The Shipwreck Cannibals

by Adam Nightingale

  For those looking for evidence of John Deane’s personality and character, the document seemed to raise more questions than it satisfactorily answered. But what it did appear to do was inadvertently clear up many of the accusations that had been levelled against Deane by Christopher Langman and company in New England. Among other things, Langman had accused Deane of being incompetent, a coward and incapable of commanding loyalty in his men. Anybody reading A History of the Russian Fleet would have been left with very little doubt that John Deane was a very skilled sailor. Throughout the document a thorough knowledge of seamanship was wielded casually and sometimes even used as a weapon to illuminate the incompetence of others. Deane’s military record denoted a cunning and talented sailor. His competence was even used against him when his enemies tried to lay the blame of the loss of the Portsmouth and the London at his feet. That Deane survived so long and captured so many prizes in seas far more dangerous than New England’s coastal waters, fighting in an experimental war against an experienced enemy, was a living rebuke against Langman’s second accusation, that John Deane was a coward. And had Deane elected to include the details of his court martial in the document, the example of the crew of the Samson’s vindication of Deane would have put paid to Langman’s third accusation, that Deane was a tyrant incapable of inspiring loyalty in his men.

  Whether through a pragmatic form of guile or genuine fair-mindedness, in his Boon Island narratives Deane had been surprisingly fair to his enemies. Such chivalry was completely absent from A History of the Russian Fleet. For the majority of the document he tried to maintain an air of detachment. His prose was mostly condensed, stripped down and systematic. But a bubble of vitriol would break the surface and the wounded man was visible underneath. Once the constraints of writing the narrative of the war with Sweden had been lifted and the document became a series of critiques of Russia’s various naval practices, Deane felt less reason to be restrained, giving fuller vent to years of accumulated resentment and humiliation. In A History of the Russian Fleet John Deane was most clearly visible in his hatred.

  11

  Townsend

  When Captain John Deane returned to England he circulated his document among the powerful and the influential. Deane was touting for work, demonstrating his detailed knowledge of Russian maritime matters in the hope that it could be converted into some remunerative office or post. The document was read by Charles Townsend, the 3rd Viscount Townsend, the second most powerful politician in the ruling Whig Party, who would soon become John Deane’s new mentor and the greatest benefactor he would ever know.

  Viscount Townsend was Robert Walpole’s right-hand man. Walpole was the most contentious British political genius of his age. He was the leader of the Whig Party. His official office was first lord of the treasury and chancellor of the exchequer but Walpole was the first ever party leader to be referred to by the title ‘prime minister’. The sobriquet was initially a term of abuse devised by Walpole’s enemies but it soon passed into common usage as the title given to the leader of the governing political party. Walpole was a hated man. He was the target of the best artists, playwrights and poets in an era saturated by caustic, brilliant and merciless satirists. Walpole was accused of cronyism and corruption. He was censorious and a ruthless and often vindictive enemy. But Robert Walpole’s intervention had saved Britain from financial catastrophe when government sponsored over-investment in the South Sea Company led to near financial collapse. More than any other event in his long political career, the resolution of the ‘Bursting of the South Sea Bubble’, as the disaster came to be known, secured Walpole’s position for the next two decades. But prior to the South Sea crisis, Robert Walpole’s ascent had been troubled and precarious. And sharing his hardships had been his childhood friend and closest political ally, Charles Townsend.

