The Alien Menace   Click for the full text, below.   The first panel is my review.

A. H. Lane (Arthur Henry Lane)   The Alien Menace. A Statement of the Case
First Published: 1928. Enlarged Edition: 1934   Review: 22 August 2017
One of the small number of books hostile to Jews published in Britain between the wars. Deals with the period from the founding of the so-called “Labour” Party, to Europe after the ‘Great War’. Although sound enough, it includes some common errors, which weaken his case, and persist today. Not therefore perfect; but filled with detail.
US reprint of The Alien Menace
Arthur Henry Lane (1868-1938) was essentially a vet, from a time when horses were the main transporters of men and materiel where there were no railways. As far as I can deduce from Wikipedia, Lane took part in removal of horse waste, and removing horses from Boers, in about 1900, and during the 'Great War'. [I've just noticed a comment from Jan Lamprecht, to the effect that Anglo-Jewish wars against the Boers were part of the anti-white movement, which I admit I was too dim to notice.]

A few points of comparison: three utterly Jew-naive people were H G Wells (born a little before him, in 1866); Bertrand Russell (born a little after, in 1872) and J M Keynes (1883-1946), fifteen years younger. Arnold Leese was ten years younger, Archibald Maule Ramsay about 25 years younger. Lane knew Ramsay (who wrote Land of dope and jewry/ land that once was free/ all the Jewboys praise thee/ as they plunder thee./ Poorer still and poorer grow thy true born sons...) Here's my formatted version of Ramsay's Nameless War. Ramsay had longer historical awareness than Lane, back to Cromwell, but never integrated Christianity with his findings on Jews: his post-Munich Mr. Chamberlain was Burnt in Effigy in Moscow leaflet was issued by 'MILITANT CHRISTIAN PATRIOTS'.

When Queen Victoria died, Lane was in his early 30s. The Empire must have had a profound effect on him; he regarded anyone as alien who ‘did not serve in the British Empire or its Allies in the Great War.’ Lord Sydenham of Combe supplied his foreword; Combe was a colonial administrator, but, presumably, not concerned with money or assets. At that time, it remained fashionable to associate aristocrats with book publicity.

Lane is a perfect example of the type described by Hilaire Belloc: The Great War brought thousands upon thousands of educated men (who took up public duties as temporary officials) up against the staggering secret they had never suspected—the complete control exercised over things absolutely necessary to the nation’s survival by half a dozen Jews, who were completely indifferent as to whether we or the enemy should emerge alive from the struggle.

Lane, as with many opponents of Jews, was unable to work out any united front against their simple secret cunning crushing uniformity. Lane regarded Germany as an evil opponent—this was years before the theft of European state papers by the USA was well known—and distrusted the Irish after 'they', treated as a unit, got their supposed independence; Lane was not very aware of Jews in Ireland, though of course he was aware of their name-changing fraudulence. Lane knew of Schiff and other Jew financiers, but I think had no theory of the gold standard, knew nothing of the Fed, and neglected to identify the part of the Empire which was Jew-controlled and not British. He also hated ‘Communism’ which he thought, like many others, was a belief system of its own, rather than just a smokescreen for Jewish supremacists. Jews committing atrocities were called ‘anarchists’ before 1917, but changed their name to ‘Communists’ after the Jewish coup d'état, as Lane might have noticed.

The strength of his book isn't really theoretical, but observational—he describes various events and structures, notably the so-called "Labour Party" (he always puts "Labour Party" in satire quote marks). He is acute on the BBC, on Jewish control of films, on Jew name-changing, and Jew crimes. Much of this, unfortunately, is just as applicable, and much more so, today.

I'll try to list Lane's objections to Jews (and others; but mostly Jews), inventing my own categories:–
NUMBERS, PARASITISM, DANGER, COLLUSION BY OFFICIALS. I 'The Alien Problem' is an overview, including Parliament and Trade, much controlled by Jews. II 'Number of Aliens and How they Get Here' includes wrong official figures. III 'Over-Population and Emigration' makes the case for expelling aliens. IV 'Unemployment' lists ways in which Britons are discriminated against. V 'Public Health' includes housing (though not rents and money policy), hereditary diseases, and Galton. VII 'The Cost of the Alien' has 'Labour' Party ministers and evasion of costs. And material on steamships, presumably Jewish-run. And supplanting British labour. Appendix I on 'Alien Immigration includes fake students, and fake official figures.
CRIME, MORAL DEFECTS, CROOKS, LAW CASES. Chapters VI Appendices IV ('Alien Crooks') and V ('Cases in the Courts') and VII provide a lot of newspaper-style information—including Jews who place big orders, ship them overseas, the disappear—Jan Lamprecht mentions a modern case, in South Africa.
ALIENS IN MEDIA AND EDUCATION. Chapters VIII (Films), IX (BBC) have lists of names, and such events as harming the nascent British film industry, anti-British films, the BBC's Jewish foundation, and the BBC censoring Nesta Webster. Chapter XV (Education) looks at the LSE, in particular, as an entry-point for Jews, and lists professors in many subjects, generally history, sociology, psychology and other subjects ripe for invasion by Frankfurt-School types. (I was interested to see Peierls, made a physics professor, who later became part of the atom frauds). Appendix II has an instructive piece on censorship, giving a letter from a US Jewish group requesting that a book by Lothrop Stoddard should be ignored. Henry Ford's 1920-1922 four books on world-Jewry, and his 1927 recantation are here.
ALIENS AND POLITICS IN BRITAIN. The so-called "Labour Party" (and "Independent Labour Party") is mentioned throughout. Lane likes the English Constitution, the Monarch/ House of Lords including Church of England/ House of Commons/ Party System, despite its precariousness and liability to money penetration. Chapter XVII 'Naturalisation' makes suggestions. There are many special issues: changes of name, infiltration, secrecy, forcing of unwanted immigration, secret conferences, and the subverting of aristocracies. Appendix III joins Marx, Engels, and the Hohenzollerns; Lane distrusted Germans.
      Appendix IV discusses aliens and name-changing, often to Scotch or Irish names. 'A census which returns the children of Aliens as British is misleading even if the children were born here.' Think perhaps of Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, Sutherland of Goldman-Sachs, Denis MacShane the Jew from Poland who helped Muslims rape white girls in Rotherham ...
WORLD POLITICS. Chapters X (Aliens and Revolution), XI (The Hidden Hand), XII (Aliens in Politics), XIII (Aliens in Ireland), and of course XVI (Alien Control in Palestine) help underline the infiltration, or perhaps just exposure, of the Bank of England and other groups. For example, there's a long account of the 'Rutenberg Monopoly' and a 1921 monopoly in Palestine. And an account of Dead Sea Concessions.
MONEY. XIV (Aliens in Industry and Finance) has many names of Jews (and Nesta Webster's books). Chapter XVIII (War Debts) is a depressing list of losses and payments following the 'Great War'. Well worth reading as an antidote to the mythology of ‘heroism’, and survey of the sordidness of industrialised war and its and its furtive secrets of money and equipment and propaganda.
SUGGESTED ACTION. Lane discusses VI Leglislation in and since 1914, and VII Draft Act of Parliament - Aliens Restrictions and Status. And XIX What Should Be Done.

This is not a cheering book; following Jewish impulses, there's nothing to suggest any effective work might be done either in Britain or overseas. The British Empire fell in due course (and the French Empire), assets to be taken up presumably by triumphant Jews in the USA. The impression left with me is that new theories and systems are needed, a mental revolution of the power of Newton or Wallace/Darwin.



FIFTH (Revised and Enlarged) EDITION     3/6 net       LONDON:
10, Essex Street, Strand,
London, W.C.1.
1934 [First edition 1928 - RW]

[Below: 1917 Poster advertising a Jewish meeting -RW] Fake Labour Party 1917
I.The Alien Problem1
II.Number of Aliens in the British Isles and How they Get Here5
III.Over-Population and Emigration15
IV.The Alien and Unemployment24
V.The Alien and Public Health43
VI.The Alien and Public Morals53
VII.The Cost of the Alien64
VIII.Aliens and the Films73
IX.Aliens and the B.B.C.84
X.Aliens and Revolution96
XI.The Hidden Hand110
XII.Alien Influence in Politics121
XIII.Alien Influence in Ireland128
XIV.Alien Influence in Industry and Finance136
XV.Alien Influence in Education151
XVI.Alien Control in Palestine161
XVII.Naturalisation of Aliens175
XVIII.War Debts180
XIX.What Should Be Done187
I.Alien Immigration200
II.Some Methods of Censorship206
III.Marx, Engels, and the Hohenzollens210
IV.Alien Crooks, by Captain W. Stanley Shaw212
V.Cases in the Courts214
VI.Aliens - Legislation in and since 1914241
VII.Draft Aliens Restrictions and Status of Aliens Bill245
FOREWORD to Second Edition by Lord Sydenham of Combexiv

I. The Alien Problem
Top of page ]

IN this edition [1934 - RW] the ramifications of Alien finance in our industries, politics and social institutions are more fully described than in the earlier editions, and all the figures and references in the second edition have been brought up to date. The reader will find here indisputable evidence of the part played by some International Financiers in promoting not only dubious companies and share-pushing schemes but in establishing Bolshevism in Russia and else where, in opening picture palaces for the exhibition of films depicting human society without morals, and deriding patriotism, tradition and national honour as obsolete superstitions. He will also see that the political parties, and many of our most important industries and financial concerns and the B.B.C., are, directly or indirectly, made to serve interests that are foreign and anti-British and to support measures that must lead to the disintegration of the British Empire and to the creation of class-hatred and disorder in our domestic affairs.
      It is not an exaggeration to say that the whole fabric of British life and inspiration is being steadily undermined by the effect of the Alien’s presence, his propaganda, and the practices which he has brought with him to this country. In many cases—if not the majority of cases—he is an undesirable or a criminal in his own country, from which he has been forced to flee in order to avoid punishment there. So he comes here, free to propagate his species, and by his activities to deluge the country with a flood of bitterness and class-hatred, and to create industrial unrest, strikes, Socialism and Communism.
      The presence and pernicious influence of the Alien are abhorrent to the individual Briton who, by reason of his complacency, or want of organisation, takes no action in the matter, but instead looks to Parliament to right a grievous wrong. So far he has largely looked in vain. Why? {2}
Les Juifs - French periodical of the time
      Parliament itself is in the grip of the Alien. Matters distinct from British affairs take the foremost place in the Parliamentary deliberations, and both public time and money are wasted over subjects that do not concern us in the slightest, or, at least, should not concern us. There are sufficient examples to prove the truth of this assertion. As an instance: is it not due almost entirely to Alien influence and anti-British mentality that so much Parliamentary time is devoted to such matters as “self-determination”, “recognitions,” trade with Russia, Russian delegations, Soviet money, subject races, extension of the pauperisation of the British people, and other things which a vigorous British statesman could (and should) settle by a stroke of the pen? With Machiavellian cunning, the Alien has brought his wretched “ideology” to the very floor of the British Parliament, there to occupy a foremost and insistent place.
      Even on the subject of the protection of our shores the Alien influence is felt; for it cannot be a coincidence that men of Alien blood are the foremost supporters of the proposal that Britain should lead the world in establishing international disarmament. The British Samson shorn of his locks would be an easier proposition for his would-be destroyers. Moreover, is it merely a coincidence that Aliens in high places have for many years advocated the emigration of our British stock?
      Furthermore, it would seem that we cannot rid ourselves of this pernicious element even when we discuss the protection of our own manufacturers and the workers employed by them. Here is an example that makes one almost gasp with astonishment.
      There came up in 1928 under the Baldwin Government for official discussion the question of extending the Safeguarding Act to certain British manufacturers in an industry that is being destroyed by unfair foreign competition, viz., enamelled hollow-ware. The British firms (employing British labour) had made out their case for safeguarding their own industry against the productions of cheap foreign labour. They had proved their case, but before a decision was given the opponents of the application were permitted to state their case, and some of them were members of Alien firms.
      Are we not, in face of the above, carrying our complacency too far when we welcome the opposition of representatives of foreign interests before Committees of {3} Enquiry for the safeguarding of British manufactured goods against unfair foreign competition? Safeguarding is not a question on which foreign interests have a right to be heard.
      In the recent debates in Parliament on Tariffs—February, 1932—the opposition was led by Sir Herbert Samuel, a member of the “National” Government, while the Samuelite Liberal rank and file opponents were led by Major Nathan, M.P. This opposition is instructive. The Free Trade Movement from its inception has always been well supported and financed by Jews. Karl Marx was a champion of Free Trade. Engels, the Prussian colleague of Marx, tells us in his introduction to Marx’s “Discourse on Free Trade” that Free Trade is “the economic medium in which the conditions for the inevitable social revolution will be the soonest created—for this reason, and for this alone, did Marx declare in favour of Free Trade.” [Footnote: Life of Karl Marx, by John Spargo, p.105]
      This Alien opposition to Tariffs and to Empire Preference has always been conspicuous in the great importing concerns, many of which are financed and controlled by foreigners. International combines, mainly under Jewish control, import a considerable portion of our food. As the interests of these food importers do not coincide with those of British food producers, they naturally oppose all plans to protect British Agriculture from unfair foreign competition.
      The difficulties that may arise from this conflict of interests were revealed in a very striking manner during the War, when one of the largest meat-importing concerns removed its business and capital to the Argentine in 1915 for business reasons. After the War a member of this firm received a peerage.
      The cases quoted in this book prove that Alien influence has dug deep into our national and domestic affairs. Therefore it is obvious that until we curtail the privileges which we have, with crass stupidity, granted to the Alien, we shall neither commence the cure of our body-politic nor advance economically. The spurts of “progress” and the incidental successes of loyalists are not sufficient, and they must not lull us into the sleep of false security. British policy must be decided by British people; not by persons who by birth and by business interests are unable to give loyal support to measures essential to British progress and security. {4}
      It is also evident from the many examples given in this book that many Aliens, although rendered secure by our excess of hospitality, and accorded every freedom, are not grateful. On the contrary, they seek not only to undermine our social life in the home country, but they spend their ill-gotten gains in our Dominions (and in other countries where British prestige still holds good) on a definite policy of belittling all things British—of arousing anti-British feeling, and of fomenting antagonism and opposition to the work we are doing in other lands. These Aliens, to whom we have given liberty and freedom and social conditions far superior to anything they ever knew in the countries from which they came originally, are the most prominent leaders of anti-British demonstrations in London and the provinces; they are conspicuous in all disturbances, strikes and riots. At any time these foreign persons, in many cases the scum of Europe with criminal records, [Footnote: See Cases in the Courts in Appendix V.] may embroil us in wars and civil disturbances—directly resulting from our tenderness for the subversive Alien in our midst.
      Apart, however, from the calamitous effect of the Alien on our National and Imperial well-being, there must be taken into consideration the extent to which he affects us in other spheres of life. I propose to deal with this in the ensuing chapters, and to show how the Alien is penetrating all our institutions and turning them to his own advantage and to our disadvantage.
[ Top of page ]

