John Shapcote
Background
John Shapcote was the naval agent on the Second Fleet. He has been much vilified because of the dreadful outcome of this voyage. But his background has not been seriously studied, and no one has undertaken a close reading of the evidence relating to the Second Fleet, which reveals a more complex story. In the end, he was not able to defend himself, since he died on the final leg of the voyage.
- Gary L. Sturgess, 16 March 2016
Possible Parentage
John and Rachel Shapcote
Shapcote was born prior to 1740, probably in the Stepney area of London. It is believed his parents were John Shapcote and Rachel Sibbit. (Shapcote Family website – http://www.shapcott-family.com) [Since we cannot confirm his birth date, it is far from clear that these were his parents. He may have been born in Devon, which is where the name seems to come from.]
1 May 1729 – John Shapcote married Rachel Sibbitt, both of that parish, at St George the Martyr at Southwark. (Saint George the Martyr, Composite register: Baptisms May 1695 - Aug 1727, Marriages May 1695 - Sep 1732, Burials May 1695 - Nov 1723, LMA P92/GEO, Item 143)
19 February 1731 – Katherine Shapcot, was baptised at St Katherine by the Tower, to John and Rachel Shapcote. She was 10 days old. (St Katherine by the Tower, Register of Baptisms 1727 - 1769 and Burials 1678 - 1794, LMA SKT/C/01/Ms 9660)
30 January 1732 –Edward Shapcot was baptised at St Katherine by the Tower, to John and Rachel Shapcote. He was 12 days old. (St Katherine by the Tower, Register of Baptisms 1727 - 1769 and Burials 1678 - 1794, LMA SKT/C/01/Ms 9660)
There seem to have been two Edward Shapcots. One died on HMS Thetis in May 1781. The other was certified as a Lieutenant in 1782, then being more than 44 years of age.
It is possible there were other children, but the top and bottom of the pages of the register are very damaged. There was also a system of visiting ministers, and not all of their entries seem to have been included.
Other Possibilities
14 December 1735 – Ann Sheppard, daughter of John and Rachel, was baptised at St Katherine by the Tower. (St Katherine by the Tower, Register of Baptisms 1727 - 1769 and Burials 1678 - 1794, LMA SKT/C/01/Ms 9660)
The family believe that this John Shapcote was a gunner in the Royal Navy:
12 August 1746 – Awarded his Gunner Passing Certificate.
17 Oct 1746 – “John Shapcote of good Testimony who has passed an Examination to be Gunner of the Gibraltar former removed to the Romney”.
15 April 1749 – Warrant for John Shepcoat, late Gunner of the Gibraltar to be in the Squirrel, former sick.
25 April 1749 – Appeared on the Squirrel. Edward Shapcote was his servant (his son).
18 October 1749 – Sprained his ankle as later related in a letter to the Admiralty.
16 May 1751 –
"To the Hon’ble the Principall Officers and Commissioners of his Majesty's Navy Hon’ble. Gent’n.
"I beg leave to acquaint your honours that I was lately Gunner in Ordinary of his Majesty's Ship the Squirrel and on the 18th of October 1749 was on shoar and had the Misfortune to Sprain my Ancle, which Prevented My going on Board that day. For which I was Chequed a months wages. But hope your honours Will Consider as it was oweing to a Misfortune to Order The Said Cheque to be Taken off and I in Duty Bound shall ever Pray. I am
Your honours most Obedt.
Humble Servant
Jno Shapcote"
Scratched-out note on back of letter:
"Direct the Clk of the Cheque to take off his Mulct in case he is satisfied that what the Gunner hath set forth is true."
Note on back of letter:
"The Board would not comply here."
29 June 1771 – John Shapcote died on HMS Monarch, in Chatham Dock, Chatham, Kent.
Career
1756 – First position on board the Intrepid, serving for 16 months. He would have served in the Mediterranean under Captain James Young and seen service in the Battle of Minorca. (Family website and Rif Winfield, British Warships in the Age of Sail, 1714-1792, Barnsley: Seaforth Publishing, 2007, p.94)
1757-58 – Served on the Monarch for 1 year and 7 months, under Captain John Montagu in the Mediterranean. (Family website; Winfield, p.57)
1759-60 – Promoted to Midshipman and served on the Conqueror for one year immediately prior to her wreckage in Plymouth Sound. He would probably have been under Captain William Lloyd at the Battle of Lagos in late 1759. (Family website and Winfield, p.61)
He is next seen as a seaman on the Princess Louisa. The dates are unclear, but he served for only three months before being transferred to the Modeste as a Midshipman.
The Modeste had been taken at the Battle of Lagos in 1759, refitted and recommissioned under Captain Henry Speke and then Captain Robert Walsingham in April 1760. It is possible that Shapcote joined her immediately after her recommissioning. He served for only nine months before transferring as Midshipman on the Guernsey. (Family website and Winfield, p.96)
In 1761, the Guernsey under Captain James Smith served off Le Havre. (Winfield, p.147)
30 April 1762 – Shapcote was examined and appeared to be more than 23 years of age and had gone to sea for more than six years in the ships and qualities undermentioned:
Intrepid Able 1.4.3.0 Monarch Able 1.7.3.4 Conqueror Midshipman 0.12.0.1 Princess Louisa Able 0.3.2.1 Midshipman 0.5.2.4 Modeste Midshipman 0.9.1.2 Midshipman 0.6.0.5 Guernsey Able 0.3.2.2 6.0.3.5
He produced journals for the Conqueror, Princess Louisa and Modeste and certificates from Captains Harland, Saxton, Blomer and Walsingham. Dated – 5 May 1762. (TNA ADM107/5)
25 February 1770 – John Shapcote was at home in Thanet when he was married to Sarah Lee, and his eldest son, Peter John, was conceived.
October 1772 – John Shapcote was at home in Thanet when his son Edward was conceived.
October 1774 – John Shapcote was at home when his son John as conceived.
The war broke out in 1775, and yet the Shapcotes relocate to the shipping district of London and John in at home in May 1777, May 1779, August 1781 and July 1784, when his children were conceived. This seems to me to be too regular for an ordinary seaman, and it raises the possibility that he was already in the transportation service by this time.
Mat 1777 – Shapcote was at home when his son was conceived.
12 January 1778 – Shapcote commissioned as a Lieutenant on HMS Squirrel. (Family website)
15 January 1778 – A naval document records Peter John Shapcote employed as a servant to his father on HMS Squirrel, Falmouth, Cornwall. He was only 8 years old. (Family website)
9 January 1779 – Peter John was listed an Able Seaman on HMS Squirrel, Plymouth, Devon, England. (Family website) He was only 9 years old – if this is correct, then he was listed for the purposes of seniority.
May 1779 – Shapcote was at home when his son was conceived.
August 1781 – Shapcote was at home when his son was conceived.
