Tag: Session 4

Abbie's posts

Session Four – C. Holmes ‘Anti Semitism in British Society, 1876-1939’

abg00010 |

This book by Holmes, as suggested by the title, explores the experience of Jews in Britain at the end of the nineteenth century into the beginning of the twentieth century. The chapter ‘Movements and Measures Against Jews’ details the organised attacks and experiences held by the Jewish population in Britain. Holmes is a specialist in Social and Economic History.

This chapter by Holmes provides an in-depth analysis of the British Brothers League (BBL) and varying attempts in Britain and Ireland that displayed hostility towards Jews. He examines the anti-Semitic nature of the organisation and the United Kingdom itself. Holmes begins the chapter by speaking of the British Brothers League, illustrating that the increase in immigration after 1900 and the current social pressures in London helped the emergence of the league.

Holmes recants the cold manifesto of the league, which states that alien paupers were ‘driving English people out of their native parishes and literally taking the bread out of English peoples mouths’ which was a comment on the American Aliens Act, stressing that if Americans needed restrictions on a country as grand in size of that, then it stressed immediate need for Britain to take action. By including this, Holmes immediately illustrates the brutal hostility of the local population towards the Jews.

As the BBL was growing,  the organisation faced controversy with many differing opinions on alien immigration / anti-Semitism and thus, Tory MP’s were warned about their involvement with the league and often the BBL were associated with ‘extremists’ that had ‘a warmth of language’. Through the negative connotations of the BBL, political officials spent time associating themselves with the Immigration Reform Association (IRA) instead. The IRA, tightly controlled by upper and middle class restrictionists, was opposed to the immigration of those who had ‘bad character’. Their manifesto specifically stated they lay no claim to stress upon the ethnic origins of immigrants. The IRA was favoured by the Conservative government, it was viewed as the more ‘respectable’ group.

Furthermore, Holmes makes sure to document the cases of anti-Semitism in other parts of Britain and Ireland to document the agitation felt by the public. Holmes comments on Limerick, Ireland which had several outbreaks of anti-Semitism often tracing back to a Redemptionist monk. The hostility went as far as the local population planning organised attacks and boycotting Jewish businesses which lasted two years, driving the majority of the Jewish community in Limerick out.

Overall, Holmes details the organisations involved and attacks made that express the hostile environment of Jews in Britain. He uses over 96 sources to illustrate the anti-Semitism in Britain, ultimately concluding on the fact the Aliens Bill is not explicitly anti-Semitic as nothing within the bill specifically casts out Jews, but the organisations at hand in putting the bill through may be another story.

Emily's posts

Jill Pellew- The Home Office and the Aliens Act, 1905

era00011 |

This blog post will discuss Jill Pellew’s article in the Historical Journal, ‘The Home Office and the Aliens act, 1905’.

The article talks about how the 1905 Aliens act was brought about in Britain. Pellow suggests this was due to a number of reasons, including the increase in Jewish refugees, home office concern that rising migration was a threat, and the increase in support for anti-immigration MPs.

Many Jewish refugees were arriving from Eastern Europe and Russia at the end of the 1800s, either fleeing persecution or simply looking for a better life. Many were heading to the United States of America, but some stayed and found work, particularly in tailoring. The high numbers of immigrants and the fear that many would not continue on to the USA helped lead to the creation of the 1905 Aliens act.

Pellew explains that there was a concern in the Home Office about a possible threat from the increase in rising migration, which was thought could come in the form of political instability or criminality. There was a particular fear about anarchists entering Britain, as there had been a wave of anarchist terrorism across Europe during the end of the 19th century. This fear about the political and moral backgrounds of migrants contributed to the 1905 act being created.

The article also suggests that the idea for an Aliens act really gained momentum in 1900 when a number of Unionist MPs gained seats in the east end of London, largely by supporting an anti-alien political line.

Pellew also gives some information as to what changes the act made. For example, the 1905 act stated that certain ports where ships were allowed to discharge passengers would now have immigration officers at them. These immigration officers would have the power to reject any ‘undesirable’ immigrants. An undesirable immigrant was specified in the act as someone who could not ‘decently’ support themselves and their dependants (although there was a special clause which made an exception for immigrants who were seeking entry as political or religious refugees). ‘Undesirables’ also included lunatics or idiots, those sentenced in a foreign country with which there was an extradition treaty, and those who already had an extradition treaty made against them.

