Royal Navy - Pensioner and Boy Bug[ler?]

[Ian Burns]

My last (?) word on this topic.

Regarding the photo I attached - the Boy looks very young. If the A. Bruce Boy Bug was Allan Bruce of the medal card he would have been around 17 at the time of the photo. It also appears that Boy 2nd Class were recruited at 15, no earlier. So, the boy in the picture looks too young to have been properly recruited. Perhaps, he was a mascot for the base? A not unknown occurrence.

The French seaplane squadron at Port Said, l'escadrille de Port Said, occupied an area on the west side of the port - see attached map.

Finally, a really good read on the subject is Above & Beyond Palestine by C E Hughes. It can be found on line 

 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.83088/page/n5/mode/2up

Thanks for all the input.

Ian

2 - Port Said 1914-18 pdf.pdf

[KizmeRD]

It was fairly common practice for boys as young as 15 to be serving at sea in the mercantile marine at the time. To my eyes, the boy shown in the photo could well be that age (or possibly even older).
Ian, you mentioned in earlier post that Boy Bruce was engaged on the basis of a T.124 agreement - so from that fact we know that he wasn’t regular RN and therefore his rank wouldn’t necessarily have followed RN rating conventions (Boy 2nd Class, Boy 1st Class etc). Mercantile Marine usually employed ‘deck boys’ and ‘cabin boys’. Bruce appears to be a bit of a odd-ball in that, we believe, he was entered on the books as a bugle boy (not something outside of wartime circumstances that merchant  ships would have any call for - but quite useful on a naval auxiliary of Ben-my-Chree’s size, especially in calling everyone to action stations).
Finally, a few additional questions for you….  You say that you have a crew list for Ben-my-Chree - so were there any other ‘boys’ listed? Were many of the ratings (other than the aviation support personnel) RNR/RFR, or were they mostly the ship’s own pre-war crew entered on T.124 type agreements (T.124X). And lastly, how certain is it that Bruce signed T.124Z papers? (Could the ‘Z’ be a typo?).

MB

 

Edited 20 June , 2023 by KizmeRD

[FROGSMILE]

10 minutes ago, KizmeRD said:

It was fairly common practice for boys as young as 15 to be serving at sea in the mercantile marine at the time. To my eyes, the boy shown in the photo could well be that age (or possibly even older).

MB

 

I agree with that MB, I was just looking at photos of the intake I joined aged 15, and we look very similar.

Edited 20 June , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Ian Burns]

Crew list attached. It was made just after BmC was sunk at Castellorizo in January 1917. There are quite a few T.124Z listed, but only one Boy and one Pensioner.

[KizmeRD]

Ian, that’s fantastic, thank you for posting.

Will take a day or so to dig into all the info - and see where that leads!

Much appreciated.

MB

[Ian Burns]

Happy to share... That's what information is for.

[KizmeRD]

The brief analysis of the crew list for Ben-my-Chree reveals that out of a total ship’s compliment of 248…

A quarter of them were directly involved in the aviation side of things (RNAS)

Half of the crew were mercantile marine engaged under T.124 agreements (including 5 officers granted temporary RNR commissions). Basically fulfilling day-to-day shipboard roles - little different from the kind of work they would have been doing had it not been wartime.

The remainder were naval crew borne onboard for specific wartime purposes (gunnery, wireless operators, signalmen, medics, et al).

Unfortunately I haven’t yet been able to find a satisfactory definition of what a T.124Z agreement was (and what differentiated it from the more common T.124X agreement) but both variants of the form were in existence from April 1916 onwards, and suffice to say that the only way I’m going to know for sure is to visit Kew and read MT 23/583/7 (Engagement of Mercantile Marine ratings for service in any commissioned Fleet Auxiliary) as none of the standard reference works are sufficiently helpful in understanding the deeper machinations of the Mercantile Marine Reserve.

MB

 

[horatio2]

1 hour ago, KizmeRD said:

none of the standard reference works are sufficiently helpful

@KizmeRDDo your references include this piece of work?   -   https://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/9397/1/Terence_Dawson_Lilley_2012.pdf

A earch of the document for "124Z" offers inter alia on page 213 an explanation of the origin of the Form T124Z. However, thre is no mention of T124X.

Please ignore if granny egg-sucking applies.

