|
|
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