The article also mentions that Winston Churchill agreed with home office officials that there should be a miniature Ellis Island facility in Britain, as it made it more difficult for ‘undesirable’ immigrants to evade detection.

Of the immigrants who were rejected due to the 1905 Aliens act, half of them appealed. Of this half, 38 per cent were successful.

Heather's posts

A. Bashford and C. Gilchrist , ‘The Colonial History of the 1905 Aliens Act’

Heather |

Bashford and Gilchrist’s article, ‘The Colonial History of the 1905 Aliens Act’, is a well convincing article that fits into the course theme of government responses. Using large amounts of primary evidence, from legislation, it articulates the point that Britain during the nineteenth century was lagging behind in terms of immigrant restrictions. In comparison to the colonies and further afield such as America, Britain was more liberal with its restrictions. The authors, from this, go onto argue that the Aliens Act of 1905 was modelled off the restrictions of other countries not copied. To do this, Bashford and Gilchrist track the progress of the Aliens Act from the late nineteenth century and the massing agitation to the Royal Commission and finally to the passing of the act in 1905. The authors use a variety of scholarly material from historians such as Colin Holmes to emphasise immigration restriction as a transnational phenomenon and not as a US one.

A large portion of the article is spent detailing the Royal Commission. The authors show that much of the reports produced for the commission were based of legislation in place overseas such as Frederick Mead’s report which presented a proposal based on US laws. In relation, the authors detail the motives of the commission more of a focus on the second motive, to analyse other countries restrictions. For example, the passport control measure which was seen to be effective in Argentina in keeping Jewish immigrants out and deemed by Britain as a ‘satisfactory means of control’. In analysing restrictions, Britain was able to see what worked and what didn’t.

Even though Bashford and Gilchrist detail this process of comparison during the Royal Commission they also emphasises that although restrictions on the continent or America, for example, were similar there were still differences present. For instance, on the continent there was no law defining the class of the arrivals and so it was left up to the police to decide on the immigrant’s status. While in the US, this was placed on the shipping companies who could refuse passage.

Bashford and Gilchrist reference the problem of defining the terms within the act. It was questioned what constituted an ‘undesirable immigrant’. Fredrick Mead’s report in 1902 put forth that undesirables were people who were ‘detrimental to the community’ on the grounds of bad character, disease or offensive habits. Mead turned to the Australian and American restrictions, which prompted criminals as ‘detrimental’. Mead expanded this idea and suggested this had to be further defined by the inclusion of ‘wider categories. The commission agreed that enforcing bad character was problematic but looking to an Australian example found that using convictions since entering the country against the immigrant could be a solution. Clearly, the Royal Commission acknowledged the landing of ‘objectional characters’ (criminals) as something to be prevented and this was influenced by the fact that exclusion of convicted criminals being common in settler- colonial law. But the commission was different, according to the authors, its banishment of criminals derived from continental legal traditions, emphasising an aspect of moulding over copying.

 

Jennifer's posts

Henry Maitles ‘Attitudes to Jewish Immigration in the West of Scotland to 1905’ Scottish Economic and Social History 15 (1995)

jea00051 |

Maitles article is about Jewish immigration to the west of Scotland. It gives detail on many of the reasons that the Jewish community were harassed and bullied when they came here. The article also gives reasons as to why parliament brought in the aliens act 1905.

Maitles begins this chapter by noting that in the West of Scotland Many claimed that resentment and harassment towards immigrants did not happen despite evidence to suggest otherwise from immigrants. He further notes that the reason that Jewish people were coming to Britain was following the Russian revolution as it was suggested the only way to solve the Jewish problem would be if 1/3 emigrated, 1/3 converting and 1/3 being killed. He also notes that fast and cheap travel made it easier to relocate as steam ships and trains developed throughout the 19th century.

