ISHAM FLEMING CHAPMAN, Esq.
[Post-Captain of 1824.]
Son of the late Isham Chapman, Esq. more than half a century in the employ of the Board of Customs, at Cowes, who died Dec. 23d, 1829, aged 81 years.
This officer was made a lieutenant into the Invincible 74, Captain (now Vice-Admiral) Ross Donnelly, Feb. 11th, 1808. The following is an extract of a letter from Captain Maclean, of H.M. 94th regiment, to Lieutenant-General Graham (now Lord Lynedoch) reporting the evacuation of Fort Matagorda, near Cadiz, in April, 1810[1].
“I request. Sir, you will state to the Admiral, how highly sensible I am of the handsome manner in which Lieutenants Chapman and M‘Pherson, of the royal navy, and one or two others, whose names I cannot now recollect, volunteered their services during the heaviest of the fire. Mr. George Dobson, midshipman of the Invincible, had charge of the seamen under my command during the whole time, and I beg you. Sir, to recommend him to the Admiral, as a very excellent and brave officer.”
Lieutenant Chapman subsequently served as first of the Royal George 100, Curaçoa frigate, and Edinburgh 74, on the Mediterranean station; from whence he returned home in the latter ship, under the command of Captain John Lampen Manley, towards the close of 1814. His advancement to the rank of commander took place Aug. 3lst, 1815; and his next appointment appears to have been, Dec. 29th, 1818, to the Nautilus 18, which sloop was first employed on the St. Helena station, and afterwards in the West Indies.
On the 18th Jan. 1821, Captain Chapman was appointed by Sir Charles Rowley to the acting command of the Euryalus 42, from which frigate he returned to the Nautilus on the 21st of April following. In May, 1822, he paid that sloop off, at Portsmouth; and in Jan. 1823, received a commission appointing him to the Espiegle, of similar force, on the Cape of Good Hope station, where he was promoted to the command of the Ariadne 20, in Oct. 1824. His appointment to that ship, occasioned by the death of Commodore Nourse, C.B. was confirmed at home on the 29th December following.
In the early part of 1821, Captain Chapman examined the western coast of Africa, from the Cape of Good Hope to St. Felipe de Benguela, in lat. 14° 30' S.; and discovered two rivers, not laid down in any chart, to which he gave the names of “Somerset” and “Nourse,” the former in lat. 22° 40', about thirteen miles north of Walvisch Bay, and the latter in 17° 10' S. He also met with two columns, still perfect, erected by Bernardo Diaz, in the year 1480. The Cape Gazette of July 3, 1824, contains an epitome of this survey.
On the 19th Jan. 1820, a court-martial was assembled in Portsmouth harbour, to try Captain Chapman on the charges and allegations hereafter recited.
It appears that the trial originated in Mr. Alexander M‘Coy, the purser of the Espiegle, having refused, when Captain Chapman gave up the command of that sloop, to sign the customary certificate, signifying that his captain had given him every facility in the execution of his duty, and in the care of the ship’s provisions and victualling stores; – without which certificate Captain Chapman could not pass his accounts. Mr. M‘Coy, in justification of his own conduct, transmitted to Captain Constantine Richard Moorsom, then the senior officer on the Cape station, a copy of nine allegations of misconduct on the part of Captain Chapman; the original of which he sent to the Victualling Board. The Lords of the Admiralty, in consequence, on the arrival of the Ariadne in England, ordered three captains to form a court of enquiry into the truth of the statements made. Captain Chapman refused to submit to this tribunal, and requested that the charges might be publicly investigated. A court-martial was accordingly directed to assemble, and Mr. M‘Coy ordered to attend it and give his evidence, and then to go on as prosecutor of the enquiry, in support of his allegations, which now assumed the nature of charges, and were as follow:–
First – For preventing Mr. M‘Coy from having a direct communication with him. Second – For having ordered fifty bags of bread to be stowed between decks, in the bows, without any other protection than a sail; in consequence of which, the bread was trampled on by the seamen in getting in and out of their hammocks, and a quantity was stolen or lost; while, at the same time, Captain Chapman had taken out of the bread-room sufficient space to make himself a stair-case. Third – For having compelled the purser to subject himself to the penalties of the 18th article of his instructions, by obliging him to take on board eight puncheons of rum, after his provisions were complete. Fourth – For ordering the purser, through the senior lieutenant (Richard John Nash), to deliver to him, for his private use, fifty dollars of the public money. Fifth – For having refused a survey which was applied for on some decayed provisions. Sixth – For having, in a written order, imposed on Mr. M‘Coy more than his regulated duties as purser. Seventh – For not having kept a slop book, during the whole time he commanded the Espiegle, which he should have done, according to his instructions, as a check on the purser’s issues, by which neglect Mr. M‘Coy was obliged to pay out of his private money, for the sake of peace and quietness, the amount of some clothing, which part of the ship’s company disputed having received. Eighth – For having taken up, through his servants, about 2000 pounds of beef more than his allowance. Ninth – For having, on the day he left the Espiegle, directed Lieutenant Nash not to allow the purser to quit the ship, though Mr. M‘Coy represented that he had vouchers to get, and public duties to perform on shore.
This series of charges was followed up by a tenth, accusing Captain Chapman of having purchased at Zanzibar, on the coast of Africa, a young female slave, for the purposes of prostitution, Which said negresse was suddenly and most unaccountably missed from on board the Espiegle, whilst that sloop was lying at anchor near the adjacent island of Mombasa.
The evidence for the prosecution having closed on the afternoon of January 23d, Captain Chapman entered on his defence the next morning; after which, and four hours spent In mature deliberation on the whole of the case, the Court pronounced the following sentence:– “That the facts stated in the first and fifth objections have not been proved. – That the facts stated in the second, third, fourth, sixth, eighth, and ninth of the said objections, have been proved; but that Captain Chapman was justified in the conduct pursued by him relative to such said objections. – That the facts stated in the seventh objection have been proved. – That with respect to the fourth and sixth of the objections, they are frivolous and vexatious. – That the allegation respecting the purchase of a negresse, or female slave, on or about the 16th day of August, 1824, had been proved, but with respect to her sudden disappearance, the Court is of opinion, that although it is not accounted for, she must have escaped through the stern port, unknown to Captain Chapman; and the Court doth adjudge the said Captain I. F. Chapman to be dismissed from His Majesty’s service, and he is hereby dismissed accordingly.”
This sentence remained in force until the summer of 1828, at which period Captain Chapman was restored to his former rank in the navy.
Agents.– Messrs. Stillwell.