1784 – Shapcote was certainly employed by the Navy Board by this date.
27 July 1784 – Shapcote wrote to the Navy Board, responding to their remarks on his account of disbursement laid before them by his agents. (TNA ADM106/2615)
28 July 1784 – The Navy Board approved Shapcote’s accounts. (TNA ADM106/2615)
30 March 1786 – Lieutenant Shapcote wrote to the Victualling Board desiring an addition of 55 butts in consideration of the additional number of troops ordered on board the troops under his direction. On the 31st, the Board directed that the same be supplied. (TNA ADM111/105, 31 March 1786)
11 September 1786 – Lieut. Shapcote was discharged, the Navy Board having no further orders for him at present. (TNA ADM106/2347)
29 October 1787 – Shapcote was in charge of a fleet of naval transports ‘hired for a particular service of government’ (to carry 2,500 troops). They were at the Hope and Shapcote was on board the William and Mary. (TNA ADM106/243) [Note that a Camden, Calvert & King ship, the Camden, was part of this fleet.]
February 1788 – Flynn says that Shapcote was serving as a naval agent in Ireland, supervising the embarkation and landing of troops and marines at Cork. (Michael Flynn, The Second Fleet: Britain’s Grim Convict Armada of 1790, Sydney: Library of Australian History, 1993, p.525)
10 July 1788 – Since war did not eventuate, Shapcote was once again discharged.
30 June 1789 – Shapcote was once again on full pay with the Admiralty.
27 August 1789 – Lieut. Shapcote was issued with his warrant to serve as Agent for the Second Fleet.
12 November 1789 – A newspaper report referred to the appointment of ‘John Shapett’, describing him as a man ‘of singular merit’. (World, 12 November 1789)
3 December 1789 – Admiralty to Navy Board directing that half pay be paid to Shapcote from 10 July 1788, when he was discharged as Agent for Transports, until 30 June 1789. (NMM ADM/A/2826)
1790 – Shapcote died at sea about two weeks after leaving the Cape. His son, Peter John, who was on the Justinian, learned on arrival.
20 July 1790 – Probate granted in the estate of Lieutenant John Shapcote, the first probate papers granted in Australia. Shapcote died intestate and the application was made by his son, Peter John Shapcote. Between his probate list and the account of the sale of his belongings, he took with him at least the following (the lists do not fully coincide):
• A Broughton (presumably a finely-made gun) worth £24.9.6 • A hanger worth £2.12.6 • A bed, 2 pillows, a counterpane, 2 pairs of sheets and 3 pillowcases • Two uniform coats, an old uniform coat, 2 great coats, a boat coat • Nine waistcoats – velvet, satin, sear and muslin, three linen, one shag • One pair of satin breeches, 3 pair of nankeen breeches • Twenty-nine shirts • Two pair of silk stockings, 8 pair of cotton stockings • Three pairs of shoes • One pair of silver buckles, one pair of stone knee buckles • One hat • One pair of drawers, 6 handkerchiefs • One dressing gown • Six towels
Peter Shapcote paid £13.2.9 on his father’s account owing to Trail, presumably for victuals and drink purchased en route. (Details in Mitchell Library, reproduced on Family Website)
6 July 1791 – John Shapcote’s estate in London was administered by his wife Sarah.
Peter John became Master of the Swan (the Navy sloop or a merchant vessel?) and died in 1796.
Family
Shapcote seems to have had two families – one set of children born in Minster on the Isle of Thanet from 1770 to about 1777, and then another in Mile End Old Town from 1778 onwards. The mother of the first group seems to have been Sarah Lee, but the Shapcote family are convinced that the mother of the second group was Sarah Crofts. I can find no trace of this woman, who they say was baptised on 13 July 1743 at Whitechapel and married John Shapcote around 1769.
We know that the naval agent had a son named Peter John Shapcote, and that Peter John had a mother named Sarah. We can clearly identify a son named Peter John to this couple. He would have been 20 at the time of the Second Fleet. He seems to have been born at Minster, but in 1790, at the time of his father’s death, he was living in Stepney and his mother, Sarah, was living at Mile End Old Town.
25 February 1770 – John Shapcote married Sarah Lee at Minster (on the Isle of Thanet) in Kent.
12 December 1770 – Peter John Shapcote, the son of John and Sarah Shapcote was baptised at Minster in Kent. (Ancestry.com; FamilySearch)
3 June 1773 – Edward Shapcote, the son of John and Sarah, was baptised at Minster. (FamilySearch)
7 May 1775 – John Shapcote, the son of John and Sarah, was baptised at Minister. (FamilySearch)
1777 or 1778 – The Shapcotes moved to Mile End Old Town. It seems likely that John may have remarried in this period, to a Sarah Crofts. She may be the Sarah Crofts who was baptised at St John’s Wapping on 3 August 1735 (whose father was a mariner), the one at St Bride’s on 26 May 1736, or the one at St Sepulchre, Holborn on 13 March 1742.
May 1777 – Shapcote was at home (since this is when Phillip was conceived).
1778 to 1791 – Shapcote was renting properties in Mile End Old Town. (Land Tax records)
2 January 1778 – Phillip Crofts Shapcote, was born.
27 January 1778 – Phillip Crofts Shapcote, was baptised at St Dunstan & All Saints. John was described as a mariner of Mile End Old Town. (Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Register of baptisms, May 1770 - Apr 1798, P93/DUN, Item 005)
May 1779 – Shapcote was at home (when Thomas was conceived).
22 December 1779 – Their fifth son, Thomas Shapcote, was born.
5 February 1780 – Thomas Shapcote was baptised at St Dunstan and All Saints. His father was described as a mariner of Mile End Old Town. (Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Register of baptisms, May 1770 - Apr 1798, P93/DUN, Item 005)
August 1781 – Shapcote was at home (when James was conceived).
16 May 1782 – Their sixth son, James, was baptised at St Dunstan & All Saints. John was described as a mariner of Mile End Old Town. (Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Register of baptisms, May 1770 - Apr 1798, P93/DUN, Item 005)
18 May 1783 – Phillip Crofts Shapcote of Mile End Old Town was buried at St Dunstan’s. (Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Register of Burials, Jan 1767 - Aug 1784, LMA P93/DUN, Item 135)
July 1784 – Shapcote was at home (when George was conceived).
13 April 1785 – Their seventh son, George Francis, son of John Shapcote of Mile End Old Town, Gent, and Sarah, was baptised at St Dunstan and All Saints. (Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Register of baptisms, May 1770 - Apr 1798, P93/DUN, Item 005)
February 1787 – Shapcote was at home (when Sarah Elizabeth was conceived).
