Certification
of Seamen Officers
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.
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.
This information came from study of the original legislation and
actual records, 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.
Go to the
Certification of Engineers
Go to the Central Index
Register c.1919-1941
Go to the main
Mercantile Page