_SOCIAL QUESTIONS OF TO-DAY_
EDITED BY H. DE B. GIBBINS, M.A.
THE ALIEN INVASION
* * * * *
SOCIAL QUESTIONS OF TO-DAY.
_Edited by H. de B. GIBBINS, M.A._
Crown 8vo, 2_s._ 6_d._
MESSRS. METHUEN announce the publication of a series of volumes upon
those topics of social, economic and industrial interest that are at
the present moment foremost in the public mind. Each volume of the
series is written by an author who is an acknowledged authority upon
the subject with which he deals, and who treats his question in a
thoroughly sympathetic but impartial manner, with special reference to
the historic aspect of the subject.
_The following form the earlier Volumes of the Series_:--
=1. TRADE UNIONISM--NEW AND OLD.= G. HOWELL, M.P., Author of
_The Conflicts of Capital and Labour_. [_Ready._
=2. PROBLEMS OF POVERTY:= An Inquiry into the Industrial Condition of
the Poor. By J. A. HOBSON, M.A. [_Ready._
=3. THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT TO-DAY.= G. J. HOLYOAKE,
Author of _The History of Co-operation_. [_Ready._
=4. MUTUAL THRIFT.= Rev. J. FROME WILKINSON, M.A., Author of
_The Friendly Society Movement_. [_Ready._
=5. THE COMMERCE OF NATIONS.= C. F. BASTABLE, LL.D.,
Professor of Political Economy in the University of Dublin.
[_Ready._
=6. THE ALIEN INVASION.= W. H. WILKINS, B.A., Secretary to
the Association for Preventing the Immigration of Destitute Aliens.
(With an Introductory Note by the Right Reverend the Bishop of
Bedford.) [_Ready._
=7. THE RURAL EXODUS:= Problems of Village Life. P. ANDERSON
GRAHAM. [_In the Press._
=8. LAND NATIONALIZATION.= HAROLD COX, B.A. [_In the Press._
_The following are in preparation_:--
=9. MODERN LABOUR AND OLD ECONOMICS.= H. DE B. GIBBINS, M.A.
(Editor), Author of _The Industrial History of England_.
=10. ENGLISH SOCIALISM OF TO-DAY.= HUBERT BLAND, one of the
Authors of _Fabian Essays_.
=11. ENGLISH LAND AND ENGLISH MEN.= Rev. C. W. STUBBS, M.A.,
Author of _The Labourers and the Land_.
=12. CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM IN ENGLAND.= Rev. J. CARTER, M.A.,
of Pusey House, Oxford.
=13. THE EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE.= J. R. DIGGLE, M.A.,
Chairman of the London School Board.
=14. POVERTY AND PAUPERISM.= Rev. L. R. PHELPS, M.A., Fellow
of Oriel College, Oxford.
=15. CONTINENTAL LABOUR.= W. MAXWELL.
=16. WOMEN'S WORK.= LADY DILKE.
* * * * *
THE ALIEN INVASION
BY
W. H. WILKINS, B.A.
(_Clare College, Cambridge_)
AUTHOR OF A MONOGRAPH UPON "THE TRAFFIC IN ITALIAN CHILDREN"
WITH AN INTRODUCTORY NOTE
BY THE
RIGHT REVEREND THE BISHOP OF BEDFORD
Methuen & Co.
18, BURY STREET, LONDON, W.C.
1892
[_All Rights reserved_]
* * * * *
RICHARD CLAY & SONS, LIMITED,
LONDON & BUNGAY.
* * * * *
TO
The Right Honourable the Earl of Dunraven, K.G.,
THE LEADER OF
THE MOVEMENT FOR PROTECTING OUR PEOPLE
AGAINST THE INVASION OF THE DESTITUTE
AND WORTHLESS OF OTHER LANDS,
This Little Volume is Dedicated,
IN GRATEFUL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
OF MUCH ENCOURAGEMENT, AND MANY KINDNESSES.
* * * * *
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
My object in writing this little book has been to collect together in
a popular and readable form the main facts connected with the question
of destitute immigration. I have endeavoured to set forth as concisely
as possible the evils consequent upon our present system, and to place
before the public the leading arguments in favour of some moderate and
judicious restriction of the influx of the destitute and worthless of
other countries. In doing so, I have studiously avoided identifying
this important question with any particular party, or any particular
creed. It is a matter which concerns the nation as a whole, and it is
one in which men of all creeds and parties--Jew or Christian, Liberal
or Conservative--may unite together for good. The advisability of
restricting our present system of unchecked destitute immigration is
a matter upon which there exists considerable difference of opinion.