  Both men were born in Norfolk. Walpole’s family was wealthy but Townsend’s was rich and titled. The Townsends of Raynham became the pre-eminent family in the region after the fall of James II. The Townsends were Protestant and occupied the vacuum created by a prominent Catholic family, whose base of power evaporated when their Papist monarch fled the country. Walpole and Townsend studied at Eton together. They became close friends. Townsend would later marry Walpole’s sister Dorothy, further strengthening their bond. The two men entered politics and joined the Whig party. Their fortunes fluctuated as they navigated the precarious temperaments of a rapid succession of monarchs. Their fledgling years were vulnerable. They were Whigs in a predominantly Tory environment. Townsend clashed with Queen Anne over the question of succession. Walpole was impeached for corruption and imprisoned in the Tower of London. Although the accession of George I broke the back of Tory opposition as the king, hostile to the Tories’ perceived anti-Hanoverian politics, sought to reduce their majority, the new monarch brought his own set of problems with him. Walpole and Townsend were troubled by George I’s tendency to use British money and resources to further his own dynastic interests on the continent. And though Walpole and Townsend had no enemies of significance in opposition, the Whig party was ulcerated with factions. Townsend was one of two secretaries of state. The fact that James Stanhope, the other secretary of state, despised Townsend and was favoured by the king undermined what should have been a strong alliance with Walpole. Tensions between Townsend and the king saw him demoted from secretary of state and given the humiliating post of lieutenant of Ireland before being dismissed from office altogether in 1716. Robert Walpole resigned in protest. The reclamation of the nation’s finances in the wake of the Bursting of the South Sea Bubble planted Walpole in a position of virtually unassailable power and terminally discredited his enemies who had largely encouraged investment in the doomed venture. Walpole promoted Townsend to the position of northern secretary of state, where he thrived.

  Charles Townsend, the third Viscount Townsend. John Deane’s second great mentor employed and protected Deane during his lengthy career as diplomat and spy for the Walpole administration. Illustration by Jean Nightingale

  As a political double act, Walpole and Townsend complemented one another. Walpole was shrewd but could be abrasive and ruthless. He was hated by his enemies and was not always liked by his allies. Although he could be imperious, Townsend was the softer of the two men, better liked, more affable and an important tempering influence to Walpole’s sharper edges. Many filial bonds held Walpole and Townsend together in this, the golden age of their professional partnership. But both men were equally united in fear of a great mutual enemy: Jacobitism.

  In 1668 the English king, James II, had converted to Catholicism. His change of faith was initially tolerated. But for what remained of his reign the king set about what was perceived to be an incremental catholicising of the country as laws were challenged and Catholics were appointed to key government positions. The king, from his perspective, was simply trying to create a level playing field where Catholic and Protestant had equal status under the law. But the king’s incrementalism soon gave way to a force-feeding of pro-Catholic reform that turned his own people against him. The king unwittingly created an open door for the Dutch Protestant monarch William of Orange to sail up the Thames and take the English throne without a shot being fired in protest by James II’s own army and navy.

  The transition was not without deferred bloodshed. There were followers of James on British soil who were willing to take up arms. They were called Jacobites after ‘Jacobus’, the Latin translation of the name James. There would be a Jacobite rebellion in 1715 that was not fully suppressed until the following year.

  James II was still alive and resided in France. He had the sympathy of Catholic Europe and a core of loyal exiles who dreamed of invasion and a second restoration of the Stuart monarchy. And when James II died that core of loyalty transferred to his son, who was called the ‘Pretender’ by his enemies and James III by the faithful.

  Walpole and Townsend were ever alert to the prospect of Stuart plots and conspiracies, the worst manif
estation of which would be a foreign-backed Jacobite invasion of Great Britain. Walpole and Townsend had their spies dotted throughout Europe, but Russia was something of a blind spot. And Russia was becoming a concern since the death of Peter the Great. There were disquieting rumours that the Jacobites were gathering strength and influence in the court of the new Russian monarch. Experienced eyes and ears were needed in St Petersburg.

  Despite the relatively benign presence of Admiral Norris’ squadron in the Baltic during the Great Northern War, as the conflict between Russia and Sweden had come to be known, George I and Peter the Great despised one another. When the war began, relations between the British and the Russians had been cordial. William and Mary reigned in England. William had even made a present of a yacht to the young tsar. But Peter the Great had little love for the House of Hanover as it replaced the House of Orange on the throne of Great Britain. When the tsar died, George I had hoped to take advantage of what he believed would be an inevitable downturn in Russian influence in European affairs. He anticipated Britain would fill the breach. But events in 1725 scotched British ambition and made her international footing precarious. The choice of a bride for a French king had caused a ripple effect that threatened to leave Britain in a vulnerable position. The Spanish had presented their Infanta as a prospective wife for Louis XV. He was not interested. Spain was offended. With a potential alliance sundered, Spain needed an ally to protect it against France. Spain looked to Austria. A Spanish/Austrian alliance was hostile to British interests. France’s actions provoked a succession of alliances and counter alliances that left Britain in the cold and in need of allies lest it leave itself exposed to potential enemies in the north and south of the continent. It was time to make friendly overtures toward Russia and persuade it to make compatriots of Britain and France. Britain’s choice of diplomat was a Frenchman named Campredon. He approached the Russian court and made a hash of negotiations, pushing the Russian royal family further into the arms of George I’s enemies.