II. Number of Aliens in the British Isles and How they Get Here
Top of page ]

{5} ON 11 February, 1929, the Home Secretary, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, now Lord Brentford, made the following statement in the House of Commons:—
      “The last available total of persons registered in England and Wales as Aliens was approximately 219,000. I am not in a position to keep any corresponding record of British subjects by naturalisation.”
These figures presumably are taken from the Census. What about Aliens in Scotland and Ireland? No Alien seems to have ever been prosecuted for entering his or her name on the Census as “British.” In fact, many Aliens have been instructed from certain sources that they become “British” after five or seven years’ residence here.
      There are more than double the above number of Aliens in London alone, not counting the large Alien populations of the large provincial towns. According to the Sunday Dispatch (1 December, 1929) the Aliens’ registration office in 1929 had about 500,000 Aliens registered as resident in the United Kingdom. The actual number of Aliens resident in this country is about 1½ millions. The official figures for Aliens in France is 2,800,000. But France, Italy and Germany have a thorough system of registration of all people in their countries, nationals and Aliens.
      For several years I have been insisting that the difference between these two figures is too great for belief in spite of any qualifying circumstances.
      Nevertheless, I observe that it is extremely difficult to persuade the official mind that the official figures are not correct, and that considerably more Aliens are living in this country, undetected, as the result of an existing system of control which is not merely faulty, but utterly {6} absurd. When I took the subject up with the powers that be I was, at a large public meeting in 1928, attacked by a well-known Member of Parliament, who insisted that the official methods were both satisfactory and effective. I replied to this gentleman in a long letter, from which I reprint the following quotations, which, I feel, represent the views of the vast majority of people of experience in everyday life who do not live within the monastic walls of officialdom:—
      “In expressing my views to you I did but repeat what is being said all over the country. Lord Desborough, in the House of Lords on 5 May, 1928, mentioned the official number of Aliens in the country. But people who know of the great Alien colonies in Liverpool, Cardiff, London, Glasgow, Hull, Fifeshire, and other large towns and seaports, are convinced that the official figures fall far short of the actual total. [Footnote: In the Liverpool Post and Mercury, 9 January, 1928, the Rev. J. J. R. Armitage is reported in a speech as saying: “Liverpool is greatly over-populated . . . there is a constant stream of Aliens settling in the city.”] This is why I have so strongly advocated the registration of all Aliens, police round-ups, and a thorough reorganisation of the Home Office administration in this matter. It is patent to most people outside departmental circles that the Home Office has no real census of the Aliens, and does not know where they are and what they are doing. It is useless for the departmental people to argue that their system is perfect or even efficient. The nation would flatly contradict the statement. The frequent prosecutions of delinquents furnish an argument for new methods. I am not saying anything against the officials: I merely say that the methods at their disposal are faulty to a degree, and new powers should be sought so that the Aliens can be brought to book. If the present regulations are only able to track down some quarter of a million Aliens, they are ridiculously inadequate, and forgery and misrepresentation must be rife.”
      I do not deny that the Alien who comes openly to this country, with his passport in order, and submits to the regulations, is not carefully registered, or that his subsequent movements are not closely checked; but my contention is that there are so many loopholes of escape from observance of regulations that for every Alien who is registered there are two or more who enter the country {7} undetected. I will now prove how simple it is to evade these regulations, and how the Alien comes in by devious ways.
      During the War, when the Belgian refugees flocked to this country, thousands of Aliens from other countries, who called themselves Belgians, came with them. Many were spies, and most were undesirable, yet a large proportion of these crowds never returned to their own countries. They are still with us, scattered, and beyond all reach of detection and control. In 1919-20 Aliens came back in large numbers, and again in 1924. In 1929-31, under the Socialist Government, the regulations were so relaxed that the Aliens Order of 1920 was reduced to a farce. This Order depends much more on the manner in which it is administered than on its wording.
      Perhaps, in the dark days of the War, there was some reason for the relaxation of regulations, but to-day there is not even an excuse, either for relaxation of control or for the obvious loopholes which officialdom must recognise are existent. All these War refugees should have been repatriated. Yet no attempt was ever made to do this. What was the power behind this? Since the War there have been several ways by which the Alien without a passport could creep into the British Isles.
      One of the great loopholes is apparent to even the most dense individual who crosses the Channel. The farce of issuing steamer excursion tickets to the Continent, with no passport and no examination at either end of the journey, gives the Alien a splendid opportunity. An Alien in this country can purchase several tickets to, say, Boulogne, use only one on the outward journey and provide waiting Aliens in that town with the return halves!
      Several people of the author’s acquaintance have been on these trips and state that often the excursionists were in such large numbers that the officials could not deal with them, and many people were not even asked for their tickets. On these occasions, careful as the immigration officers may be, it is quite obvious that many Aliens slip through their hands when a crowded boat discharges its trippers.
      Another mode of entry is through Ireland. Since the revolution in that country the South of Ireland seems to have welcomed Aliens, especially revolutionaries and gun-men. Once in Ireland the Alien can cross to England or {8} Scotland without the necessity of complying with any regulations and travelling as ordinary passengers without passports.
      On this subject the Daily Mail (17 October, 1930) states, regarding an interview with an official of the Aliens Department, that, according to the official figures, the number of Aliens of both sexes in Great Britain is something like 270,000. Were that estimate multiplied by five it would still be below the actual number:—
      “To-day hundreds of men are sewing clothes and making caps in the East End of London who have entered this country on faked passports.
      “By the Aliens Order of 1920 an Alien cannot land in the United Kingdom without the permission of an immigration officer, and if he proposes to be a wage earner he must obtain permission from the Minister of Labour. Every Alien must register with the police, to whom he must notify any change of address, and he must have an identity book.
      “These precautions are good in theory, but they do not work in practice. Any Alien can get into England with a week-end ticket, and if he has friends here he need never be traced. And in the East End Alien workers are sweated and exploited by the fear of the law: they are blackmailed into slavery.”
      It seems also that our own passport regulations are easy to avoid even by an Alien, and one wonders how many fraudulent passports are in the hands of foreigners in this country who are posing as British subjects. Take, as an instance, the case of Wolf, a Swiss. In December, 1927, he was charged at Bow Street with making a false statement for the purpose of procuring a British passport. Mr. Vincent Evans, acting for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that the Passport Office was being troubled very much by people obtaining British passports for fictitious persons. Such passports were doubtless intended for use elsewhere where they could have a certain value. Wolf was arrested as he was leaving the Passport Office, and it was alleged that he admitted that a passport application in the name of Henry Hyams bore his signature. It had a fictitious address and the forged signature of a doctor vouching for the respectability of the applicant. Wolf said that he had only been in the country three weeks. A man asked him if he would like to be naturalised and {9} he paid him £15 for that purpose. He could not speak English, and did not know that he was applying for a passport. The magistrate, Mr. Fry, said it was a very unsatisfactory story, but he did not think he ought to convict, and dismissed the charge.
      The leniency with which this case was dealt with will not act as a deterrent to this class of Alien, and the above case shows that obviously there is being carried on a traffic in bogus British passports, and, for all the authorities may know, there may be in existence thousands of them in the hands of unscrupulous, undesirable and, probably, dangerous Aliens.
      Another way in is by small private boats from Northern France or Belgium. Of late years this seems to have been a lucrative business for people with motor boats.
      Another example of the ease with which the foreigner can come to England was given by a ship’s officer in the People of 5 August, 1928. He wrote:—
      “A British ship puts into Riga, and half a dozen of the crew disappear—usually for a consideration. Later on, the carouse over, they are returned to England as Distressed British Seamen. A boarding-house master (in Riga) thereupon supplies Alien ‘substitutes,’ and the ship, being British, they are naturally issued with British Seamen’s Blue Books. This method enables crooks and revolutionaries to land in England and stop here as long as they like or until they are found out and convicted of some offence. They can even go on the guardians, since ‘officially’ they are ‘looking for a ship.’ Some hundreds of men of a very dangerous type are in England to-day, having dodged the immigration office by this means. In 1926, I recognised one of the biggest blackguards unhanged loafing around Greenwich. He was a Russian with a Scotch name—a man who would stick at nothing, not even murder. Naturally, I wired the police up, but they could do nothing since he had a Blue Book showing his discharge from a British ship. A few weeks later he was concerned in a street fight in the East End, in which revolvers were freely used, and his ‘list of previous convictions’ took about half an hour to read.”
      The smuggling of women will be dealt with in the chapter, “The Alien and Public Morals.”
      Another method of evading the regulations or escaping the restrictions is the “student” dodge. The ease with {10} which foreigners have come here under this category is remarkable. Moreover, even when they are in this country the watch kept upon them is so lax that many of them remain permanently and, in breach of their undertaking on entry, take employment.
      The foregoing examples are sufficient to prove that it is not only possible, but ridiculously easy for any number of Aliens (undesirable all of them, for a decent Alien with nothing to hide will come in honestly and openly) to smuggle themselves into England, never to figure in any statistics; and therefore I feel I am perfectly just in contending that the official census of 219,000 Aliens is extremely wide of the mark.
      The question which now arises is: where do all these Aliens go, and what are they doing? The answer is that they have penetrated to all parts of the country, and now they are in evidence in most of our industries.
      But it must be remembered that many Aliens are unable to get work, and so thousands—one might, without exaggeration, say tens of thousands—are drawing the “dole” (unemployment benefit) and public assistance. “Miss Bondfield (Minister of Labour), replying to Captain Bullock, said she did not propose to take any steps to ascertain the number of Aliens in Great Britain who were at present in receipt of unemployment benefit.” (Liverpool Post, 6 June, 1931). Also our Hospitals, Asylums and Prisons contain a large proportion of Aliens.
      The author has from time to time visited the Labour Exchange at Aldgate. What he has seen there is well described in the Evening Standard, 2 August, 1929.
      “One of the strangest sights in London is to be seen every Friday at the Aldgate Labour Exchange when the unemployed people of Stepney draw their unemployment benefit pay.
      “Here, in a district where the population is a mixture of many different races, a large proportion of the 7,000 names on the registers of the unemployed are foreign.
      “As I stood to-day beside the queue waiting outside the Exchange (writes an Evening Standard representative) it was difficult to realise that I was in England, so curious was the medley of languages I heard. “There is really no necessity for a queue. “For paying out purposes the unemployed are divided into batches spread over the day. {11}
      “The English usually come just at the appointed hour, but the foreign element, making it a kind of weekly social gathering, always arrive long before their time. Thus the queues are mainly composed of Aliens.
      “Among the crowd to-day I saw Russians, Poles, Lithuanians, and a sprinkling of coloured men. Some times a few Chinese make it even more cosmopolitan.
      “Many of these Aliens can only speak a smattering of English, and some cannot even write their names.
      “They sign their cards with a cross. As sometimes their surnames run to a score of letters, this can be a considerable saving in labour!
      “When language difficulties arise, other unemployed Aliens act as interpreters.
      “Most of the Russians and Poles when in work are tailors or furriers. These are seasonable trades, so that their numbers fluctuate.
      “For instance, in October there were only 454 unemployed tailors on the books. “Week by week this number rose, till on January 7 there were 2,036.”
      Since 1929 the number of these Alien unemployed has become much greater.
      The People, which has been studying this question for many years, stated (6 July, 1930):—
      “England, the home of all classes of emigrants and refugees from the Continent, harbours about 1,500,000 Aliens.
      “Of this number, nine out of every ten are either Russians, Poles, or belong to States which at one time formed part of Russia.
      “Week after week these immigrants are descending on London, swelling the ranks of the unemployed and, in some instances, finding work which might easily have been given to Britishers.
      “London is the ever-open door. Every ship that comes from Russia adds its quota of foreigners who land and do not return.
      “England to them is the greatest country in the world. America closes its doors to these shiftless undesirables; England, with that hospitality which has made her famous, makes no objection to the Aliens landing. {12}
      “The flow of Russians to this country has been rapidly increasing since diplomatic relations were restored.
      “No steps are being taken to stop the flow. The Home Secretary will, it is stated, issue no orders for deportation until Aliens are definitely proved to be undesirables.”
      The following extract from the Jewish Chronicle (28 March, 1929) showed up another mode of entry— probably the greatest. Mr. Schiff (Chairman of the Jewish Board of Guardians) stated to a representative of that paper:—
      “The community will well remember when over one thousand immigrants from Eastern Europe on their way to the United States were stranded in this country owing to the new quota regulations which came into force while they were on their way. The great majority of these have been able gradually to proceed to the United States, after having waited here for a period of no less than four or five years in most cases. Some of them, however, are still actually in this country.
      “About forty orphan children arrived at the Shelter from Pinsk in rags and half-starved. I obtained permission from the Home Office for the children to remain here
. All of them were adopted by kind-hearted Jewish families.
      “The Shelter,” went on Mr. Schiff, “apart from dealing with transmigrants, also regulates Jewish immigration, which is work of the highest importance to the community. It is a fallacy to think that immigration has stopped entirely. The Government recognises that a difference has to be made between desirable and undesirable immigrants. Thus, for instance, many Jewish families living here who have relatives such as aged parents or orphan children of blood relations living in Eastern Europe, desire to bring them over here to reside with them; in the case of parents, in order to enable them to spend their remaining years in peace and comfort, and in the case of orphans, in order to provide a home and education for them. Practically all Jewish cases of this kind pass through the Shelter, and the Shelter, which is in close touch with the Home Office, as well as with the different Consular offices, advises applicants what steps to take in order to gain admission for their relatives. But they {13} grant facilities to persons who can prove that they wish to establish themselves here in a business or trade which is likely to be of advantage to the country. Other Aliens come to seek work and to find a more hopeful future.”