In giving expression to my earnest convictions, I ask for that same
indulgence which I willingly extend to those who may differ from my
conclusions.
W. H. WILKINS.
15B, ARLINGTON STREET, S.W.
_January 1892._
INTRODUCTORY NOTE.
I have been asked to write a short preface to a work in which the
author proposes to afford the public information with respect to the
immigration of destitute aliens into this country. He will discuss
the evil incident to an immigration that is practically uncontrolled;
and he will suggest the lines in which, in his opinion, remedial
legislation should be promoted.
The subject is one of very great importance, and I am confident it will
be approached by the writer in a dispassionate spirit. He must know
that he will fail of his object unless it is perfectly clear he is
not influenced by any prejudice against the race to which the greater
part of the destitute immigrants are known to belong. He will make it
abundantly clear there is no desire or intention to forbid the man
who is persecuted, either for his religious creed or his political
opinions, from finding an asylum among us.
It is the opinion of many who have given to this subject much
consideration, that the destitute foreigners who come to England in
such numbers exchange into a condition that is hardly less tolerable,
than that from which they have fled in the lands of their birth. It is
said they exercise an influence that is morally and socially to the
hurt of those among whom they come to dwell. It is contended that they
injuriously compete with our own people in the labour market. It is
often urged that they compel our people to seek a home and employment
in other lands, because of the glut they cause in the labour market,
and because of their readiness to accept wages and to be content with
conditions of living which are unacceptable, and something more than
merely unacceptable, to the Englishman.
These allegations require to be investigated. It is important to
ascertain what the number of foreign immigrants really is, and what
is their condition when they land among us. It is desirable we should
know what provision is made, if any, for their reception, and what
becomes of the men, women, and children, who are said to arrive in
London in large numbers, and for the most part absolutely destitute.
Is overcrowding, with its consequent miseries and ills, appreciably
increased in the East End of London? These are questions on which
the public ought to be informed, and the guardians of the health,
and morals, and general well-being of the people must desire to be
enlightened on these matters. If the evils that are said to be the
results of the immigration of destitute aliens are found to exist, it
will be for our legislators to devise in their wisdom the appropriate
remedy. I will only venture to express one opinion with reference to
this difficult and intricate subject.
I am of opinion it is not safe to allow things to remain as they are
without thorough investigation. On the part of the immigrants there is
a widespread feeling that they are the victims of unjust aspersions;
on the part of the native population there is a disquieting feeling
that the authorities are indifferent to their interests, and careless
of their sufferings. The antipathy of race to race is consequently and
injuriously fomented. It is not to the good of the whole community that
this state of things should be allowed to continue. If this book shall
help to throw light upon the matters in dispute, and influence public
opinion to move the authorities to investigation, and, if the evils
said to follow upon unrestricted immigration are found to exist, to
endeavour to remove them by legislation--it will not have been written
in vain.
R. C. BEDFORD.
CONTENTS.
CHAP. PAGE
I. THE GENERAL ASPECT 1
II. INCREASE AND EXTENT 17
III. JEWISH IMMIGRATION 35
IV. ITALIAN IMMIGRATION 54
V. ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS 68
VI. WOMAN'S BITTER CRY 85
VII. THE SANITARY DANGER 95
VIII. THE SOCIAL EVIL 104
IX. LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES 115
X. THE EXAMPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 127
XI. THE COLONIAL ASPECT 136
XII. THE REMEDIES 147
* * * * *
APPENDIX A. SOME OBSOLETE ALIEN ACTS 157
" B. THE ALIEN ACT OF WILLIAM IV. 161
" C. ITALIAN LAW AS TO VAGRANTS 167
" D. THE DANISH ALIEN LAW 169
" E. SUMMARY OF THE LAWS OF THE
UNITED STATES 176
" F. SOME COLONIAL IMMIGRANT ACTS 179
" G. LIST OF TRADES UNIONS WHICH
HAVE CONDEMNED PAUPER IMMIGRATION 186
INDEX 189
THE ALIEN INVASION.
CHAPTER I.
THE GENERAL ASPECT.
