|
|
Certification of Seamen Officers (See below for Lloyd’s Captains Registers and applications for certificates) |
|
Following on from the information on the ‘ticketing’
system, another preoccupation traditionally said of the Royal Navy was a
perceived deterioration in the standards of seamanship in merchant service in
the decades following the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. However, study of
contemporaneous records indicates the R.N. had much less interest or input than
has often been stated. Instead it seems, it was the Foreign Office that was the
original motivating force: or at least one official, named James Murray. In
1843 he had made a request to British Consuls abroad to report the state of
British mercantile mariners as they saw them. The subsequent oft-quoted results
were hardly complimentary. But then this was to be expected, due to the way the
request was worded. British merchant masters were portrayed as overwhelmingly
ignorant, incompetent, drunken oafs who somehow managed to draw their crews
into similar poor and weak-willed behaviour. This was in direct contrast to
foreign masters and crews, who were credited as being highly professional
(already often with systems of certification, except in the United States) and
above all, sober. Illogically, whilst these foreigners were regarded as far
superior, they were said also to be able to operate with lower costs, though it
is blatantly obvious that British shipowners were operating with lowest cost
options. Nevertheless, flawed though aspects were, the evidence was
subsequently used to apparently great effect.
However, there had also been another strand of
investigation held separately and Murray’s actions in many respects, had been
confirmatory. In 1836 a Select Committee of the House of Commons was appointed
to look into the causes of the inordinate number of shipwrecks which were
occurring. Excluding the East India Company, which had a significantly better
record, the evidence (running to 267 pages of main text with about the same in
appendices) was absolutely damning. One of its many recommendations was
professional examination of seamen officers. Incidentally, there was a second
Select Committee which reported twice in 1843 and was also devoted to
shipwrecks, primarily dealing with steam-vessels.
As already stated on the main page of this guide the first
and very limited experiment
in certification was a scheme of voluntary examinations for foreign-going
masters and mates, beginning in 1845. This appears to have been set up
pre-emptively by the ‘Board of Trade’, which at this stage had no remit for
mercantile activities, although the idea may have been the Admiralty’s. Anyway,
this configuration lasted until 1850. (Very little of the original
documentation survives.)
By 1849 there too was sustained interest from within the
Board of Trade. With far more knowledgeable and balanced analysis than that of
the Foreign Office, Sir Denis le Marchant argued for wholesale improvements in
the Merchant Service, under the supervision of a proposed department of the
Board of Trade. With the loss of influence of the once great monopolistic state
authorised mercantile companies and the subsequent rise of ‘small’ shipowners,
market forces had prevailed unchecked and had forced down remuneration of
ships’ officers. This more than anything, Marchant maintained, was the reason
why better classes of intelligent and educated young men had tended to look for
more lucrative professions ashore and in their stead, the new breed of
shipowners chose the cheapest ‘commanders’ they could get. These were described
as very often illiterate men without any knowledge of navigation, often
alcoholics and cruel. Some, as the 1836 report on shipwrecks eloquently proves,
also were exceedingly young and/or had little practical experience or knowledge
of seamanship!
Shipowners, masters and mates were equally slated by
Marchant, mariners without rank were instead regarded as coming unduly the
influence of their ‘betters’. So, it was perceived, if the standard of masters
and mates was improved, the behaviour of common mariners, which was also
regarded as far worse than that of foreigners, would also improve. As well as
qualification, Marchant was keen on providing relatively cheap nautical schools
for those wishing to be mercantile officers, although it must be emphasized
that this was seen to be a way of encouraging nice middle class boys into the
industry. It cannot be regarded as a call for primary education for all.
Theoretically mariners already had some recourse to law in defence of their
interests and there had been legislation seeking to improve their living and
working conditions, but Marchant wished to strengthen this significantly. Of
course there was a payback. If officers were to be more professional and
accountable for their actions, then crewmen would have to stop deserting in
droves and also behave better: or face dire consequences.
The bottom line, it must be stated, was in terms of
improving the ‘national character’ and hard cash for the Exchequer in increased
receipts from trade. Apart from lessening the embarrassment caused to
sophisticated British officials by reports of ignorant, drunken and violent
fellow subjects of the Queen; since the last elements of protectionism of the
Navigation Acts were being lifted, it was seen as necessary for British masters
and men to be regarded in a better light by foreign businessmen, in order for
‘Britain’ to compete in the new ‘free’ markets.