29 November 1787 – Their only daughter, Sarah Elizabeth, was baptised at St Dunstan and All Saints, Stepney. John was described as a ‘mariner’ of Mile End Old Town. (Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Register of baptisms, May 1770 - Apr 1798, P93/DUN, Item 005)
17 March 1788 – George Francis Shapcote of Mile End Old Town was buried at St Dunstan’s, having died of an inflammation. (Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Day book of Burials, Nov 1784 - Oct 1790, LMA P93/DUN, Item 185)
October 1789 – The twins were conceived.
6 May 1790 – Twins, William and Robert, were born.
10 June 1790 – William and Robert were baptised at St Dunstan & All Saints, Stepney. They were listed as the son of John Shapcote, Lieutenant in the Navy, of Mile End Old Town. (Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Register of Baptisms, May 1770 - Apr 1798, LMA P93/DUN, Item 005)
16 December 1790 – Robert Shapcote of Mile End Old Town died of a decline and was buried at St Dunstan’s on this date. (Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Day book of Burials, Oct 1790 - Jan 1801, LMA P93/DUN, Item 186)
14 May 1791 – William Shapcote of Mile End Old Town was buried at St Dunstan’s, having died of whooping cough. (Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Register of Burials, Aug 1784 - Dec 1801, LMA P93/DUN, Item 136; Saint Dunstan and All Saints, Day book of Burials, Oct 1790 - Jan 1801, LMA P93/DUN, Item 186)
Shapcote on the Neptune
12 August 1789 – The question of a Naval Agent was raised on this date, prior to advertisements being placed. The Navy Board raised this with the Treasury when it expressed the view that a competitive tender would result in the cheapest price, referring to the need to provide for accommodation on board on of the vessels ‘for another person to proceed with them on the voyage to see that justice is done to the public and convicts’. It is possible that they raised it at this time to provide reassurance that quality issues could be addressed through monitoring. (TNA T1/671/131-2)
15 August 1789 – Rose wrote back to the Navy Board, directing them to advertise, and agreeing that provision should be made on board one of the ships for a Superintendent to proceed with them on the voyage ‘to see that justice is done to the public and the convicts’. (TNA T1/672/209; TNA T27/40/344)
17 August 1789 – The Navy Board proposed to the Admiralty that Lieutenant John Shapcote be appointed Agent. (TNA ADM108/1d/247)
25 August 1789 – The Admiralty agreed to the appointment of Lieutenant John Shapcote as Agent on this date, the day before the tenders were due. He was to be allowed 15/- a day with a servant, but he was not to enjoy staff pay for the same period. (TNA ADM108/1d/247) [Who was Shapcote’s servant?]
27 August 1789 – The charter party, of this date, specified that the contractors and their Masters were subject to the directions of the Naval Agent. They were to sail to such place or places in New South Wales as the Navy Board or the Naval Agent would direct: ‘. . . during their passage the Masters of the said ships shall follow all orders and directions they shall receive from the Naval Agent. . .’ The Masters were also required to keep true journals of the wind and weather en route, together with all orders and instructions received from the Naval Agent, and to deliver these to the Navy Office upon oath, if required. (‘Copy of Contract for Conveying Convicts to New South Wales’, TNA CO201/6/273-276)
The same day, Lieutenant Shapcote was issued with his warrant, which referred to the agreement with Whitlock having been made on the 26th. He was to accompany Mr James Bowen, the Naval Agent at Deptford, in seeing the ships fitted, and provisions and stores stowed for the colony and he was to keep bills of lading. The provisions, water, etc for the use of the convicts on the voyage were to be stored so that they could be accessed on the voyage. The provisions for the colony were to be stored so that they were free from waste and damage. (‘Accounts and Papers Relating to Convicts on Board the Hulks, and Those Transported to New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed 10th and 26th March 1792, House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, (83) 1791-92, p.323; mentioned at TNA CO201/5/345)
Whilst the ships were in the River, responsibility for supervision appears to have been divided between James Bowen and John Shapcote. Bowen appears to have performed the principal role whilst the ships lay at Deptford. For example, on 7 October, when Captain Nepean complained that the women had not been properly victualled, Bowen responded to the Navy Board, advising that Lieutenant Shapcote was in agreement and would attend the Board to explain in detail. (Bowen to Navy Board, 7 October 1789, TNA ADM106/243)
13 October 1789 – Shapcote to the Navy Board, asking to be supplied with a 22 foot cutter and such other necessaries as are usually supplied to an agent for transports at Deptford Yard. The Navy Board agreed the following day. (TNA ADM106/2631, 14 October)
15 October 1789 – The Navy Board directed Lieutenant Shapcote to order the Neptune to fall down to Woolwich to receive on board 35 soldiers and 127 male convicts and 80 female convicts from the Justitia hulk and then proceed to Plymouth where she was to receive on board 315 male convicts from the Dunkirk, and then to remain in readiness to join the Scarborough and Surprize on their appearance off that port. But in case the wind should be westerly when she received the convicts on board, she was to proceed to Spithead.
The Scarborough was to receive on board at Deptford 20 soldiers and 84 convicts and proceed to Portsmouth, where she would receive 176 convicts. The Surprize was to go to Woolwich where she would receive 20 soldiers and 20 convicts from the county jails and then proceed to Portsmouth where she would receive 240 more convicts to join the Scarborough and then proceed to Plymouth to join the Neptune. They were then to proceed with all possible dispatch to ‘Port Jackson in Botany Bay’ and apply to Commodore Philips [sic] for further orders. (TNA ADM106/2631)
This suggests that Shapcote was in control from the 15th of October at the latest, but Bowen was still corresponding with the Board about the embarkation of soldiers and the preparedness of the ships to sail and to receive their convicts on the 23rd of October. (Bowen to Navy Board, 23 October 1789, TNA ADM106/243)
3 November 1789 – When information was to be passed to the Masters of the ships, instructing them to apply to the contractors for the hulks for the convicts, it was passed through Shapcote. (Navy Board to Shapcote, 3 November 1789, TNA ADM106/2347/132a)
6 November 1789 – They also chose to inform him that they had directed the storekeeper at Deptford to supply cots and bedding only for the officers going out in the ships. (Navy Board to Shapcote, 6 November 1789, TNA ADM106/2347/132a; TNA ADM106/2631)
- Shapcote was on the Neptune at Longreach, with Bowen. The vessel was under the command of the First Mate, Nicholas Anstis. Bowen and Shapcote seem to have received complaints from the soldiers and from the female convicts, the latter because they had not been served their proper ration of tea and sugar, but fresh beef and vegetables had been issued in lieu. Anstis had no orders to issue the proper rations, but he told the Agents that he would give proper satisfaction to everybody until he received orders from Camden, Calvert & King to issue the proper rations. Bowen reported on this visit and not Shapcote. (Bowen to Margetson, 7 October [November] 1789, TNA ADM106/243)
9 November 1789 – Shapcote and Bowen attended the Navy Board to report on the preparations. Shapcote’s intention was ‘to explain many things that had been neglected by the contractor’. (Bowen to Margetson at the Board, 7 November 1789, TNA ADM106/243)
10 November 1789 – 140 convicts were said to have been removed from Newgate at an early hour and conveyed to Blackfriars and from thence on a lighter to the vessel prepared to transport them to Botany Bay. (The Argus, 11 November 1789, p.2; Statement of John Beale, TNA TS11/381, p.1) This was probably the Neptune at Longreach, and Shapcote, if not Bowen, would have been on board.