The unrestricted influx of destitute aliens into the United Kingdom is
a matter which has for some time past attracted a considerable amount
of public attention. Within the last few years a Select Committee
of the House of Commons has inquired into this question, and has
published a report acknowledging its extent and recognizing some of
its evils. The Sweating Committee of the House of Lords has dealt with
it indirectly, so far as it concerned the subject in hand. Trades
Unions and Labour Congresses have passed resolutions condemning, in a
more or less general way, the present system of unchecked and unsifted
immigration. But it is only quite recently that it has advanced to a
place within the realm of practical politics. Few public questions have
ripened so quickly as this has done. Last year[1] it was discussed, it
is true, but only in an academic way, as one of those matters which
loom among "the dim and distant visions of the future." To-day it
is emphatically one of the questions of the hour. The Electorate is
considering it, the Press--that sure reflex of public opinion--is
discussing it, and the leaders of political parties, forced by the
growing pressure from beneath, are making up their minds about it.
The reasons for this are not very far to seek. Two great causes have
tended to bring this question to the front at the present time.
One, the recent edicts promulgated by the Czar against his Jewish
subjects in Russia, edicts with which no right-thinking man can have
any possible sympathy, and which necessarily have the result of
driving many thousands of Russian Jews to seek their fortunes anew in
other lands; the other, the action this year[2] of the United States
Government, in passing a law which has had the effect of practically
closing the Atlantic ports to the poorer class of aliens altogether.
Now since the inevitable tendency in the movement of peoples is from
East to West, and since Great Britain, after America, is admittedly the
country to which the greatest portion of these Eastern immigrants come,
it follows, as a matter of course, that the action of the American
Government in thus shutting their doors to the refuse population of the
Old World, cannot fail to have the effect of greatly intensifying the
evil here. Our little overcrowded island is really the only place left
for them to come--the only country among all the nations of Europe,
with one insignificant exception, which has not seen fit to protect
its own people against the influx of the destitute and unfit of other
lands. These are the two principal causes which have forced this
question to the front. There is another also which will prevent its
ever again sinking into the background. It is this. The working-classes
of this country, with whom rests the balance of political power, have
taken the matter up, and, having once taken it up, they will not let it
drop. On this I shall dwell more fully later on. I merely allude to it
now, as one of the factors which will have to be considered in dealing
with this problem.
In taking a general survey of the situation, the first thing that
strikes one is the isolated action of England in this matter, when
compared with other nations. It may be laid down as an axiom admitting
of no cavil, that it is the duty of every State to deal with its own
paupers and undesirable citizens; and moreover it is obvious that this
desirable state of affairs can only be brought about by other countries
refusing to admit them. This common-sense view has been adopted by
all other European countries, except Portugal, which has practically
no immigration at all, and can scarcely, therefore, be said to count;
by all our principal colonies, notably, Australia, Tasmania, New
Zealand, and Canada; by the great Republic of the United States, and
in a general sense by nearly every civilized nation throughout the
world. Those of our colonies which have not prohibitory statutes, have
the power, and use it too, of passing restraining laws from time to
time as need requires, which effectually meet the purpose for which
they are enacted. All through Europe there are either laws prohibiting
the admission of undesirable aliens, or the police regulations and
local customs render their continued residence impossible. Even the
well-to-do Englishman who goes abroad, for no other purpose than to
spend his money, finds himself compelled, should he remain in one
place for any length of time, to contribute, in all sorts of ways, to
the taxes of the country in which he resides. Rightly so too, since
he enjoys the benefit of the protection which the State affords to
him. In particular instances this rule may seem to press hardly on
individuals, since in Germany, for instance, even an Englishwoman
who gives a few lessons in her native tongue is compelled to pay a
tax upon her earnings, a tax in some cases so large as to make the
pittance she obtains hardly worth the earning. Yet those aliens who
are sent to us from other countries--I speak now of the destitute
and unfit--contribute nothing to our taxes, nothing to our national
welfare, nothing to our national defence; they take everything and
give nothing in return, even worse than nothing, since their habits
and their customs exercise a most injurious effect upon the English
community with whom they come in contact.
What then can be urged against England following the example of other
countries in this matter? Nothing but a mere sentiment that she is
a country free and open to all, and that all who will should find a
refuge upon her hospitable shores. This is a sentiment worthy of all
honour, but hospitality may be carried too far, and in this instance
it is not a question of its exercise, but of its abuse. There is a
homely maxim that "Charity begins at home," and if this be true of
individuals it is no less true of nations. The first duty of the father
of a household is towards his own family. He must not give bread to
others while his own children are starving. He must not give shelter to
the stranger, and drive his sons and daughters out into the cold. In
the same way, the first duty of a nation is to its own kith and kin.
