Читать книгу Marshal William Carr Beresford - Marcus de la Poer Beresford - Страница 9

INTRODUCTION

Marshal William Carr Beresford

‘The ablest man I have yet seen with the army’

Wellington’s strong right arm

Ireland in the mid-eighteenth century was an island of many different components. The governing body represented some, but not all, of those who had fought in Ireland on the victorious side in the war of the two kings, a war which had pitted not just Catholic James II against Protestant William and Mary in the British Isles (sometimes with cavalier disregard for Mary’s position as a daughter of James), but which was part of a wider conflict which had brought together other powers wishing to resist the domination of Louis XIV’s France on the European continent (the War of the League of Augsburg).

The defeat of James II and his supporters at the battles of the Boyne (1690) and Aughrim (1691) followed by the Treaty of Limerick led to the establishment of the Ascendancy in Ireland, made up of those who belonged to the Church of Ireland or its sister Church, the Church of England. Not only did this exclude the majority Roman Catholic population but also Presbyterians, Quakers and other non-conformists. While the process had commenced earlier, the victory of William and Mary over James completed the means whereby the Ascendancy secured political, economic and social control of the island of Ireland through a transfer of landownership and the introduction of restrictions on their opponents brought about primarily by the penal laws. Outwardly, Ireland remained at peace in the hundred years prior to the French revolution, with no substantial unrest taking place in support of the Jacobite risings in Scotland of 1708, 1715 or 1745, but underneath the surface those displaced not unnaturally resented the situation. This manifested itself in agrarian discontent and ultimately the explosion that was the rebellion of 1798.

One family that benefitted substantially from the conclusion of the war of the two kings was that of the Beresfords. Tristram Beresford had arrived in Ireland at the time of James I. His great grandson, Sir Tristram Beresford (1669–1701), supported William and Mary and as such was attainted in May 1689 by the Jacobite parliament in Dublin and forfeited his lands. Recovering these on the Williamite victory, he did not live long to enjoy them, dying in 1701 at the age of just thirty-two. His son, Sir Marcus, was just seven years old but it was this man that was to bring the family to the fore in Irish and for a time in British politics. Sir Marcus was one of a number of members of the family who made astute marriages by which they acquired not just wealth but political power. In his case, in 1717 he married Catherine, Baroness La Poer, the only daughter and heiress of James, 3rd Earl of Tyrone, a supporter of James II who after the collapse of the Jacobite cause in Ireland had submitted to William and Mary and who finished his days as Governor of Waterford.1

Following this marriage, Sir Marcus and his successors held substantial lands in Counties Derry and Waterford (where they settled and subsequently extended the family home of Curraghmore) and soon acquired further lands in the city of Dublin, and counties Dublin and Wicklow.2 Their parliamentary power was based on the control of boroughs in these counties, combined with family alliances elsewhere. Sir Marcus was created Viscount Tyrone in 1722 and the Earl of Tyrone in 1746. His three surviving sons and six daughters made advantageous marriages and advanced the family politically. Marcus’s eldest son, George, the 2nd Earl, married Elizabeth Monck, a granddaughter of the 1st Duke of Portland.3 Marcus’s second son, John, married first Anne de Ligondes and subsequently Barbara Montgomery. From his power base of Revenue Commissioner in Ireland, John became a major parliamentary figure and firm friend of William Pitt the Younger; and is reputed to have been referred to as ‘virtually King of Ireland’ by Earl Fitzwilliam.4 The third son, William, took holy orders in the Church of Ireland, ultimately becoming Archbiship of Tuam and Lord Decies. He married Elizabeth FitzGibbon, sister of John, Earl of Clare and Lord Chancellor of Ireland. It was into this family that William Carr Beresford (‘Beresford’) was born on 2 October 1768, the younger of two sons (the other being John Poo) fathered by the second Earl prior to his marriage and acknowledged by him as his own.5 Apart from his own siblings, the children and grandchildren of John (the Commissioner) and William (the Archbishop) were to be involved closely with the life of William Carr Beresford.6

While he would not inherit titles or wealth, William Carr was more fortunate than many. A lack of certainty exists as to the identity of his mother, but notwithstanding Thomas Creevey’s suggestion late in William’s life (1827) that it was rumoured to be Elizabeth Monck prior to her marriage to William’s father, there is a strong family tradition that it was a local lady by the name of Carr; a tradition which is supported by both the fact that there was no family background to the name Carr, William being addressed as such by family members, and the existence then and today of families with the name Carr in the area adjacent to Curraghmore.7 Creevey’s suggestion was that it was rumoured both John Poo and William Carr were the children of Elizabeth. He referred to the affection in which they were held by her, and there certainly was a considerable bond, with John Poo and William Carr continuing to visit Elizabeth who lived much of her life in England after her husband’s death in 1800.

