Central Index Register
c.1919 to 1941
The following
discusses the introduction of this register in perhaps more detail than is
strictly necessary. However, some readers may find this interesting.
Certainly by
the last year of the 19th century there was discussion within a
committee on manning for re-introducing a ‘register of seamen’. In part this
led to the issue of books of continuous discharge certificates as of October 1900. As
well as another committee again advocating this in 1904, there were various
questions asked in the House (of Commons) by an ex-mariner, trade union
official and Member of Parliament, Havelock Wilson. Taken up by the Merchant
Shipping Advisory Committee in 1907 (courtesy of the newly passed Merchant
Shipping Act of the year before) it’s report favoured
also such a register. The unions wanted this to protect their membership’s
interests, partially so that mariners with good records were not unduly
penalised on the loss, or destruction of their discharge books. It should be
noted that the Shipping Federation (representing a significant proportion of
ocean-going shipowners) also wished to see such a register: in order to more
easily look into the backgrounds of mariners and potentially keep persistent
deserters and troublemakers off their vessels.
By this time
the President of the Board of Trade was Winston Churchill, who no doubt on the
recommendation of the most senior civil servants within the Marine Department
of the Board of Trade and the R.G.S.S. (who were vociferous in their
opposition), called for a Departmental Committee into this subject in May 1909.
Although its terms and membership were heavily weighted against reintroduction
of such a system, in 1910 this Departmental Committee also found for a ‘register of seamen’. Even with
continued pressure, still the Board of Trade refused to budge.
Some of the
grounds for this opposition are not only intriguing - they are bizarre. Apart
from all the extra work involved by the office of the R.G.S.S. and the Local
Marine Boards, which was judged to be excessive, there was also an important
cost implication. Time and again it was cited that the 19th century
systems had failed because individual mariners could not be identified and this
one might fail too. (A fingerprinting scheme was looked into but regarded as
too expensive.) Significantly, it was maintained that feckless and illiterate
mariners, who misused their documents and did not co-operate in making the
system work, had led to a large number of mistakes by civil servants and to the
eventual abandonment of the 19th century system. This apparently
high rate of errors and inability to identify masters, mates and engineers also was said to have
led to their service not being recorded in the mid to late 1880s in the
registers of certificates. (Of course this same information continued to be
supplied by the R.G.S.S. to Lloyd’s of London for the maintenance of
their ‘Captain’s Registers’: but then this was a business
arrangement after all. Additionally, the office of the R.G.S.S. itself already
carried out searches of the crew lists to produce certificates
of service
for shipowners, ship managers and mariners - for fees.) The illiteracy aspect
is worthy of comment. One can see that this would have been a distinct problem
in the mid 19th century, but to cite the same over forty years after
the introduction of mandatory primary education in Britain and if
taken at face value is a real indictment of the standards of the British
educational establishment. While, I believe British education was poor, (and unfortunately, remains so) study of
crew-lists show very few mariners by the turn of the 20th century
‘making their mark’, rather than signing their names.
Anyway,
pressure continued to be applied by the Advisory Committee through 1910.
Interestingly, even though the senior civil servants had been arguing their
case on apparent legal grounds for over decade, when this was finally placed
before the Government’s foremost legal officers, they came down in favour of a
register in August 1911. However, this was not the end of the matter by any
means and it was not until October 1913 that the Central Index Register, often
referred to as the ‘Fourth Register of Seamen’, came into being. Even then, this only recorded the least amount of
information possible and in no way addressed the issues of both shipowners and
trade unions.
The above
almost entirely came from various files of Board of Trade correspondence. (See
TNA: PRO MT 9/843 and MT 9/923.) With many hundreds of pages of memos and
correspondence the above is merely a glance into this subject and requires
proper investigation.
Unfortunately,
virtually all C.R. 1 and C.R. 2
cards for the years 1913 to about 1918, or 1919 have been destroyed - in modern times apparently on the advice of the P.R.O.’s
management. A tiny percentage of cards that give information from the First
World War period do exist, but it must be
realised that the chances of finding one’s forebears from this are next to nil.
However, the
surviving post war cards now in the form of microfiche,
are well copied, organised and presented.
Potentially
much information can be found on these records. Disappointingly often this was
not entered by clerks. One potential reason for this is in something I saw
within internal P.R.O. correspondence when researching an academic paper. This
states that only voyages on foreign-going vessels were recorded in this body of records.
For modern
researchers, probably the most important information dealt with sea time. This
was recorded by vessels’ names, or official number and the date of joining. The
Mercantile Navy
Lists
of this era unfortunately do not have a decode section for ships’ official
numbers. However, a relatively high percentage of vessels can be identified
through Registers of Changes of
Masters
(held at the P.R.O.). In cases of difficulty the R.G.S.S. should be contacted.