Consequently, under an ‘Act for improving the Condition of
Masters, Mates, and Seamen, and maintaining Discipline in the Merchant Service’
(thankfully shortened to the ‘Mercantile Marine Act’) of 1850 there was a
certain compulsion. This came into force on 1st January 1851. As
well as professional examination for foreign-going masters and mates resulting
in the issue of certificates of competency, which it seems was planned to be
the future norm, certificates of service were also issued as a transitory
stage, in all likelihood in order not to disrupt the shipping industry unduly.
(It remains to be seen how this was likely to improve the poor conditions in
the shipping industry in the short to medium term.) In 1854, with further major
legislation, examinations for masters and mates in the home-trade were
sanctioned, for its introduction the following year - but only for those
carrying passengers. However, it appears
that many coastal ‘masters’ had by then already obtained certificates of
service. From a number of searches, it is obvious that there was something of a
panic in December 1850, when a great many men applied for and got these:
sometimes under false pretences. As the local boards that were to manage the
legislation were not even to be elected until the 25th October 1850,
it may be that the perceived panic was merely due to the setting up of these
bureaucratic systems. (There also seems to have been an added incentive to
gaining tickets of service though. Examinations for certificates of competency
required payment, but there were no such fees for submissions for certificates
of service.)
While in time, certificates of service in foreign-going
circles became rare (though not completely non-existent which is strange
considering the wording of the original Act of Parliament), they remained well
into the 20th century for the coastal trade. (The system was
overhauled in 1931 though most of the registers end ten years before.)
Nevertheless, there were further complexities.
In sailing vessels there were splits, depending on the rig,
which by this era was how vessels were classified. All vessels which were
square-rigged, i.e.,
(full-rigged) ships, barques (or barks), brigs, barquentines (or barkentines),
and steam-ships with square rigs, required their masters to hold certification
for (square-rig) ‘Ordinary Master’. For command of ocean-going vessels of a
fore-and-aft rig, i.e., various types of
brigantines and schooners (even though the latter were partially square-rigged)
as well as others such as ketches and smacks, unsurprisingly these required
certification as ‘Fore-and-aft Master’. (Non British readers, especially those
from North America and the Baltic areas, should note that British schooners
were substantially different to those that developed elsewhere and they never
developed into the incredibly beautiful and large five-masted schooners.)
Although calls were made periodically to bring in
certification for non passenger-carrying masters and mates in coasters, this
was not done until 1931. Nevertheless, this is not necessarily to decry these
uncertificated men who commanded these little vessels (although this was the
very class that came in for so much criticism from the Foreign Office and other
officials). Even without formal and book-learnt knowledge of navigation, there were
highly efficient and skilled practical seamen among them, shifting cargoes
where larger vessels simply could not go. Nevertheless, the problems of poor
knowledge of navigation and seamanship, as defined by the select committee of
1836 looking into shipwrecks, does not appear to have been seriously addressed
in the coastal trade.
Anyway, from 1881, with changes in technology, a new series
of certification began. This allowed those holding masters’ certificates of
competency to command foreign-going ‘Steam Ships Only’. Incidentally,
‘square-rig’ masters were deemed also competent to command fore-and-aft sailing
vessels and perhaps more surprisingly, steamships.
There were also further complications, in the form of more
than one stage of examination for Mate (2nd and 1st). In
small sailing vessels there was also an another option of ‘Only Mate’. A higher
form of masters’ certificate was also introduced, with much more emphasis on
ocean navigation and astronomy: the ‘extra master’.
As may be expected from a nation with a gigantic overseas
empire, there were various colonial ports where men were allowed to take these
professional examinations. However, it must be stated that this did not begin
until the passing of the Merchant Shipping (Colonial) Act of 1869. So, there
was a period of around twenty years where it was possible for masters and mates
not to need paper qualifications if they did not have any contact with the U.K.
Certificates acquired in these ‘far flung’ places had differing serial numbers
prefixed by the port, or country. These included Canada, Newfoundland, Malta, Bombay,
Hong Kong, Straits Settlement (Singapore) and various throughout Australia
(including Tasmania). For those specifically interested in Australian
certificate numbers there is a complication. I have found that up to four
different officers could hold the same ‘NSW’ certificate number, as the
different testing centres all apparently issued tickets beginning at number
one.
