It should be hardly surprising that the ‘people’ at the bottom of the societal heap should be worst served in relation to State records. As already outlined in the ‘Structures of Ranks and Rates’ section on the main page of this naval guide, the people who crewed the warships came from a wide variety of sources, but that in the main, came from mercantile service. Certainly until 1853 when engagements of continuous service began to be introduced in a serious way (but not for all ratings) the chances of tracing mariners on the Royal Navy’s men-o-war are far from good. In fact, until around 1803 when the first certificates of service can be searched for, unless one has at least one ship’s name and approximate time of service, it is not a particularly realistic prospect even to try. Even then, as these certificates of service were only produced for specific purposes, such as for applications for pensions, only a miniscule percentage of those that actually served are represented in these records.

There are also other records that can lead to learning ships served on. Relating to casualties, the Inspector of Seamen’s Wills Index operating between 1802 and 1824 is one. The actual wills should be traced though, since the men-o-war quoted are not necessarily those killed onboard. There is also another massive series of wills for those on the lower deck, running between 1786 and 1882 in total.

So, if for any reason a ship’s name and approximate time of service is known, then this potentially opens up a great wealth of records. The mainstay of these are the original muster lists and pay books for men-o-war. These are immensely complex documents that require time and experience (not to mention background historical, naval knowledge) to get the best out of. So, the above linked page contains a relatively detailed outline of what can be found and what it means (for formats up to the 19^th century where they change in some ways). Assuming that the books have survived and it should be stressed that not all have, it is possible, from the pay books, to trace individuals’ careers both forward and backwards from ship to ship (if transferred). This does not necessarily mean that all sea time on the monarch’s warships can be found though. Due to the loose nature of service, it was perfectly possible for professional mariners to split time at sea between merchantmen and warships (including privateers and those of the great monopolistic trading companies). For the year of 1802 there is also another type of pay records that can be helpful.

Although recruitment for the R.N.’s lower deck was a highly complex business, a small percentage of entry registers have survived and might be of use. While most show localities or counties where men were acquired from, periodically and fragmentally from the 1740s onwards, there is one showing impressed smugglers apparently in 1824. Similarly, there is a tiny collection of discharge registers. For those relating to the R.N. proper; two relate to those discharged unfit in the early 1780s and from Haslar in 1792; and intriguingly the third for those at Plymouth who presumably managed to use Habeas Corpus writs to get out of naval service between 1812 and 1815.

For all those who were killed in action, or died of wounds, there were bounties paid to their next of kin (not just widows), if claimed, from 1675. (Interestingly, commissioned officers, especially those who fought from the exposed quarterdeck were significantly more likely to be killed than those below, or aloft.) Anyway, known as the ‘Royal Bounty’ this equated to one off payments of one year’s wages with additional sums if married with children. Unfortunately, there are gaps in the surviving records though - 1694-1703, 1712-19, 1723-46 and 1753 to 1804. And, unless I am missing some salient information these can be far from easy documents to navigate through.

Pensions from the Chatham Chest could also be claimed (as one of three sources for wounds received). This benefited the widows of the people and warrant officers. All in naval service were deducted 1s. per month for this; only 6d. going to the charity; with 4d. being paid to the chaplain and 2d. to the surgeon. (I have been unable to work out what happened on smaller vessels without chaplains.) Incidentally, apart from Greenwich Hospital the other body also responsible for awarding pensions for wounds was the Board of Commissioners for the Sick and Wounded (otherwise known as ‘the Sick and Hurt Board’).

For petty officers and private men (as well as warrant officers and a very limited number of commissioned officers) that survived naval service, there was the potential to help from the Greenwich Hospital. Built in the 1690s, as well as partially acting as a hospital in the modern sense of the word, those that could no longer support themselves were entitled to places there. Originally no pensions were paid and interestingly, seamen’s widows were employed in the infirmary as nurses. There was also a hospital school, theoretically, for the children of both officers and the people that gave priority to naval orphans.

At some stage (as yet unknown to me and unclear from published sources) both ‘in’ and ‘out’ pensions began to be awarded. There are ‘in pension’ records for the people as far back as 1704 and ‘out pension’ records from 1781.

In relation to the school aspect at Greenwich, there are a number of different classes of records. Theoretically these reach back to the 1720s, but apparently there are few before the nineteenth century for the people’s children.

As with sea officers, lower deck veterans of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars were for the first time eligible for campaign medals when later instituted.

Contrary to the accepted wisdom, the introduction of engagements of continuous service for ratings in the Royal Navy was not swiftly done in 1853. For a start, there had been an earlier experiment in 1835 relating to the entry of some boys and seamen, but it would appear that no ‘service registers’ as such were compiled in relation to this. Also, in this same year the Royal Navy also began a series of experiments generally known as the ticketing system. This apparently attempted to keep tabs on all Britons in mercantile service, with the intention of forcing wanted classes of men into the R.N. in times of war. (Also see my section on the press especially since my understanding of this is changing and further research will be carried out on original policy documents if surviving.) Overwhelmingly this is seen in isolation, but if taken in conjunction with the first experiment in encouraging the people to sign on for set engagements, shows the Admiralty’s thinking to have not been as reactionary as is often maintained. Having said that, I suspect that there is a great deal more in archives that has been untouched and may give deeper understandings. By the time the mercantile experiments were discontinued in 1857, the Marine Department of the Board of Trade had taken control of this. And, between 1845 and 1854 register tickets had been issued, not only to merchant mariners, but also those on the monarch’s warships. Although there is nothing to be gained in relation to researching mariners on men-o-war, elsewhere on my website there is an image showing a register ticket belonging to a seaman on a warship.

