John Deane returned to the Alexander at four o’clock. He may have had to wait a few hours for the admiral to surface. Since the death of Peter the Great, Apraxin was prone to sleep in till six or seven o’clock in the morning. When the two men eventually met for the second time, John Deane sought to justify himself in the light of Saunders’ animosity and a decade’s worth of persecutions. Deane framed his grievances in international terms, his enemies being responsible for preventing, in Deane’s words, ‘a reconciliation between the two crowns’. Apraxin seemed to agree. He reassured Deane that he gave the captain’s enemies’ accusations little weight.
‘Tho I hear them I don’t regard them,’ he said. ‘You observed that yesterday. I took no notice of Saunders’ suggestions, and you know my way better than they do or ever will.’
John Deane noticed what he called ‘people of fashion’ beginning to arrive onboard the Alexander. Deane mistrusted the new arrivals. He believed he was being spied upon. He had been caught out by Saunders’ interrogation. His arrival in Kronslot had been anticipated and prepared for by his enemies.
Over the next two days Deane spoke with Sievers and Apraxin. He tried to enlist their support in endorsing his credentials so that he might advance to St Petersburg and do the job Townsend had officially instructed him to do. Apraxin reassured Deane that he believed him but could not act fully on his behalf without something in writing from the British government. Apraxin’s letter to the Russian court had received no response.
Apraxin spoke alone with John Deane for two hours. It was their most intense and personal discussion since Deane’s return. Now Deane was at liberty to speak as freely as he dared. The two men talked about ‘the good effects of a reconciliation between the crowns’. The conversation was punctuated by a note of personal affection from Apraxin to Deane. The lord high admiral put his hand to his breast and said to Deane, ‘You will always find me Apraxin.’ Deane tentatively mentioned the Holstein business. Apraxin was pessimistic saying that the Empress Catherine, ‘could not abandon the Duke’s interests’. Deane criticised rash ‘councils inconsistent with the true interests of Russia,’ and encouraged Apraxin to oppose them. Deane told Apraxin that the lord high admiral had the confidence of both Viscount Townsend and King George himself as an internal force for reconciliation between Britain and Russia. Apraxin seemed moved by this. Deane, for his part, told Apraxin that he would never have returned to Russia had he not been confident of the admiral’s patronage and begged ‘for its continuance’ for the duration of his stay. Apraxin agreed to prepare the way for Deane as best he could. There was a succession of people Deane needed to meet: gatekeepers between Deane and the court whose endorsements were crucial if Deane were to achieve his diplomatic ends. Deane had planned to visit Great Chancellor Count Golovkin first. Apraxin advised against this. Golovkin was pro-Holstein and a Jacobite sympathiser. Apraxin encouraged Deane to meet the potentially more sympathetic Count Tolstoi before approaching Golovkin. Apraxin promised he would help the best he could but warned Deane that his cause would be perpetually on the back foot unless something in writing from Deane’s government that officially endorsed his presence in Russia could be produced. As a preliminary measure Apraxin insisted that Deane write something in his own hand stating his intentions. Deane was reluctant but Apraxin insisted. Deane put pen to paper. The letter read:
I whose name is underlined, so declare to his Excellency the General Admiral Apraxin that on the 9th of May last part, the Right Honourable the Lord Viscount Townsend did give me permission when a favourable opportunity should present to signify to his Excellency that His Majesty the King of Great Britain was at all times ready to come to a reconciliation with Her Majesty of Russia, and that both His Majesty as well as Lord Townsend would take all opportunities of expressing their gratefulness of his Excellency’s goodness showed to such of His Majesty’s subjects as obtained a due sense of their allegiance to their lawful sovereign whilst under his Excellency’s command.
Privately John Deane agonised over the potentially difficult position the unsanctioned letter put him in. He worried that having appeased one benefactor in agreeing to Apraxin’s gentle demand he had offended another in going beyond the authority ceded to him by Townsend. Deane left the letter with Apraxin and returned to his own boat. Apraxin sent his steward to Count Tolstoi to prepare the way for Captain John Deane.