  A new problem was the tsarina. With Peter the Great gone, his widow Catherine ruled. Catherine I only reigned for two years, but in that small amount of time she managed to generate a disproportionate amount of grief and anxiety for Britain. The chief cause of tension was her favouring of the House of Holstein. Peter the Great had married his daughter to the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. The Duke held enormous sway at the Russian court in St Petersburg. Holstein hated George I because of a disputed territory held by the Hanoverians. Holstein ensured that the bad blood between the tsar and the British monarchy was held over into the new administration. Campredon’s failure only exacerbated old hatreds. Holstein and Catherine embraced the British-born enemies of George I. St Petersburg was now more of a haven for Jacobites than it had ever been. But the news didn’t seem to have rattled British cages as much as it should have done. Certainly in the early months of Catherine I’s reign,few prominent British politicians took her seriously. The exception was Townsend. A reliable and knowledgeable man in St Petersburg was now essential. Townsend had recently read a document by an observant and disgruntled mercenary who had fought for the dead tsar for a decade and seemed to loathe Jacobites as much as he did. Townsend arranged to meet the anonymous author of A History of the Russian Fleet.

  Viscount Townsend persuaded Captain John Deane to go back to Russia. Deane’s official title was to be the new consul of British governancy. He was supposed to salve the tensions between Britain and Russia by encouraging trade, but his real purpose was to gather intelligence about the levels of antipathy among the Russians toward the British.

  12

  Who Sent You Here?

  John Deane was torn between a sense of duty, a need to advance and deep disquiet in his gut about revisiting the place that had, in its own way, damaged and tormented him as much as Boon Island ever did. Later, when Deane had come back from Russia, he would write a candid letter to Townsend admitting the levels of anxiety he had felt and how near he had come to refusing to go:

  It was not without great reluctance that I engaged in that affair having formerly experienced the malice of that set of men. But as it was impossible for any person not present to believe with what bitterness they had persecuted me in Russia, so I could not absolutely refuse going.

  John Deane would last a scant sixteen days in his new post before being expelled from Russia a second time.

  The three years between the end of John Deane’s first Russian adventure and the beginning of his disastrous second are another of the numerous black spaces in his biography during which virtually nothing is known about his life. The unassailable facts are that he was recruited by Townsend and that he married. John Deane’s marriage, presumably the most intimate and personal venture he ever embarked upon, yields virtually nothing in the way of illumination. In the chaotic, intermittently well-documented sprawl of John Deane’s existence his spouse remained something of an ‘Ahab’s wife’ figure. Her first name is known. She was called Sarah. But her maiden name cannot be determined without a degree of guesswork. In 1722 a Sarah Hughes married a John Deane in St Mary Somerset Church, in the City of London. Whether this was the Captain John Deane of Boon Island and St Petersburg cannot be absolutely determined. Other than her name, the possible date of her wedding and the date of her death, little else is known about Sarah Deane. And so Sarah Deane joined the better, deeper part of the captain, invisible in the shadows of his own story.

  By late May, John Deane was a passenger onboard a ship bound for Kronslot. On 26 May 1725 the ship docked for a short while at Elsinore, where Deane observed three Russian ships that were bound for Spain. He tried to glean information about the ships from ‘a resident’. He wrote to Townsend telling the Viscount what he had seen. Deane was not impressed with the condition of the Russian ships, calling them ‘good for nothing’.