Great Britain and France had fought four major wars in the eighteenth century prior to the French Revolution in 1789. Those wars had seen Britain emerge as the pre-eminent world naval power, but had left France as the dominant land power in western Europe. Between 1793 and 1814 the two nations were engaged in continuous conflict, with the exception of one short period of peace brought about by the Treaty of Amiens in 1802–3.

The distrust engendered by James II’s attempt to build a royalist standing army meant that historically in the eighteenth century the British army had rarely exceeded an establishment of 40,000, falling on occasions to less than half that size. By 1814 there were some 250,000 men in the army. This required the securing of huge additional manpower, some of which was found in central Europe in German speaking lands, but the vast majority of which was sourced in England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. In addition, substantial militia and fencible regiments were raised to perform duties at home and to guard against potential invasion. Unlike the continental powers, Britain did not introduce conscription to meet its military requirements relying instead on volunteers.

The simultaneous industrialisation of England in particular, with the rural population moving to urban centres, meant a lack of manpower was available for the army. Further, quite apart from the dangers of serving abroad, where disease killed many more than enemy forces, industrial wages reduced the attraction of a soldier’s life. Britain found a substantial part of the resources it needed in the agrarian societies of Ireland and Scotland, often in circumstances where landholdings were of an insufficient size to support large families. To these soldiers of the British army were added the rejuvenated army of Portugal, aided by the various Spanish armies and the irregulars of both Iberian nations, without which it is doubtful Britain could have driven the French out of the Peninsula and successfully invaded the south of France, thus contributing substantially to Napoleon’s downfall.

At the commencement of the wars with France in 1793, the British army was disorganised and suffering from the loss of morale caused by defeat in 1783 in America. Two men in particular were responsible for its resuscitation and emergence as a major fighting force over the next twenty years. The Duke of York, whatever his limitations as a battlefield general, proved to be an able administrator, while Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington emerged as one of the most successful and effective campaign generals Britain has ever produced.

Britain’s participation in the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars has been the subject of many excellent works. Wellington’s campaigns and battles have been written about exhaustively. The generals who fought alongside and indeed against Wellington have in most cases been the subject of one or more biographies, yet Marshal William Carr Beresford is noticeable for the absence of any biography of his life, which is curious given that he was Wellington’s right-hand man in the Peninsula, moreover, the man who was responsible for the rebuilding and reform of the Portuguese army. For some time it was thought that his papers might even have been destroyed, meaning that it was necessary to look for his letters in the collections of recipients, and often hope to find drafts of the replies there as well. The lack of any central repository of Beresford’s papers makes the task of getting to grips with his life something of an endurance test, with papers to be found in different countries.

Gradually, however, a substantial correspondence has come to light. Beresford later remarked that due to the manner in which he had left Portugal in 1820, he apprehended many of his papers had been lost, though the greater part remained there. It appears that some papers were sold at auction or donated to archives by his step-grandson, Philip Beresford Hope, in the 1890s.8 These have been augmented by documents now lodged in the archives of a number of countries and by papers still held by the family. Beresford’s career was not without controversy, but that should not have discouraged the biographer given the nature and extent of his achievements. He suffered at the hand of William Napier, who had little good to say about Beresford in his monumental History of the War in the Peninsula and the South of France, but the Beresfords were strong supporters of the Tories, whom Napier passionately disliked. It is difficult to conclude that Napier’s criticism of Beresford and other Tory leaders was not motivated, at least in part, by his own political affiliations. It was not just Beresford who engaged in a pamphlet war with Napier, and others resorted even to the courts. Sir Charles Oman, in what remains the definitive history of the Peninsular War, did much to redress the balance. His magisterial History of the Peninsular War rebutted Napier’s assertions in a number of respects. However, neither of these works deal in any length with Beresford’s early career, his rebuilding and reform of the Portuguese army, his active participation in the battles in the Peninsula and France, or his subsequent life in Portugal and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as it had become by virtue of the Act of Union of 1800. In more recent times, the battle of Albuera (Albuhera) has attracted the attention of skilful and eminent historians whose contributions I have sought to acknowledge, even where I have been led to different conclusions.