The Jewish Board of Guardians and the Board of Deputies are not the only Jewish bodies which help, or have helped Alien Immigrants. In 1909 a Lodge of the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith was founded in England which, in the words of the “Jewish Chronicle” Year Book, 1911 (p. 145), has “given its chief attention since its formation to the question of providing legal assistance to Alien refugees landing in England.” The Order of B’nai B’rith is, according to the Jewish Encyclopaedia, “the largest and oldest Jewish fraternal organisation” and was started by German Jews, headed by Henry Jones, in the U.S.A., as long ago as 1843. Its Lodges resemble Masonic Lodges and, as the Year Book from which I have quoted says, the Order “watches over the interests of Jews in all parts of the world.” In 1882 a Lodge was established in Berlin and the Order has “established working relations” with the Alliance Israélite Universelle, the Jewish Colonization Association of London and the Israelitische Allianz of Vienna. [Footnote: Jewish Encyclopaedia.] From the above-mentioned Year Book of 1911 we learn that, with a view to aiding Alien refugees, the First Lodge of England—
“has prepared a scheme by which appeals can be duly made on behalf of rejected immigrants to the Immigration Boards. The scheme has received the consent of the Home Office, and has resulted in an agreement with the Board of Deputies by which the work is carried out by a Joint Committee of both bodies. The Committee is styled the Aliens’ Legal Aid Committee, and consists of thirteen members, seven of whom are members of the Board and six are members of the B’nai B’rith.”
As in 1915 there were no fewer than 31 Lodges of the Independent Order of B’nai B’rith, several of them in London, some of them in Manchester, and one in each of the following cities, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leeds, Hull, Grimsby, Cardiff, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast and Dublin, it will be perceived that Jewish Alien Immigrants have {14} had the backing of a very powerful international organisation. The Jewish Year Book for 1931 does not, indeed, make any mention of the Joint Committee, but it tells us that there are three Lodges of the Order (including a Women’s Lodge) in London, and two at Leeds, and one at Manchester, Liverpool, Southport, Glasgow and Edinburgh respectively. We may be sure that all these Lodges are doing their best for Alien Immigrants.
            All this adds to our over-population and unemployment, which unless checked and dealt with in a comprehensive manner, must assuredly overcome us and must bring this country to utter ruin in the comparatively near future.

III. Over-Population and Emigration
Top of page ]

TO put it bluntly (for on this subject I have no wish to be tender), we have no room to-day in this country for the Alien Immigrant, i.e., he who has the intention of settling permanently in our midst. These islands are so over-populated with our own people that for many years it has been necessary for us to emigrate many thousands of Britons. During the past hundred years the population of this country has more than trebled, in spite of wars and continuous emigration. Prior to the War some 350,000 of our people left these shores annually to reside overseas permanently. In 1913 the figures exceeded 389,000, but during the War emigration practically ceased. In 1922 the annual figure had dropped to 170,000, although there was a temporary spurt in 1923, when the figure rose to 256,284, as the result of the introduction of special migratory schemes for ex-service men. Since that year and until 1931 the annual emigration figures have been as follows:—

Year.Total No. of EmigrantsTo Empire Countries.