14 November 1789 – Bowen signed a certificate stating that the Neptune, Scarborough and Surprize had received their provisions and were ready to receive their convicts. George Whitlock was therefore entitled to his second imprest, agreeable to the contract made on 27 August 1789. (TNA ADM106/243)
16 November 1789 – It was only at this time when the convicts were embarked that Shapcote seemed to assume responsibility for the operation of the vessels, reporting regularly to the Board.
- Lieut. Shapcote to the Navy Board, advising that 101 convicts had been embarked on board the Surprize from the hulks at Woolwich, and asking whether he was to wait for the 23 convicts that were to be sent from the county gaols. The Navy Board advised the Treasury and sought approval for the Agent to board the convicts from the county gaols, as the ships were in a heavy demurrage. (TNA ADM106/2631) [This seems to indicate that Shapcote was on the Surprize at Woolwich.]
17 November 1789 – Shapcote sought approval to install two windsails and an Osbridges Machine on the Scarborough and Surprize at Portsmouth, and the Neptune with three windsails and a machine at Plymouth. The Navy Board gave orders to this effect. (TNA ADM106/2631) [This request presumably arose from an inspection of the ships with the convicts embarked.]
On this same day, Shapcote was issued with his second warrant. He was to embark on board the Neptune, where the women were, to see that they were kept separate from the men, and were not abused or ill-treated, ‘but the contrary as far as in your power’. He was to make the best of his way to Port Jackson when the ships from Portsmouth and Plymouth had joined them, and to touch at such places as he should find necessary, ‘in which you must be guided by circumstances’. He was to visit the ships on the passage as frequently the weather permitted and see they were washed and aired, that the convicts were kept clean and their clothes changed and washed, and as much air given to them as possible, consistent with their safety. The sick were to be kept separate and the place allotted fumigated when necessary. They were to be supplied with wine and necessaries when directed by the surgeon, ‘and that justice is done to the whole of them on board, agreeable to the contract’. He was to take care that every circumstance was recorded in his journals, noting the deaths of such as may occur on the passage. (Accounts and Papers, 10 & 26 March, 1792, 64-5; ‘Copy of a Warrant to Lieut. Shapcote, Agent for Transports, n.d., TNA CO201/5/345-346)
These instructions were much more explicit than those given to Edgar, and now assigned to the Naval Agent the responsibility for the management of the convicts. This was not something that Naval Agents had ever done before, and Shapcote would have had no experience to qualify him for this responsibility of public health management.
18 November 1789 – In the clash between Trail and Hill over the management of the convicts, Shapcote was reluctant to intervene, saying that he would have nothing to do with the convicts. (Trail to Camden, Calvert & King, 19 November 1789, TNA T1/674/268-9)
- Orders given this day to Lieut. Shapcote was to proceed with the transports. (TNA ADM106/2631)
- Lieut. Shapcote was directed to give orders to the Master of the Surprize in case the convicts from the county gaols do not arrive by the middle of the next week, to sail without them or as soon as they were on board if they arrived sooner. (TNA ADM106/2631)
21 November 1789 – Shapcote minuted a conversation he had had with Trail, who had complained of the conduct of Captain Hill. Hill had declared to the Master that he would have the ‘whole and sole direction of the ship and convicts’, and if refused, he would forcibly take away the key to the hatches. Hill declared that he would decide when the convicts would be out of irons, and he would place sentinels where he thought proper, even to prevent the Captain going into his apartment.
The Master said that he regarded the Naval Agent as one of his officers, who should obey his orders. Hill said that he knew nothing of the Naval Agent, and was not aware that the Navy Board had any role in the matter. It was in his power, he said, to hang any of the convicts without consulting anyone else. (TNA T1/674/266)
- Shapcote sent a note to the Navy Board about these matters. (TNA ADM106/2347/267)
23 November 1789 – Shapcote asked the Navy Board for permission to go to Portsmouth to join the Surprize and Scarborough. They had no objection but he must go at his own expense. (TNA ADM106/2631)
25 November 1789 – Navy Board to Shapcote (equivalent letter to Mr Whitlock). The Treasury had given orders for the embarkation of the convicts at Portsmouth and Plymouth as speedily as possible to prevent the ships incurring demurrage. (TNA ADM106/2347/134a)
- By this date, the War Office had instructed the soldiers that they were not to interfere with the masters’ control of their ships, which was under the direction of Lieutenant Shapcote.
30 November 1789 – Navy Board advised Shapcote at Portsmouth that they had received his letter of the previous day and advised him that the Neptune arrived at Plymouth on the 27th. They had requested the storekeeper at Portsmouth to supply the Surprize with ten beds and hammocks as requested. (TNA ADM106/2631; TNA ADM106/2347/135)
1 December 1789 – Shapcote to the Navy Board on the status of the ships. (referred to in TNA ADM106/2631, 2 December)
Prior to 2 December 1789 – Calvert had met or corresponded with Grenville, advising that the apartment for the female convicts on the Neptune could take 30 to 40 more. Grenville acted on this without consulting Shapcote, making arrangements for the reception of more. (Grenville to Shapcote, 2 December 1789, TNA HO13/7/323-324)
2 December 1789 – Lord Grenville had written directly to Shapcote:
The contractor for the transportation of convicts to New South Wales has informed me that the apartment designed for the female convicts on board the Neptune is capable of containing between 30 and 40 more than the number now on board, and that preparations have been made by him for the reception of such other female convicts as may be ready to embark.
As it is probable that some of the male convicts put on board the ship now under dispatch may be desirous that their wives should accompany them, it has been thought advisable that so many of them shall be allowed to embark as can conveniently be accommodated, and I shall be glad if you will notify to the several convicts the intention of granting this indulgence to them, in order that they may give information thereof to their wives and hasten their embarkation as much as possible.
If the number of convicts who may apply to you in consequence, should not be sufficient to complete the number for which accommodation is provided, you will in such case acquaint the rest of the convicts that women who may have cohabited with them will also be received on board.