It should also be noted that certificates could be issued
in places other than the place of examination. It was not uncommon for men who
had spent a strenuous period of study ashore, to go home for a short holiday
and have their certificates issued at a local Mercantile Marine Office:
assuming that they had the relative documentation in their possession. These
too could be issued abroad, though this seems to have been uncommon. I have
viewed one example issued in Panama.
As so often happens (in Britain) ambitious schemes for
social change are scuppered by suitable resources not being made available to
make them work in reality. While the routine paper exercises were indeed
carried out, through a lack of staff at the Board of Trade, much of the rest
was not. However, a major plank of this legislation which was
enforced dealt with disciplinary matters of certificate holders: especially in
respect to loss of vessels. Local Marine Boards, could and did investigate major
accidents and other incidents. If found guilty,
offenders could have their certificates suspended, or cancelled. However, it
must be stressed that the onus on disciplinary action was put on to the local
boards, but that they were only required to deal with what they regarded as serious breaches. (This in
effect nullified much of the ‘socially enlightening’ legislation.)
There are
other points should also be borne in mind. Standards were far from uniform.
Some places were commonly regarded as setting less onerous examinations and
certificates from ports such as Cork, were often seen as suspect. Also, even
though standards did rise in time, there was considerable opposition in what
shipowners often regarded as unnecessary state interference in their affairs.
So, in many respects examinations reflected the minimum required, rather than
excellence desired.
Finally, sail
did not just disappear off the face of the earth after the steam engine had
been developed. It is true that wooden-hulled vessels generally became rarer as
the 19th century proceeded, for a number of reasons, from a shortage
of hardwoods brought on by wholesale long term overuse (which is why Burma’s
rain-forests were logged on a large scale as of the 1850s) to increasing skill
in metalworking which allowed for more efficient steam power. However,
mercantile activity is about turning profits and even though sail became unable
to compete in some facets of the industry, not in all. Sail remained a
competitive mode of transportation for non perishable, non seasonal, high bulk
but low value cargoes. In part this too was the introduction of iron and steel,
as well as other ‘labour saving’ devices and re-rigging of (full-rigged) ships
as barques, allowing for smaller crews. (Sometimes, idlers such as carpenters,
stewards and even cooks were required to work aloft as crews became reduced.)
So, well into the 20th century sail could be seen in some trades,
exporting coal from South Wales to Argentina and returning, after rounding the
Horn twice, with nitrates from Chile. Sailing coasters too survived much longer
in some regions, such as Britain’s West Country, due to the nature of the
industry and business there. Apart from a certain conservatism in seamen
themselves, ‘square rig’ and ‘fore-and-aft’ certification therefore remained
valid well into the 20th century. It is also said that some
shipowners respected masters with square rig certificates more, although
personally I have come across no hard evidence to support this contention.
The
documentation dealing with the above is to be found at the P.R.O. (as part of
The National Archives) and is viewed generally in microfilm format, though some
registers of certificates are viewed as original ledgers (which are exceedingly
large and heavy). While not entirely straightforward, these records are
relatively simple to use. Overwhelmingly, the records were compiled neatly and
much effort seems to have been expended to make this system efficient and
comprehensive.
Similar to the
‘ticketing system’ in the early registers of certificates from 1863, sea time
was logged giving vessels’ names: allowing one to draw out crew-lists easily.
Nevertheless, one still has to read the individual entries, which are often
written incredibly small letters considering the clerks were using traditional
pen and ink. Even with good eyesight, a magnifying glass can be a necessity in
this.
There are very
real differences in the standard of information recorded though, which seems to
have depended on a number of criteria. For vessels that touched the U.K. and
where customs officials were efficient, the information would have been
transmitted to London in the form of the returned crew-lists and
agreements.
It can be assumed that a substantial percentage of the entries in the registers
of certificates came from this source. For others principally working abroad, it
appears that much of this information was not relayed back to London. (It may
be that there was a cost implication, telegrams being regarded as ‘expensive’.)
However, as useful as this data was, it petered out in the late 1880s. (During
this period Colonial registers reflect massive differences in recording this
information, but occasionally these entries are very useful.) Incidentally,
the register of officers was officially abolished in 1888, due to ‘considerable
reductions and economies’ in the department. (See PRO: MT 9/843 - M23973/08
memorandum prepared by the R.G.S.S. for the President of the Board of Trade:
David Lloyd-George.)