From the above statistics it will be seen that what I wrote in the 2nd Edition of this book, January, 1929, has proved only too true.
      Mr. J. H. Thomas, Dominions Secretary, stated in the House of Commons, 16 March, 1932, that last year 53,181 immigrants from the Dominions had come here with the intention of remaining permanently. There were more people entering than leaving this country. {16}
      The above figures speak eloquently of a grave position, which is, that we are rapidly becoming over-populated. Owing to the difference between the Birth and Death Rates and from other causes, our population is increasing by more than 250,000 annually, or at the rate of about 700 per day.
      The British Isles have now got to face the fact that in spite of a great deal of emigration (vide above statistics), the population of England and Wales has increased by over two million during the past ten years (vide report on last Census).
      What has greatly added to our over-population in Great Britain is the influx of Irish. Since the rebellion in Ireland and the granting of self-government to the Free State, business and industry have received a check in that Dominion. And with emigration to the U.S.A. almost at a standstill (Times, 17 December, 1931), there has been an enormous exodus of unemployed and destitute Irish into England and Scotland.
      In more recent years this influx of Irish has increased and has had a great bearing on unemployment in Great Britain, directly and indirectly. The poverty-stricken and unemployable Irish come over to Great Britain like the Alien to take advantage of all the welfare work which they do not get now in the Irish Free State. It is well known that since the trouble in Ireland large numbers of Irishmen have come over especially to Liverpool and the Clyde district who work long enough to qualify for the dole and then continue to live on this unearned contribution from the over-burdened taxpayer. The result of this absurd policy is to increase by hundreds of thousands those drawing the dole (unemployment benefit) and public assistance in Great Britain.
      A careful examination of our police courts and gaols shows a great proportion of Irish prisoners. Our Hospitals, Asylums and Workhouses contain a large percentage of Irish. On the other hand, it is a great relief to the Irish Free State to get rid of their unwanted. It saves that Dominion several million pounds per annum.
      The late Mr. T. P. O’Connor estimated that there were two and a-half million Irish in Great Britain. But Sir James O’Connor is reported in the Times (17 March, 1928) as saying, “There are, so far as I can judge, some three million Irish in Great Britain, and by Irish I mean Catholic Irish.” {17}
      Before the Great War, most of the able-bodied Irish emigrated to the United States, to which country they were assisted by their relatives already there, or by Irish organisations in the big cities of America. During the past few years, however, the United States government has restricted immigration. The Irish (with no relatives here to assist them) have been flocking to this country in thousands, further to congest our already over-crowded country. Here is no advocacy of a dog-in-the-manger policy, neither is there a germ of anti-Irish agitation; it is a question of practical economics. Ireland (that is, the Free State part of the island) is not thickly populated, and there is no reason why the Irish should not remain in their own country and prosper. They have become more or less independent of Britain, they have their own government to protect them, and therefore they must not take it amiss if we resent their coming amongst us and making our lot harder.
      Immigration from the U.S.A. into the Irish Free State now exceeds emigration from the Irish Free State to America. For the six months ended 30 June, 1931, only 476 left the Free State for America and 1,080 people have returned to the Free State from the U.S.A. (Morning Post, 23 July, 1931.)
      So serious is the problem of over-population that even our leading authorities who have studied the question closely find themselves compelled to advocate the most drastic of all remedies—birth-control.
      Therefore it is obvious that the alternatives to the unnatural method of birth-control are the restriction of Alien immigration on the one hand and the encouragement of emigration by our own people on the other hand. The prospects as regards the latter proposal are not bright. Other nations besides ourselves are struggling to find lands for their surplus people, and the fight for expansion and relief is not only inevitably becoming more intense, but more bitter, with the natural result that those countries hitherto offering facilities to prospective emigrants have been compelled to adopt restrictive measures.
      The United States of America, which for many years has been a great outlet for overcrowded Europe, has adopted a stringent quota system.
      Canada in 1931 stopped all immigration owing to the great unemployment in that country. “With regard to {18} Australia, so great has been the general depression and unemployment there that not only officially has all immigration been stopped, but the tide of emigration has during the past twelve months turned the other way. More people have returned from Australia to this country than have proceeded there. Recent schemes of colonisation in that country have been sad failures. New Zealand is now officially closed to all immigrants.
      All of these countries have excellent reasons for their schemes of restriction. It is their desire (and it is a worthy one) to keep their stock clean and of a type that will represent an asset and not a liability to them. Why, therefore, should not England, with her congestion, slam, bolt and bar the door to the people that enter our ports from Central and Eastern Europe-—and that seething cauldron of iniquity—Soviet Russia? What is the reason why we do not take this natural, essential and practical step? Is it mawkish sentiment or some underground influence that prevents our saving ourselves politically, economically and morally? Why should we spend large sums of money to emigrate the best of our blood in order to bring our population within the limits of our natural resources, and at the same time permit the influx of bad blood? It seems as if we are bent on national suicide. Listen to what Captain Shaw, of the London Police Court Mission, wrote in the Daily Mail (26 April, 1928). He stated:—
      “When I founded the British Brothers’ League and organised the Alien agitation in East London in 1901— which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration—destitute Aliens were pouring into this country at the rate of over 100,000 a year. Many were undesirable and unclean in their manners and habits, many were diseased, many were criminal. Their fire-starting propensities were such that fire insurance companies operating in East London refused to insure them.”
      Another authority worthy of quoting is the Bishop of London, who three years ago made the following important pronouncement:—
      “On my recent tour of the Dominions I did not find the enthusiastic welcome to the Britisher in any part of the Empire I expected—young men were not keen on emigrating. The tone of East London was ‘keep out {19} the something Jews and let us have the country to ourselves. We don’t want to go to other countries; keep out the foreigners.’”
      Of all people, those living in East London are best qualified to give, on the subject of Aliens, an opinion that carries the greatest weight; for to them the Alien Menace is not merely a figment of the brain, but an actual presence that is slowly but none the less surely engulfing them. As to emigrating our own people so that we may relieve congestion (and not, incidentally, to make room here for the Alien) it should be pointed out that any scheme that is adopted bristles with difficulties. It is easy for stay-at-home people glibly to talk of emigrating our men, but those who have knocked about the world and have studied this question in all its bearings have come to realise that henceforth comparatively little emigration from the British Isles will be possible. There are, it is true, good opportunities for young strong men in several countries, provided they have capital. But for the men from the Labour Exchange, without capital, untrained, and often physically unfit, the position is entirely different; there are few, if any, countries which will accept them. As I have said, the United States have adopted the quota system, and very shortly they will refuse immigrants without capital. Canada requires only agricultural labourers, and these for only five or six months in the year. South America, with its bad climate, low wages, and still lower standard of living, offers no openings for British labour. In South Africa all unskilled labour—and a great deal of skilled labour—is done by coloured people. There remain only Australia and New Zealand, and in both these countries there has been a wave of unemployment that has driven labour into the towns. Where, therefore, is the great opportunity?
      Sir Robert Home, speaking at the Constitutional Club, on his return from his Empire tour in 1928, said:—
      “I have got into a position almost of despair at the slowness at which the emigration movement goes on. While I was at the Exchequer I provided that a sum of £3,000,000 a year should be given to assist emigrants to the Dominions. Out of the £15,000,000 which should have been taken up only about £2,000,000 has been spent. To my mind it is a disgrace. We are supposed to be a practical country, and this is all we have done!”
      “We are supposed to be a practical country” is a phrase that has a touch of irony about it. Of course we are {20} not practical; if we were we should have voted a part of the £15,000,000 on emigrating from our shores some of the thousands of Aliens who have sneaked in to make our wretchedness still more wretched. It is unsound and inconsistent of our Government to spend large sums of money in emigrating our best people instead of expelling and repatriating the scourings of the earth, whose natural climate and country is the East. Why not settle this evil horde in Palestine and the Euphrates Valley?
      It is true that the quota for the United States of America of emigrants allowed from Great Britain was not fulfilled during the past year, but this is accounted for by the fact that people intending to emigrate to that country knew there was no chance of employment on arrival, and they knew that if they stayed at home there was “the dole,” also “public assistance” and so much welfare work to fall back on. The U.S.A. is a hard country (the author worked there for three years), and there are no doles, etc., no money for doing nothing, little sentiment on such problems. It is a country which believes in individualism and which carries out this policy in a most practical manner. In the U.S.A. you must either work or starve.
      The New York correspondent of the Daily Mail described (27 May, 1931) “the Misery Train.” “It steamed into New York yesterday containing 700 men, women and, children, pitiable figures in tattered garments.” This train had started from Seattle and worked eastwards collecting these “undesirable Aliens”: some were criminals, others madmen. All were deported to their native countries.
      The Sunday Dispatch (11 August, 1929) described a special train which arrived in New York from the West the previous week “filled with deportees, many of whom were recruited from asylums and penitentiaries.”
      Canada has the same practical policy, as was found out by the 8,449 so-called “harvesters” who were shipped there in August, 1928, to work at harvesting on the farms in that country. A considerable number of these men had neither the will nor physique, not to mention experience, to be of much use on these farms, where the work is very heavy and during harvest about fifteen hours per day. Some did work for two or three weeks, but many were found useless. The original idea was that these men would remain there as settlers. But only about 1,500 remained, and since then some of these have returned. {21}
      This stunt, which was really political, proved not only cruel to the poor men sent out, but cost the British taxpayer very heavily.
      In 1929-30 several questions were put in the House of Commons to try to find out the cost of this unpractical scheme. It is difficult to get at the exact amount owing to the evasive replies of Mr. Amery ['Amery' was 'outed' as a Jew, much later-RW] and Mr. Thomas. There was evidently a great deal to conceal. But as all the 8,449 men had their ship fares to and rail fares in Canada paid for, and 4,577 received loans for their return fares (of which only £370 was repaid) the total cost to the English taxpayer must have been about £300,000. And cui bono? Who benefited?
      In the year 1929-30 £335,605 was paid out by our Government to assist emigration to Canada. Yet for many years before the Great War it was frequently seen in Western Canada that when an advertisement or notice appeared calling for labourers it contained the words “no English need apply.”
      In March, 1929, Commander Locker Lampson introduced a Bill in the House of Commons to emigrate to the Dominions a number of unemployed and place them together in colonies and pay them the “dole” there. To anyone of experience this scheme was not practicable. At once the Canadian Government protested against this scheme. It was pointed out “that a group of comparative amateurs set apart and isolated from the experience and help of the countryside could not succeed. Such colonies, it was claimed, have never been successfully settled on Canadian soil on this large scale plan.”
      The Australian Government also made a strongly worded protest.
      Great harm has been done by Companies in Canada who have land for sale, especially Railway Companies, with their emigration pamphlets, in painting exaggerated descriptions of the success of settlers. The climate of Western Canada (east of the Rockies) is very severe for seven months in winter. Scandinavian and North Russian people, inured to hardship and hard work, can perhaps make a living under these conditions, but few English people can stand the life, especially our town-dwellers.
      It must be remembered “that the early emigrants to our colonies were mostly agricultural labourers accustomed to hard work and rough food and weather. When Mr. J. H. Thomas visited Canada two years ago to discuss {22} emigration, he was received very coldly and was bluntly told that, if he thought he was going to dump our unemployed into Canada, he was badly mistaken. He was taken to the West and shown examples of failure of British settlers. In Winnipeg two hundred men recently from England under the assisted passage scheme were pointed out to him. None of these men could or would work at farm work. They were deported together with a number of criminals and imbeciles. During the past two years large numbers of destitute and mentally afflicted British people have been deported from Canada. The Daily Mail of 22 April, 1931, stated: “Thirty British families who have been deported from Canada arrived at Plymouth yesterday.”
      Mr. James Lumsden, who has great experience of Australia and our Dominions, described in the Sunday Pictorial (29 April, 1928) what men who have knocked about the world have known for many years. He wrote:—
      “At home emigration is a great thing. It has elements of patriotism, of imperialism, of rare instinct, of great adventure, of noble endeavour. It appeals to the heroic and the strong. In Australia it is cold and callous business, often as unscrupulous and dishonest as company promoting of the worst kind.”
      In September, 1930, a petition was sent to the King from Adelaide, signed by 600 unemployed British immigrants in South Australia, requesting repatriation as they had been attracted to Australia by misleading statements and false propaganda circulated in England.
      The Daily Express (12 August, 1931), in an article from Melbourne, 11 August, stated that some 20,000 migrants had signed a petition to the Premier of South Australia, asking that their passages back to England be paid by that State.
      The Board of Trade Journal (6 March, 1930) informed its readers that the Canadian and United States authorities had sent back 2,039 and 447 persons respectively during 1929. The reasons given for the rejection or deportation of the majority of these persons was either that they were paupers or likely to become a public charge, or criminals or diseased or mentally afflicted.
      Lastly, in The Times of 4 April, 1932, there appeared the following cable from its Melbourne correspondent:—
      “The Orford, on her homeward voyage, is carrying a second petition to the British Parliament from
{23} thousands of British immigrants in this country requesting assisted repatriation to Great Britain. It is asserted in the petition that there are 10,000 registered unemployed immigrants in Victoria and South Australia, including 127 married men with families in Great Britain. The petitioners offer to repay their passage money, if it is lent them, by instalments when they obtain work in Great Britain.”
      The reader of this chapter will see from the above evidence and statistics that there can be little emigration in future, and that, in spite of over 1½ million people emigrating during the previous ten years, the population of England and Wales has increased by over two millions. (The population of Scotland has not increased much during the past decade.) True, the birth-rate has gone down, but there are more and more people breeding. Our country is already greatly over-populated.
      The reader will now get at the truth of the terrible, one may say terrifying, state of things in this unfortunate country of ours. Why has this perilous position been so carefully kept from the public? But it is the more alarming when we consider the question of food.
      What will happen to us in this small island of ours? —for it is a very small country compared to other countries such as the United States of America. See map drawn to scale. We already import two-thirds of our food, and this proportion is increasing each year. And this imported food has to be paid for. Shall we be able to find the enormous sum spent by us on foreign food each year? The outlook is indeed grave, but it is still more serious when we consider that the leading naval authorities declare that our navy is now so reduced in comparison with other navies (the result of sinister working of “The Hidden Hand”) that it would be impossible to keep our trade routes properly protected in the event of war.
      Few people realise that only about a month’s reserve of food is kept in Great Britain. Our organisation as regards food supply is so complicated and delicate that even small happenings will greatly upset this regular daily supply from abroad on which our very existence depends. Our complacent stay-at-home people do not grasp this. But “The Hidden Hand” knows this too well, and this is its chief weapon by which the people of this country will be subjugated. The spirit of a starving nation can easily be broken and the nation thus kept under heel.

IV. The Alien and Unemployment
Top of page ]

THE author’s original reason for taking up the Alien question was on account of so much unemployment amongst ex-service men in 1921, and so many Aliens in employment.
      When the British Legion was formed in 1921, the author joined it on this account. At first it seemed that the headquarters were taking up this matter, but later it appeared that the real controllers were men of Alien extraction, working with international cranks, and little was done or at any rate achieved. The whole matter is very regrettable.
      Money is subscribed to that organisation and poppies are bought on the understanding that it is expended in the patriotic endeavour to assist ex-service men. Poppy Day collection since 1927 has exceeded £500,000 each year. Although the Legion does help ex-service men, it has not gone far enough, in my opinion, in the fulfilment of its objects. Considering that there are in the country tens of thousands of Aliens who are holding jobs which could be done equally well by our ex-service men, one would naturally think that the British Legion, instead of spending large sums on international affairs that do not help our men, would have taken more vigorous action in this matter some years ago. Several patriotic members have made strong efforts from time to time to get the Legion to take up this important question, but apparently without success.
      The kindest and most necessary way to help the ex- service man is to get him a job.
      For several years a few loyal members in London have been trying to get the affairs of the Legion under better business management. In November, 1929, a small unofficial committee was formed. With the loyal help of the Sunday Express and their accountants, it was pointed out that the administrative expenses of the Legion were about 40 per cent, on an income around £500,000 per annum. {25} This resulted in a Committee of Investigation with Lord Bridgeman as chairman. The Report of this Committee, price 6d., published in May, 1930, fully substantiated what the Sunday Express had published. Surely 10 per cent, should cover all administrative costs! If this had been done some £150,000 more per annum could have been provided for the actual relief of the disabled and poverty- stricken ex-service man, the real aim, or at any rate the ostensible aim, of the British Legion.
      It is also to be regretted that this Committee did not at the same time investigate the affairs and accounts of the United Service Fund and the Officers’ Association, which the Bridgeman Committee state work in close co-operation with the British Legion. In 1919 this fund was £7,250,000—the profits of the canteens during the War. This fund seems to be administered by much the same people as those who manage the finances of the British Legion.
      In the front of this book there is published a quotation from Mr. Baldwin’s Election Address of 1924, which reads as follows:—
      “I want to examine the laws and regulations as to the entry of Aliens into this country, for in these days no Alien should be substituted for one of our own people when we have not enough work at home to go round.”
As a correspondent to the British Guardian wrote:
“We all regard Mr. Baldwin as a man of honour, and therefore a man of his word. When he shall have explored this question, it is not unemployment alone he will have touched. He will have gone direct to the housing problem and the reason why so many English families are either homeless or are crowded together in most appalling conditions.”
      Did Mr. Baldwin ever explore this question? Judging by the sad plight of tens of thousands of ex-Service men since 1924 it seems very doubtful.
      In the House of Commons on 18 November, 1925, Sir William Joynson-Hicks said:—
      “Thirty or forty years ago we could afford to receive the oppressed and down-trodden from other countries, but we could not afford to do so to-day with 1,250,000 unemployed.”
      There were in December, 1931, about three million people on the register at the Labour Exchanges as unemployed. In addition, according to Government returns, there were in England and Wales alone on 30 September, {26} 1931, 1,766,659 drawing public assistance in various forms. These latter are rarely, mentioned in Government reports.
      These returns do not include many thousands of the professional and clerical classes who are not eligible to be registered at the Labour Exchanges for unemployment benefit, and are too proud to apply for public assistance. The plight of such people is in many cases more desperate than that of the so-called labouring class. How many ex-service men are included in the above returns?
      Three years ago there were over 700,000 able-bodied ex-service men registered as unemployed, also about 50,000 disabled men who were anxious to get some work. Since then these numbers have greatly increased. Yet one never comes across a conscientious objector out of a job. In fact, these shirkers are now found by hundreds in comfortable Government jobs.
      Successive Governments have introduced costly schemes of relief, including a programme of assisted emigration (which has come to little if we accept the figures given by Sir Robert Home—see Chapter III). Assisted emigration has been carried on on a comparatively small scale. But schemes for training ex-service men in trades in 1919-21 were a farce and a cruel betrayal of the ex-service men, seeing that the trade unions refused to allow these men to be employed. Out of all these efforts nothing tangible has come; few men have secured jobs, and their time and the country’s money have simply been frittered away. All that there is to be shown is a large number of ex-service men on the starvation line.
      Thousands of Aliens are employed in the United Kingdom as hotel and restaurant employees. Those who have spent many years in hotels at home and abroad know that an Englishman can be as good a waiter, etc., as a foreigner; but hotel-keepers and restaurant managers, also head-waiters, etc.—often themselves Aliens—find the foreigner cheaper and more “amenable.” It is simply ridiculous to suggest that of the thousands of unemployed ex-service men alone there are none capable of doing the required work.
      Naturally the Englishman, especially the ex-service man, does not care to serve under these foreigners, particularly under Germans. Yet there are many cases of this latter arrangement in this country, an insult to our ex-service men. Then again, most of our hotel and restaurant employment agencies are run by foreigners. {27}


