HM Customs Records

[Peter Goodey]

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts about this one -

I have a John BAKER who married in 1873, of full age, describing himself as a grocer. I have him in the 1881, 1891 and 1901 censuses and all the records are consistent with each other. He consistently gives an age which implies a date of birth of 1850-51 and consistently describes himself as a Customs Officer. I haven’t been able to identify him with any certainty in earlier censuses nor have I been able to track down a birth.

Yesterday I spent some time at the National Archives and ploughed through several editions of Ham’s Customs Yearbook. This showed there was just one J Baker in post in Customs during this period and that this guy joined the service in 1878 (this ties up with the 1873 marriage and the 1881 census). He retired in 1920 and died in 1923.

I don’t know quite what to make of the retirement date because by my reckoning he would have been about 70 and would have completed well over 40 years service. I can well believe that retirement was deferred because of the war.

Now here’s the real oddity. The superannuation records in CUST 39 show his date of birth as 20 Apr 1859 which would have meant that he married at the age of 14.

I can think of several possible explanations but I wondered if anyone else can think of anything. Might the date of birth not be the actual date of birth but some sort of notional date for the purpose of calculating the pension? Anything else?

[Wirral]

Might it just have been a simple transcription error & the clerk has written the year of birth as 1859 instead of 1850? 9 & 0 are easily confused.
Do the customs' records go back to the late 18thC as I have a ancestor from then?

[Geoffers]

Now here’s the real oddity. The superannuation records in CUST 39 show his date of birth as 20 Apr 1859 which would have meant that he married at the age of 14. I can think of several possible explanations but I wondered if anyone else can think of anything. Might the date of birth not be the actual date of birth but some sort of notional date for the purpose of calculating the pension? Anything else?

It seems possible that some clerk who was transcribing his personal details from another peice of paper, misread the last digit of the year. With poor handwriting, 0 and 9 can be mistaken.

It's a pure guess, but to me that yould seem simplest and most obvious reason and would tie in with the estimated year from your other sources.

Geoffers

[Peter Goodey]

Thanks all. Yes That sounds like the likeliest explanation. I think I'll have to pend this until I go there again as I think I've now located a piece in CUST 39 which ought to contain a staff list with possibly another opinion on his date of birth.

Annoyingly, working from the stated date of death of 12 Dec 1923, I still can't be sure which of many John BAKERs in the GRO index he is.

[Wirral]

Have you tried to tie in addresses from the Trade Directories with the censuses & what you have found from the Customs Records? Plus the electoral register. Putting them all together may help you to eliminate some of the John Bakers.

[Peter Goodey]

I'm starting to feel very depressed.

I've just been scanning the 1881 and 1901 censuses and found another John BAKER who seems to fit the profile of the one I was tracking at the National Archives.

So where on earth is my John BAKER in the Customs Records?

Could he possibly have been employed under a different name from the one he normally used? I think I'd better try and eliminate this new guy who's just emerged.

[busyglen]

Peter, just another thought although probably won't be of help.

Presumably the birth places of the John Baker you found on the three Censuses were the same, and obviously the family, otherwise you would have discounted them. A thought occurred to me that Customs men (like Coastguards) were often not employed in the same area as their place of birth. I have quite a listing of local men in both occupations, and in practically all cases, they were born in one place and worked in various other counties. ie. I found a James Baker in 1881 born in Jersey, CI but working in Customs House, Folkestone, Kent.

I don't think you mentioned the place of birth or place of occupation? Were they both the same?

I've also come across two Jones as Coastguards, both the same christian name, both married women of the same name, and their ages a couple of years apart. Doesn't help does it?

Could the additional Baker you found possibly be a Barker? The 1881 and the 1901 are notorious for mis-transcriptions. Not much help I know, but possibly food for thought?

Glenys

[Peter Goodey]

Well, that’s not quite the problem.

I’ve got records of John Baker in 1873 (marriage to Ann Hoadley of Greenhithe), in the 1881, 1891 and 1901 censuses and also a couple of birth certificates of his children. Everything I have indicates John Baker was born in 1850-1851 in Camberwell and that sometime between 1875 and 1881 he stopped being a grocer and became a Customs Officer. Throughout this period he was living in London and there is no doubt at all that this is the man I want

I have nothing earlier for him than 1873.

In an attempt to get a better handle on his date of birth, I ploughed through Ham’s Customs Yearbooks and the CUST 39 series at TNA and found just one John Baker working in Customs during this period. I was a bit concerned that his date of birth as shown in the Customs superannuation records was about 9 years too late. This was the red herring that I started this thread off with.

Now perusal of the 1881 and 1901 censuses (with the help of Mythology) confirms (or at least provides very strong evidence) that the John Baker I found in the Customs records was actually a completely different John Baker.

Obviously next time I go to Kew I’ll have to check again but Ham’s appears to include a full alphabetical list of all staff. So I don’t think I could have missed one.

By the way, Glenys, I take your point that Customs Officers were often moved around (stopped mutually beneficial but illegal relationships developing with the punters) but this might not apply if he worked in headquarters

I’m left with the thought that either my John Baker consistently lied about his occupation or that he was actually employed under a different surname. The civil service was, of course, one employer that required a birth certificate or equivalent before employing someone. It may be that the name he usually went under was simply not the name that he was born with. In theory there shouldn’t have been a problem with an alias, but perhaps he thought he would avoid hassle if he simply used his original name.

Is this far fetched or is there a more obvious explanation?

[busyglen]

I’m left with the thought that either my John Baker consistently lied about his occupation or that he was actually employed under a different surname. The civil service was, of course, one employer that required a birth certificate or equivalent before employing someone. It may be that the name he usually went under was simply not the name that he was born with. In theory there shouldn’t have been a problem with an alias, but perhaps he thought he would avoid hassle if he simply used his original name.

Is this far fetched or is there a more obvious explanation?

Mmmmm! I see your point. Name changes did happen a lot for various reasons, and I have one in my family that has caused me some grief!

Another point to consider, although I am sure you have already thought of this, is that his christian name is not the one he was given at birth. I spent a couple of years looking for a Joseph who was shown as such on the 1881 and 1901, only to be told by someone researching the same name, that he was christened and registered as James Joseph ! He chose to drop the James at some stage, but at least I was then able to obtain his birth cert. Mind you, as you said, surely he would have had to produce his birth cert. to the Civil Service, so they would have picked that up.

I do hope you have some luck soon.

Glenys