MFA and MMR - explanation please

[clive_hughes]

Hi folks,

I come across maritime casualties who were in the Mercantile Marine Reserve according to CWGC, but seem to have signed up for the Mercantile Fleet Auxiliary and their medals are so named.

 

Can someone please clarify the use of these terms for me please?

 

Clive

[KizmeRD]

Men belonging to the Mercantile Marine Reserve (i.e. British merchant seamen who signed T.124X Agreements) helped man ships that were Merchant Fleet Auxiliaries. (The MMR was little more than a registry of names to facilitate the crewing of MFA’s).
MB

[clive_hughes]

Thanks MB,

That seems simple enough, the men were MMRs and the vessels MFAs.  Odd then that MFA is what's on the medals, effectively saying "he was manning an MFA vessel" rather than "he was in the MMR", but there you are!

 

Clive

[horatio2]

I think an analogy may be drawn with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary (RFA). Here the term "RFA" may be used to decribe not only the service (i.e. the fleet of Admiralty-owned auxiliary vessels) but also the individual ships of the service (e.g. RFA NONSUCH). Similarly, the MFA service comprised the Admiralty-hired/leased auxiliary vessels (e.g. MFA NOCANDO). An individual RFA/MFA could be crewed by officers and men of the RNR and MMR (and, entirely possibly, RN and RNVR if required).

[MerchantOldSalt]

Clive 

The answer to your question may lie in the fact that not all MFA crews were signed on T124 or later T124X articles and would not, therefore be deemed to be in the MMR on those ships.  Many MFAs were engaged in normal cargo runs, albeit carrying government cargoes, stores or coal, and not operating "within or near the fleet" the advantages of maintaining Naval Discipline onboard not being so important in these cases.

 

The question as to why not all MFAs were under Naval Discipline was raised in Parliament on several occasions and the answer was always the same:-

"The desirability of applying the T124X system to Transports etc. has been fully appreciated and an  endeavour was made early in the war to secure its application to all ships.

Negotiations to this end were opened with the various Unions, who however strongly opposed the proposal.  As there were a number of difficulties in the introduction of the scheme without the Unions' support, it was considered undesirable to press its general application.

The Admiralty is fully alive to all the advantages of the system and the desirability of its extension as far as possible.  To insist however on the application of the system forthwith to all vessels in the Transport service might lead to such difficulties and delays that would neutralize the advantages to be obtained thereby."

 

The opposition of the Unions was overcome in the cases of AMC and stores ships and other vessels operating with the fleet an undoubtedly sensible capitulation in those cases.

 

As MFAs continued to sail outside the T124X system then it might well be the case that their crews would be described as MFA in the situation you mention. I too have a set of medals inscribed MFA

 

The question I would ask is, if a Merchant Seaman could,.. continue to sail on a commercial ship, or sign T124X and therefore be MMR, however temporarily, or serve on a MFA how did the powers that be decide what went on his medals.  What would happen if a particular matelot had sailed under all banners MMR, MN and MFA, which one took precedence?

Tony

 

Edited 6 October , 2020 by MerchantOldSalt

[KizmeRD]

Perhaps this helps explain things more clearly....

 

Mercantile Fleet Auxiliaries, that is merchantmen on government service, were classed in three ways.

 

1. There were those that were non-commissioned, which meant that they were ordinary merchant ships (still commercially owned, operated and manned in the usual way) albeit now under time or voyage charter to the Admiralty for the transportation of specific Government cargoes.

 

2. Then there were the wartime commissioned M.F.A.s. These were operated in a different manner, they served in direct support roles within the fleet and their commercial owners had no further involvement whilst their ships were on bare-boat charter to the Admiralty. Such ships came under direct naval control and took on roles such as armed merchant cruisers, fleet store ships and ammunition ships - operating as ‘pukka’ naval vessels - often having a Royal Naval Officer placed in command, with the former ship’s Master retained as Navigation Officer and ‘advisor’. All former merchant seamen finding themselves now serving on commissioned MFA’s (if they were not already naval reservists) signed T.124 agreements, meaning that they continued to fulfil their ordinary shipboard duties and retained much of their former civilian employment pay, terms and conditions, albeit subject to the Naval Discipline Act - for the duration of their employment on that particular ship (not exceeding six months at a time, but with renewable agreements). In addition Commissioned MFA ship’s officers were normally granted temporary RNR commissions.
 

 3. Additionally there were government owned ships manned by Admiralty employed merchant marine officers and crew. These provided permanent fleet support (both in times of peace and in war) and were mainly engaged in transporting fuel and stores. These were known as Royal Fleet Auxiliaries.

