley-Pole, April 27, 1808, ibid., p. 280, no. 9.
71 Castlereagh to Dyer, et al, June 19, 1808, C.C., VI, p. 371.
72 Castlereagh to Von Decken, et al, August 4, 1808, C.C., op.cit., p. 390.
73 Dalrymple, , Memoir, written by General Sir Hew Dalrymple of his proceedings as connected with the affairs of Spain (London, 1830), p. 87Google Scholar.
74 Von Decken to Castlereagh, August 18, 1808, C.C., VII, p. 168.
75 Ibid.
76 Von Decken to Castlereagh, August 28, 1808, ibid., p. 172.
77 Ibid., p. 86.
78 Dalrymple to Von Decken, August 24, 1808, ibid., p. 202.
79 None of my sources contain the full letter, dated August 19. The citation is from excerpts given in Dalrymple, 's Memoir, p. 92Google Scholar.
80 Ibid.
81 Castlereagh to Dalrymple, August 20, 1808, C.C., VI, p. 407.
82 Wellesley to Castlereagh, September 5, 1808, Dispatches, IV, p. 143Google Scholar; “Observation on the Convention of Cintra,” October 2, 1808, C.C., op.cit., p. 463.
83 Critics held the government responsible for appointing the three generals involved in the negotiation of the treaties. There the evidence stopped. See report of a public meeting at Westminster in The Times, October 21, 1803. Speakers only voiced suspicions of an inquiry that would allow ministers to conduct a private investigation of themselves.
84 Coleridge to T.G. Street, December 7, 1808, Collected Letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge (Oxford, 1959), III, p. 725Google Scholar.
85 Canning to Perceval, September 17, 1808 (two letters); Canning to Portland, September 17, 1808; Canning to Castlereagh, September 17, 1808; Harewood Papers, no. 32.
86 Wellesley to Wellesley-Pole, August 26, 1808, Camden Miscellany, ibid., p. 7.
87 Wellesley to Richmond, August 27, 1808, Supplementary Despatches, VI, p. 127Google Scholar.
88 Wellesley to Wellesley-Pole, August 26, 1808, Camden Miscellany, ibid., p. 7.
89 Wellesley to Wellesley-Pole, September 6, 1808, ibid., p. 8.
90 “Memorandum Handed to Sir Hew Dalrymple,” August 23, 1808, Dispatches, IV, pp. 120–21Google Scholar. The British representative set off for Lisbon on the 25th after consultations with Wellesley, Delrymple, and Burrard. See Copy of the Proceedings upon the Inquiry Relative to the Armistice and Convention Made and Concluded in Portugal (London, 1809), p. 43Google Scholar.
91 Wellesley to Castlereagh, August 30, 1808, Dispatches, ibid., p. 132; Dalrymple, Memoir p. 71; the alterations made on this date are in the Inquiry Proceedings, p. 183.
92 Inquiry Proceedings, “Report of the Board,” p. 119Google Scholar.
93 Ibid., p. 62.
94 Wellesley to Castlereagh, August 30, 1808, Dispatches, ibid., p. 132. “I have not seen the Convention,” he wrote to another friend on September 1; and to another on September 5, “I had nothing to do with the Convention as it now stands and I have never seen it to this moment.” See Wellesley to Richmond, Supplementary Despatches, ibid., p. 128; Wellesley to Malcolm, Dispatches, ibid., p. 139.
95 Dalrymple to Castlereagh, September 3, 1808, C.C., VII, pp. 241-42; Dalrymple to Gordon, September 3, 1808, Add. Mss., 49483: “… I was too little acquainted with the exact force and other circumstances relating to the French army to be able to decide. I perceived however that both Sir Harry Burrard and Sir Arthur Wellesley considered the evacuation of Portugal by the French troops under the terms of a convention to be a desirable object, and the reasons assigned by Sir Arthur … carried with them conviction.” See also Dalrymple to Major-General Harry Calvert, September 4, 1808, Add. Mss. 49483, Gordon Papers: “… Sir Arthur Wellesley has been the principal director of that measure which perhaps of all others I saw the most prudence in allowing him to direct. His talents are great and when exercised on the side of caution may be relied on.”
96 Castlereagh to Dalrymple, July 15, 1808, Dispatches, IV, p. 30Google Scholar. This letter recommended that Dalrymple turn to Wellesley for advice.