The current work dealing with Beresford’s métier and relationships is based on an aspiration to fill out the many parts of Beresford’s life that I feel would merit from the telling of an interesting and exciting career. While this is the story of a man who chose the army as a way of life, I have tried to portray a flavour of his relationships with his family and colleagues. This undertaking is not intended to be a move by move account of the major battles and sieges of the Napoleonic wars. There exists now a wonderful array of such books. However, I have sought to address in some detail the events of three battles, because of Beresford’s particular involvement. They are Albuera, where he commanded an Allied army in difficult circumstances, as well as Orthez and Toulouse, where he led the attacks, though under the watchful eye of Wellington. In all three battles the French were commanded by Maréchal Jean-de-Dieu Soult, one of Napoleon’s most able generals.

Beresford did not serve with Arthur Wellesley until 1808, but clearly they knew each other previously. Coming from a similar Anglo-Irish background, it is perhaps not surprising that they allegedly shared some characteristics, though they differed in many ways. A certain reserve, hauteur and even arrogance was attributed by contemporaries, but both were tough, resolute and if necessary pragmatic. The case is not made that Beresford was a military commander comparable to Wellesley, but that great commander recognised his abilities and chose to prefer Beresford rather than doggedly follow the custom and practice of seniority. Beresford clearly respected Wellesley’s great abilities and was happy to be the instrument of their implementation on most occasions. Instances of disagreement are few and far between.

In approaching the task of producing a biography on William Carr Beresford, I have sought to rely on as many primary and contemporary sources as possible. I quote extensively and deliberately from these sources as this helps the reader absorb and understand what the chief protagonists and ordinary men were saying about the issues of the day. Sources relied upon include the correspondence of Beresford, now located in a number of countries in both Europe and the Americas, as well as his Ordens do Dia (Orders of the Day), which are an invaluable source when dealing with the rebuilding of the Portuguese army and its operations. Beresford’s pamphlet war with William Napier in the 1830s is also a useful reference point, though it was written twenty years after many of the events on which it comments and should be treated accordingly. Wellington’s correspondence both published (The Dispatches of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington, revised edition 1844) and unpublished is essential to an understanding of the issues and the conduct of the war. These sources are augmented by many other primary sources, including the correspondence of Generals Denis Pack, Rowland Hill, Thomas Picton, Nicholas Trant and other military men.

Beresford was a regular correspondent with a number of family members and this correspondence shows a more humane side of the man than might be commonly supposed, dealing with the life and death of family members as well as his own health and finances. Considerable correspondence exists in particular with his siblings John Poo Beresford, Lady Anne and Lady Elizabeth Beresford. In Portugal, the extensive correspondence between Beresford and Dom Miguel Forjaz, the Secretary for War and Foreign Affairs in the Regency Council established in Lisbon, is a mine of information that I have in no way exhausted. Added to these are numerous diaries and recollections which I have sought to reference throughout the text.

The use of primary documents in no way diminishes the debt I owe to those who have gone before me in writing about these wars and the remarkable men who fought in them or who directed the efforts of the various contestants. Several years into the research for this book I came across two excellent and informative writings on Beresford. The first of these was an unpublished script by the late Professor Harold Livermore, an authority on the history of Portugal and Spain as well as their former American colonies.9 The second was a doctoral thesis by Samuel Vichness presented at the Florida State University.10 These works both prompted me to consider in greater depth certain points and indeed challenged views I had formed on various issues. Had I known of their existence at the outset I might have been deterred from the journey I have followed to produce the current account of Beresford’s life, though I have been fortunate enough to find materials I believe were not available to either Livermore or Vichness.