The records of Lloyd’s of London, therefore, come to the
aid. With information continuing to be passed by the state and in all
likelihood also from its own agents abroad, the Lloyd’s Captains
Register was kept by this
commercial organisation. (A Board of Trade precedent book, TNA: PRO BT 167/138
folio 180 gives some background. The original cost to Lloyd’s in 1869 was £100 per
annum for the office of the R.G.S to pass the relevant info. In 1883 this was
re-negotiated and the BoT’s fee was reduced to £60 per annum.) The many volumes
of these registers dealt almost entirely with men passed for foreign-going
masters’ tickets, predominately those who held commands, but later not
exclusively. Although first made up in 1869, details of some
masters’ careers from the early 1860s can be found. These continued until 1948.
(It should be noted that the entries in the Board of Trade ledgers and those of
the Lloyd’s Captains Register are
occasionally not identical and searches of both can be useful in cases of
contradictory information.) These register entries also tend to show service in
the Royal Naval Reserve and name awards, both
military and civil.
Until 1911
these can only be viewed in their original (very heavy) ledger form, presently
at the London Metropolitan Archives (due to building work and changes in
organisation). After this and also for other registers of men who qualified for
master but did not hold commands and those who qualified but apparently did not
even return to the sea, they are kept in microfilm form: at the Guildhall
Library, in the City of London. Other institutions also hold these, but the
quality of some of these copies is poor and in the long run require a visit to
the Guildhall Library.
As with all
other records systems, the Lloyd’s
Captains Register
is not infallible. There are errors and omissions. Sometimes these can be
resolved by viewing the relevant crew lists and agreements. However, others are
more complex. There is one case I know of where two men’s careers have been
merged into one during the First World War. Both had the same name, David Owen
Evans and were born in the same year. However, during the war one remained in
mercantile service, while the other commanded minor war vessels. Having now
seen the R.N.R. officer’s service records, there are no apparent ways forward
in resolving this difficulty. Incidentally, with changes in routine with the
move of the manuscripts to the LMA, it has come to light that the cards that
made up the element of the LCR on individuals that had qualified for master but
not held commands are also definitely not complete. At least sometimes the reverse
of cards were re-used, but from those that I have seen it is not possible to
determine where ‘missing’ men’s cards might be (without physically drawing out
every single box and examining every single card in each). Some of these will
probably have been of those subsequently shown in the main registers, but others
may well be of those that died, or were killed before gaining a command. The
relevant junior member of staff is now aware of this and I have been assured
that she is going to take this particular matter up with her seniors in 2010.
Also, it should be noted that the Guildhall Library is still the main
repository of Lloyd’s of London‘s complex and
voluminous records, which can be of immense use in mercantile research.
The other body of very useful information in tracing the
careers of certificated seamen officers relates to the application forms for examination,
or consideration for ‘service’ certificates. These are held at the National
Maritime Museum, Greenwich and it appears that these papers have largely
survived. Of the first numbering system for foreign-going certificates, those
up to 103,000 remain; as do those of the replacement ‘square rig’ system up to
044049; and steamship only certificates up to 0021000 (apart from 001700 to
00113299 which are missing). For those holding purely Home Trade certificates,
it should also be noted that only application forms for certificates 101,100 to
103,599 are held in Greenwich.
They are filed by certificate number and so it is essential
that this is known. Taking into consideration the above, with a few exceptions,
such as where the same certificate number was issued to two men, I have
overwhelmingly found some information from these, although occasionally only
part of the documentation has survived.
Principally these application forms give details of vessels
served on, dates and in which capacities. If a full set of documents survive
then theoretically a full career up to the date of qualifying for command can
be ascertained. However, again this can be misleading. One particular mariner I
was tracking added a year to his sea-time by stating that his apprenticeship
began one year before he actually joined his first vessel. This was minor
compared with one coastal mariner, where one version of his career was
submitted in December 1850 and obviously not having the required sea time, made
a second more lengthy submission two days later at the same office: which was
accepted. Nevertheless, neither version can be substantiated by entries within
the ‘ticketing system’ - that shows a third
version of his sea-time.
Sometimes
men’s certificate numbers changed, which can become apparent when making
searches of these applications. Typical cases of this arose when applicants had
taken an examination for ‘square rig’ certificates, but had failed an element
of this. Steamships only certificates could and were issued in their stead,
which required certificates of another series. Fore-and-aft certificates were
similarly issued in this circumstance, but probably only when men could be
employed in geographical areas where there were fore-and-aft rigged vessels
working: such as in Devon and Cornwall.
