Thank you Caroline and Graham, that was very interesting to know that he may not have needed a passport. Anne On 11/25/2010 5:53 PM, Caroline Bradford wrote: > Hi Anne > > It seems, from the National Archives information sheet on the subject > (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/passports.htm) > that the index is all there is. > > At that time, passports would only have been issued to individuals with a > particular need for documentary evidence of the protection of the Crown - > merchants travelling to strange and dangerous parts, for instance. An > emigrant to Australia would not have needed one. > > HTH > > Caroline >

Anne Chapman wrote: > Thank you Caroline and Graham, that was very interesting to know that he > may not have needed a passport. Passports didn't become compulsory until 1917 (IIRC). Canada, Australia, New Zealand were regarded as being part of the UK so no passport was necessary, just as one isn't needed to go to Scotland, Wales or N Ireland (yet!). One isn't needed for the Crown Protectorates of the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands either. I'm not sure about Eire but I don't think one was/is needed there either. If your man was emigrating, then, as has been indicated, he wouldn't have needed one. Even if he was a merchant, I can't see he would have needed one. I don't think Australia was regarded as dangerous per se. -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk http://www.savethegurkhas.co.uk/