Gainer 1972, pp 68-69; Taylor 1993, pp 176-77.

Mass meetings were the League’s well-tried formula to exploit to best advantage the enthusiasm created by the aliens’ question. The first meeting was held in Stepney in March 1901 and the hall was packed to overflowing, as was the case with all subsequent meetings.

The activities of the League began to taper off towards the end o f 1903 at least partly because anti-alien Tory MPs attempted to distance themselves, alarmed by its descent into rabid anti-Semitism. However, it is clear that the League had an important role in pushing for immigration restrictions. In January 1902 Evans-Gordon moved an amendment to the King’s Speech in the House of Commons demanding immediate immigration control. He insisted that immigration was not objected to because the newcomers were Jews but ‘purely on social and economic grounds’.

2.2. Towards Immigration Regulations: Aliens Act 1905 and Its Followers

The outcome of the actions of Evans-Gordon and his Conservative associates was that the Government promised to appoint a Royal Commission on the Alien Question. The seven-man Commission, under Lord James, was appointed on 21 March 1902 to inquire and report on 1) the character and extent of the evils which are attributed to the

unrestricted immigration of aliens, especially in the metropolis; 2) the measures which had been adopted for the restriction and control of alien immigration in foreign

countries and British colonies; and 3) to advise on what remedial and precautionary measures it thought was desirable to adopt in the UK.

In the summer of 1903 the Royal Commission reported after hearing a mountain of evidence and examination of charges made by the anti-alien lobby over the previous

Alderman 1992, p. 134; Gainer 1971, pp. 69-71. Finestein 1993, p. 223; Foot 1965, pp. 88-89. Lipman 1990, p. 70.

years, as well as evidence from Jewish witnesses. At its conclusion the Commission stated that it seemed to be established that a large number of alien immigrants had entered the country during the last 20 years and that it was mainly composed o f Russian and Polish Jews. However, the Commission found that the charges of the restrictionists, especially regarding the numbers of immigrants, were inaccurate and exaggerated. The number of immigrants in Britain was still very small compared with other countries. Only 0.609 per cent of the British population were aliens while the figures in some other countries were: Germany 1.38, France 2.66, Austria 1.98 and Switzerland 9.58 per cent respectively.

The Commission did not find substance in the claim that Jewish immigrants were taking jobs from British workers. However, it found greater substantial evidence to allegations that by congregating in certain parts of cities, immigrants were to some extent responsible for the shortage of housing and increase in rents. The Commission was unanimous in its view that there was no case for the total exclusion o f alien immigrants from Britain. However, they formed the view that it was necessary to regulate the entry o f certain classes of immigrants, especially those arriving from Eastern Europe. They also thought that special regulations should be made for the purpose o f preventing aliens choosing their residence within districts that were already overcrowded.

As a practical recommendation, the Commission formed the view that a Department of Immigration should be established either in connection with the Board o f Trade or as an independent unit. This Immigration Department should have the power to make and enforce orders and regulations that might be made applicable to immigrants generally, or to vessels arriving at, or from, certain ports, or to certain classes o f immigrants. They also stated that there should be a provision for medical examination o f alien immigrants at the port of arrival and that in case of infectious disease or mental incapacity, the medical officer should have power to prevent such immigrant from landing. The other undesirable groups that might be prevented from landing were criminals, prostitutes,

Reports o f the Commissioners. Royal Commission on Alien Immigration; 1903, Cd 1741, V ol. IX, p. 40; Foot 1965, pp. 89-90.

and those likely to become a charge on public fiinds.^® The last provision was very significant because it was the one that could most effectively be used for preventing poor Jewish immigrants from landing in the country. This had been the most important reason for the Liberal opposition of Salisbury’s and Hardinge’s Bills in the 1890s and it became an important issue once again.

The Tories around Vincent and Evans-Gordon were jubilant. Their demands for rigid controls on immigration were no longer merely the outpourings of reactionary Tories, but were now written into the recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is also clear that Balfour’s (Unionist) Government was not by this time particularly worried about the aliens lobby. The Conservatives, who had been in power, almost without interruption, for twenty years were tom internally by the powerful protection lobby around Chamberlain and stubborn in their opposition to any social reform for the working class. Vincent and Evans-Gordon might have actually supplied an answer that could please all the warring factions of their own party and had the added advantage of winning a few cheap votes around the East End.

In February 1904 the King’s Speech announced the birth of the Government Aliens Bill, which followed the recommendations of the Royal Commission. In pages it was longer than any o f its predecessors but its provisions were rather simple and vague. Its main provision was to empower the Home Secretary, through immigration officers, to prohibit, without appeal, the landing of any alien who had been convicted in a foreign country of crime in previous years; who was likely to become a charge on public funds; who was without means o f visible means of support; and, finally, who was ‘of

notoriously bad character’.

The Bill came up for second reading in April, at which time the Liberals opposed it vigorously on the grounds that it constituted an attack on political asylum and that the problems were best met by anti-sweating legislation. The Government’s defence was

Reports o f Commissioners. Royal Commission on Alien Immigration; 1903, Cd 1741, Vol. IX, p. 41; Lipman 1990, p. 71.

inept and the spokesmen o f government denied that real refugees or aliens o f good quality would be kept out at all. In the Grand Committee, the fierce Liberal opposition under the leadership o f Winston Churchill led to the rejection of the Bill, though with fervent assurances for its re-introduction in the f u t u r e . ^ 2

After the withdrawal o f the Bill there was pressure for its réintroduction throughout the winter from the Unionist MPs. Also the Government by now may have had its own reasons for wishing to push the Bill through Parliament. While iijimigration continued to rise, a series o f heavy by-election defeats at the beginning o f the year 1905, a probable election year, made the Government’s position difficult. Soon the Conservative Central Office was circulating anti-alien and anti-Liberal leaflets.

The new Bill introduced on 18 April 1905 was an improvement over its egregious predecessor. There were several omissions from the Royal Commission’s

recommendations It did not mention overcrowded ‘prohibited areas’ or certificates of good character. The Bill stipulated that immigrant ships were permitted to land only at eight designated ports and that aliens could be refused to land if they could not prove they had the means of decently supporting themselves and their dependants, or if they were insane, idiots or likely to become a charge on the rates through disease or infirmity (a significant modification) or if they had been sentenced abroad for a non-political crime. However, permission to land was not to be refused on grounds o f poverty if the immigrant could prove that he or she was a refugee from religious or political

persecution. This recognition of the right of asylum was an important feature o f the first aliens legislation, as this clause was not to be included in the following

immigration legislation.

There were no new features in the debates. By this time the Labour Members had joined the Liberals in opposing the Bill. During the earlier Bill, the Labour Party, although

Garrard 1971, pp. 41-43.