Often changed
certificate numbers are not apparent from the application forms themselves
(although sometimes these are shown as numbers prefixed with ‘PN’). More
frequently these show up in the Lloyd’s Captains Registers and other Board of
Trade ledgers. Typical cases of this can be found in the aftermath of Board of
Trade enquiries when certificates of officers found guilty of professional
negligence were suspended. Unless individuals concerned had acted so poorly
that they were being totally banned from officers’ berths, they were issued
with lesser certificates, since the idea was not to put individuals out of
work, merely to remove them from the level of command they had failed in.
Sometimes they retained their old numbers, but not always and these cases
tended to be known as ‘renewals’.
Certificates
were also often physically lost, for a plethora of reasons from vessels
sinking, through officers’ cabins being rifled while in port, to even rats
supposedly eating them. Regarded as serious occurrences, at least by the
civil-servants of the office of the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen if
not by the mariners themselves, sometimes the original certificate numbers were
cancelled, with subsequently issued ‘renewals’ which had new numbers. This
seems to have been policy during the 1880s and some attached correspondence
show mariners to have deeply resented this apparent slur. Later 1st
or more copies, or renewals were issued, especially during the First World War:
though I can find no identifiable ruling as to the whys and wherefores.
Returning to
the actual application forms themselves, they often also give other snippets of
information of interest to genealogists. Not all forms were standardised, but
from around the early 1880s usually there was a section dealing with the
physical appearance of applicants. Apart from height, hair colour, eye colour
and complexion, the box on ‘identifying marks’ can be highly illuminating,
giving details which remind one of the tough world of mariners - from tattoos
to scars and fingers missing. Also, the addresses of applicants whilst
shoreside taking the examination were recorded, as well as a permanent address
of some sort. For youngsters this was most commonly the family home, or that of
close relatives. For older men, it could be their wives, or again close
relatives.
A word on the
forms for those that had gained certificates under the voluntary schemes prior
to 1851 should also be made. Normally when searching applications for such
individuals the forms merely state that an old voluntary certificate has been
surrendered and a new mandatory certificate of competency issued. However, in
one case up to now I have found a letter from Trinity House to the office of the
R.G.S. with notations of past service.
Another
clerical error has been uncovered by the author that may be of use to others researching these records.
Having already searched the Index to
Registers of Certificates of Competency & Service, Masters & Mates,
Home and Foreign Trade and found no trace of
the individual required, an apparent foreign-going mate’s service certificate
number was noted within his entry in the Register of Seamen, Series III (see
the ‘ticketing system’). Going to the relevant Board of Trade
register of certificates, no information was recorded. However, the correct
application form for this number was found at National Maritime Museum,
Greenwich. So, it would appear that the application form had been forwarded
(from Sunderland in this case) to the office of the Registrar General of
Seamen, Tower Hill, London but the details had not been transferred into the
relevant index and register. As there were a number of similar entries in this
particular register, it would appear that there were others in a similar
situation.
Apart from
where already mentioned, much of the historical information came from study of
the original legislation, plus the excellent work on the Board of Trade - P.G.
Parkhurst’s: Ships of Peace - A record
of some of the problems which came before the Board of Trade in connection with
the British Mercantile Marine from the early years to the year 1885 (New Malden, Surrey: private publication, 1962). The
background information on the changing nature of shipping can be found
variously, but two very informative books on this are in Conway’s History of
the Ship series. Both are edited by Robert Gardiner and published by Conway
Maritime Press in London. They are; Sail’s
Last Century - The Merchant Sailing Ship 1830-1930; and The Advent of Steam - The Merchant Steamship before
1900.
Additionally,
one Board of Trade precedent book (TNA: PRO BT 167/168) includes mercantile
seamen officers (and some fishing skippers and second hands) cautioned between
1927 and 1955. These mostly relate to collisions and strandings and can be of
use when certificates were not suspended.
The following
show what may be available in the records discussed above:-
Example of early entries in Lloyd’s Captains Registers 1860s to 1870s
Example of twentieth century entries in the Lloyd’s Captains Register
Example of a nineteenth century Master’s application for Certificate of Service
Two examples of twentieth century applications for
Certificates of Competency
Go to the Mercantile Navy List
Go to the Certification of Engineers
Go to the Central Index Register c.1919-1941
Go to the main Mercantile Page