Deane had yet to set foot on Russian soil and his mission had already been severely compromised. He had made a tactical blunder by refusing to present his commission to Saunders when he demanded to see it. One can only assume that animosity had prevented Deane from putting his old enmities aside and taking a more pragmatic course of action for the sake of his mission. As far as Deane was concerned, the mistake had earned him the initial suspicion of Admiral Apraxin. What had saved him was the old affection between the two men. But Apraxin was still a servant of Russia and Deane’s behaviour had been suspicious. In Deane’s own mind, despite the genuine bond between the two men, the only way he could secure Apraxin’s support was to write a letter he had no authority to write. And much as Deane would question his own actions in those first few days his situation would have been greatly improved had Townsend given him official documentation. Townsend was not incompetent, inexperienced in foreign affairs or negligent, but the oversight seemed foolish. It appeared that Townsend had gambled on Deane’s quiet entry into Russia. Deane was supposed to have approached Apraxin secretly and talked with initial freedom, one ally to another, about a cause to which both men were sympathetic. Apraxin was to have paved the way for Deane in St Petersburg, accruing allies for reconciliation between Russia and Great Britain before internal tensions could escalate and lines were publicly drawn in the sand. Diplomatic papers were seemingly unnecessary. As far as Townsend was concerned Deane was his own flesh and blood epistle, known and read by Apraxin through years of faithful prior service. But Deane’s first meeting had been anything but secret. Saunders had been there and his presence and immediate challenge had changed the nature of the negotiations. It had placed a barrier in front of Apraxin that the admiral could not afford to overlook.
Deane was beginning to realise that Saunders’ presence was clearly not a coincidence. Saunders had known that Deane was coming. Deane was aware that he had been closely observed, at least from the moment his ship had entered Kronslot and possibly even before that. Part of Townsend’s brief to John Deane had been to ‘transmit whatever intelligence he may be able to get for His Majesty’s service’. The presence and foreknowledge of so many enemies in Kronslot was crucial and disturbing information that fed into Deane and Townsend’s worst fears; that Jacobites were embedded in Russian affairs, powerful and organised with sophisticated networks of intelligence.
Although Deane’s experience and knowledge of Russian affairs was peerless, the levels of hatred that still festered towards him potentially neutered any advantage Townsend may have hoped to gain by employing him as the king’s man in Russia. It seems impossible to imagine Townsend being so naive as to misjudge Russian animosity to Deane’s advent so disastrously. The hostile reception did not surprise John Deane. He had not wanted to come back to Russia. He was perfectly aware of the animosity that still existed toward him: ‘It was impossible for any person not present to believe with what bitterness they had persecuted me’. The problem seemed to reside in Deane’s paymasters refusing to believe him, or else John Deane’s own reluctance to tell them the entire truth for fear of not being believed.
John Deane prepared to leave Kronslot and meet Count Tolstoi. Deane’s departure was further delayed, which afforded him another opportunity to talk to Apraxin. Captain Commodore Peter Bredale was present for a short while. Deane seemed to like Bredale, for the Norwegian had opposed Ivan Sinavin, a Russian whom Deane had particularly despised. When Bredale left the room, Apraxin and Deane’s conversation became more intimate and personal. Both men drank coffee together. Deane admitted that his previous adventures in Russia had given
him grey hairs. Apraxin talked of the grief he felt at the recent death of a beloved nephew. He wept as he talked.
On 5 June John Deane left for shore in a pinnace accompanied by Apraxin’s servant. The ever-petulant Russian weather flared up once again. The pinnace was forced to put Deane ashore at a nearby village. Deane spent the night in the village. In the morning he rode to meet Count Tolstoi on horseback.
Tolstoi’s reception was polite but not exactly warm. Deane presented Tolstoi with his commission. Tolstoi already had a copy of the letter Deane had written at Apraxin’s request, translated from English into Russian.