 

[KizmeRD]

Terence Lilley’s thesis on the operations of the 10th Cruiser Squadron is my go to souce for most things connected with armed merchant cruisers, but unfortunately there is precious little in it regarding the administrative mechanisms for signing up mercantile marine officers and ratings as crew on vessels commissioned as naval auxiliaries by the Admiralty. Prior to 1916, it was fairly simple to understand - there was just the one form (T.124) however after April 1916 and the formal creation of the Mercantile Marine Reserve (AWO 1856), a whole host of variants (with suffixes) were introduced - and to the best of my knowledge and belief, no secondary source published either during or after the Great War clearly explains what the criteria are for all the different variants of the new T.124 agreements.
I can appreciate that The Transport Department of the Ministry of Shipping found it expedient to keep seperate lists for different types of crewing arrangements (making it easier to swap people between different ships of a similar operating types), and whereas T.124X was the most commonly used form for signing-up general ocean-going merchant mariners (on support ships, hospital ships and troop transports etc.), I’ve a growing feeling (reinforced by this current thread) that T.124Z agreements were spcifically used for merchant crews of ships that were more active engaged in fleet operations (such as AMC’s and Seaplane Carriers) - that said, I currently can’t prove it. My only real option therefore is to review the primary source material - hence my eagerness to get to Kew (not easy from my home in Germany).

MB

[Ian Burns]

Fascinating stuff, and the 10th Cruiser thesis was new to me - so no tooth sucking from Canada!

I use a 'hired gun' at Kew, he is not cheap but probably less that a trip from Germany.

If you are interested I could get him to photograph the file MT 23/583/7. It rather depends on how big it is! The T.124 thing is fascinating and always written up as if everybody knows what is meant - but they do not, and I spent a day or so down a Google rabbit hole looking for details. Thin pickings. 

Ian

[MerchantOldSalt]

When the subject of T124 Articles came up on a previous occasion on this forum I posted a list of the titles of the various agreements.  I cannot find the post, but here is the list again.  I found it in a box of files at Kew which had little to do with the subject and as I was not particularly interested in the topic at the time, I did not make a note of the file.

Whilst T124Z covered men employed on minesweepers, the majority of which would likely have been fishermen, it does not imply that they were all from that industry, neither does it explain their presence on a ship clearly not a minesweeper.

There are, however, many files at Kew dealing with T124 and its successors so your answers will be there for sure.

It is interesting to note that despite the crews coming under the Naval Discipline Act there were times when it made very little difference to their attitude to authority.  A letter amongst the files from the Chief Engineer of the Transport ULYSSES, Alfred Holt of Liverpool,  details daily infringements by the firemen on the ship for absence, drunkenness and failure to turn up for watch throughout the voyage being some of them.  They did not appear to care much for the Naval Discipline Act or its consequences.  

Tony

 

[KizmeRD]

Tony, that’s exactly what I had always thought (without really ever having seen any any official document confirming it). But having recently come across details of both officers and ratings on such vessels as AMC’s, Seaplane Carriers, Fleet Messengers and Boom Defence Vessels all having signed T.124Z Agreements, I’m starting to question what the criteria officially was. (Clearly can’t just be for those people manning Minesweepers).

MB

[horatio2]

17 hours ago, MerchantOldSalt said:

Whilst T124Z covered men employed on minesweepers, the majority of which would likely have been fishermen, it does not imply that they were all from that industry, neither does it explain their presence on a ship clearly not a minesweeper.

With regard to the T124Z I think we may be concentrating too much on a notional fisherman/minesweeping (trawler) link. I have undertaken a survey of nearly 250 MMR casualties from January to May 1917 and there is not a single trawler death. Eight deaths did, however, occur in minesweepers but these were all of men serving in hired paddle minesweepers. These men wre almost certainly not fishermen but mainstream mercantile seamen. As might be expected, most MMR casualties were in AMCs and yachts. Indeed, for the whole of 1917 there are no MMR casualties associated with former fishing trawlers or drifters. (There are three serving in trawler/drifter boom defence vessels.)

I sumit that it is far more likely that T124Z men serving in (for example) BEN-MY-CHREE, came from large minesweepers (or other larger ships) and were transferred to other ships by using the 'any ship/duration of the war' flexilibility of the T124Z terms.

Edited 24 June , 2023 by horatio2

[Ian Burns]

Regret I cannot add much to the conversation. Other than that the BmC crew (and most of the RNAS ratings) listed would almost certainly have been with the ship since commissioning on 23 March 1915.