The surviving
parts of the system are split into three main sections. These I describe only
briefly, since their use becomes relatively clear with use. One point that I
came across purely by chance when studying old, internal P.R.O. correspondence
for another purpose, it is important to note that only foreign-going voyages were supposed
to be entered into the C.I.R.
From 1918 to
1921 a ‘special index’ was compiled. It would appear that this was made
necessary through an amendment to the Defence of the Realm Act 1914: enacted by
Order in Council number 992 issued on 2nd August 1918. The Shipping
Controller and Board of Trade were jointly required to ensure that all merchant
mariners in British service carried certificates of identification and service,
with the authorities (that is the R.G.S.S.) providing a system of
‘registration’ for those holding certificates. The result seems to have been
another index of cards (C.R.10) filed alphabetically. As well as sea service
these should show place and date of
birth and rank, or rating. They may give more, showing
details of physical appearance (including photographs), union membership and
even health insurance provision.
This was
maintained until 1920 in relation to the findings of the ‘Cave Committee’. This
was a study into the ‘Continuance of Emergency Legislation after the
Termination of the War’ and reported to the War Cabinet in March 1919. It was
thought that this was required while the shipping industry continued to be
controlled through the Ministry of Shipping.
From 1921
until 1940 C.R. 1 and C.R. 2 cards were also used. The C.R. 1 cards are again
filed alphabetically. These in turn lead to C.R. 2 cards filed by discharge
number. It seems only photographs of foreign mariners are to be found as
separate cards with C.R. 2s. This may have been a result of the growing racial
tensions of all sorts in Britain post war.
The third
series, for a reason as yet not understood, combines C.R. 1, C.R. 2 and C.R. 10
cards. Unfortunately, this is filed by discharge number. Therefore, this series
is impenetrable without already knowing relevant mariners’ discharge numbers.
But, in cases where some sea-service is already known, these all important
numbers can be gained from crew-lists.
(Sources
for the special index are primarily the Statutory
Rules and Orders other than those of a local, personal or temporary character,
issued in the year 1918 and TNA: PRO MT
25/24/63039/1918.)
In 1941 a new
series was produced, officially named the Central Register of
Seamen,
but often known as the ‘Fifth Register of Seamen’. As per the Registration for
Employment Order the cards of mariners then currently active, or who had been
active since 1936, were removed from the C.I.R. and transferred onwards to the
C.R.S.
Although there
are literally millions of cards in the C.I.R., a great many are missing. This
can partly be put down to the removal of large numbers of cards for the
production of the C.R.S. It is currently thought that the earlier C.I.R. cards
were generally retained in the ‘seamen’s pouches’ as part of the C.R.S. But
this is not always the case by any means. (I have more than once found cards
both in the C.I.R. and the C.R.S. So, it may well be prudent to check both
systems.)
There are a
number of other reasons why men just cannot be found serving in the inter-war
period. As well as potential administrative failures within the system,
importantly there were the severe economic depressions of the era.
Nevertheless, from cases where additional information is known about
individuals, some cards simply seem to be missing.
As an
additional source related to the C.I.R. within a precedent book (TNA: PRO BT
167/18) is a most interesting list of men that the Board of Trade wished to
contact. Operative between 1913 and early 1915, superintendents at Mercantile
Marine Offices were required to inform the Marine Department in London if seen.
The entries give all sorts of insights into individuals - wanted from
everything from failing eyesight tests to murder and alleged insanity!
Within the
next precedent book (TNA: PRO BT 167/19) there is also another potentially useful listing for genealogists. This is a
breakdown of identity card numbers and the ports these were issued by.
There is an
important difference between the C.I.R. and the earlier 19th century
systems though. In the 20th century register foreign nationals were
entered. This can be useful, especially to social historians. Not only do some ex-enemy Europeans show as openly serving on British
vessels as early as 1919 once again (although illegal under wartime
legislation); large numbers of non European mariners (from within and without
the empire) can also be seen to have been active within the labour market: or
at least registered if not actually in work. (It might also
be of interest, that section five of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act of
1919 meant that foreigners were not allowed to be seamen officers or engineers
in British mercantile service without official sanction as to their
suitability.)
It is also
clear that the C.I.R. only covered mariners who served on British (or Colonial)
registered vessels who touched British ports. For
instance, those who signed onto British (or Colonial) registered vessels
trading between Australasia and the western coast of North America will not
show up in this British system.
And, from internal
Board of Trade correspondence it is clear that after the Irish Free State came
into existence after their War of Independence (1919-21), that a Central Index
Register was continued there: probably in Dublin. Up to now I have not found
out whether any of this is still in existence though. Some cards also indicate
that there was a Canadian C.I.R., but again I have found no evidence of any of
this surviving.
Go to the Certification of Seamen officers
Go to the Certification of Engineering Officers