Scarborough
1782 – Built by John Fowler & Ben Heward, Scarborough for Thomas Hopper.
American Trade
6 November 1784 – It was reported that the Scarborough, Marshall had arrived at Elsineur from Petersburg. (Felix Farley’s Bristol Journal, 6 November 1784)
Early November 1784 – The Scarborough, Marshall, entered Bristol from Petersburg, Virginia. (Felix Farley’s Bristol Journal, 13 November 1784)
15 April 1785 – Navigation Licence. No.1226. 420 tons. John Marshall. 20 British crew. To Grenada. Listed as returning 8 December 1786. (ADM7/104)
4 July 1785 – The Scarborough, John Marshall, entered at Port Antonio, Jamaica. 450 tons, crew of 15. British-built, 1782. Registered at Scarborough, 18 May 1782. Owned by George Hooper. Carrying ballast only from Scarborough. (Jamaica NOSL, Reel 3, pp.1290-1)
7 September 1785 – The Scarborough, Marshall, outward at Savanna La Mar. Bound for London with logwood and fustock, mahogany, pimento, and a little sugar and rum. (Jamaica NOSL, Reel 3, pp.1306-7)
23 November 1785 – Scarborough, Marshall at Gravesend from Jamaica. (General Evening Post, 24-26 November 1785)
1786 – Lloyd’s Register. Scarborough 1782. 600 tons. Sheathed 1782. Single deck with beams. Owner: T. Hopper. Master: J. Marshall. Granada. (Lloyd’s Register, 1786)
13 February 1786 – The Scarborough, Marshall, at Deal for Jamaica. (General Evening Post, 14-16 February 1786)
10 April 1786 – The Scarborough, Marshall, inward at Savanna La Mar, Jamaica. 420 tons, 19 crew. Owned by George Hopper & Co. With plantation stores and ballast. (Jamaica NOSL, Reel 5, pp.30-1)
22 July 1786 – The Scarborough, Marshall, outward from Savanna La Mar, to London with timber. (Jamaica NOSL, Reel 5, pp.63-4)
12 September 1786 – Arrived at Deal from Jamaica and sailed for the River the Scarborough, Marshall. (General Advertiser, 14 September 1786)
Botany Bay and China
16 October 1786 – Deptford Officers to Navy Board. Scarborough. Hopper. 3.5 years. 41836/94. 6’1” 6’2” 5’11”. (ADM 106/3321/92-3)
3 November 1786:
"Yesterday the Scarborough was entered outward at the Custom House for Botany Bay. Those concerned in the knowledge of vessels do not scruple to say that she is in a very bad condition to undertake such a voyage; and that it is more than probable she will never reach her destined port. This vessel is to carry the convicts." (Morning Herald, 3 November 1786)
29 November 1786 – Navigation Act Pass. No.3559. Scarborough. Ship. 411 tons. 6 guns. John Marshall. 27 British and 8 foreign crew. For Botany Bay. (ADM7/104)
1786-89 – Botany Bay and China. Captain John Marshall
According to the EIC, her measured tonnage on this voyage was 418 tons. (IOR/L/MAR/C/325)
1786 – Measured by the EIC’s Master Attendant. 2 decks. 109’3” x 29’10”. 41191/94 tons. (L/MAR/C/529)
19 June 1789 – This was the date of discharge of the last of the crew, according to the return of Greenwich sixpences. There were two entries, one for Botany Bay and one for ‘India’. 418 tons. The crew was listed as 25 from Botany Bay and 23 from China, suggesting she might have lost two men. (ADM68/206)
9 October 1789 – Navigation Licence for the Scarborough. No.8216. 411 tons, 6 guns. John Marshall. 26/8 crew. To Botany Bay & China. (ADM7/108)
28 December 1791 – King to Rose directing that another ship of at least 400 tons burthen be taken up, in addition to the Britannia and the Kitty, for conveying articles that cannot be conveyed in those vessels (as discussed in letters of 15 & 26 December). Also 15 families of Quakers. (T1/703/251-251a)
29 December 1791 – Long to Navy Board directing them to tender for a ship of 400 tons to convey certain articles to NSW. (Referred to in T29/64/158-159)
3 January 1792 – The Navy Board resolved that publication be made for the hire of a ship of 400 tons to carry stores, provisions and clothing and 15 private families to NSW. To treat on Monday 9th January. (ADM106/2640)
9 January – Navy Board instructed the Deptford Officers and Mr Bowen to survey the Scarborough to carry stores and provisions to NSW. (ADM106/2640)
10 January – Deptford Officers to Navy Board. They had been to Blackwall and surveyed the Scarborough in the best manner they could afloat. She had been tendered to carry stores, provisions and passengers to NSW. She was ten years old, the bottom was sheathed and fitted. Between decks she was 5’4”, but under the beams only 4’4”. Her construction was unfavourable and her height confined. They could not recommend her for a service ‘so remote and so important’. (ADM106/3408/278)