I shall take care that proper directions are given that such women as may embark in consequence of this proceeding, may be victualled during their passage, and be provided with clothes and necessaries in the same manner as the female convicts under order of transportation. (TNA HO13/7/323-324)
- The Navy Board wrote to Shapcote directing him to inform them when the Neptune arrived, if the wind should continue to blow to the west. (TNA ADM106/2631; TNA ADM106/2347/135a)
3 December 1789 – Shapcote wrote to the Navy Board seeking permission to take some of the convicts’ wives, arguing it would be a humane act. (referred to in TNA ADM106/2631)
4 December – The Navy Board wrote to Shapcote: ‘We. . . acquaint you we think it is a very humane act the suffering such of the convicts who have wives to take them with them, but not having received any directions thereon, we cannot at present say anything further’. (TNA ADM106/2631; TNA ADM106/2347/135a)
- Shapcote to the Navy Board enclosing a letter from Mr Secretary Grenville, desiring him to communicate to the convicts that such of them as had wives could take them. (referred to in TNA ADM106/2631, 8 December)
5 December 1789 – Draft of Evan Nepean to Shapcote, sent this day:
"Since Major Grose left town, I have received the enclosed letter from my brother and I had and this morning I had an interview with Sir Charles Middleton on the subject. I have strong reason exclusive of what my brother had said to believe from other channels that Mr Gilbert is an exceedingly troublesome fellow and I am rather surprised that my brother has not kicked him but perhaps he has judged right best in observing a more temperate conduct. It will be necessary, however, that some notice should be taken of it & I shall be obliged to you if you will shew this letter to Major Grose in a private manner, and that you will be so good as to talk over the matter with ^ my brother and Gilbert as soon as the Neptune gets round, that you will mention it also to Mr King who is a sensible temperate discreet man & endeavour to reconcile the differences as much as possible.
"Mr Grenville wrote to you a letter on Wednesday about the women, which I hope you have rec’d. You will also I believe before you sail receive a signification from the Navy Board to the same effect. But from the uncertainty of your stay at Portsmouth & the circuitous route officials letters must take, it was thought advisable to send directly from this office. This method tho’ perhaps not exactly regular will answer the purpose. I find the letter was addressed to you by mistake on b’d the Neptune instead of the Scarborough.
"Sir Chas Middleton is gone out of town today, but when he returns he wish[es] to say something to you upon these subjects. of my brother’s complaint and He will also instruct you to examine minutely into the manner of confining the convicts, as it has been represented that they are ironed in such a manner as must ultimately tend to their ultimate destruction. In the meantime it may not be amiss that you should consult with Mr King upon this subject, & give your advice to him upon the subject, & be ready to answer any enquiry that may be made.
"I have told Sir Charles that I should write to you in this private manner [illegible] I shall be glad way and have only now to add, that I am with great regard. . ." (TNA HO42/15/402-403)
6 December 1789 – Shapcote from Portsmouth, in a private letter to Nepean. Among other things, Nepean had raised concerns about the convicts been too heavily ironed:
"I had the honor of your letter yesterday – and communicated your wish to Major Grose & Mr King. The latter exceeding sorry that Mr Gilbert should so far forget himself as to give Capt. Nepean the smallest reason for complaint. Every difference will be adjusted in the arrival of the Neptune. If not, I told Mr King, Gilbert could not proceed in the ship.
"I flatter myself Capt. Nepean and I shall be very happy. Nothing shall be wanting in my power to make him comfortable.
"I beg you will please accept my thanks for the hint you are pleased to give respecting the convicts being ironed. Some few of them who come with very bad characters are more severely ironed than others, for the present only.
"I have taken the liberty to enclose a letter to the Right Hon’ble Mr Grenville which I hope is not improper." (TNA HO42/15/399)
8 December 1789 – Shapcote wrote to the Navy Board, seeking to have his bill paid. (TNA ADM106/2631, 9 December)
9 December 1789 – The Navy Board advised Shapcote that they would pay the bill he had submitted for £80. (TNA ADM106/2631; TNA ADM106/2347/136)
13 December 1789 – Shapcote wrote to the Navy Board with the numbers on the Neptune and advising of his intention to sail (TNA ADM106/2631, 14 December)
14 December 1789 – Navy Board advised Shapcote that they had received his letter of the previous day and they approved of his sailing as proposed with the first favourable wind. (TNA ADM106/2631; TNA ADM106/2347/136) " 19 December 1789 – Calvert’s instructions to Trail: "Should it be necessary to touch at any place on the passage to NSW, they recommended the Cape of Good Hope, since it was more immediately in the way and less time would be lost. Lieutenant Shapcote concurred with them in this matter. Before going into any port, they were to request instructions from Shapcote, setting forth that it was necessary to obtain refreshment for the sick, since they expected demurrage from government for any delay in the passage on that account.
"In all things concerning the convicts and troops, he was to consult and be governed by the Agent, but after the delivery of the convicts and stores, he was to have nothing more to do with government. Mr Shapcote and Captain Nepean were to be accommodated in a respectable and comfortable manner and for any additional expenditure on that account, he would be reimbursed." (‘Accounts and Papers Relating to Convicts on Board the Hulks, and Those Transported to New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed 10th and 26th March 1792, House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, (83) 1791-92, pp.329-330)
The Search
c.20 December 1789 – Trail and Shapcote came on board the Neptune. All of the convicts were searched and 70 to 100 knives were discovered. Moreover, many of their chests had large iron hinges and iron clasps at the corners. And a number had tin pots. All of these articles, under the Agent’s direction, were taken from their rooms. Any convict who could sell his chest to the sailors or sailors was at liberty to do so. The knives and tin pots were withheld from them, but he admitted that many of the chests and clothes were thrown overboard on Shapcote’s orders, he being fearful that they might harbour gaol distemper. (Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers’, p.332)
Trail said that the convicts were not without utensils when necessary and each mess had a knife for cutting meat. (‘Accounts and Papers’, p.332)
Hiding Deserters
Mid-December 1789 – John Beale said that being low on crew, the Neptune relied on deserters from the Navy and he said Shapcote turned a blind eye to this, even when boats from the King’s Service came alongside looking for their men. At these times, the men were placed in irons and hidden among the convicts. (Examination of John Beale, TNA TS11/381, p.3)
On coming on board the ship, Joseph Collins saw a man in a Lieutenant’s uniform, and Collins was alarmed. It turned out to be Shapcote, the Agent. Collins approached him and confessed to being a deserter, and, as Collins later claimed, Shapcote told him not to be afraid and directed him to Trail who was in the cuddy. They told him he didn’t need to sign the articles then, but if he wrote his name down on a piece of paper, he could sign them when they were at sea. At Shapcote’s suggestion, he changed his name from Silk to Collins. He claimed that Trail said that they would have an Indiaman’s provisions and that the women would be permitted amongst the crew. Several days later, Shapcote told him that it was likely that they would be searched, and Silk and the other men of war’s men should go down among the convicts when the officers came on board. (Examination of Charles King, TNA TS11/381, p.51)
13 January 1790 – Shapcote to Navy Board advising they had put back due to the winds. (Referred to in TNA ADM106/2632, 14 January)
- Bowen to the Navy Board, advising the vinegar mentioned in Mr Slade’s letter of the 7th instant was shipped on board the transports. (Referred to in TNA ADM106/2632, 14 January)
14 January 1790 – Navy Board to Shapcote on the Neptune. They noted his advice that they had had to put back due to the winds and that they were with the Surprize at the Mother Bank. They hoped he would sail soon. (TNA ADM106/2632; TNA ADM106/2347/136a)
In the final weeks before sailing, Shapcote arranged for his eldest son to be given a position on the Justinian. There is no evidence as to how this was arranged.