      Large numbers of Aliens have found work in this country as ordinary commercial clerks, watch and clock makers, furriers, hairdressers, musicians, chemists and chemists’ assistants, toy-makers, in the fancy goods trade, in the film industry, and in publie entertaining, theatrical and dancing work.
      Another business which could be run more beneficially by our own people is that of “Money Lender.” Is it really necessary to import a particularly rapacious breed of Alien to undertake this kind of business in the British Isles? I have sufficient data to prove that there is hardly a trade or an industry in which the Alien is not rapidly filching work from our own folk; but I do not propose to weary the reader with a mass of figures. This, however, I will say: it is everywhere alike. The Alien is omnipresent in the best positions; the Briton, omnipresent at the Labour Exchanges and the relief centres. Yet it seems as if no determined effort is made to alter this scandalous state of affairs.
      A number of patriotic societies have been trying to right this terrible wrong, and some progress was being made. But there was a set-back when the “Labour” Government were in office in 1924 and again in 1929-31.
      On 25 November, 1924, the author was a member of a deputation to the Home Office on the Alien question, when he mentioned that there is really no job in this country which cannot be done by a Briton. The Home Secretary did not agree, although he was able to quote only one trade, that of furriers. Yet there are a number of British furriers in London alone who do not employ Aliens, and surely more English people have learned and can learn this trade? It was most noticeable at this deputation that a very dark man present became exceedingly excited when the author made this statement.
      During the past ten years there have been a large number of mysterious robberies and bankruptcies amongst the Alien furriers in this country.
      The official attitude is often beyond the understanding of the ordinary intelligent man. We foster the emigration of our best men and permit the immigration of the Alien, who, as our experience tells us (and our press continuously bears evidence of the fact), is of the worst possible type. We pour out our best blood in exchange for the polluted stream of the scum of Russia and Eastern Europe. Was {28} ever inconsistency carried to such an extent? We are merely—for no valid reason—completing vicious circles, and repeating them ad nauseam.
      All this loose administration adds to our population, which, unless checked and dealt with in a comprehensive manner, must assuredly overcome us and must bring this country to utter ruin in the comparatively near future.
      A poll-tax of say £10 per head per annum on every Alien employed here would greatly reduce this immigration. Such a tax would be equitable, as it is surely not patriotic to employ Aliens when there is this enormous unemployment and distress in our land.
      Mr. Basil Watson, K.C., a magistrate in the North London Police Court, made strong comments on 20 October, 1931, on the subject of Aliens coming to our country. Referring to the declarations which are signed before a magistrate when employment is given to Aliens, Mr. Watson said: “It is my duty to sign them, but I do so with the greatest horror and disgust, because there is not enough work for our own people” (Morning Post, 21 October, 1931, see Cases in the Courts, Appendix II).
      Another aspect of the employment question was brought to notice by Mr. Clarke Hall, the Old Street Magistrate, 21 February, 1928, who stated that he had “protested over and over again against the poor Welsh girls, brought from districts in Wales, where there is great distress, to become the servants of Aliens in this country, where they are unfairly treated, where goods are sold to them for which they have to pay out of their wages and where their lives are made unhappy.”
      “R. E. Corder,” the great authority on the Alien question, stated in the Daily Mail (20 October, 1931):—
      “Alien men and women employed in the East End tailoring trade are smuggled into London by a system of ‘faked’ passports, and once in the underpaid and overcrowded shops their Alien employers keep them in subjection by threat of exposure to the authorities.”
Regarding Ireland, the Tuam Herald (19 April, 1930), in an article on the Jew in Ireland, stated:—
      “For an Alien people so to increase, while side by side with that growth the native is decreasing, is not a very hopeful or healthy or cheering condition of things, economically considered. The Jew in Dublin is becoming a most formidable factor in the city life. {29} He occupies several large establishments therein, carrying on chiefly the ready-made clothing and furniture making and repairing.”
      One of the latest schemes of our “National” Government is to close the Royal Army Clothing Factory. This will mean dismissal and hardship to many hundreds of women, old and young. A considerable number of these are wives and daughters of soldiers, and most of them belong to families which have worked at this factory for generations. The War Office states that £25,000 a year will be saved. But what about the large sum which will have to be given in unemployment benefit? This work is now to be given to the clothing trade in the East End of London. The employers and employees of this trade are mostly Aliens.
      Another effort of our Government was to plaster the whole country with millions of posters “Buy British.” This was certainly a patriotic measure. But it is somewhat ironic that this large contract was given to J. Weiner, Ltd., W.C.1. J. Weiner is described in the files of the company at Somerset House as being originally an Austrian.


      Our musicians and theatrical performers have suffered greatly from foreign performers who have been allowed to come to our country and take up employment. And this has been especially the case since 1918. The following are returns from the Ministry of Labour regarding Alien Musicians and Theatrical Performers admitted:—


Admitted on Ministry of Labour permits.People who had entered as tourists, etc., and afterwards allowed to take up employment.Total permitted to take up employment.
1931 (9 months )1,956271,983

      From the above figures it will be seen that under our so-called Labour Government of 1929-31 the number of foreign entertainers admitted considerably increased, although during that period the number of unemployed English musicians and theatrical performers was rapidly {30} growing, and at the same time English bands and many English theatrical performers were not allowed to enter the U.S.A.
      Early in 1925 the secretaries of the Musicians’ Union came to see me and asked my help, as foreign jazz bands, chiefly from the U.S.A., were entering England in large numbers and were throwing hundreds of British musicians out of jobs. Thanks to a few patriotic M.P.s this foreign invasion was to some extent checked.
      After this our English musicians were getting on fairly well until our “Labour” Government relaxed regulations and allowed not only more performers to enter and take up employment, but allowed them to remain for indefinite periods.
      Of course, the “canned” music imported from the U.S.A. about 1928-29 into our cinemas has affected all musicians, English and foreign, and the distress amongst really good English musicians has been very great for the past three years.


      In 1930 the so-called “Labour” Government decided to subsidise Opera. This money was spent in importing foreign singers and musicians, when hundreds of our musicians and theatrical artistes have been without work for about three years or more and many were destitute. Moscow has for some years subsidised Opera, although millions of Russians have starved. No doubt our “Labour” Government had this scheme forced on them by their dictators.
      In December, 1931, the Ministry of Labour stated “that the question of tightening up the administration of the Aliens Order of 1920, in view of the heavy unemployment and the general industrial position at the present time, is now under active consideration.” But will this be done in a practical way? The replies and promises made in recent years to representations made by the London Trades Council and the Musicians’ Union are not forgotten. A statement similar to the above was issued by this Ministry in September, 1930. Yet shortly afterwards permits were granted for more American bands to enter Great Britain.
      And in spite of all the promises of our National Government regarding plans to stop this immigration, which have appeared in the Press, the Daily Mail {31} (23 January, 1932), in an authoritative article, states that 560 foreign performers had been admitted during October to December of last year.
      Hundreds of Alien artistes manage to get into this country as “stars” the reason given is that there is no English artiste available to play a particular part. These Aliens have remained indefinitely, taking all sorts of parts. For several years this farce has been going on. But we must not forget that both the theatrical and cinema businesses, especially the latter, have for many years been controlled by foreigners and that the theatrical employment agencies are in the same hands.
      It must be emphasised that the importation of foreign theatrical performers is often for propaganda purposes, i.e., for the same reason that is at the back of the foreign film, to make us international, anti-patriotic and pacific, to demoralise our people generally and to educate us down to the low-class population of the United States or the slums of Eastern European towns.
      Mr. Batten, Secretary of the Musicians’ Union, stated on 6 September, 1930: “I have indisputable evidence that many of the bands from America are financed by a few well-known people. I am convinced that they influence officials. Despite repeated deputations on behalf of unemployed British musicians, nothing is ever done to prevent Americans playing in England, although not a single English band is permitted in the States.” (Sunday Dispatch, 7 September, 1930).
      This Union on 5 May, 1930, declared that cases were known where Alien musicians had stayed on in England for nine or ten years. (Evening News, 5 May, 1930.)
      The Daily Mail, 15 January, 1932 said “that more than 10,000 musicians of all classes are unemployed in this country,” and again (16 February, 1932) that “five hundred applications have been received for positions in an orchestra of 35 required for a new cinema at Leeds.”
      Many of these foreign entertainers draw large salaries, yet it seems that a considerable number get away without paying any income-tax. “What influence is exerted to allow this? The Evening Standard (13 October, 1928) estimated the loss to our revenue at about £100,000 per annum. Is there no power to take action outside this country?
      In the United States of America no foreign entertainers or even chorus girls are given a permit to leave that country until his or her income-tax is paid. There is a {32} case, quoted in the Daily Mail (15 August, 1928), where a theatrical performer left this country owing nearly £15,000 in income-tax.
      For other Cases in the Courts see Appendix V.
      The report by the Select Committee of Public Accounts (Morning Post, 27 November, 1931) revealed that the problem of how to prevent foreign artists avoiding the payment of income-tax was discussed by the Committee. The evidence showed that the question was raised by Mr. A. M. Samuel, who presided. He drew the attention of Mr. P. J. Grigg, an official witness, to evasions and frauds totalling £2,267,740, and learned from him that one particular case referred to the Covent Garden district. Mr. Grigg agreed that many of these foreign artists had their money paid to them here or abroad and got away with it without paying income-tax. Sir Malcolm Ramsay, Comptroller and Auditor-General, said that the arrears in that district were four times as big as the average for the whole country. Mr. Grigg added that an Alien artist was liable on everything he earned in this country.
      Why this tender regard for the feelings of the foreigner? Is it due to the sterility of the official mind or to some influence of which the public know nothing, but only suspects?
      The Daily Mail (15 December, 1931) reported that in an interview Mr. Jack Hylton stated: “On three occasions in the last ten years I have had contracts to take my band to the United States, but each time the American Musician Federation has intervened.”


      The ease with which foreigners have come over here as “students” is remarkable. Moreover, even when they are in this country the watch kept upon them is so lax that many remain permanently and take employment, in breach of their undertaking on entry.
      On this subject the Evening News makes a very excellent suggestion, which is: “Obviously the proper way to handle the matter would be to permit no Alien to come to this country as a student without a guarantee from his own Government that it will ship him away when his allotted time has expired. Our Government would, of course, have to give a similar undertaking to foreign Governments to cover the case of Britons seeking education abroad.” {33}
      Obviously, more strict control of Alien “students” is essential, for their numbers are large, and they are capable of throwing many of our own people out of work. Moreover, they “study” here in our educational institutions that are supported or helped by public funds and charitable endowments. Many of these “students” are women who are possibly seeking employment.
      The Alien student and the Alien domestic servant seem to be closely united. The following are the statistics from the Ministry of Labour re


Year.Admitted on Ministry of Labour Permits.Allowed to take up employment after entry as visitors or students.Total/
1931 (9 months)4,9923145,306

      From the above figures it will be seen that during the “Labour” ministry, which won the 1929 election chiefly because they “had a cure for unemployment,” the number of Aliens allowed to take up domestic service has become greater.
      With about 4½ million people drawing doles and public assistance, the authorities should make it impossible for the above figures to increase as they are doing. As it is, the housewife of Great Britain pays wages to the Alien servant and “keeps” her, pays in taxation some part of the cost of the official machinery which brought that Alien here and “saw her through” the regulations, and pays again in taxation by way of insurance and also for the dole enjoyed by the other woman who refuses to work, and thereby perpetuates the ludicrous procedure forced upon her by authorities who seem to prefer the line of least resistance.
      It is true that the Ministry of Labour has decided that Alien domestic servants shall not “under-cut” British labour, and insists that the wage shall not be below the current rate for the particular work. Nevertheless, as British housewives just now are offering high wages for domestics of our own race, this condition, altruistic as it may appear, presents yet another inducement to the Alien girl. {34}
      Quite a serious side of the subject is the fact that there seems to be no official regulation whereby track is kept of these women. They are not returned to their native land after being discharged by their first employer; instead, they may remain to take any other job, thus assisting in throwing Englishwomen on the dole, and otherwise swelling the already huge ranks of the unemployed. It is suspicious that many of these foreign girls leave their first employment after a few weeks. It is surely illogical that if a British man-servant is employed a tax of 16s. a year has to be paid. But a foreign woman can be employed without a tax.
      The Daily Express (12 January, 1932) stated that in December, 1931, there were over 400,000 women drawing the dole. Yet the following notice is being issued (1932) by a new London domestic agency:—
      “German domestic helps and maids supplied in London and from abroad, large selection.”
      In other countries, especially in the U.S.A., if a man or woman cannot get a job at his or her usual trade they have to take up other kinds of work ... or starve.
      But the U.S.A. has always had as its principle “the dignity of labour,” and this is in a great measure responsible for the building up in a comparatively short time of the largest, strongest and most powerful country the world has ever seen.
      The Daily Express (8 October, 1931) published under the head of “Foreign Maids”:—

      “Mr. Bingley, the Marylebone magistrate, made a strong protest yesterday against the importing of foreign servants when a Swiss maid appeared before him on a charge of shoplifting.
      “‘There are,’ he said, ‘hundreds of respectable girls from Newcastle and Wales coming to the missionary here and asking for employment, and yet they bring over these foreign girls.
      “I cannot understand it. It seems to me extraordinary that with all these respectable English girls out of work they should give permits to these foreign girls to come in.’” {35}
      The following article in the Daily Mail (17 October, 1930) sums up this matter:—
      Domestic servants are on the dole and foreign girls are still in the kitchens of British homes.
      These Aliens keep on coming over here in thousands—from Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Germany and Russia—prepared to work for nothing or next to it so long as they can get a footing in this country. And suburban housewives, as a result, are no longer worrying over “the servant problem.” They can have their choice.
      Girls calling themselves “students” arrive in London on the pretext of finishing their education— many of them clever girls, especially those from Russia, who can speak two or three languages—and proceed to become domestic helps in middle-class and upper-class homes. In many cases they receive funds from home, which keeps them from requiring to compete with the British market.
      According to the immigration laws they are supposed to return to their own country after six or twelve months’ residence in London. But do they go back?
      “Many, very many do not,” admitted an immigration officer yesterday. “Some are made British subjects by marriage, a marriage that is a mockery, for they leave their husbands at the door of the register office. Others change their employment without giving us notice, and are absorbed in London’s millions.”