11 January – The Navy Board advised the Treasury that they had received tenders, the lowest of which was for 9/11 per ton per month, however upon surveying her it was found she was not a proper vessel. The next lowest tender was 10/11 per ton month, however before they sent her to be surveyed, they brought it to their attention that George M. Macaulay had written tendering a ship of 400-500 tons, to be ready in a month, at 40/- per ton. If the conditions were acceptable she would cost half of the lowest tender. (The conditions were that the ship should proceed to India and load home at his option, cotton or sugar, to be sold at EIC sales.) (Navy Board to Long, 11 January 1792, T1/701/328-329; ADM106/2640)
Unaware that the Deptford Officers had advised against taking up the Scarborough, Richards had written to the East India Company, advising that she had been taken up by government to proceed to New South Wales and offering her on the same conditions of freight as the Company had hitherto paid.
– Richards’ letter was considered by the EIC Court of Directors and referred to the Joint Committee of Shipping and Warehouses to examine and report.
- The same day, Richards had also tendered shipping from 400 to 600 tons to bring raw sugars from India at £11 per ton.
It is probable that the Board spoke to Richards, and that he challenged the report of these officers.
12 January – The Navy Board wrote back to the Deptford Officers, pressing them:
We send enclosed their report of 16 October 1786 with that of the 10th inst. and direct them to inform us of your reasons for the difference of the two reports.
There is no precedent for the Navy Board producing historical records in such a timeframe, and it is probable that they obtained the earlier report from the 1786 contractor, William Richards.
The Deptford Officers responded the following day, advising the Navy Board that the Scarborough was much older than when she was commissioned in 1786, the bottom having been sheathed and fitted a long while. It would be necessary to take it off and cut out some pieces to conduct a minute inspection of the bottom and the frame. If she was found in a proper state and the owner were to shift the upper deck, she might be reported favourably. The report in 1786 was wrong and the measurements between decks should have been 5’4”, 5’7” and 5’5”, ‘which we deemed (being only 4’4” under the beams) too confined for the comfortable accommodation of families going abroad as settlers’. If they wished them to proceed with a survey of a ship in so doubtful a state, they should signify the same. (Of course, the Scarborough had also been taken up in 1790, and this might have been a more telling comparison. However, Richards would have had no details to hand of this voyage.)
13 January – Treasury read the Navy Board’s letter of 11 January concerning the tender. They resolved to write to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the East India Company asking whether they had any objection to complying with the terms proposed by Mr Macaulay. (T29/64/158-159)
25 January – Richards had written to the East India Company again, tendering any quantity of shipping to bring home sugar at £10 per ton, a letter that was also referred to the Committee of Shipping.
27 January – Long to the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the East India Company, reporting that an offer had been made by Mr G.M. Macaulay of a ship of 400 to 500 tons, to be ready in a month, at 40/- a ton, on condition that the said ship could have permission to proceed from NSW to India to load home at his option, cotton or sugar, to be sold at the sale of the East India Company, subject to the payment of all duties and the usual charges. If this was agreed to, the freight of the vessel would not amount to one half of the next lowest tender. The Treasury wished to know whether the Court of Directors had any objection. (T27/42/195)
1 February – Still unaware that the Navy Board had rejected the Scarborough, the Company offered Richards a contract, albeit on demanding terms. They resolved that the Scarborough be taken up to bring home sugar, saltpetre or any other goods that the Government of Bengal might think proper to lade to the extent of her chartered tonnage, at a freight of £10 per ton, provided she should arrive in the Bengal River on or before 30 January 1793.