It must not open its arms to the surplus population of other lands,
while its own people are clamouring in vain for work. Yet this is the
case, and while every day destitute aliens are pouring in, Englishmen
are driven from the land of their birth to make room for them. Speaking
last year at Liverpool, upon the subject of our rapidly-increasing
population, Lord Derby is reported to have said that "Emigration is
the only palliative." On all subjects connected with population Lord
Derby is a great authority; but of what avail, I would ask him, is
it to recommend emigration as a panacea for our social ills, when for
every hundred of our people taken away, a leak remains behind by which
thousands more of an immeasurably inferior calibre come pouring in,
by whom the conditions of existence are made harder than before, and
the standard of comfort and decency in the home-life of our people is
infinitely lowered? As illustrative of this it may be mentioned that
at Leeds, where there is a very large and increasing foreign colony,
some £500 was spent in 1887 in emigrating English children to Canada;
and evidence was given before the Sweating Committee to the effect that
one day a party of 500 emigrants, mostly young men in the full prime of
their health and vigour, sailed out of Tilbury Docks, and at the same
time another vessel, having on board 700 foreigners, came in. Truly, we
are an eccentric nation!
It was George Cruikshank who in allegory drew a map of England with a
board on a pole stuck in the centre, and on it the following notice
to Europe, "Rubbish may be shot here." It was a caricature, and like
all caricatures subject to exaggeration, but it contained within it
the germs of a great truth. But even Cruikshank little dreamed that
these people would ever arrive here at the rate of 40,000 and 50,000
per annum. Had he done so the notice would rather have run, "No
admittance." "Oh," but I hear some say, "you would check this influx,
but what of the people we emigrate to other countries?" I would answer
that there is no just or fair comparison to be drawn between the people
we send away, chiefly young and able-bodied men, and the wretched,
under-sized, destitute immigrants we gain in exchange. As things
are at present all schemes of emigration and colonization, however
well-meaning, are beside the mark. We are drawing out of the barrel
and pouring in at the top. More than that, we are drawing out good
wine and pouring in bad. It is idle to talk of reprisals, because, as
I have already pointed out, other countries have taken steps to guard
against this evil. No other civilized nation will take our paupers, our
criminals, our lunatics, our outcasts. Why then, in the name of common
sense, should we be compelled to take theirs?
Many attempts have been made to confuse this simple issue. Many red
herrings have been drawn across the track. It has been said, without
one jot or tittle of evidence, that this demand for some moderate
measure of restriction, veils behind it a desire to check foreign
immigration altogether. Nothing could be farther from the truth. No
objection can be urged against foreign immigration as a whole, but
only that part of it which exercises an injurious effect upon our own
people. There are, for instance, at the present time many foreigners in
England employed in different professions and vocations, as teachers of
languages, clerks, waiters, cooks, artisans, and so forth. These are
in no sense an evil, for they supply a felt want, and are decent and
cleanly in their habits and mode of living. Many of them are gradually
absorbed into our national life, and become good and useful members of
the community. The skilled labourer, the decent artisan, the man with
brains to work, or with money to spend, is always welcome to our shores.
Such were the Huguenots. They had not much money, perhaps, but they
brought with them something more precious than mere wealth,--the brain,
the bone, the muscle, and the manufacturing talent of France. They
introduced into England arts and manufactures hitherto unknown, and
they added to the lustre of their adopted country by contributing to
the science and the literature of the day. They were in fact the _fine
fleur_ of the French nation.
A similar influx was that of the Flemings, which took place at an
earlier period of England's history. The Flemings, who introduced into
our country the finer kind of weaving, first came to England during the
reign of Edward III. The weavers of England were then unable to produce
any of the better kinds of cloth, and the difficulties and expense
of having to send abroad whenever any material was required superior
to the coarse home-made product were necessarily great. Under these
circumstances, it was obviously a wise policy of the English king to
induce the Flemish weavers to come over to England, and to bring their
looms with them. The high wages offered, and the prospect held out of
ample employment, soon brought large numbers. A like policy was pursued
by several of the other English kings who reigned during the period
which elapsed between the death of Edward III. and the accession of
Edward VI., and there was from time to time a considerable influx of
skilled artisans of all classes. In the reign of Edward VI. it appears
however that public opinion had veered round. The influx of Flemings
and of foreigners generally had become so considerable, that there was
a general agreement on the part of the native-born population that it
was no longer necessary to hold out inducements to foreign craftsmen,
since their presence in large numbers destroyed the demand for good
English work, and acted detrimentally upon the interests of English
tradesmen. Accordingly we find the citizens of London petitioning the
Privy Council to put a stop to this foreign influx, but the only result
appears to have been that an estimate, or census, was taken of all the
foreigners then resident in London.