Another article in the Daily Mail of 3 December, 1930, dealt with the White Slave Traffic.
      Evidence of the ingenious methods employed by white slave traffickers in luring girls from their homes to a terrible fate abroad was given at the annual meeting of the National Vigilance Association and International Bureau at Caxton Hall, Westminster, yesterday.
      One case quoted in the annual report was that of a girl of 22 who was induced to go to Buenos Aires, as she thought, to take up a position offered to her {36} by a Frenchman she had met in Paris. This man used notepaper bearing a fictitious business heading, and had secured the girl’s confidence by obtaining for her a genuine temporary situation in Antwerp.
      From this she was sent to the Argentine with a letter of introduction to a man in Rosario. She had the curiosity to open the letter while she was at sea. It was addressed to the owner of several houses of ill-fame in the interior of the Argentine, and gave him full instructions as to what was to be done with the unsuspecting bearer of it.
      Mention was made of an undesirable “registry office” which had been importing Swedish girls into London ostensibly as domestic servants.
Here is an example of a common method by which the “student” gets employment:—
      In 1928 I replied to an advertisement which stated that a Norwegian lady wanted employment as cook or help, and on interviewing the advertiser I discovered that she had been over here about four months. Her passport was marked “student.” She said she would not take “wages,” but expected a present of money at the end of each month! This seemed to me to be an evasion of the regulations, and I reported the matter to a Member of Parliament, who in turn (at my request) put the matter forward to the Home Office. He received the following reply: “As far as the Home Secretary is aware, she is not in employment, nor in receipt of any remuneration in the household where she is now staying, in spite of her unfortunate advertisement.”
      Personally, I do not regard the advertisement as “unfortunate”; instead, it was obviously intended as an instrument to secure employment, which the woman was forbidden to do, and which was a condition she undertook to observe herself.


      Even the British seaman, who dared the enemy submarines during the war so that England should have food, is being forced out of his job by the foreigner, who, living a lower type of life than our own men, can work for a wage on which the Briton could not even exist. Take, for example, the seaport of Cardiff. Pay a visit to the Board of Trade offices there and count the Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, Arabs, and other Aliens, posing as British {37} subjects, securing employment while British seamen have to stand by the doors and look on. Cardiff is the stronghold of the Arabs and other coloured Aliens, who are as grave a danger to public health and morals as they are a continuous cause of unemployment among our own seamen. In the Daily Mail (6 October, 1927) there appeared a letter from a master-mariner who had sailed from Fowey to Bilbao and back to Newport (Mon.) in a “coasting” steamer, the crew of which was entirely Japanese! At the same time over 600 British seamen were “on the dole” in Cardiff alone. What other country in this world would tolerate such conditions? Yet there is another example of the foreigner ousting the British seaman, that is in the case of the Thames pilots.
      On 7 July, 1928, Thames pilots, licensed watermen, lightermen, and tugmen, held a mass meeting at Trafalgar Square, to protest against foreign vessels being allowed to navigate between London and Gravesend without a licensed pilot on board, and while British pilots and watermen are unemployed. Now, apart from throwing our own men out of work (in itself a factor of supreme importance), the foreign captains are a menace to the safe navigation of the river, owing to their reckless disregard of the rules by which the British watermen have strictly to abide. From the point of view of national defence and espionage this should never have been allowed.
The following two examples are of interest:—
      Wellington, New Zealand, Monday.
      Wellington’s new floating dock arrived here to-day after a record tow by two tugs of 13,627 miles. It left Tyneside last July.
      The dock would have reached Wellington before Christmas but for a railway strike in Queensland, Australia, where a halt was made to take in fuel.
      The crew which handled the dock on the voyage consisted of eleven men, of whom only one was an Englishman.—Reuter.—Daily Mail (29 December, 1931).
      Dutch tugs are being used to tow the British battleship “The Emperor of India” to Rosyth, where she is to be broken up.
      British tugmasters are indignant. {38}
      “We are suffering from the old tradition that Dutch tugs are more reliable than any others in the world,” said an official of the British Tugmasters’ Association to a Sunday Express representative yesterday. “But some of the greatest towing feats in the history of shipping have been carried out by British-built tugs manned by British seamen. We ask for fair play.
      “We have the best equipped tugs, the best seamen, and the best maritime engineering knowledge in the world.”—Sunday Express (21 February, 1932).

      Commander J. M. Kenworthy, E.N., M.P., in an article to the Daily Mail (28 November, 1931), states:—
      The increasing colonies of Arab seamen and firemen in our home ports are, perhaps, the worst scandal. In 1930, 4,404 Arab seamen and firemen were signed on by British shipowners in British ports to man British ships. For the first six months of the present year 2,025 Arabs were engaged before the eyes of crowds of British seamen standing idle and disheartened outside the shipping offices.
      But it is not only Arabs who are being given preference. We have had cases in Hull and Liverpool of steamers paying off their entire crews and for the next voyage taking none but Japanese.
      And there is precious little reciprocity. A British seaman out of a ship has little hope of getting work in an American, German, French or Italian vessel. The Governments of all these countries have laws compelling a certain percentage of their own nations to be carried afloat in their own ships.
      No Japanese shipowner dare engage a British crew. The Japanese Navy Department would have something to say about it if he did. The naval chiefs of the Island Empire of the East look upon Japanese sailors and firemen, whether employed under the Japanese flag or the British Red Ensign, as a potential reserve for the Imperial Japanese Navy.
      He suggests the following reforms, for which legislation would be needed:—
      1. Every British ship should be compelled to carry a percentage of white British crew. The actual figure would have to be fixed taking into account the number of British seamen now available, and could be increased from time to time. {39}
      2. In vessels trading between ports of the United Kingdom, or on the short sea voyages to Europe, no Asiatic or coloured rating should be allowed, and the percentage of European Alien seamen should be limited.
      3. Shipowners bringing their vessels to British ports with Chinese, Asiatic, or Arab crews, and paying them off, should be compelled to repatriate the Asiatics.
      4. After a certain date no foreign officers or engineers should be allowed in British ships trading to home ports, provided suitable British officers and engineers were available.

      The Times (19 March, 1931) reported Mr. Gk Keed, Secretary, Bristol Channel centre of the National Sailors’ and Firemen’s Union, as stating:—
      That the position in South Wales, and in Cardiff especially, was becoming increasingly serious, as evidenced by the fact that 57 per cent, of the total number of firemen shipped at the port last year consisted of Arabs and other coloured nationalities, and that if it continued in the same proportion white seamen resident at the port would be further penalized in the matter of employment. There were 1,400 unemployed white seamen in the port of Cardiff at present, of whom 70 per cent, were in receipt of unemployment benefit. At Barry unemployed white seamen numbered 320, practically all of whom received benefit.
      There was no doubt, he said, that coloured seamen were being smuggled into the country by means of bribery, and if it were not for the attitude of the Chief Constable of Cardiff and the immigration authorities the position would have been much worse. Unfortunately the powers of the police were limited in the matter, and unless the problem was tackled resolutely it would assume serious proportions. That the presence of such a large body of coloured men constituted a social problem of a grave kind was shown by the fact that in the south division of the city, represented in Parliament by Mr. Arthur Henderson, jun., half-caste children numbered over 500 and this number was steadily increasing. Owing to the ease with which registration and discharge papers could be passed between coloured races, and the difficulty of the police in checking them, there was no doubt that there were hundreds of unregistered Arabs and Alien seamen in this country, and it was time that these men should be re-registered, so as {40} to comply with the Order in Council issued in 1925. This Order provided that Arabs and other coloured Aliens who had not been to sea before 1925 could not be registered, but he was satisfied that there was at least 45 per cent, of this class of labour going to sea at British ports who had not complied with that Order, and who ought to be deported back to their own countries.

      It appears that Alien coloured seamen have little difficulty when in West Africa in obtaining British passports from native clerks there.
      The Daily Express (16 June, 1931) reported one hundred of the two hundred resident coloured Aliens in South Shields were receiving unemployment benefit. North Shields had eighty-eight, Hull ninety-five, Glasgow one hundred, Edinburgh thirty-nine—all drawing “the dole.”
The Daily Herald (4 March, 1930) said:—
      There is the evidence of the Chief Constable of South Shields, Mr. W. R. Wilkie. In his annual report he discloses that at the end of last year there were in the borough 407 coloured Alien seamen, of whom 77 were not registered.

      In the Shields Daily Gazette (12 December, 1929) Mr. W. Scott, a magistrate, was reported as stating: “We cannot add to the already large population of Aliens in this town. We have a big army of unemployed.”
      The Daily Mail (2 October, 1930) reported:— “Nearly 100 Arab seamen have been admitted inmates of Harton institution at South Shields, and the cost of keeping these will be at least £1 per week per man.”
      Representatives of the National Union of Seamen and Firemen had a conference with the President of the Board of Trade on 16 April, 1930. They pointed out that there were then 21,000 British seamen unemployed, while an increasing number of Chinese and Arabs were being employed on British ships. They also pointed out that it was not wise to let these Alien seamen form colonies in our ports, where they lived with white women. Our “Labour” Government seem to have done nothing, and the situation since then has got much worse.
      The problem of the half-caste child is a serious one and is growing in our seaports. These families have a low standard of living, morally and economically. It is practically impossible for half-caste children to be absorbed into our industrial life and this leads to grave moral results, particularly in the case of girls. {41}
      The following is one case, of many recently in the papers, which shows what is happening:—
      Revelations of a traffic in white girls by coloured men on Merseyside were made at Birkenhead yesterday, when Charles Susselidean, aged 30, an Indian who was stated to have been formerly a conjurer at a “Temple of Mysteries” at Blackpool and to have married his white wife in a mosque, was sentenced to six months’ hard labour for living in part on the earnings of a 20-years-old white woman, Mrs. – –
      Chief Inspector Hughes said mothers had complained that their daughters were missing, and were later found at Susselidean’s premises in Liverpool.
      Mrs. – –told a Daily Mail reporter that young girls should be warned against answering certain advertisements and entering into the employment of coloured men.
      “Other coloured men on Merseyside are searching for young girls,” she said. “I was deserted by my husband and left with a baby to support, and I jumped at the chance offered by a ‘girl wanted’ notice. When too late I discovered what the notice meant.”
      (Daily Mail, 21 October, 1930.)

      The Sunday Express (3 January, 1932) stated: “There are 40,000 British seamen and 2,000 officers out of work. But the foreign crews are carrying the cargoes bought by British people. Foreigners have seized one-third of Britain’s inter-coastal trade. Yet Britain is the only country which permits foreigners to exploit coastal trade.”
      The U.S.A. has excluded foreigners, including British, from exploiting the coastal trade of the U.S.A. “Why should we not do likewise?


