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.
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.
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