Anyway, the Act ‘... to make better Provision concerning the Entry and Service of Seamen, and otherwise to amend the Laws concerning Her Majesty’s Navy’, passed in 1853, certainly widened and deepened this, but only affected boys and seamen then entering. It was not even until 1862 that this was made mandatory for those joining the seaman branch. Others, such as stokers, might, if seen as a benefit to the Service, be offered engagements of continuous service. But, there was nothing definite in this.

And, what is more there were a considerable number of rates that were specifically forbidden the security of engagements of continuous service. There was quite an assortment of these, from butchers and bakers, literally, to lamp trimmers, musicians and many more.

Sometime around the end of the century the rate of change slowed, but this lasted well into the twentieth century. In fact, there were still non-continuous rates in the R.N. post 1945.

With the historical background of this aspect outlined and the weaknesses noted, for those on engagements of continuous service there were service registers as of 1853. While the style of these changed, with more information being recorded as of 1870, essentially this makes researching a larger percentage of naval ratings a routine matter.

Unfortunately, partially through nineteenth century changes in administration changing musters and pay books (although there were ships’ ledgers subsequently) and also Luftwaffe bombing destroying documentation) it may be virtually impossible to trace most on non-continuous service after 1885. Nevertheless, for those whose sea time was not recorded in service registers, there is a chance that they may be found within certificates of service, at least until 1894 when they were discontinued. As indicated above, although not noted in either of the naval guides (as far as I can see) official numbers appear on the later certificates of service. So, there may be a way of identifying those on non-continuous service - but as yet I have not had the opportunity to investigate this.

The old ‘inferior’ classes of warrant officer were also integrated into the new order: variously in petty officer rates. While the old boards that they had been responsible to had been subsumed into the Admiralty, the requirement for professional certification remained. Unfortunately, it would seem that none of the examination or passing certificates have survived. So, again the only realistic way of finding most individuals with these rates not on continuous service in the decades of transition is through certificates of service, although some would appear to have been lumped in with warrant officers’ records (see below).

Even with the Admiralty having taken over the majority of the responsibility for naval pensions in the 1830s, Greenwich Hospital continued with its work. Both ‘in pensions’ and ‘out pensions’ were paid until the late 1860s or 1870. There are records on widows’ pensions from 1882 to 1933 variously. Also, from c.1883 all the way through the 1950s there were grants for the orphans of ratings.

Greenwich Hospital schools were also maintained. Between 1809 and 1841 when it was discontinued, there had been limited education for girls as part of the lower school. The published sources so far consulted are far from clear, but it would seem that at least some ratings’ male children could be found at the upper school (along with compatriots whose fathers’ had warrants and commissions) until 1881 when it was closed. (Incidentally, between 1861 and 1881 the upper school was known as the nautical division.) The lower school continued and there are records relating to boys there until 1930.

There are three main bodies of casualty reports stretching from 1854 through to 1956. However, it must be stressed that a seventy-five year rule has been applied to some of these, but not others. Nevertheless, there are some Second World War records available.

Such as they were, there is one series dealing with ratings getting honours and awards 1852 to 1898. For the First World War, those receiving gallantry awards are within the main class for campaign medals.

  Warrant Officers 1853 to the inter-war period

As of 1870 warrant officers were included in the Navy List. However, not all classes were included and like commissioned officers, there are weaknesses relating to some elements of the information included (or to be more exact excluded). Certificates of service continued in use until 1894, but can be seen as a tool of diminishing returns in relation to tracing W.O.s. Having said that, there are still some service registers specifically recording boatswains, gunners and carpenters variously through to the very early twentieth century. There were also confidential reports for gunners, recorded between 1881 and 1900.

As above in the section on ratings Greenwich Hospital schools were maintained until the 1930s. Warrant officers’ children continued to be educated in these. Similarly, from c.1883 all the way through the 1950s there were grants for the orphans of warrant officers.

Although required for commissioned officers from 1862, marriage certificates for warrant officers it is said that these are also surviving from c.1891 to 1902. However, having made careful searches of half the documents in each of the two volumes I have not found one single example pertaining to a warrant officer. So, if these do exist, they are very much in the minority.

As mentioned in the other sections are three main bodies of casualty reports stretching from 1854 through to 1956. However, it must be stressed that a seventy-five year rule has been applied to some of these, but not others. Nevertheless, there are some Second World War records available.

The awarding of gallantry medals to warrant officers during the First World War are to be found within the honours sheets for commissioned officers. Citations for Second World War awards are found within specific packs of records within the relevant naval grouping for this war. (At present no warrant officers are shown, but from records seen there was no difference inherent differences between ranks and rates in reporting. Campaign medals were issued in accordance with the rules for all in naval service.

E-mail: navysearchpgrc@tnt.co.uk

The passing of the Freedom of Information Act should have made applications to see service records a routine matter, whether for ‘next of kin’, or not. Unfortunately, this has not proven to be the case and until recently requests have been treated as something of a haphazard lottery. For any other than simple genealogical requests by proven next of kin it should also be noted that an additional layer of arguably pointless bureaucracy has been inserted, in the form of a ‘Data Protection Section’. There is some irony in this.

As I understand the situation, recently there have been moves within the Ministry of Defence to frustrate F.O.I. requests as policy. It should therefore be noted that this is in breach of the law as passed by Parliament! I have been told (by a fellow freelance friend of mine) that there are to be relevant questions to be tabled in the House of Commons later in 2006.

Go to tracing commissioned officers

Go to tracing warrant officers

Go to the main Naval Page