      We now come to the latest plan of our so-called National Government to relieve unemployment. Foreign-owned factories are to be erected in England!
      Several of our newspapers have lately published articles on the subject and have hailed this scheme with enthusiasm. Many readers may be inclined to find cause for jubilation regarding this invasion, thinking no doubt of the number of unemployed who may—or may not— be absorbed in these Alien-run concerns. {42}
      What are the facts?
      (1) Our National Government allows these Alien capitalists to bring in 10 per cent, of foreigners, who settle here. The excuse given is that these are experienced men to teach our workmen. But as the foreigners will probably not be able to speak English, and will not understand the way of the British workmen, it seems a very doubtful arrangement.
      (2) All the better jobs are given to Aliens.
      (3) The British workman does all the hard dirty work for low pay.
      (4) The whole profits leave this country.
      (5) The Alien hordes here are increased.
      (6) The foreigner is often secretly subsidised by his own government, or from some other source, and can therefore erect and equip factories where the British manufacturer cannot; he can also produce cheaper, because of the lack of Government support to our industries.
      (7) Does our National Government realise that we have plenty of British capital available; that we have now unemployed a large number of experienced British managers and foremen and highly-skilled men of all kinds of trades?
      But in addition to the above reasons against this penetration there is another and a more serious one. What kind of foreign men, or women, will form this 10 per cent.? What about subversive propaganda? These foreigners cannot have our British ideals and traditions. Many of them may be Communists. And will the number be limited to 10 per cent.? It will be difficult, almost impossible to watch and check this.
      These foreign agents, who in many cases will come from Eastern Europe, will gradually get hold of our British workmen and women. It will be difficult for our people thus employed to resist, as they will be provided with good wages and a good cottage near their work, which they will lose if they do not play the Communist game. Elaborate this sinister plan all over the British Isles and what will be the result?
      Surely our present Government should be called “The International Government.”

V. The Alien and Public Health
Top of page ]

One of the most important matters to consider with regard to Public Health is Housing.
      During 1928 Mr. Lloyd George made speeches regarding house-overcrowding in London, particularly in North Kensington. And in July, 1931, Sir Stafford Cripps, at the opening of new flats in North Kensington, stated that the slums of Kensington were most tragic and he drew special attention to the infantile mortality in the Golborne Ward, North Kensington. Neither of these ex-ministers seemed to be aware of the fact that the chief cause of this menace to the public health is the great influx of Aliens, a large proportion of whom have been permitted to enter this country solely on account of the Liberal and “Labour” policies.
      The Golborne Ward, North Kensington, contains a very large proportion of Aliens and people of recent Alien extraction; probably a greater proportion than any other part of London except perhaps Stepney.
      This influx of Aliens has greatly increased the demand for rooms, and so has forced up the rents.
      Therefore, in this chapter, I propose to demonstrate to what extent the Alien is responsible for the conditions to which Mr. Lloyd George referred.
      If only by reason of the fact that the Alien breeds faster than our own British stock he constitutes a danger to the public health. He is a born slum-maker because he and his kind herd together under conditions of life that disgust the average Briton. Like the locust, he destroys wherever he alights. In the East End of London there are numbers of large tenement buildings (flats) comparatively new, and well and conveniently built. The money for some of these buildings came from charitable sources, benefactions, etc., and a few years ago they were cleanly {44} habitations occupied by decent English people. But to-day these buildings are crowded by Aliens and have become sordid dens. This also applies to some flats built by Borough Councils. Here, as in other places where the foreigner has taken up his abode, respectable neighbourhoods become evil colonies, where the most elementary laws of sanitation are disregarded. The Alien drives away the clean-minded natives and fills the vacant space with double the number of human beings for which it was originally intended. In such cases there is no accidental invasion that cannot be avoided. The Alien speculators in property deliberately degrade a street or neighbourhood by letting their houses to swarms of low-class foreigners, and the decent people, unable to stomach the filthy manners of the newcomers, are forced to leave, and the vacant houses, depreciated in value, are snapped up cheaply by the Alien, who lets them to another batch of foreigners. One need only take a stroll in the East End of London to verify this statement.
      The following is an extract from The Times of 27 November, 1924.
      “Here in our midst within a few minutes’ train journey from the Mansion House, we may find what is in many of its features an Eastern European Ghetto, resembling those to be seen in Odessa or in the towns of Galicia. The foreign population is mainly composed of Jews of Slav descent. They have driven out from the districts where they have settled, not only the British, but many of the respectable and anglicised Jews. But . . they do not form a desirable element. These people remain an Alien element in our land. The chief evils which arise from the presence of this large and concentrated body of unassailable Aliens are overcrowding and political ignorance, and upon its mischiefs, physical and moral, there is no need to dwell. Aliens from the slums of Polish or Ukrainian towns will live in inconceivable filth and squalor, and their readiness to do so encourages the slum landlords to force up rents alike on Gentile and on Jew.”

      In its series of articles in November, 1924, The Times said that in Stepney alone there were 150,000 people of recent Alien extraction; and the Daily Herald, in 1923, stated that St. Jude’s Parish, Whitechapel, contained only 300 British to 2,000 Aliens. {45}
      This bears out my contentions which are contained in the earlier paragraphs of this chapter. Most of these Aliens in Stepney call themselves Russians, but few speak Russian, and almost all speak Yiddish.
      Health and morals alike go by the board when the Alien takes up his residence.
      In a letter to me Mrs. Mary Lucy Moore, of High Street, Poplar, says:
      “We saw your letter in the The Times last Monday re Aliens in this country. This is a settlement for workers in this district among the poor. The Chinese quarter is close here and is simply a den of iniquity. Could anything be done to get rid of these Chinese and also black men? Chinese and black women do not come to this country, and consequently nearly every Chinaman and black man has a white woman living with him.
      In other parts near here, there are whole streets of German and Polish Jews; they are increasing very much, and ousting our people, who are crowded in a way that is disgraceful; families of six, eight, and ten, living in two rooms in many cases, and paying 12s. 6d. a week rent—and some of the streets near the docks are infested with rats. We pay the rates and taxes for the schooling of these Alien children. There is one school near by entirely for German children.”
      Owing to their lower and less cleanly manner of life, the Aliens are prolific carriers of disease, much of which was unknown in this country before the Alien came to live with us. Trachoma is a case in point. A high medical authority who has for twenty years made a special study of the subject of disease-carrying, says:
      “Trachoma is an Alien disease and was introduced by Aliens. Many text books do not mention it. It was introduced by the immigrants from S.E. and S. Europe. It is a filthy and disfiguring disease and highly infectious. It is a pustular inflammation of the eyelids and front of the eye, and when healed (a very long and painful process), leaves very disfiguring and painful scars. During the course of the disease the eyelids become much swollen and vesicles filled with purulent matter are formed. When they burst they scatter the infectious matter which can be conveyed to others on handkerchiefs, towels, and by ordinary contact, and by the hands of the person suffering from the {46} disease. Public conveyances can be rendered infective by persons afflicted with the disease travelling in them.”
      Trachoma was exceedingly prevalent in Scotland thirty years ago, when there was a large immigration of Poles who went there to work in the mines. But it was almost entirely stamped out by the exertions of the medical profession. The disease has now been re-imported through the medium of Russians and the races of Eastern Europe, and already we read that “over 300 school children of Barry are infected with this grave eye disease, and medical men of the town issued a serious warning for care to be taken.”—Vide Daily Mail, 27 March, 1928. There were serious outbreaks of this disease in the winter of 1931-32. No wonder the great institutions like the Swanley Institute for Contagious Ophthalmia have to be carried on at such enormous expense.
      Another disease brought here by the Alien from Eastern Europe is Favus, a malignant skin disease, very contagious and extremely refractory to treatment. It is more prevalent in the South of Scotland among the Polish miners there.
      But attention is drawn to a far more serious aspect of this Alien immigration. Crucial problems of insanity as they confront our people to-day are laid bare without a rag of disguise by Dr. T. B. Hyslop, the late senior physician of the Royal Bethlehem Hospital in his book, The Borderland, published by Phillip Allen (32s. 6d.). Dr. Hyslop lays great stress on the downward drag caused by the presence of a parasitic horde of unfit Aliens. He goes on to say:
      “Now the cause of this strain upon the people may be summed up in a word, ‘overcrowding,’ with its inevitable train of evils—pauperism, famine, and disease. This condition, with its symptoms, is brought about not by increased fertility of the Anglo-Saxon race—for that has been proved to be the reverse—but partly by the invasion of our land by hordes of Aliens who mostly come as social wreckage from other lands to clog the wheels of our constitution and to harass and impede the evolution of our race. These degenerates throng our out-patient departments, they gain entrance to our hospitals, they grasp the charities established by our fathers and we quietly nurse those who, biologically viewed, are literally drinking our lifeblood.” {47}
      A magistrate, Mr. J. A. E. Cairns, has dwelt on the dangers we run from insane Aliens:
      “I have been impressed by the number of Aliens who develop insanity. It is not a matter that concerns a Metropolitan magistrate, but one of State policy, when there is such an increase of insane persons. We seem to have no machinery for dealing with the influx of Aliens with this tendency. We are intensifying a very grave social problem.”—(Weekly Dispatch, 2 November, 1924.)
      Cases in the Courts (see Appendix V) bear this out, and the Annual Report of the London County Council (Mental Hospitals) for 1930, discloses that at the end of that year there were 759 Aliens residing in the L.C.C. Mental Hospitals alone. These must cost the ratepayers about £150—per patient per annum.
      How many Aliens are there in provincial Asylums? And how many of the mentally afflicted residents who are classed as “British” are really British?
      How many of these latter are Aliens or of recent Alien extraction?
      It would seem that no Alien has ever been prosecuted for entering his or her name on the census as “British.” In fact, as has been already stated, many Aliens have been instructed, from certain sources, that they become British after five or seven years’ residence in the British Isles.


      The medical authority whom we have previously quoted has this to say of another disease of Alien origin:—
      “Amaurotic Family Idiocy (Tay-Sachs disease), is a disease peculiar to Jewish children and not appearing in other races. English persons by inter-marriage are liable to have their children as sufferers from the disease. It is a form of idiocy accompanied with blindness and, more or less, general paralysis. It is a frightful disease, and is hereditary.”
      He goes on to say, apropos the influence of the Alien on our public health:—
      “The type of Alien that comes to this country belongs to a race that on the Continent of Europe and Asia lives under the most appalling sanitary conditions and whose moral codes are completely at variance with Western ethics. Living for generations and time {48} immemorial under these conditions, there is no doubt that it has become so relatively immune to syphilis and other diseases, that the individuals of that race can carry these diseases and transmit them by infection, without themselves showing any severe symptoms of them; and possibly in many cases, may manifest no symptoms at all. Thus, while apparently free from syphilis, these Aliens may none the less infect healthy persons. And there can be no reasonable doubt that a great amount of infection has been introduced into this country.”
      No wonder the London hospitals (supported by the voluntary contributions of our own people) are unable to cope with the enormous number of sick and injured. There are hundreds of applicants always on the waiting list for beds, and a large proportion of these are Aliens who have no right to be in this country, and others who can afford to pay a doctor.
      A slum-maker and a disease-carrier—what a menace to our public health, and what a cost to our country is the Alien!


      It may not be known generally to the public that a aboratory for the study of National Eugenics exists as one of the Departments of the University of London. It was founded by a very eminent Englishman, explorer and man of science, the late Sir Francis Galton, after whom it has been named. The Laboratory is under the direction of Professor Karl Pearson, F.R.S., whose scientific work on the application of statistics to vital problems and essays on questions affecting national welfare have a world-wide reputation. As defined by Sir Francis Galton “National Eugenics is the study of agencies under social control, that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations, either physically or mentally.” As shown by the work of Sir Francis and of Professor Karl Pearson, the most important, potent and abiding of these agencies, is heredity or inheritance. What a race is or may become depends upon the inborn nature of the material composing it. It is therefore of urgent and vital importance to ascertain and to watch very carefully the {49} nature of all Alien immigration into this country. The harm done to national welfare and safety by the introduction of an Alien population inferior to our own, whether physically, mentally or morally may well be irretrievable, if not attended to immediately.
      The Directors of the Sir Francis Galton Laboratory for National Eugenics, recognising this fact, undertook long before the War a most careful and scientifically impartial investigation concerning Alien population. The results of this investigation are published in the “Annals of Eugenics” for 1925 and 1927, by Professor Karl Pearson and Miss Margaret Moul, under the title of: “The Problem of Alien Immigration into Great Britain, illustrated by an examination of Russian and Polish Jewish Children.” As the authors point out in the introductory part of their article, “the purport of the memoir is to discuss whether it is desirable in an already crowded country like Great Britain to permit indiscriminate immigration.” The authors discuss the nature of the standards it is desirable, in national interests, to enforce upon all immigrants, and they point out that not only do we require “physical and mental fitness” but an attitude of mind “in full sympathy with our national habits and ideals.” They go on to point out that “there is no institution more capable of impartial statistical inquiry than the Galton Laboratory.” “They have no axes to grind, no governing body to propitiate by well advertised discoveries; no payments accepted to reach results of a given bias; and no electors or subscribers to encounter in the market-place.” They further point out that they conducted their investigations on the “Jewish Alien immigrants, not because they were non-Christian, or racially remote from our own people or because their traditions are against blending with their hosts.” But “because the bulk of the indiscriminate immigration from 1906 onwards turned largely on the Alien Jews.” And as indicative in a general way of the nature of the Aliens that are pouring into this overcrowded island, it may not be amiss and is certainly instructive to note that the authors in describing some of the difficulties which beset their inquiries, mention the fact that in the examination of eyesight they found that “the Jewish girls—even some of the elder ones—became nervous and there were even hysterical threatenings.” {50}
      The conclusions reached by the authors are of such profound importance as affecting the interests and welfare of our nation, that all men of British race and especially all statesmen and politicians should obtain the “Annals of Eugenics” and carefully read the whole of the two memoirs.
      The most that I can do is to cite some of the chief results of the work of Professor Karl Pearson and Miss Margaret Moul.


