I do not recall seeing anything of that nature in Saint-Chamans. However, I gather they did not part in the best of terms.

But I did find the following elsewhere. Firstly, in an article entitled, “Murillo at the Royal Academy. London”, Harris writes “The theme of the Virgin of the Immaculate Conception can be seen in several versions at the Academy, from the colossal canvas of c. 1650 painted to hang above the chancel arch in the church of San Francisco, now in the Seville Museum, (no. 13), … to the last and most famous Immaculate Conception of Los Venerables of c. 1678 (no. 75) the so-called ‘Soult’ Immaculate Conception that fetched a record price at auction in 1852.”. 1 Thanks to the posting from Steve, we have a nice "titbit" that describes the ensemble as more of a museum than a private collection "La réputation de la galerie du maréchal Soult était celle d'un musée plutôt que celle d'une collection particulière . Certaines œuvres avaient été acquises ou saisies pendant la campagne d'Espagne." 2

Mulcahy, goes further when describing the account offered in “Eruditos y artistas: Los europeos ante la pintura Espanola del Siglo de Oro” relating to the "seizure" of works of art by the French in Spain. “It is also an ignominious story of greed and plunder, for the exodus of Spanish paintings began with the Peninsular War (1808-14) - in Seville alone the French seized 999 paintings from religious foundations. The rank and file plundered, the generals took 'gifts' and among Napoleon's generals Marshal Soult was notoriously rapacious. He amassed more than 180 Spanish paintings - among them Murillo's celebrated canvases of the Acts of Mercy from the church of the Caridad in Seville. Murat having helped himself to choice pieces from Godoy's palace in Madrid, then allowed his men to continue the sack. The exploitation of the Escorial was on a spectacular scale; hundreds of crates of precious objects and works of art were taken from the royal foundation, ostensibly for safe-keeping, as part of Joseph Bonaparte's policy for the arts. Many of them never reached their destination, and of the paintings that did, many suffered irremediably from the ruinous conditions under which they were stored in the Rosario convent.” 3

So far so good. We have been led to believe that Soult was, perhaps, merely a receiver of “gifts” - from Joseph. Or, to refer to the catalogue accompanying the sale of items, posted by Steven Smith, that had been in his possession, he had merely “seized” or “acquired” a number of works of art, during the campaign in Spain. I admit, when asking about "acts of mercy" earlier in this discussion, I was hoping someone might provide some reference to the "Obras". But I was also thinking aloud about Soult's apparent penchant for "soupe populaire" – although I’m not sure that this phrase was in common parlance at the time. However, one word that was in use I’m sure “misericordia” was and is, perhaps, quite appropriate in this context - and in more than one sense.

Margot Molina writing from Sevilla on 04/11/2008 in El Pais, reports that the “Hospital de la Santa Caridad” has managed to commission copies of some of the magnificent, and colossal, paintings by Murillo - certain of these items it is alleged comprised a small number of the 999 items on Soult’s list for seizure in 1810.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/cultura/Murillo/vuelve/Sevilla/elpepucul/20081104elpepicul_6/Tes

Despite it seeming a poor exchange, in terms of either economic value or “patrimonio”, no doubt the poor who frequented the hospital would have preferred the bowls of soup in times of distress. The extent of hunger, deprivation and death, due to starvation and malnutrition, during Soult's tenure of Andalusia in 1810 and 1811 was quite horrendous. Some, if not all would be directly attributable to the French occupation and ongoing war between the French and Spanish forces. I’m not sure whether the soup would have tasted better had the pictures remained in place. But, thinking about the various measures taken to extract money and food from the population I’m not sure either just how the seizure of paintings helped war to pay for war.

Unless we continue to read the review referred to above. “Dealers closely followed the army, attracted by the smell of plunder. Augustine Wallace, William Buchanan's agent, went primarily in search of Italian and Flemish paintings. He succeeded in removing six canvases by Rubens from the convent at Loeches for which they had been painted, despite the protest of the local population, by having recourse to the military authorities to enforce the contract (the French general involved was given two for his trouble). Wallis seized what he described as 'an unrepeatable opportunity to obtain Spanish pictures' to purchase several important works, including Murillo's Laban searching for his stolen household gods (sic) in Rachael's tent from the Santiago palace in Madrid.” 4

Of course, it would be necessary to prove how the above mentioned works of art got from Sevilla to France and more specifically, into Soult’s collection. And to show exactly how he came by them in the first place - I suppose asking to see the "bill of sale" would have been out of the question? And I don't recall having heard of any litigation in relation to any of the above allegations!

1 Harris, E. (1983). Murillo at the Royal Academy. London. The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 125, No. 960 (Mar., 1983), pp. 178-182.
2 The Soult collection was made available in two auctions (Paris, Gal. Lebrun, 19-22 May 1852; 17 April 1867) held in Paris: Paris, Galerie Lebrun. Catalogue Raisonne des Tableaux de la Galerie de Feu M. le Marechal-General Soult Duc de Dalmatie. Sale May 19, 1852. 8vo, vi + 51 pgs., 155 works, no ills. SOULT Jean-de-Dieu, duc de Dalmatie. tableaux. Paris. 19, 21, 22 mai 1852. 17 avril 1867. 2 volumes in-8 demi-basane et cartonnage. La réputation de la galerie du maréchal Soult était celle d'un musée plutôt que celle d'une collecton particulière . Certaines œuvres avaient été acquises ou saisies pendant la campagne d'Espagne.
3 Mulcahy, Rosemarie. (1993). Review of “Viajeros, eruditos y artistas: Los europeos ante la Pintura española del Siglo de Oro by María de los Santos García Felguera” in The Burlington Magazine, Vol. 135, No. 1079 (Feb., 1993), p. 154
4 ibidem

Best wishes

Anthony