The Company would not be obliged to lade any goods until the ship was reported by the Master Attendant or other proper officer to be in a fit condition to receive a cargo for Europe.
If the Company did not lade and dispatch the ship within two months of her being reported fit to receive a cargo, a demurrage would be allowed per diem (the amount was not filled in).
They also resolved that the Company should be at liberty to lade any further quantity of goods the ship may be able to carry beyond her chartered tonnage on half freight, the owners to be answerable for one half of her freight and earnings for any damage that should accrue to the cargo while on ship board. The ship would be manned at her sailing from Bengal with eight men and one boy per 100 tons for which the ship was chartered.
Freight on weighable goods would be paid on the net weight delivered into the Company’s warehouses and if the ship should not arrive in the Bengal River on or before the 30th of January 1793, no part of the above was to be considered binding on the part of the Company.
Richards had not given up, and had been offering other ships in the place of the Scarborough. However, the Board appeared to have changed its mind.
2 February - There is a Minute of the Navy Board of this date which reports a letter sent to Mr Richards:
The Board have no occasion for the Scarborough or either of the other ships and therefore decline having anything to do with them.
9 February – The EIC Secretary, Mr (Thomas) Morton wrote to the Navy Board inquiring whether the Board had hired the Scarborough to proceed to Botany Bay. He was told that the Navy Board had not taken up the ship – she had been surveyed and found not to be a proper ship.
10 February – Long to Navy Board, transmitting Morton’s letter on the subject of the offer made by Mr Macaulay. (The letter does not say what his answer was.) (T27/42/215)
14 February – The Board wrote to Mr Macaulay advising that they had sent to the Treasury a copy of his letter offering a ship to carry certain provisions to NSW on the conditions therein mentioned and the Treasury had sent a copy of the response they had received from Mr Morton, informing them that they will be ready to engage with the owners of any ship that the government may take up to freight home tea from China, but they could not think of permitting any individuals to proceed to India for the purpose of taking on board cargoes on their own account. (ADM106/2640)
15 February – The Court of Directors considered a letter from Richards signifying the Scarborough was ready for inspection by the Company’s officers. Since the Company was known to have more demanding standards than the Navy Board, this strongly suggests that Richards believed something untoward had happened in the surveying process.
16 February – Something must have been said to Richards, since he wrote back to the Company, complaining at the conduct of the Navy Board in this matter, and asking the Court of Directors to permit the owners to execute the charterparty. The Court declined to do so and a draft response to Richards was read and approved by the Directors.
16-29 February – He then lodged a complaint with the Treasury by way of a Memorial.
29 February 1792 – The Court of Directors considered a further letter from Richards, advising them of the protest and that the owners of the Scarborough were still awaiting the outcome. He requested that the Court consider the former application in case they engaged any more shipping.
[Given the change of Master, she may well have been sold by the Hoppers at this time, with the change of ownership only registered later.]
6 August 1792 – She was surveyed for the Transport Service. She had been repaired and refitted since her last voyage. Michael Hodgson, Captain. 418 tons. 9 years old. 5’2”, 5’4” between decks. Built at Scarborough. She appears to have been taken into pay on this date. (ADM106/3408/362-3)
10 August 1792 – Navigation Licence. No.2723. 411 tons. 2 guns. Michael Hodgson. 16/5 crew. To West Indies. (ADM7/110)
22 August 1792 – Stephens to Nepean concerning the Pitt and the Scarborough, which would be ready to sail from Deptford tomorrow. The Agent had been ordered to proceed with them to Jersey and Guernsey to embark the 34th Regiment and convey them to Cork. (HO28/8/289)
5 July 1793 – The Scarborough, 418 tons, was included in a list of naval transports. She had apparently been taken into service on 6 August 1792. (HO42/26/42)
20 July 1793 – The Scarborough and the Helmsley arrived at Hull under the supervision of Lieutenant Harrison and under convoy of the Success, to transport troops of the 42nd Regiment to Portsmouth. (HO28/11/150, 152) [Not clear this is the same ship.]