One must not infer, however, from the case of the Flemings that the
advent of the foreigner was always welcome, or that the outcry against
him in the reign of Edward VI. was a new thing. The history of the
alien in Great Britain has yet to be written, and space does not permit
of its being dwelt upon to any great extent here. Yet in looking back
upon the legislative enactments of the Plantagenets and early Tudor
kings, which have been briefly referred to elsewhere,[3] one cannot
but be struck at the way in which popular opinion--of which these acts
were doubtless the outcome--wavered on this subject. The generous
treatment accorded to the Flemings and other skilled foreign craftsmen
who came to England from time to time contrasts strangely with the
harshness with which foreigners were treated at other times. In 1155,
for instance, there was an anti-foreign outcry, and many foreigners--in
fact all that could be found--were first plundered of their worldly
goods, and then banished from the kingdom. Later on they were allowed
to return, though still compelled to suffer certain disabilities. At
one time the popular prejudice against foreigners was so great that
their lives and property were always in danger, and they suffered much
unfair treatment. The wise policy of Edward III. removed many of these
disabilities, and a special Act was passed in the reign of Richard II.
by which they were relieved still more. These Acts were those rather of
the king and the upper classes than of the common people, among whom
the animus against the foreigner was still so strong that that bulwark
of English liberty, trial by jury, was to the alien of no avail,
since any charge brought against him, whether true or false, almost
invariably resulted in his conviction by a British jury. To do away
with this injustice the Enactment of 1430 was passed, which provided
that an alien, if he so wished, might be tried by a mixed jury, of whom
half were to be Englishmen and the other half foreigners. This singular
Statute remained in force until 1870, when the Naturalization Act of
that year abolished the privilege of the alien to claim a mixed jury.
This Act also repealed all previous Acts except the now well-known Act
of 6 & 7 William IV. cap. II., which provides for the registration of
aliens, and to which further allusion will be made later on.
Harsh and unnecessary as some of the enactments which were directed
against aliens during the reigns of the Plantagenet kings appear to
us now, we may congratulate ourselves on the fact that even in the
reigns of the Plantagenet kings our Statute Book was never disgraced
by such an unjust measure as the French _Droit d'Aubaine_, which
confiscated to the Crown the whole of the property of an alien, thus
leaving him destitute in a foreign country. This Statute was repealed
in 1791. It was revived by the Code Napoleon, but only for a brief
space, and was finally abolished the year after Napoleon's downfall at
Waterloo. The _Droit d'Aubaine_ was of considerable antiquity, having
been doubtless modelled on the alien laws of ancient Athens, under
which similar confiscations of the property of an alien took place,
though, in spite of the severity of their laws, the Athenians always
welcomed the foreign craftsmen and the artists and skilled workmen
of other nationalities. In Rome under the Republic somewhat similar
laws to those of Athens existed against the alien, but with the Empire
all disabilities were swept away, and Rome gladly welcomed all who
ministered to her luxuries and to her pleasures.
It is hardly necessary to say that no unprejudiced person would
desire England to revert to the harsh measures of the Plantagenet and
Tudor kings, still less to stain her Statute Book by such a measure
as the _Droit d'Aubaine_, however great might be the provocation.