The thesis of Vichness was part of the extraordinary output from the Florida State University attributable to Dr Donald D. Horward, Director of the Institute on Napoleon and the French Revolution at that University. Horward’s own works, including his translation of Jean Jacques Pelet’s campaign account of Masséna’s invasion of Portugal in 1810–11, led me not just to Vichness but to another doctoral thesis which has proved helpful; Francisco de la Fuente’s work on Dom Miguel Pereira Forjaz.11 Other accounts providing useful insights on Beresford and his relationships with others include those by Bernardo Almazán, J.D. Grainger, Ian Fletcher, Mark Thompson and a series of essays edited by Professor Malyn Newitt and Dr Martin Robson.12

My love of history was nurtured by my father and later by Dr Norman Atkinson at St Columba’s College and Professor J.G. Simms at Trinity College Dublin. On this current project many people and organisations have given me help and encouragement. To the staff in the National Library of Ireland, the library of Dublin University (TCD), the Royal Irish Academy, the British Library, the National Archives, the National Army Museum, the Hartley Library at Southampton University, the Arquivo Histórico Militar and the Arquivo Nacional da Torre de Tombo in particular I give my heartfelt thanks. Likewise, I owe a huge debt to Raquel Rocha, who while in Ireland taught me sufficient Portuguese to enable me to read documents in that language.

To those with whom I have discussed the project and who have made suggestions I am grateful. In Portugal they include Pedro d’Avillez, Major General Rui Moura, Clive Gilbert MBE, José Ermitão and Professor Paulo Miguel Rodrigues (Madeira). In Argentina, Rogelio Maciel and his daughter, Maria Laura, spent time showing me the sites of the Reconquista in Buenos Aires. In France I received kindness and assistance from the Mayors and others of towns in the Pyrenees, the Pays Basque and the Bearn; sometimes descendants of those who fought for Napoleon. In England my efforts were encouraged and helped by many, including Karen Robson at the Hartley Library Archives, Major Nick Hallidie and Dr Mark Thompson. I remain in awe of the works of Dr Rory Muir, who has also extended me a helping hand and sound advice. I have learnt much from scholarly presentations at conferences run under the auspices of the University of Southampton (The Wellington Congress), The Waterloo Association and The Friends of the British Cemetery, Elvas.

To the creators and organisers of ‘The Napoleon Series’ I take off my hat. I have had regard to these online discussions on numerous occasions when trying to resolve particular points. In Ireland I would like to record my thanks to the Marquis and Marchioness of Waterford for their generosity, as well as to Suzie Pack-Beresford.13 I should also like to commend Julian Walton who has undertaken the assembly and indexation of the family archive at Curraghmore. In Scotland, Mindy Maclean has been most helpful (Susie and Mindy are both descendants of Major General Sir Denis Pack, who was not only a great friend of William Carr Beresford, but who married Elizabeth, the half-sister of Beresford). My family have responded with enthusiasm to my endless ‘discoveries’ about ‘WCB’, as he quickly became known. Edel has been a pillar of support on this project, and my children have assisted in so many ways, ranging from proofreading, the drawing of maps and the resolution of IT issues.

It was understandable that with the emergence of liberalism in Portugal, Beresford, as the representative of an authoritarian government as well as that of a not entirely disinterested ally, should have been regarded with distaste. Largely ignored by Portuguese historians of the nineteenth and twentieth century because of whom he had represented, a new interest in the Marshal has been awakened, linked rightly with the role played by the Portuguese army and people in defeating a hitherto invincible enemy who invaded and laid waste to their country on three separate occasions in five years; an army moreover which then played an important role for a further three years in the liberation of Spain and the defeat of Napoleon in south west France in 1814.

The reader will note that I have referred to Arthur Wellesley as Wellesley until 4 September 1809. Thereafter he is Wellington. This is possible because there is a natural break in events after the retreat following the tactical victory at Talavera. William Carr Beresford is referred to as ‘William’ or ‘Beresford’ save where the use of the name ‘Carr’ is used to make a particular point. I have sought to provide substantial details in the footnotes to each chapter to facilitate those who wish to research the topics further. I have also used these as an opportunity to bring forward information about events and personalities which, if not centre stage, deserved in my opinion their footnote in history.

I have been fortunate to have found in Irish Academic Press a publisher which has high standards, and whose staff have shown great interest in and been most attentive to this project. In particular I would like to thank my publisher Conor Graham, editor Fiona Dunne and Myles McCionnaith.

Finally I would like to acknowledge the support and assistance of Professor Malyn Newitt. The professor’s encylopaedic knowledge of Portuguese and Brazilian history made it a pleasure as well as a privilege to discuss with him Beresford’s part in these wars. He was kind enough to read my script and I am certain it is much improved as a result of his comments and suggestions. At the end of the day, the views expressed are my own as are any mistakes. I have tried to be objective and to avoid any sense of an apologia; dealing with both Beresford’s achievements and the occasions on which success eluded him or was only partial. The reader will judge the degree of success or otherwise attaching to my endeavour.