‘We are not in peace with England,’ Tolstoi said, ‘and I cannot tell what to think of admitting a consul.’
‘I had not heard of there being war with England,’ Deane replied.
Tolstoi and Deane drank brandy together, after which Deane left for St Petersburg.
One of Tolstoi’s servants had instructed Apraxin’s servant to take Deane to see Count Golovkin as soon as he entered St Petersburg. The Russian capital was ten miles from Tolstoi’s residence. John Deane arrived in St Petersburg at noon. Deane had arranged to stay with an old friend, a Welsh engineer and shipbuilder named Joseph Ney. Deane’s baggage had not yet arrived. Barely settled in St Petersburg, Deane went to see Golovkin.
Convincing Golovkin of his credibility was always going to be a tall order for John Deane. Deane knew Golovkin and disliked him intensely. To Deane, Golovkin was a ‘tool of the Jacobites’ and ‘a man of moderate parts’, ‘inclined to luxury’ and ‘indolence’. By the time Golovkin had finished with Deane, the English captain would promote the Russian chancellor to the exalted status of, ‘my professed enemy’.
Golovkin did not receive John Deane straight away. Deane met Privy Counsellor Vasilley Stepanoff instead. Stepanoff spoke to Apraxin’s servant before speaking to Deane. Then Stepanoff asked Deane two direct questions. How long had Deane served in Russia? How long had he been away from Russia? Deane answered that he had served eleven years and been absent for three years. Deane was instructed to come back to the College of Foreign Affairs the following day.
The next day the privy counsellor asked Deane where he was currently staying. Deane told him. Deane was dismissed. It was 7 June. John Deane heard nothing more from Stepanoff until 14 June.
Deane made daily trips to the Customs House to enquire about his baggage, which was still missing. He wrote to Townsend, who was in Hanover with the king. He sent the letter via a trusted friend at Danzig. All the time Deane was aware that he was being watched and made certain not to visit anybody he knew that might arouse further suspicion.
The week or so of silence gave John Deane time to observe the new Russia at closer quarters. The country was in a state of official mourning for the dead tsar. But as John Deane wandered around St Petersburg, he saw little evidence of real sorrow. In Deane’s opinion, Peter the Great did not seem greatly missed by the populace that he had dragged into modernity. Deane devised a crude litmus test to determine if there were any people that genuinely grieved for the tsar. When in conversation, Deane would mention the tsar’s name, ‘several times in discourse on purpose’ and ‘neither saw a tear’ nor ‘heard a sigh at the mentioning of his name among the Russians’.
Deane also had chance to meditate on the nature of the navy Peter the Great had bequeathed his widow. First impressions seemed favourable. What John Deane saw in Kronslot and St Petersburg seemed ‘fit for sea’, on a cursory viewing. But Deane was not convinced the Russians could put a fleet in the ocean that summer. According to Deane, ‘provisions were short’ and ‘pinnaces were lacking’. The Russians were spending their money on anything but the navy, the one institution that had carved them a place in wider European affairs. For a seasoned naval warrior like John Deane, Kronslot and St Petersburg was a moribund panorama of decay. The Russian ruling elite were allowing their greatest asset to rot from the inside through neglect and misspending. This was good news for Great Britain but there seemed to be a pang of sadness in Deane that something that he had had a hand in creating had been treated so poorly by those who had inherited it.
In that week or so of silence, John Deane’s adversaries had been organising themselves. Whereas previously Deane’s enemies had been naval officers, now they were predominantly merchants. ‘The Factory’, the common name for expatriate mercantile organisations, prepared its case against Deane. The Factory’s intention was to force Deane out of the capital. It intended to exert its influence at court to have him expelled. It would contact the Russian Factory in London and try to blacken Deane’s name there. It planned to utilise its British contacts to draft a bill in parliament protesting Deane’s presence in Russia in order to have him recalled. The pretext for John Deane’s unsuitability was his past. The Factory planned to dredge up the official version of John Deane’s expulsion from Russia, scandalise him afresh and destroy any confidence the court might have had for permitting him to stay in their country.