Yet the memory of those acts need not prevent us from considering
dispassionately, and with due regard to the changed circumstances
of our age and country, the advisability of passing some wise and
judicious measure for the sifting of alien immigration at the present
time. The objection to all the measures to which allusion has been made
is, that they were directed against foreigners simply because they were
foreigners, and not for the reason their presence militated to any
considerable extent against the well-being of the English community,
and certainly not because they added to overcrowding, to destitution,
or to disease. The Flemings and the Huguenots have their parallels
to-day in the foreign teachers of languages, in the French cooks and
milliners, in the German clerks, cabinet-makers, and waiters; in the
Italian cooks, manufacturers of Venetian glass, &c.; in the skilled
craftsmen of whatever nationality who arrive upon our shores. Against
these no reasonable objection can be urged. They are useful members of
the community, we gain by their presence among us, and their advent is
a welcome one. But it cannot be seriously contended that the Flemings
and the Huguenots have their parallel in the destitute and degraded
immigrants from East of Europe, or the vagrant and vicious aliens from
the South. Whatever our sympathies towards these people may be, there
is every reason why we should not welcome them here. As things are,
these new arrivals add in a manner altogether out of proportion to
their numbers to the miseries of our poor in the congested districts
of our great towns, to which they invariably drift. There are many
practical ways in which we can show our sympathy with the persecuted
Russian Jews if we wish to do so, notably by combining to divert the
stream of immigration from our own densely populated little island, and
by helping the would-be immigrants to move on to some new land beyond
the seas. This we may do; but for their own sake, and for the sake of
our people, we should try to prevent them from coming here.
With an imperfect knowledge of the facts we are hardly in a position
to judge of the action which the Russian Government has seen fit to
take against its Jewish subjects. On the surface it certainly appears
that a great wrong has been done, a wrong which is also a blunder,
but we must remember that we have not yet heard what there is to be
urged on the other side. We can scarcely be expected to credit without
adequate proof all the hearsay tales of Russian oppression. Isolated
instances do not suffice. If a Russian were to make a collection of
all the instances of murder, outrage, and misery which unhappily still
stain the annals of our law-courts, he would hardly present to his
compatriots a faithful picture of English life. Is there not just
a possibility that we may be condemning Russia on somewhat similar
evidence? It is said,--one cannot say how truly,--that the system of
usury and extortion practised by many of the Russian Jews upon the
peasantry has, in a large measure, tended to bring about the present
state of things. Again we are told that the increase of Russian Jews
has of late been so rapid that there is a danger, if things go on at
the present rate, of the orthodox Slavs being swamped by a section of
the population little in sympathy with the Government under which they
live. These are some of the reasons, we are informed, which have led
to the adoption of harsh measures against the Russian Jews. On the
surface such reasons seem very inadequate, and with the measures which
are said to flow from them no right-thinking man can have sympathy. For
her difficulties with her Jewish population Russia has only herself to
thank. The long years of oppression to which they have been subjected
have degraded them, until their ignorance and dislike of their masters
have become a danger to the State. Anything which savours of a
religious persecution is abhorrent to all liberal-minded men; and if it
be true, as alleged, that the present sufferings of the Russian Jews
are inflicted upon them because of their faith, then our sympathies
with the victims of such an unholy persecution cannot be too great.
At the same time we are not in a position to dictate to Russia. Some
zealous and well-meaning people tried the experiment at a meeting at
the Mansion House last year, with the result that they were virtually
told to mind their own business. The "protest," however, had one
unfortunate consequence. The repressive measures were made more drastic
than before, and the unfortunate Hebrews, naturally interpreting the
sympathy shown to them as an inducement to come here, have since
arrived upon our hospitable shores in greater numbers than before. In
support of this opinion may be quoted the following paragraph which
appeared in the supplement of the _St. Petersburger Zeitung_ last June.
"We hear that a charitable association has been formed, with the
praiseworthy object of assisting the Russian Jews out of their present
miserable situation. An opportunity is to be given them of emigrating
to those countries where sympathy has been publicly expressed for
them. The first thing this association intends doing is to send the
Jews by Libau and Riga to London, where public opinion has clearly
enough shown itself to be on their side. For this purpose four steamers
are to be chartered to carry these Jews to the banks of the Thames at
the lowest possible rates, and it is expected that it will take the
whole of the summer to carry out this plan. The philanthropists in St.
Petersburg hope that the friends of the Jews in England will give them
their hearty support, and help to provide for these poor creatures when
they arrive in London."