They were mostly Merchant Navy seamen and stokers recruited in Liverpool on T.124 papers.  Some of the seamen and many of the engineering staff were ex-Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, including the chief engineer. Engineer Lieutenant G Robinson, RNR, had been with Ben-my-Chree since 1908, and was to remain aboard throughout her commission. Additional to the ship's crew  were the Air Department which averaged 40 officers and ratings of the RNAS, initially drawn from various stations and schools throughout Britain.

Many of the RNAS personnel were based at Port Said after BmC arrived from Gallipoli in January 1916 and just rejoined the ship when required for operations.
 

[Keith_history_buff]

The late Alan Bruce appears on folio 197 of the MMR medal roll, surnames A - FOU, archive reference ADM 171/130

Image courtesy Ancestry

[Keith_history_buff]

Edmund Roach enlisted in the Plymouth Division of the Royal Marine Light Infantry on 23 December 1889. His official number was PLY/5165. He transferred to the Royal Navy  on 1 April 1892, to commence a 12 year Continuous Service engagement. His official number was 170991, and he was rated as Armourer's Crew upon entry. It appears that he served until 1911, and then became a navy pensioner.

He was promoted to Armourer's mate on 26 November 1895, then to Armourer on 6 October 1899. On 2 January 1905 he was traced for a LSGC medal.

[Keith_history_buff]

There is an Alan Bruce on the 1901 census, born Marylebone. He lives with his widower father Joseph, born 1860, and his five elder siblings. I cannot find a GRO entry for his birth.

There is an Allan Bruce, also born Marylebone, who appears on the 1911 census. He is aboard a Training Ship moored at Grays, commanded by Captain (Retired) Reginald Colmore. The Chief Officer is later Lieutenant-Commander (retired) Frederick Lewis Coplestone. 

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Reginald_Blayney_Colmore

http://www.dreadnoughtproject.org/tfs/index.php/Frederick_Lewis_Coplestone

The Ancestry transcript tells me this would this be the TS Exmouth.

If I understand correctly, at some point Alan Bruce died, and his medals were issued to his father? If he did not die owing to enemy action, he is not eligible for commemoration by the CWGC.

[Keith_history_buff]

Working backwards:
There is a 2Q 1921 death registered at West Ham for Allen Bruce, who would appear to have died in March or April 1921.

On 14 January 1900, he is baptised as Allan Seymour Bruce at St Mary Magdalene, Paddington, Westminster, England. His parents are Joseph Bruce (1859-1926) and Elizabeth nee Berry (1855-1901)

His entry as Alan Bruce on the TS Exmouth record (on Ancestry) shows a date of birth of 24 December 1900, but the baptism record states 22 December 1899.

His Board of Trade medal card records that he is deceased, his Mercantile Marines War Medal will be issued to his father, and that he had served under a T124. 

Reference:	BT 351/1/16973

Medal Card of	Bruce, Allan
Place of Birth:	London
Date of Birth:	1900

Image courtesy The National Archives UK

[Keith_history_buff]

This links him with the 1911 census and with Ben-my-Chree

Image licenced by London Metropolitan Archives
Image courtesy Ancestry - partial screenshot

[Keith_history_buff]

He and two brothers were aboard the training ship. Both he and Hector appear on the 1911 census aboard.

Here is a screenshot from Ancestry


There is an Alan Bruce aboard S.S. Alcinous, which arrives at New York on 11 May 1917. Also on the crew manifest is Douglas Bruce, next to him. It seems too much of a coincidence that they are not brothers.

[Keith_history_buff]

His brother Douglas Claude Bruce was married on 27 October 1923 to Mabel Lilian Curtis (born 1900).

In 1918, he is on the crew manifest of the Berrima, arriving at New York in October 1918, and is rated as an Able Seaman.

He has a BoT medal card.

His record from TS Exmouth has him departing 18 December 1909, to join SS Cayo Donisos as an Ordinary Seaman.

[Ian Burns]

Thanks Keith,

Overwhelming...

It is amazing what information is out there, if you know where to look.

Ian

[Keith_history_buff]

I was pleased with what I was able to find on Ancestry, especially given that the Mercantile Marine records for WW1 were destroyed in 1969.

That record from the Training Ship unequivocally provides the missing link.

 

By the way, I did some research on WW1 sailors, a number of whom saw action again in WW2. For several, they are recorded as "Able Seaman (Pensioner)" on their Continuous Record cards, covering the period from 1929 onwards.

[Ian Burns]

Agreed. The height of 4'9" also haelps identify Alan Bruce in the photo.