Irons on the Prisoners
In December, the convicts on the Surprize lodged a protest at how they were ironed, probably communicated to Captain Hill through one of the sentries. He would later accuse the contractors of having used slave shackles on board the ship:
"The irons used upon these unhappy wretches were barbarous. The contractors had been in the Guinea trade, and had put on board the same shackles used by them in that trade, which are made with a short bolt, instead of chains that drop between the legs and fasten with a bandage about the waist, like those at the different gaols; these bolts were not more than three-quarters of a foot in length, so that they could not extend either leg from the other more than an inch or two at most; thus fettered, it was impossible for them to move but at the risk of both their legs being broken." (Hill to Wathen, 26 July 1790, TNA CO201/5/281-283)
However it was communicated, the convicts’ complaint made its way to the Under Secretary of the Home Office, who raised it with Lieutenant Shapcote – ‘it has been represented that they are ironed in such a manner as must ultimately tend to their destruction’. As soon as he returned to his office, Sir Charles Middleton would direct him to conduct a detailed inquiry. It seems that there was an investigation – Donald Trail later made mention of it – but it must have been perfunctory since Shapcote wrote to Nepean the following day: ‘Some few of them who come with very bad characters are more severely ironed than others, for the present only’. (Nepean to Shapcote, 5 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/402-403; Shapcote to Nepean, 6 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/399)
[Trail later said that the complaint was initiated by the convicts, that it made its way to the Treasury, and that there was a subsequent investigation – Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers’, p.334]
There is no reason to doubt this report – shackles of this kind had been used on some of the disorderly women on board the Friendship, and even in the slave trade, they were only used to disable the fractious and unruly.
[Whilst being critical of the manner in which the convicts were ironed, David Collins did acknowledge that they had been kept in chains – David Collins, An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales [1798], Sydney: A.H. & A.W. Reed, 1975, Vol.1, pp.99-100. Likewise Extract of Johnson to Thornton, July 1790, TNA CO201/6/353-356a; Statement of John Beale, in ‘Examinations and Depositions of the several Sailors. . . of the Ship Neptune’, TNA TS11/381, p.6. Trail’s statement on the convict irons is at Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers Relating to Convicts on Board the Hulks, and Those Transported to New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed 10th and 26th March 1792, House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, (83) 1791-92, pp.73-74.
The surgeon of the Lady Penrhyn, Arthur Bowes Smyth, made a drawing of the kind of shackles described by Hill, which he said were used on the women – Paul G. Fidlon et al (eds.), The Journal of Arthur Bowes Smyth, Sydney: Australian Documents Library, 1979, p.48. On the irons used on the Surprize – Shapcote to Nepean, 6 December 1789, TNA HO42/15/399.]
Some might argue that Shapcote was simply defending Trail and allowing the abuse of the convicts to go ahead unchecked. I disagree – Shapcote was under the scrutiny of the Home Office, and it is difficult that he would have lied while the ships were in home waters.
On the Neptune, Trail point out that the convicts were ironed under the direction of Lieutenant Shapcote. Those of good character and those who were unwell were exempted. Whenever a convict was reported to be sick, Shapcote saw that he was taken out of irons. (‘Accounts and Papers’, p.331)
The latter category would include the boys and the men who were cooking and otherwise working on deck. We do not know how many, but perhaps 25 or 30?
Sea Wives
It is clear that shortly after sailing, Shapcote took one of the female convicts as a ‘sea wife’. The fact that a female convict who constantly attended him reported his death in the early hours of the morning, suggests that he was sleeping with her. Moreover, seaman Beale said that some of the officers and passengers took companions from among the female convicts, naming the Surgeon and John Shapcote, the Agent, among others. (Examination of John Beale, TNA TS11/381, 5)
However, I think it is likely that it was Shapcote who insisted that the crew members were not given access to the female convicts. His second warrant stated that he was to embark on board the Neptune, where the women were, to see that they were kept separate from the men, and were not abused or ill-treated, ‘but the contrary as far as in your power’. (‘Accounts and Papers’, pp.322-323; ‘Copy of a Warrant to Lieut. Shapcote, Agent for Transports, n.d., TNA CO201/5/345-346a)
It is difficult to see why Trail would prevent his men from having access to the convict women – it wound up causing him considerable difficulty with the crew and he would have known that after making promises that the men would have access to the women, this change of policy would result in considerable discontent among the crew. On a number of other convict ships, the captains allowed the men to have access to the women simply to avoid this kind of conflict. Trail was evidently the sort of man who would not bend to pressure from his crew.
In short, it seems likely that Trail’s disputes with the crew arose out of Shapcote’s strict interpretation of his instructions, and Trail’s obedience to Shapcote’s directions. None of the crew mentions this, which suggests that Trail did not bother to provide them with an explanation.
First Leg
Mid-February 1790 – When a conspiracy was uncovered on the Scarborough, Shapcote was informed, and went on board and conducted an inquiry. He found most of them guilty and several who would not confess were punished. Five of the men were confined, to be dealt with by Governor Phillip. (‘Accounts and Papers’, pp.323-324)
The Provisions
William Gates, the steward, later swore that prior to sailing Shapcote provided him with a list of provisions to be delivered weekly to the male and female prisoners, which was regularly delivered to the convicts for the entire journey. The only provision that was sometimes a little short was the tea for the females. The provisions were served out under the direction of Lieutenant Shapcote until his death. (Gates affidavit, Accounts and Papers, 10 & 26 March, 1792, 70) Trail said that he did not know the details of the provisions, but there was seldom any complaint made to the Master about this matter, the responsibility resting with the Agent. (Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers’, p.332)
Gates will have been right that Shapcote gave him a copy of the rations. Those who want to believe the worst of Trail will conclude that Shapcote was not present each day the provisions were issued, or he connived in the issuance of poor quality and underweight rations. There is a range of matters to be considered:
Poor quality meat: There seems to have been no complaint about the dry provisions or with the pork. The problem was with the beef, which was old and repacked. And the meat taken on board at the Cape was said to be of very poor quality.
Bowen and not Shapcote was responsible for inspecting the provisions that were brought on board in England. Once they were at sea, there was little Shapcote could have done. However, Shapcote was responsible for the provisions brought on board at the Cape.