Racism and hostility toward immigrants were and still are harmful features of our society. There were false reports that the Jewish community lived in small shtetls and were peasant farmers. However, they were actually restricted to certain trades; financing, cigarette making and clothing. Maitles details how sweating in Britain was a significant factor in anti-immigration attitudes. He notes that many refugees were employed by masters to work at rock bottom rates for long hours in terrible conditions, which cut the rate of fully skilled workers. Sweating caused disease, overcrowding and it also caused a lack of sanitation. In London there were thousands of immigrants involved in sweating but the number in Glasgow was unclear. Sweating was seen as an immigrant problem and then by the end of the 19th century it was seen as a Jewish problem. This Highlighting the hostility towards the immigrants, as the blame should have been on the masters employing the immigrants for such low rates.

Maitles Further details about Immigration controls that came at the end of the 19th century. He details how Some immigrants were even in favour of the aliens act, as there was a class divide between the west and south side Jewish communities. Media outlets were reporting that Britain was a dumping ground for the diseased and poor immigrants as America and Canada would only accept the healthiest. Trade unions were also backing immigration controls to protect workers against poor conditions, wage undercutting and disease.

On August 11th 1905 the aliens act was passed and had immediate effect as the number of immigrants arriving in Britain was decreasing from previous years. However, the liberal government that came into power in 1906 were not harsh on this new law and were accused of flouting the law by the conservatives. The aliens act highlights how easily the British government were swayed by racist attitudes towards immigrants. Even though the immigrants were not to blame for their poor conditions and wages they were given the blame and treated poorly.

Sophie's posts

“Importing Trachoma: The Introduction into Britain of American Ideas of an ‘Immigrant Disease’, 1892-1906” by Krista Maglen

scc00026 |

“Importing Trachoma: The Introduction into Britain of American Ideas of an ‘Immigrant Disease’, 1892- 1906”, written by Krista Maglen primarily argues that trachoma became a significant discussion in the British political and medical scene, and played a role in the 1905 Alien Act: Britain’s first restrictive immigration act. Furthermore, Maglen also contends that increased legislation in America led to the perception of trachoma as a disease carried by immigrants.

The article begins by outlining that migrants have frequently been associated with disease, and their communities in Britain were often perceived as places where disease was prevalent. Additionally, Maglen mentions that little has been written about trachoma’s association with immigrants in Britain and the link it has with America. She does, however, mention that historian Kenneth Collins discusses trachoma and its link to Jewish immigrants in Glasgow at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Furthermore, Maglen explains the importance of the fact that over one million of the estimated 2.4 million Russian and Polish immigrants who settled in America passed through British ports. This is key because America’s immigration legislations restricted the entrance of migrants with disease, which meant that those who were rejected from America were taken back to their last port of departure. Steamships would frequently return migrants to Britain instead of Eastern and Central Europe as it was less distance from America. Therefore, many Brits were not supportive of the ‘undesirable’ immigrants being brought back to live in Britain, thus, the American view of particular diseases as ‘immigrant diseases’ quickly became popular in Britain. In addition, Brits viewed these migrants as not only an economic burden, but also a threat to public health. Maglen emphasises that trachoma was easily identifiable through inflammation and redness in the eyes, therefore making it easy for anti-immigration campaigners to push their agenda due to the disease’s aspect of visibility.

Furthermore, Maglen states that this issue became prominent in the British medical press in 1892 and remained there throughout the decade. Additionally, the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration in 1902-03 took evidence about trachoma from ophthalmic physicians, including Francis Tyrrell who stated that “the Jewish people are peculiarly prone to trachoma”. Although it was transparent that immigrants weren’t the cause of trachoma, the final report did not oppose to the categorising of trachoma sufferers as undesirable for entry into Britain. Maglen concludes that the restrictions of trachoma sufferers did not have a significant impact on Britain because trachoma did not generally have a large impact in Britain, and was, for the most part, a concept used by anti-immigration campaigners to further their cause.

Overall, this article is well-written, well-structured and provides a convincing argument. Maglen uses multiple primary sources, such as the evidence of a Medical Officer and ophthalmic surgeon at the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration in 1902, to support her argument, which strengthens the source overall. The article highlights one of the reasons why the Aliens Act of 1905 was introduced and shows how the British perception of migrants was altered by American legislation.