 

Mercantile Marine Reserve

Peacetime rates of pay for merchant mariners were not standard and by 1916 there was significant variance in what men doing broadly similar work on different MFA’s were getting paid. Admiralty Weekly Order, number 1856, issued on 8th August 1916 standardised rates of pay for Mercantile Marine seamen employed on Commissioned Fleet Auxiliaries and created a registry of such men (henceforth known as The Mercantile Marine Reserve). These MMR men were now required to serve on any merchant fleet auxiliary that they were assigned to and signed modified T.124X agreements. 
 

MB

 

Edited 6 October , 2020 by KizmeRD

[ernest james]

Hi

Is the T.124X quote from Parliament ww1 or ww2?

I checked what Father Hopkins  (of the National Sailors' and Firemen's Union) had to say about T. 124 Articles . He was involved in the relevant meetings with the Admiralty throughout the war and he doesn't appear to mention T.124X articles.

He mentions T.124 articles which applied for the 'period of the war but seamen not transferable from ship to ship'

his next comment is on T.124Z articles which applied 'for the period of the war, and seamen available transferable from ship to ship'

Do  T.124X articles relate to ww2 only and not ww1?

best wishes

ernestjames

[KizmeRD]

No - all exactly as per previous posting, T.124 & T.124X agreements as used in the Great War (I’m not discussing anything WW2 related on this forum).

 

Sample T.124X agreement attached, plus an extract showing the original wording of the earlier T.124 version of the agreement (T.124 without suffix). - for comparison purposes.

 

There is so much lack of clarity written about this particular topic that it’s important to set the record straight, with reference to primary documentary evidence where possible.

 

MB
 

Other sources of relevant information

a. The Merchant Navy. (Hurd)

b. History of the Royal Naval Reserve. (Bowen, The Corporation of Lloyd’s) pp. 111/112

c. Admiralty Orders August 1914 (Formation of Mercantile Fleet Auxiliary) 

d. Admiralty Weekly Orders August 1916 (Formation of Mercantile Marine Reserve)

e. Instructions to Mercantile Marine Superintendents.

[MerchantOldSalt]

7 hours ago, KizmeRD said:

Perhaps this helps explain things more clearly....

 

4 hours ago, KizmeRD said:

There is so much lack of clarity written about this particular topic that it’s important to set the record straight, with reference to primary documentary evidence where possible.

 

MB

Why did you think it necessary to explain things more clearly MB, as it appears you were referring to my post, which was based on files held at TNA in the MT25 series, questions asked of Arthur Balfour during his tenure as First lord of the Admiralty in 1916, and I thought quite clear enough and was an attempt to explain the OP's original question as to why some medals are stamped MFA and some MMR?

The obvious strength of feeling you have on this subject is laudable, but is the lack of important clarity you mention referring to this subject in literature in general or to other posts on this, or other forums, in particular?

Tony

[Keith_history_buff]

For me, this has been the best thread of the week. Thank you for your contributions.

[KizmeRD]

Tony, My apologies, but words can sometimes be open to misinterpretation and I wasn't switched on sufficiently about what Post you were writing about. As regards the issue of medals, I’m not a collector, but it’s quite possible that a man serving on an MFA at the start of the war was no longer doing so by the time that the Mercantile Marine Reserve got established in August 1916. Easier in that case to simply mark all medals issued for service in MFA’s as ‘MFA’ rather than ‘MMR’ (which didn’t always apply to everyone).

MB

[MerchantOldSalt]

No apology necessary MB, I am very interested in the Merchant Service in WW1 and other times, and wanted to be clear as to why you think there is a lack of clarity on this quite complex subject, as it has been well discussed on this Forum and pretty much sorted out in my opinion, that was all, thanks for your thoughts on the medals.

Tony

[KizmeRD]

I was under the impression that many people still found all the similar sounding acronyms a little bit complex and perplexing, for example ‘MN’ (Merchant Navy) wasn’t officially used in Britain until after the war’s end, prior to that it was still widely known as ‘MM’ (Mercantile Marine).
MB

[clive_hughes]

That's been enlightening, folks, and thank you.  

 

Unless this is going to muddy the waters, so to speak, I had in mind a casualty who volunteered Aug. 1914 aboard his former ship London & NW Railway's "Hibernia", which became an armed boarding steamer HMS Tara and was sunk at the end of 1915.  He and others are MMR in the CWGC registers. 

 

I find that according to the CWGC, some MMR casualties have numbers and some don't.  This man like all the other MMRs from this ship 1914-15 isn't numbered, but by comparison there are also two Stewards on the "Laurentic"  killed in 1917 who are MMR numbers 676630 and 681653 on CWGC.  Is this due to the 'establishment' of the MMR in 1916 you mention?  

[Keith_history_buff]

I think the six digit numbers were issued regardless by the Board of Trade to men discharged from the Mercantile Marine. The differentiation only comes in to play when the question arises of who issues the medals. By default, it would be the BoT who issue medals, but for MMR it would be the Admiralty, given that the latter came under the Naval Discipline Act.