This is taking us at our word with a vengeance! Surely for the sake
of these poor immigrants themselves it is high time that some means
should be found to prevent their arriving here in such numbers. The
miseries which many of the Russian Jews undergo in the East End of
London and some of our large provincial cities must be as bad as those
which they have endured in the inhospitable land from whence they
came. In some cases their lot here must be even worse. Quite recently
an instance of the sufferings which these poor creatures undergo came
to light in Whitechapel. Adolphe Cashneer, a Russo-Jewish immigrant,
was summoned before the coroner of East London[4] to give evidence as
to the death of his infant child. The man, who was unable to speak a
word of English, stated that he had been out of work for six weeks--he
worked in the cheap tailoring trade--that the mother had received
no medical attention except a midwife at confinement, no food but
three-halfpennyworth of milk a day, and a share of a fowl which lasted
them five days, and for which the husband had pawned his trousers. The
deceased child had no clothes but a napkin to cover it. It lived only
one week and then died of starvation! The doctor in describing the
wretched room where these poor people lived, said there were no sheets
or blankets on the bed, the mother had no proper clothing, and there
was no food beyond some sour milk in a dirty glass, quite unfit for
human consumption. A more impressive object-lesson of the evils of our
present system of unchecked and pauper immigration than that unfolded
in this tale of sordid misery it would be impossible to conceive. And
yet this is by no means an isolated case. Dr. Dukes stated that he
continually came across such cases. He went on to say in his evidence
at the inquest:--"I continually come across such cases as this....
The poverty in the East End is terrible." Instances like this cannot
but strengthen the argument against admitting destitute aliens here.
Strangers in a strange land, these miserable new-comers find themselves
worse off than they were before. They are not themselves benefited, and
the only result is that they intensify the awful struggle for existence
which is going on daily and hourly among the poor in our large cities.
It has been said that to limit this influx would be to endanger that
right of asylum which has ever been one of England's boasts and
glories. It is not so. Were a careful and judicious measure passed
for the sifting of alien immigration, it would be quite possible to
insert a clause, similar to that which has been inserted in the new
American Act, which runs as follows:--"That nothing in this Act shall
be construed to apply to or exclude persons convicted of a political
offence, notwithstanding the said political offence may be designated
as a 'felony, crime, infamous crime, or misdemeanour involving moral
turpitude,' by the laws of the land whence he came, or by the court
convicting."
Such is the law in the "land of the free." England, no less than
America, is the home of civil and religious liberty She has great
and glorious traditions; they are illustrated by her treatment of the
Walloons, the Huguenots, the slave-traffic, and all political refugees
from time immemorial. Yet in the past she has not hesitated from time
to time to pass such laws as need and occasion required. To this the
Statute Book is a witness,[5] and her traditions would not be reversed
because in the present day she found it necessary, in the interests
of her own people, to adopt some means for checking this latter-day
invasion. What is asked for is not an offensive but a defensive measure.
England has gained much in the past by her generous treatment of
political refugees. But it must be apparent to every thoughtful man
that the question assumes a very different aspect when we have to deal
not with the influx of a few thousands of skilled workmen at isolated
periods of our history, but with the invasion of some thirty or forty
thousand every year of the class which under ordinary circumstances
would go to fill the poor-houses and penitentiaries of Eastern
Europe. Such a constant pouring in of unskilled labour of necessity
disorganizes the labour market, and compels the displacement of English
workmen who are unable to compete on equal terms with rivals such
as these. The results are plainly shown in the trades and districts
chiefly affected. These immigrants undo by their presence in our midst
all the good which our philanthropists and social reformers have been
labouring for ages to create. It may be true that in the strictly
legal sense of the word comparatively few of them are paupers, since,
as Lord Derby has recently expressed it, "they are quite able to make
their own living." But what a "living" is it? The living of a savage
or a dog, and certainly not one which we like to see Englishmen or
Englishwomen degraded to, or forced into competition with, in the land
that gave them birth. Boast as we may of the succour which we are ever
ready to afford to the oppressed ones of the earth, it is obvious that
we must first look to the interests of our own people. Our supineness
in this matter has allowed the evil to grow to a magnitude it ought
never to have reached, and thus the difficulties surrounding it have
been greatly increased. The Government of the day will incur a grave
responsibility if they do not speedily devote their earnest attention
to this matter.
There are signs all around us that before long something will have to
be done. At a time when the country is being convulsed with conflicts
of labour against capital, and when thousands of our wage-earning
classes are looking in vain for work; at a time when the condition of
the poor in our great cities is engaging the active attention of our
philanthropists, and the columns of the press teem with appeals for the
aid of the homeless and suffering; this ever-increasing addition to the
ranks of our unemployed, with its inevitable tendency to aggravate our
social evils, is calculated to inspire feelings of alarm and dismay
among all those who have the welfare of our people seriously at heart.