12 August 1793 – Navigation Licence. No.3996. 411 tons. 2 guns. Michael Hodgson. 25 British crew. To Gibraltar. (ADM7/112)
May 1795 – She was taken into the Transport Service. Ordered to the West Indies.
16 May 1795 – Registered. No.97/1795. Owners: Samuel Wharton of Prescott Street, merchant; Michael Hodgson of St Georges East, mariner. Master: Michael Hodgson. Built at Scarborough in 1782. 2 decks, 3 masts. 111’6” x 30’ x 4.5”. 429 tons. Square sterned ship with quarter and forecastle decks. Pierced for 22 guns. No gallery. No figurehead. (BT107/10)
13 July 1795 – William Goudy endorsed as Master. (BT107/10, 16.5.95)
October 1796 – Returned from the West Indies and discharged from the service.
November 1796 – Taken into New Crane Dock, stripped of her sheathing and examined from keel to gunwale and completely overhauled and refitted. (ADM108/48/233)
10 December 1796 – Again taken into the Transport Service (see below.)
20 December 1796 – George Friar endorsed as Master. (BT107/10, 16.5.95)
16 January 1797 – Navigation Licence. No.8146. 429 tons, 6 guns. At South(amp)ton. George Friar. 24/7 crew. To Lisbon. (ADM7/114)
She sailed to Lisbon with horses and their riders.
4 April 1797 – She returned to Portsmouth (see below).
28 April – Sailed to Jersey to collect the Northumberland Fencibles to take them to Dublin. She then sailed to Cork.
August 1797 – Captain Parry (Cork) concerning the removal of French prisoners of war to Spithead. Lieutenant Pemberton reported ‘the discovery of the Scarborough being leaky, but not from defect in her bottom; - that her wooden ends are rotten, her stem broke, and her stomach piece quite decayed – says that he attended with her Master and carpenter, and saw a caulking iron, by a slight stroke, driven up to the top in her bows – that on reproaching the carpenter for not making these defects known sooner, he answered that the owner was told of them last November when the ship was docked – concludes that this ship is unfit to go the voyage. . .’ There were no other vessels and it was proposed to use her for at least some of the prisoners. (ADM108/48/221)
Admiral Kingsmill had written complaining of her condition and charging the surveyors of that vessel with negligence in their duty or of not having the good of the service at heart. Captain Rains and Mr Boyce were provided with copies of this correspondence and they were directed to prepare a full report. (ADM108/48/224 & 225)
26 August – Captain Rains (Agent) and Mr Boyce (shipwright officer at Deptford) reported. She was taken into service in May 1795 and ordered to the West Indies. She returned in the latter part of 1796, discharged and then taken up on the old charter to convey horses to Lisbon, which duty she performed well. The fact that she was selected for the Halifax service out of so many vessels, was an argument against her being as bad as represented. They spoke with confidence of her fitness. She was constructed at Scarborough in 1782 and had repaired and refitted five times since.