  John Deane reached Kronslot on 2 June. His first impression of Russia was somewhat ominous and oddly apocalyptic. He saw, ‘lying in the road and in all appearance fit for sea, eleven sail ships of the line and two frigates’.

  Deane was forbidden to come ashore straight away. Customs were required to come aboard and find out the names and destinations of all the ships passengers. Deane was kept waiting for hours. He observed Kronslot. He was surprised at the state of disrepair. There was still so much building work that needed to be done. What surprised Deane even more was the multitude of soldiers sitting idle when they could have been employed on repairs to the haven.

  While Deane was waiting he made a potentially pleasant discovery: Lord High Admiral Count Apraxin had arrived in Kronslot the previous evening. Accompanying him were Vice Admirals Sievers and Gordon as well as Wilster a Danish vice admiral, Captain Commodore Ivan Sinavin and Rear Admiral of the White Thomas Saunders. The assembly of familiar high-ranking naval warriors was a combustible mixture of dear friends, sympathetic allies and hated enemies. John Deane was anxious to deliver the news that he had returned to Russia to Apraxin himself rather than have the information reach him via an old adversary. It was a moot concern. The news appeared to have already reached the lord high admiral. His ship, the Alexander, anchored and visible from the deck of John Deane’s vessel, signalled to Deane via the raising of a flag. A pinnace was dispatched and a delegate from the Alexander requested that Captain John Deane accompany him. Deane climbed aboard the pinnace, which ferried the English captain across the small stretch of water to the Alexander. Deane climbed aboard and was led into a room. Waiting for him was Apraxin, Sievers and Thomas Saunders. Apraxin saluted John Deane. His tone was warm and his manner was kind. He asked Deane what he was doing back in Russia.

  ‘I have bought some good news over to dispose of, and if found a prospect of things answering, probably might settle on trade and remain sometime in Russia,’ Deane replied.

  Apraxin was not convinced. He gently challenged John Deane, stating that it was his personal belief that his former protégé ‘had other affairs in hand’ and that he should ‘tell the truth’ and pr
oduce his ‘credentials of commission’.

  John Deane stood by his initial story.

  Apraxin advised that if Deane did not produce some form of official documentation, the lord high admiral would be obliged to use him ill.

  Apraxin sent Deane back to his vessel with instructions to wait until the lord high admiral received orders as to what to do with him.

  John Deane ruminated on an ostensibly friendly but loaded and tense exchange with the Russian aristocrat. Despite the implied threat of violence from an old friend, Deane was more concerned with having offended Apraxin than any ‘ill usage’ he had promised. Deane wanted to speak to Apraxin alone, out of the earshot of Saunders in particular, a Jacobite who in Deane’s estimation, ‘hated His Majesty, the government and me in particular’. But Deane feared that insisting on a private conversation with the lord high admiral would make him look even more suspicious than he already did.

  A day later John Deane stood before Apraxin, Sievers and Saunders for the second time. Deane showed Apraxin the only official piece of documentation he possessed, his commission. Saunders took the commission from Apraxin and read it for himself. He was not satisfied. Saunders asked Apraxin whether John Deane’s ‘coming in such a character had been notified by the British to the Russian Court?’

  ‘No,’ Apraxin said.

  Saunders began to ridicule Deane saying that Deane’s status ‘ought not to be regarded’.

  Deane had had enough and interrupted Saunders as he was speaking. The two Englishmen’s tempers flared and something of a slanging match ensued. Whether the argument was conducted in English or Russian is not clear. John Deane’s Russian was better than Saunders’s. Deane used his superior Russian to his advantage and tried to justify the manner of his sending ‘without notification’ to Apraxin, in Saunder’s presence, trusting that his enemy wouldn’t fully comprehend his meaning. Deane entreated Apraxin to keep his arrival secret for short while. Apraxin appeared to Deane ‘a little pleased’ with his outburst. He congratulated Deane and asked Deane to visit him again before the Englishman travelled to St Petersburg. Apraxin called his secretary. He instructed the secretary to write a letter of endorsement to Catherine I. The letter stated that John Deane had served Russia and had been discharged three years earlier at Apraxin’s request. Deane and Apraxin agreed to meet the following morning.