Use of underweight leads: Gates was caught using underweight leads at Sydney Cove, and his assistant said that these were the same weights that were used throughout the voyage. He tested the two pound weight on their return to London and said it was scarcely 22 ounces.
This is a matter that Shapcote should have checked, however, it is possible that he did not have an alternative set of weights to compare them with.
Distribution system: It was claimed that the prisoners suffered in two ways – some of the prisoners charged with distributing the food were stealing and within the messes, the stronger stole from the weaker. If these claims are true, it is unclear how much control Shapcote could have exercised. There were 420 convicts on board when they sailed. That is 70 messes. Assuming that each trustee had 5 messes to deliver food to, there were 16 trustees.
It might have been addressed if there was a functioning system for making complaints, and if there had been an effective monitoring system in the prison. The crew claimed that the first did not exist, and we have no information about the latter.
Cleaning of the Prison
Trail said that the prison was scraped, swabbed or mopped daily, and twice a week sprinkled with oil of tar. But because it would have been dangerous to have all of the convicts on deck at once, the whole orlop deck could not be washed at once, nor would the design of the berths allow it. (‘Accounts and Papers’, p.334)
This was consistent with best practice on board convict transports – it was considered unhealthy to get the prison wet through washing it and scrubbing and mopping was the usual practice.
It seems highly likely that Shapcote had implemented a procedure for cleansing the prison on a regular basis, but because of the large number of convicts and the construction of the berths, it was difficult to do a thorough job. However, it is likely that few people will accept Trail’s account.
System of Complaint
According to the crew, the men were absolutely forbidden to approach the quarterdeck, and if they spoke to the chief mate anywhere else in the ship they were verbally and physically abused. The carpenter claimed that when some of the convicts approached Trail about the inadequacy of their allowance, he silenced them with abusive language, and ‘if they complained of each other, one of them was sure to be flogged’. The boatswain said there was no point in them complaining to Lieutenant Shapcote, because he always sided with Trail and Elrington. (Statements of George Churchill, Lundy Gowan, Edward Hoare and Thomas Smith, in ‘Examinations and Depositions of the several Sailors. . . of the Ship Neptune’, TNA TS11/381, pp.17, 25, 28 & 40)
The ultimate responsibility for having a system of complaint lay with Shapcote. If the crew are correct, he failed to establish such a system. It appears that complaints were made – the problem, as Lundy Gowan said, was that he always sided with the ship’s officers.
Punishment
There were very few specific claims of violence against the convicts. Churchill mentioned two women who he claimed were physically abused by Trail and Elrington. It seems likely that Churchill was close to these women, and the only misconduct he admits to on the part of these women was that one of them had been speaking to one of the crew through a partition.
The beating and flogging of the unnamed convict is the only such incident reported. This related to what was said to be an attempted escape, and it is possible that Shapcote (and Trail) regarded the matter as outside the Agent’s authority.
Some of the conspirators on the Scarborough were flogged and then ironed on Shapcote’s orders, but David Collins later wrote that ‘Captain Marshall’s humanity considerably lessened the severity which the insurgents might naturally have expected’. Marshall might have intervened, but the ultimate decision as to punishment must have rested with Shapcote, and if they were treated with some leniency, then this suggests a humane side to the man.
Care of the Women
In general, it seems, the women of the Neptune were treated well. They had the freedom of the deck. They were housed in the somewhat more salubrious accommodation of the great cabin. A lazaretto was established for them when disease broke out. And until the ship entered the unruly waters of the southern ocean, they were allowed to brew a cup of tea whenever they wanted.
To some extent, Shapcote must have approved these arrangements.
[On the women having the freedom of the deck – Statements of John Beale and George Churchill, in ‘Examinations and Depositions of the several Sailors. . . of the Ship Neptune’, NA TS11/381, pp.5, 12, 14; Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers Relating to Convicts on Board the Hulks, and Those Transported to New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed 10th and 26th March 1792, House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, (83) 1791-92, pp.74-76.
On their accommodation in the great cabin and on the establishment of a sick room for the women in the passage outside of the cabin – Extracts from Mrs John Macarthur’s Journal, in Sibella Macarthur Onslow (ed.), Some Early Records of the Macarthurs of Camden, Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1914, pp.8-9, 10.
Charles King claimed that the women could brew their tea at any time while Thomas Gilbert was in command, but this was stopped when Trail came on board. Trail claimed that the women were allowed a pint of water of day for tea, and could make their own tea at any time until they encountered the boisterous waters of the southern ocean – Statement of Charles King, in ‘Examinations and Depositions of the several Sailors. . . of the Ship Neptune’, NA TS11/381, pp.45 & 46; Statements of Samuel Gates and Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers Relating to Convicts on Board the Hulks, and Those Transported to New South Wales’, Ordered to be Printed 10th and 26th March 1792, House of Commons Sessional Papers of the Eighteenth Century, (83) 1791-92, pp.70 & 74-75]
Care of the Men
Trail said that when they were in the Tropics, he and Shapcote allowed more convicts to sleep on deck than the number of soldiers and sailors to guard them – nothing but humanity could have encouraged them to take such a risk – this also thinned the convict numbers in the prison and they used windsails and ports fore and aft to get air into the prison. (‘Accounts and Papers’, p.332)
It is possible that the representation was made to Trail by Shapcote. Alternatively, it might have been made to Trail by Gray and he sought Shapcote’s advice. Either way, this was a humane act, taken against Trail’s instincts and his concerns about the security of the ship.
Trail also said that the convicts were ironed under the direction of Lieutenant Shapcote. Whenever a convict was reported to be sick, Shapcote saw that he was taken out of irons. (Accounts and Papers, p.331) Again, this shows Shapcote’s humane side – we know that when prisoners’ irons were chafing their legs, he ordered them to be removed and, at least in some cases, replaced with manacles until they were healed. This would probably have been done at Gray’s intervention, but Trail gives the credit to Shapcote for ordering the release of the sick.