97 Burrard to Gordon, October 4, 1808. Same to Same, October 5, 1808. Add. Mss., 49484, Gordon Papers.
98 Stewart to Castlereagh, September 17, 1808; The Times, September 21, 1908. This letter only surfaced 100 years later.
99 An interview with Kellermann was printed in the Courier, November 1, 1808.
100 Dalrymple, , “Summary of Events, September 2, 1809,” p. 17Google Scholar, Add. Mss., 49484.
101 Stewart to Castlereagh, loc. cit.
102 Stewart to Buckingham, September 17, 1808, Court and Cabinets of George III, IV, p. 250Google Scholar. “To do the Ministers justice, their anxiety and misery, is not second to that which other classes of people feel.”
103 Auckland to Lord Grenville, November 7, 1808, Dropmore Papers, IX, p. 239.
104 The Times, October 20, 1808.
105 Political Register, October 29, November 26, 1808. “The issue is now larger than the Convention—it is political rights, preservation and exercise of liberties won by great effort.” For a contemporary commentary on the state of civil liberties in England this year, see Tandy, James, An Appeal to the Public (London, 1809)Google Scholar, reviewed with approval in the January Gentlemen's Magazine, p. 53.
106 The Times, November 14, 1808.
107 Ibid., October 14, 1808.
108 Ibid., October 22, 1808.
109 Political Register, October 8, 1808.
110 Earl Temple to Wellesley, October 16, 1808, Dropmore Papers, IX, p. 163.
111 Wellesley to Earl Temple, October 19, 1808, Supplementary Despatches, VI, p. 160Google Scholar. According to Lord Brougham, Plummer-Ward, who worked with Wellesley-Pole in the admiralty office and Castlereagh's associate, under secretary for war Edward Cooke, were the active agents. See Life and Times, I, p. 420Google Scholar.
112 Thomas Grenville to William Grenville, October 19, 1808, Dropmore Papers, IX, p. 229.
113 Wellesley-Pole to Wellesley, Supplementary Despatches, ibid., October 27, 1808, ibid., pp. 174-75; October 28, 1808, ibid. pp. 174-75.
114 Political Register, November 12, 1808.
115 Courier, November 22, 26, 1808.
116 Castlereagh to Dalrymple, November 6, 1808, C.C., VII, p. 6; Dalrymple to Castlereagh, November 7, ibid., p. 253; Dalrymple to Ryder, November 16, ibid., p. 254; Dalrymple to Castlereagh, November 18, ibid.; Dalrymple to Castlereagh, [?] November 22, ibid., p. 255.
117 Castlereagh to Ryder, November 10, 1808, ibid., p. 8; Castlereagh to Dundas, [?] November, ibid., p. 9.
118 Dalrymple, , Memoir, p. 129Google Scholar.
119 Ibid., p. 131.
120 See Castlereagh to Dalrymple, September 17, 1808, Inquiry Proceedings, p. 269.
121 Castlereagh to Canning, November 13, 1808, Harewood Mss., no. 32.
122 Canning to Castlereagh, November 13, 1808, ibid.
123 Dalrymple, Memoir, ibid.,
124 Dalrymple, , “Summary of Events, September 2, 1809,” p. 4Google Scholar. Add Mss. 49484, Gordon Papers.
125 Ibid., pp. 4, 15.
126 Inquiry Proceedings, p. 13.
127 The Times, November 18, 1808.
128 Inquiry Proceedings, p. 17.
129 Ibid., p. 59.
130 Ibid.
131 The Times, January 5, 1809.
132 Parliamentary Debates, XII, p. 898Google Scholar.
133 Castlereagh to Duke of York, January 18, 1809, Dispatches, IV, pp. 256–57Google Scholar.
134 Inquiry Proceedings, p. 59.
135 Ibid.
136 Ibid., p. 63.
137 Ibid., p. 119.
138 On November 22, The Times reprinted the Morning Post's angry denial of Wellesley's charge along with lengthy excerpts of the discredited explanations for his conduct from the same newspaper and the Sun.
139 See, for example, critical comments in the Morning Chronicle, January 2, 1809; the Courier, January 4, 5, 6, 1809. The Times, January 4, 5, 20, 1809. Political Register, January 7, 1809. The Examiner commented (January 8, 1809): “The [verdict] is as extraordinary as the Convention itself … The Board attempts to screen the degraders of their country.”
140 Wellesley to Richmond, September 1, 1808, Supplementary Despatches, VI, p. 129Google Scholar.
- 1
- Cited by