 

[MerchantOldSalt]

The six digit numbers, in the case of Ollosson and Hughes on the Laurentic are the seaman's Certificate of Discharge Number issued to them, and all seamen on entry into the Merchant Service by, as you say, the Board of Trade. Similar to a Service Number, this is the number which appears in the MMR Medal Rolls and also the CWGC records.  During this period the numbers could be from 5 to 7 digits and later were prefixed by the letter R.

Known by the seamen as a Discharge Book it contained details of all their voyages including a stamp for ability and general conduct normally Very Good, but if they weren't very good the only other option was a DR, which meant Decline to Report, a seaman could survive one DR but a double DR was almost guaranteed to end their career at sea, at least in the British Merchant Service, a Master would think long and hard before using a DR stamp.

If the seaman lost the Discharge Book a paper discharge would be issued, a form specifically for that purpose.

Tony

 

 

 

[KizmeRD]

The problem with the issue of campaign medals to men serving on MFA’s is that this was the responsibility of the Admiralty (not the BOT) and therefore it could be that the Admiralty wasn’t keeping a central record of these men‘s Dis.A. numbers until after the creation the MMR in August 1916.
MB

 

 

[Keith_history_buff]

Here is a link to a number of men associated with the MFA. You would have to look at each MIC to determine why they have a card. In a lot of cases, these men have also served in the army. The War Office was the de facto port of call for medal enquiries from the Metropolitan Police, which is why some coppers with nautical service only have medal index cards - they document the enquiry, but they have no corresponding entry on an army medal roll.

https://livesofthefirstworldwar.iwm.org.uk/searchlives/Fleet Auxiliary/filter/unit%3DMercantile%2BFleet%2BAuxiliary

[ernest james]

Hi

From 1900 and during ww1 only merchant seamen making foreign voyages were issued with continuous discharge books.

Men in the home trade (around the British Isles and to ports on the European Coast from Hamburg in the north down to Brest in the south) were not issued with discharge books, so,      no discharge numbers.    

I would expect many cross channel railway steamer seamen to be in this category.

All merchant seamen  (foreign and home) working around the British Isles were given identity cards linked to the CR10 central record card scheme between Sept 1918 and December 1921.(part of 1918  manpower planning?)

Home trade seamen then disappeared from the central record scheme until 1939 when I think that both foreign and home trade seamen were issued with continuous discharge books.

 

Hope this makes sense.

Let me know if you disagree

best wishes

ernestjames 

[Keith_history_buff]

One thing to remember is that a chunk of the Mercantile Marine records covering the WW1 period were destroyed in 1969, so researching these men can be challenging.

[clive_hughes]

Once again thank you all for contributing - it does help me to understand the background of the casualties I research, even as regards the nuances of MFA/MMR, number/no number, DisA's and so on.  

 

Clive

[abbrover]

Found this conversation fascinating.

My Grandfather - 904093 Trimmer William Threlfall joined the Mercantile Marine Reserve under the T124X Articles, and served on board the former White Star Liner S.S. Celtic (13th January 1917 -5th February 1917, and then served on board the Armed Merchant Cruiser (and former P & 0 Liner) H.M.S. Mantua from 19th February 1917 until the end of the war. He then went into the Mercantile Marine, serving on board the S.S. Sunhill in 1919, and the S.S. Alma for two voyages 5th February 1920 - 25th May 1920 and 10th June 1920 - 28th July 1920.

I have one battered photograph of my Grandad when he was serving on board H.M.S. Mantua (attached), and some photos of H.M.S. Mantua. I assume that it was the norm for Mercantile Marine Reserve men to wear Royal Navy uniform due to the fact that they had signed T124X Articles, and therefore came under RN discipline etc when serving on RN Auxiliary ships?

Kindest regards

Pete Threlfall

 

[KizmeRD]

Pete - FYI Sunhill  was the name of the parent ship under whose umbrella all members of the MMR (i.e. those who were signed under T.124X agreements) were nominally attached to, regardless of the actual ship they served on.
All MMR ratings serving on armed merchant cruisers were issued with certain items naval uniform (like cap ribbons) - but apart from the crew members on passenger ships, ‘sailor suits’ weren’t commonly worn in the British Mercantile Marine as a whole (i.e. seamen on cargo ships wore working clothes, not uniforms).

MB

Edited 17 September , 2023 by KizmeRD

[abbrover]

Afternoon MB

That is brilliant! Thanks for taking the time to answer. This has been very useful.

As a Trimmer, what would my Grandfather's particular task/task's have been. Is it something to do with the trimming of coal bunkers?

Thanks again for your help. Very much appreciated.

Kindest regards

Pete Threlfall

 

[seaJane]

2 minutes ago, abbrover said:

something to do with the trimming of coal bunkers

Yes, I believe so - keeping the fuel load properly trimmed/balanced so that the ship was on an even keel.

seaJane