She was said to have been damaged by being on shore in Dublin Harbour. And that if her defects were not attributable to that cause, they were willing to leave it to the decision of any impartial person. They rejected the charge of neglect of duty. The failure of this ship was quite contrary to their expectations, as she is not old and has had considerable repairs and stands E1 in the underwriter’s book. A copy of this report was sent to the Admiralty. (ADM1/3734; ADM108/48/233)
- Transport Board to Evan Nepean, in response to his letter of the 22nd with its enclosures relative to the defective state of the Scarborough which sailed under convoy of Captain Pater of HMS Porcupine from Cork, they enclosed the letter from Rains and Boyce in consequence of a direction from them to make a full report on the complaint which had been made through Admiral Kingsmill. Nepean simply forwarded it to Kingsmill. (ADM1/3734)
[On this dispute over yellow fever on board the Scarborough in 1797, see HO30/1/21ff]
October 1797 – It appears that a survey had confirmed her unfit to sail to Halifax. (ADM108/49/370)
16 October 1797 – Transport Board to William Huskisson in response to his letter of the 14th. The Scarborough was taken into service on 25 May 1795 and soon after proceeded to the West Indies and returned to Deptford in October 1796 when she was discharged. Her owners having completely refitted her for service at Crane Dock in the River, she was again taken up on 10 December 1796 for the purpose of conveying horses and their riders to Lisbon. She made the voyage without complaint and returned to Portsmouth on 4 April 1797. The service for Halifax then occurring, she was appropriated for that service with three other ships under Lieutenant Pemberton. She sailed on the 28th of April for Jersey, where she received a detachment of the Northumberland Fencibles for Dublin and having landed them, proceeded to Cork. The adverse winds and heavy gales which the four ships had experienced had been extraordinary, such as to prevent this ship in particular going on a foreign voyage. So she had been ordered to England to be discharged. They rejected the claim that she had been retained in service as an infected ship following her return from the West Indies. She had been back a long time, had undergone a refit and sailed on another voyage since that time without any report of sickness or unfitness. With respect to bedding, it was an invariable rule of the office to destroy it immediately upon return from abroad. (ADM108/19, pp.98-99)
21 October – Parry (Cork) to Transport Board. He did not know the ship had been in the West Indies or that there had been yellow fever on board. But she had no bedding on board except for 30 new sets received from Kinsale for the guard. (ADM108/19, p.100)
27 October – Transport Board to Wm Huskisson – further to the claim that there had been yellow fever on the ship at Cork, they enclosed a letter from Captain Parry at that port showing how unfounded the rumours were. (ADM108/19, p.100)
May 1798 – Again being considered for Transport Service. Owners are Samuel Wharton and Michael Hodgson. (ADM108/53/122)
23 October 1798. Registered. No.274/1798. Owners: Charles Kensington and William Wiggen, City Chambers, Bishopgate Street, merchants. Master: John Scott. Built at Scarborough in 1782. 2 decks, 3 masts. 111’6” x 30’ x 4’5”. 429 tons. Square sterned ship with quarter and forecastle decks. Pierced for 22 guns. No gallery. No figurehead. (BT107/10)
18 December 1799 – Thomas Melvill endorsed as Master. (BT107/11, 23.10.98)
20 January 1800 – Registered. No.14/1800. Owners: Charles Kensington and William Wiggen, City Chambers, Bishopgate Street, merchants. Master: Thomas Melvill. Built at Scarborough in 1782. 2 decks, 3 masts. 112’6” x 30’2” x 6’4”. 428 tons. Square sterned ship with flush deck. Pierced for 20 guns. Quarter gallery. A scroll as figurehead. (BT107/13)
10 December 1800 – Letter of Marque. John Scott. 428 tons. 14 x 4 & 6 pounders. 35 men. (ADM7/328)
1800-1802 – Botany Bay and Bengal.
1802 – Sold to Charles Kensington. Captain John Scott.
10 November 1802 – Sold to foreign buyers. Registration cancelled. (BT107/13, 20.1.00)
1803 – Repurchased by original owners and used as a West Indiaman.
1 December 1803 – Registered. No.420/1803. Owner: Kirk Boott of Artillery Place, merchant. Master: John Scott. Built at Scarborough in 1782. 2 decks, 3 masts. 112’ x 29’9” x 6’4”. 412 tons. Square sterned ship with flush deck. Pierced for 20 guns. Quarter gallery. A scroll as figurehead. (BT107/16)
2 March 1804 – William Peacock endorsed as Master. (BT107/16, 1.12.03)
8 December 1804 – John Scott endorsed as Master. (BT107/16, 1.12.03)
April 1805 – Foundered off Port Royal, Jamaica, after springing a leak. (Hackman, p.191; Aberdeen Journal, Wednesday 3 July 1805)[[Category:Second Fleet]