The Cape
Riou was unimpressed by Shapcote, writing that ‘The conduct of this officer who had himself acquainted me he was the Naval Agent for the transports in False Bay appeared to me to be so inconsistent and was so unintelligible that I was dubious whether it would be proper to send any provisions to False Bay, even if an opportunity should offer’ (M.D. Nash (ed.), The Last Voyage of the Guardian, Lieutenant Riou, Commander, 1789-1791, Cape Town: Van Riebeeck Society, 1990, p.185)
He wrote to Evan Nepean: ‘And as far as their Agent Mr Shapcote he behaved here just as foolishly as a man could well do.’ (Riou to Nepean, 20 October 1790, TNA CO201/5/303-304)
It is clear that the disagreement between Riou and Shapcote related to the latter’s determination to sail by the 28th of October, regardless of the circumstances. Riou wrote to Stephens at the Admiralty:
The Neptune, Surprize, and Scarborough arrived in False Bay the 14th of April, and in them I sent, under the care of Lt. John Shapcote, the Agent, twenty convicts, which were all that remained of the twenty-five that were sent on board the Guardian at Spithead. I also put on board those ships four hundred tierces of beef and two hundred tierces of pork; and had not a misunderstanding existed between Lieutenant Shapcote and myself, it is my opinion I could have sent many articles which would not have taken up much stowage in the ships under his direction that would have been very acceptable to his Majesty’s colony in New South Wales. But as that officer waited my orders for his proceedings, and afterwards persisted with his own resolution of sailing from False Bay on a certain day which he determinately fixed upon, I lost no time to endeavour to acquiesce in his measures, resolving that nothing should be wanting on my part to give all possible assistance to the colony, fearing that it might severely experience the effects of the accident that has befell his Majesty’s ship under my command. The Neptune, Surprize, and Scarborough sailed from False Bay on the 29th of April. (Riou to Stephens, 20 May 1790, HRNSW Vol.1:2, p.338)
It is likely that Shapcote was determined to sail as soon as possible because of Calvert’s threat to charge demurrage. And it is unlikely he was wanting to overcrowd the ship yet again, with sickness on board and a difficult passage ahead.
Final Leg
Upon sailing from the Cape, a fever broke out among the convicts in the Neptune and according to Trail’s later statement, neither he nor Gray felt that they had authority to serve porter to the convicts. When they approached Shapcote, he allegedly said that he did not feel that he possessed the authority to give such orders. (Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers’, 10 & 26 March, 1792, pp.333-334)
Death
On or about the 12th of May, Lieutenant Shapcote died southward of the Cape. (Gates affidavit, ‘Accounts and Papers’, p.328)
Trail said that Shapcote had been in declining health for some time. The night of his death, he had dined with Trail, his wife, Nicholas Nepean and William Gray and that he had eaten heartily of a dinner of salad, bread and cheese. He went to bed around 9pm.
". . . between 3 and 4 o’clock in the morning, Mr Trail was awaked by the Chief Mate, who informed him that a female convict (who had constantly attended Mr Shapcote) had just acquainted him of the death of the Agent. Upon which information, Mr Trail, together with the Commanding Officer of the Troops, and the Surgeon, went to his berth, and locked his bureau; and that he was so very offensive that they were obliged to bury him about 10 o’clock the same morning." (Statement of Donald Trail, ‘Accounts and Papers’, p.335)
Reporting
Shapcote reported at every opportunity on the state of the fleet, as he was required to do under his instructions:
"On the 22nd of February, at 2º 30’S, 22ºW, they had encountered a French ship and Shapcote reported to the Navy Board via this ship. The three transports were in company. He reported on the planned mutiny on the Scarborough ‘on Friday last’. At this point, the Neptune had 4 dead, the Surprize 3, and the Scarborough 4." (TNA T1/687/162; ‘Accounts and Papers’, pp.323-324) [This letter that the Navy Board sent to the Treasury on 24 May and was read by the Treasury at its meeting on 5 June. See TNA T29/62/64.]
He also reported to the Navy Board from the Cape on the 16th and 24th of April. A great number of soldiers and convicts were sick with scurvy. In consequence of representations of the various surgeons and the surgeon’s mate of the troops, he had ordered fresh meat and vegetables every day. The dead:
Neptune – 45 males and 1 female Surprize – 8 males Scarborough – 15 males (Accounts and Papers, 10 & 26 March, 1792, 68; ‘Letter by John Shapcote from Cape of Good Hope’, 24 April 1790, TNA CO201/5/245-253)
Shapcote wrote to the Navy Board again on the 29th, shortly before sailing. Lieutenant Riou had sent round from Table Bay 400 tierces of beef and 200 tierces of pork, along with 20 male convicts. The ships were just getting under way. (‘Accounts and Papers’, p.327)
In none of these reports is there any suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of the contractors or the ships’ officers. He does not explain the high mortality rate, and neither does he allude to an epidemic of gaol fever among the convicts, as alleged by the sailors.
Conclusions
On the 18th of November, Shapcote seemed reluctant to accept responsibility for managing the convicts, but if his second warrant had arrived by that date, it would have only just arrived. When Hill clashed with Trail that day, he was completely unaware of Shapcote’s role with the fleet. In his defence, he seems to have been given greater responsibility for the convicts than Edgar had been on board the Lady Juliana, so the scope of his authority would have been unclear.
However, he had asked on13 October to be supplied with a 22 foot cutter – which meant that he was intending to actively manage the ships by visiting them from time to time.
And on 17 November, he did take the initiative in applying to the Navy Board for windsails and an Osbridges Machine to be installed on the ships.
It was Shapcote who assumed responsibility for ensuring that the convicts’ old clothing was thrown away – a public health measure – and their trunks and chests searched for articles that could be turned into weapons. The contract had specified that slops were to be provided for the convicts, but there is no evidence that Shapcote was ordered to dispose of their old clothing. This seems to be an initiative of his own.
Eager to sail, it would seem that Shapcote turned a blind eye to the deserters that Trail had recruited for the ship.
Elizabeth Macarthur claimed that Shapcote was frightened of offending Trail. When John Macarthur complained about the closure of his family’s passage through the upper cabin, he was told verbally by Shapcote, since he would not give it in writing, ‘that he should not quarrel with Trail for any man’. (Sibella Macarthur Onslow (ed.), Some Early Records of the Macarthurs of Camden, Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1914, p.10)
Lundy Gowan, the boatswain, said that there was no point the convicts complaining to Lieutenant Shapcote, since he would always side with the Captain and Chief Mate. (Examination of Lundy Gowan, TNA TS11/381, p.40) This is consistent with Elizabeth Macarthur’s account.
Lieutenant Hill (on the Surprize) concluded that no Agent could effectively supervise more than one ship. This is an implicit criticism of Shapcote, but of course, Hill was not friend of Shapcote’s. (Hill to Wathen, quoting Hill to Wilberforce, 26 July 1790, TNA CO201/5/281-283; HRNSW Vol.1:2, pp.367-8)
Shapcote asked each of the surgeons to provide him with a report on the scurvy, and at first this seems to be evidence of a man who was reluctant to take decisions in his own right. This suggests that he was worried about Calvert later arguing that such a stay had been unnecessary. We know that Calvert had spoken to him about this matter, and in his instructions to Trail, Calvert had said that before going into any port, he was to request instructions from Shapcote, explicitly stating that it was necessary to obtain refreshment for the sick, since the firm expected demurrage from government for any delay in the passage on that account. So what at first looks like excessive conservatism on Shapcote’s part appears on closer analysis to be a cautious response to a threat by Calvert to seek demurrage for any unnecessary stop at the Cape.