Five members of the Factory were more conspicuous than others as they poured poison in the ears of prominent Russians regarding John Deane. The five Factory members’ names were Nettleton, Vigor, Gardener, Elinsall and Hodgkin. On 13 June all five men were summoned to the College of Foreign Affairs where they were interrogated by Chancellor Iaguzhinsky. The chancellor asked them a series of questions. He wanted to know if the British government sent prior warning of Deane’s advent.
The five men answered, ‘no’.
He asked if the five representatives of the Factory wanted John Deane among them.
Vigor said that they ‘had no manner of occasion’. Hodgkin was more circumspect in his response stating that, ‘Such a person might be of service, provided it was one that was acceptable to the court.’
The chancellor was quick to put Hodgkin in his place, reminding him that definitions of acceptability was something ‘not asked’ of Factory members.
The Chancellor repeated his question to Elinsall.
Elinsall stated that for Deane’s presence to be remotely acceptable he had to produce commissions, ‘and communicate his instructions as far as concerned them’. Nettleton and Gardener remained mute on the matter.
The five Factory representatives were excused and left.
It was a deceptively tense exchange defined by caution among the Factory with regard to overstating their intentions, and belligerence on the part of Iaguzhinsky who seemed to indicate that his mind had not yet been made up as far as John Deane was concerned. But the Factory and the chancellor were in accord. The Factory was Jacobite in essence and Iaguzhinsky supported their cause. They both hated John Deane and wanted him gone.
Eventually John Deane was instructed to present himself at the College of Foreign Affairs. At ten o’clock in the morning John Deane appeared before a panel consisting of Golovkin, Tolstoi, Stepanoff and another prominent Russian named Varsilley.
Golovkin spoke. Deane described Golvkin’s tone as ‘haughty’.
‘Who sent you here?’
Deane replied that his ‘own private affairs induced me to come,’ but added that the king had approved his sending.
Golovkin wanted to know why the king would send Deane ‘hither without any credentials’.
Deane said that he was not present in Russia as ‘a public minister but as a consul to inspect into the grievance of trade’.
Deane was trying his best to rationalise the irrational, justifying why a man might arrive in a foreign country on an apparently self-appointed diplomatic mission that was somehow still approved of by the monarchy and the British government. It was a spirited defence but Golovkin wasn’t interested in debating the point any further. He cut to the chase, choosing this moment to bring up Deane’s chequered service record. He stated that Deane ‘was an enemy to their country’ who had ‘committed faults while in their service’ for which he had been ‘sent into banishment’. Golovkin did not want such as Deane to stay in his homeland. The hammer had fallen. Once again John Deane w
as to be expelled from Russia.
Deane seemed to accept the decision very quickly. He turned his mind to practicalities.
‘This is no time or place for me to justify myself,’ he said. ‘And since you force me away, please allow me know how many days will be allowed to give into the hand of some friends?’
Stepanoff told John Deane that he had a week to put his affairs in order. Deane was instructed to return the next day to receive his passport.
Deane would learn later that Tolstoi had spoken up for him. But the fact that the count had ‘received and admitted’ the Englishman had caused him some difficulty among his peers. Tolstoi’s advocacy was appreciated but ultimately futile; the Jacobite/Holstein alliance had been too persuasive. Once details of John Deane’s court martial had been requested from Admiralty College, Deane’s fate was effectively sealed. The logic among those potentially ambivalent about Deane appeared to be that if Peter the Great had exiled the Englishman then that was that, he was not welcome in Russia.
John Deane returned to the College of Foreign Affairs to get his passport. He was made to wait several hours for Count Golovkin to come out of the senate. When Golovkin arrived, Deane was subject to another barrage of questions.
When Deane left for good, did he intend to ‘travel by land or sea?’
The Shipwreck Cannibals Page 12