      The consideration of the problem of Alien immigration was dealt with under five sections: of these sections four considered the very important physical characteristics of stature, weight, association of stature and weight with age, nutrition, state of teeth, state of glands, tuberculosis, tonsils and adenoids, various pathological states, i.e.:—heart disease, ear diseases, eye diseases, and keenness of vision.
      Section five recorded the results of the investigation into the habits of Jewish and native British children, such as cleanliness of hair and body, condition of clothes, etc.
      The conclusions of the authors are stated in the following words: “Indeed, taken all round we should not be exaggerating if we asserted that the Jewish Alien children were inferior in the great bulk of the categories dealt with under sections IV and V.”


      Dealing with diseases of the ears, as to whether they were healthy or discharging, the investigation shows that “again the statistics tell against the Alien Jewish children.”


      The same fact is revealed with eye diseases for as the authors say: “There can be no doubt of the superiority in eye-healthiness of the average British native over the Alien Jewish child.” It is apparently a very great superiority for while there are 10.66 per cent, of Jewish boys unhealthy there are only 4.09 of British boys.


      Dealing with teeth the result of the investigation is summed up in the statements that the “Alien Jewish children in the case of boys have fewer perfect teeth than {51} the Gentile native” and “the belief that the Jews have better teeth than our native population is therefore not substantiated by our data for these Jewish children.”


      “The statistics seem to indicate a greater prevalence of tuberculous disease among the Alien Jews than among the average children of the London elementary schools. The disease appears to run a more chronic and less fatal course in Jews than Gentiles. A chronically affected population may be less efficient than one not so affected, but having a higher death rate.”


      “The table dealing with tonsils and adenoids shows that the Alien Jewish children are worse than all Gentile London districts grouped. With regard to heart disease it is impossible to escape the conclusion that the Alien Jewish children have seriously more heart trouble than the average Gentile children.”


      Dealing with the inquiries into personal cleanliness comprising condition of body and hair; presence of nits and fleas; verminous in hair or body or both, the authors state:—
      “It does not seem to us that there can be any doubt as to these results: The standard of the Jewish Aliens in the matter of personal cleanliness is substantially below that of even the poor Gentile children. The full gravity of this result will only be realised when we remember how vitally important it would be, if London were struck by a great epidemic. We know that some of the most serious epidemic diseases are borne by parasites, and that uncleanliness renders these possible. The recent danger of the invasion of Western Europe by epidemics from the East was largely owing to the condition of the Polish and Russian populations on its eastern borders, and one factor of that condition—as grave as impaired physique—was uncleanliness.”
      “It is clear that the Alien Jewish children are far below the average of the British children in cleanliness of head and in soundness and cleanliness of clothing. There seems some ground for the statement frequently made that they undersell natives in the labour market {52} because they have a lower standard of life. The only schools where dirty clothing is—for the boys at any rate—as extensive as among the Alien Jews is in the schools for mentally defective children in Glasgow.”

      The presence therefore of a large Alien population in every city in this country, far below the level even of our own poor people in their condition of uncleanliness, is a permanent menace to the health of the nation.


      Considering the question of intelligence and general literacy the investigation revealed facts which the authors sum up in the statements:—
      “It was remarkable how many parents who had passed years in England were still incapable of speaking English.” And:— “It is accordingly clear that about one-third of these immigrants must be totally uneducated. It is certainly a very serious matter that no educational standard is imposed on immigrants into this country.”

The above extracts speak for themselves, and Mr. Lloyd George and Sir Stafford Cripps would do well to study the memoir of Professor Karl Pearson and Miss Margaret Moul before they again speak on the question of slums!

VI. The Alien and Public Morals
Top of page ]

A MAN of unclean habits has, obviously, an unclean mind; the Alien is anything but an exception to the rule and, therefore, it does not come as a surprise to us when we find that the decay in public morals is the direct result of Alien influence. The white-slave traffic, the cocaine and other drug traffic, prostitution, the business of receiving stolen goods, “long firm” frauds, and the establishment of those ghastly dens of the underworld, the night-clubs—all these nefarious and immoral practices are very largely fostered and controlled by the Alien. In short, if he can excel at anything it is in crime and, compared with him, the average British rogue is a mere tyro.
      At the end of this book I have given a number of cases from the courts, which show that crime with the Alien is not merely a hobby, but a confirmed, life-long habit. I can quote many hundreds more cases, but those I have given are sufficient to indicate that in the Alien we have the greatest menace to public morals—a loathsome octopus with his tentacles tightly grasping and fouling everything that comes within his reach.
      Sir Ernest Wild, speaking in the House of Commons on 15 April, 1919, stated (Hansard, 15 April, 1919, col. 2778):—
      “You cannot be in the Criminal Courts without realising what an enormous amount of the work of our Courts is caused by the Aliens and their crimes. . . Vice! Why they are at the bottom of one-half, at least, of the vice of the Metropolis and of this country. The White Slave Traffic, unnatural vice, the exploitation of English girls whom they marry and then live upon the proceeds of their prostitution; the brothel-keepers, who are too clever to be caught because they keep in the background; the people with gambling hells, who lead young men to destruction, and who bring in such horrible practices as {54} doping and unnatural offences—that is the sort of atmosphere that has been introduced into this country by these people.”

      This pronouncement by Sir Ernest Wild, who is the Recorder of London, is most important, coming as it does from one whose experience in law and the Criminal Courts —the Old Bailey, etc.—is so extensive. His statement and those which I have made in the foregoing pages, receive abundant and continuous corroboration, as the cases reproduced below from the columns of the national Press, show. Every week similar cases are reported in the newspapers. The author has hundreds of these cases filed, but owing to lack of space, a few cases in each category can only be given.
      The truth of Sir Ernest Wild’s assertion is borne out by Sir William Joynson-Hicks (now Lord Brentford), who in the House of Commons (11 February, 1925) said that one in every sixty-eight Aliens in the country went to prison, although of the population there was one Alien to 160 nationals. It was a fact that the percentage of Aliens received into prison was two and one-third higher than that of British subjects.
      On 26 March, 1925 (see Daily Mail) the Common Sergeant, Sir H. F. Dickens, in sentencing Solomon Abraham Diamondstein to 3 years’ penal servitude for long firm frauds, said: “It was an astonishing fact that there was hardly a case of this kind where the criminals were not Aliens. They came over here to get the benefit of our laws and then preyed upon English society.” Mr. H. R. Oswald, the West London Coroner, confirms this. Holding an inquest on a youth who had died in Wormwood Scrubs Prison he observed:—
      “I have noticed in glancing at the prison calendars that a large percentage of the prisoners are foreigners. This country is open to the scum of the earth, who fill our prisons and increase our expenses.”

      The North London magistrate, in dealing with a Russian Alien, stated: “The more I hear about the registration of Aliens the less I am impressed. We hear a lot about undesirable Aliens drifting about and we don’t seem to have any control over them.”
      “They (the authorities) have not the courage to dump them on the shore.” (Weekly Dispatch, 4 September, 1926).
      Mr. Bingley, the Marylebone magistrate, sentencing two Italians to three months’ hard labour for pocket-picking at the Zoo and recommending them for deportation, said:—
      “The facility with which foreigners are able to pour into this country is amazing, seeing that England is already deluged with out-of-work men of both the professional and the working classes. These men apparently can get into the country with ease.”

      Det.-Sergt. Salisbury said one man described himself as a traveller in leather, and the other as a wine merchant.
      These Aliens, on entering the country, gave a fictitious address and then disappeared and the police were unable to trace them. (Daily Mail, 15 October, 1930.)
      At the North London Police Court (19 October, 1931) Detective-Sergeant Green, giving evidence against a man described as a “Russian,” who had entered England without a passport, stated: “There is a great influx of international criminals into this country at the present time.” (Evening Standard, 20 October, 1931.) This case was referred to in Truth (28 October, 1931):—

      “I do not know whether English pickpockets are allowed to supplement their pilferings by drawing the dole, but if not they may very reasonably complain of the preferential treatment of a Russian competitor named Geer. It was disclosed at the North London Police Court last week that for some months past he had been ‘on the dole,’ though he was meanwhile pursuing his vocation among the crowds at greyhound race meetings. This puts into the shade all previous examples of the abuse of the unemployment insurance system, but the case is of interest for another reason. Geer has been convicted on several occasions—once for living on a woman’s immoral earnings—and orders have been made for his deportation. Thanks to official jackassery, however, instead of being shipped back to his native land, the rascal has been permitted to remain here ‘on parole.’
      “There is evidently much need for the promised tightening-up of the regulations with regard to unwanted and undesirable Aliens. Another Russian who was convicted with Geer of attempting to pick pockets had landed in England on 22 September, ‘having had no difficulty whatever in slipping past {56} the immigration officials.’ Perhaps these criminals have heard that if their own business is slack they can live ‘on the dole.’”
      (See also Cases in the Courts, Appendix V.)

      From the above it is apparent that the laws passed to protect us against Alien criminals have very largely been quite ineffective. That has resulted from our not having suitable administrative machinery to enforce them. Such administrative machinery as we have possessed has always been imperfect, and under the Socialist Government of 1929-31 it naturally functioned very badly.
      It is well known that crimes, especially robberies and robberies with violence, have greatly increased. And the proportion of cases undetected is also greater. Many of these crimes are to no small extent, directly or indirectly, the work of Aliens, due to the faulty system of Alien control. Also in recent years there have been a large number of mysterious robberies and bankruptcies amongst Alien furriers in this country.
      The Daily Express (19 April, 1929) made the statement that in future no man of Alien parentage, and no man who is married to a wife from a foreign country, will be allowed to take duty in the Special (Political) Branch of the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard. This decision followed an enquiry held by Lord Byng, the Chief Commissioner of Police, Chief Constable Wensley and other senior officers into conditions of service. People who have studied crime in this country, especially political crime and espionage, must be astonished that this Order was not made fifty years ago. And why does it not apply to the entire Police Force? Again, it is surely not sound to enlist so many men for the Metropolitan Police, and police of large towns, from the rural population. To be a good detective in London it is advisable that he should be born a Londoner and, better still, that his forbears should have been Londoners and so inherit the intelligence and smartness required for this difficult work, and Londoners have always been renowned for those qualities. The Times (3 February, 1932) said:—
      Alien criminals are becoming a serious problem for Scotland Yard. Although many of them have lately been rounded up and sent to prison, and will be deported at the end of their sentences, the police know from experience that they will probably be back again before many weeks are over. Neither the Aliens Order {57} nor the need of passports troubles them to any great extent. They come and go much as they please. To quote the words of an experienced detective: “There are two or three ways in which Alien criminals can get into this country, but it is not advisable to make them public. Once here, they find little difficulty in losing themselves. Few of them are known to Scotland Yard, and they are nearly all well versed in crime.” The present Alien invasion is attributed to some extent to the extension some months ago of the period of grace allowed under the immigration regulations to foreigners who come to this country. Formerly they were required to register or report to the police within two months of landing; but, as the result of representations that the rule imposing police registration tended to frighten away the legitimate tourist, the period was extended last June to three months. Foreign criminals know that the police in this country, and more especially in London, have their hands pretty full, and that unless they are unlucky enough to be caught in some criminal enterprise they are hardly likely to be challenged. This explains why so many Aliens appearing in London police courts are eventually identified as men who have previously been deported.
      On 11 November Captain A. B. Moore, Inspector of Police for the State of New York, when interviewed in London, told a Daily Mail representative that a large proportion of criminals in the U.S.A. are foreign-born or immigrants who allied themselves to the criminal element.
      During recent years there has been a great increase in the number and magnitude of robberies, especially robberies of jewellery, furs, pictures, etc. Few of these robbers have been caught. The thieves generally very quickly pass on the proceeds to receivers in order to reduce their risk of detection.
      It is well known that most of these receivers are Aliens. If there were no receivers there would be few such robberies as the thieves have not the machinery for selling these things.
      These “fences” have a well-planned organisation to market the jewels, etc. It is said that a considerable proportion of the loot finds its way to South Africa through Aliens in this country.
      Why should not these Alien receivers be deported as undesirables? How is it that so few are convicted, and {58} when convicted are not deported? For example, one, Morris Krayer, tobacconist and jeweller, “born in Warsaw” (see report of trial in Daily Express 20 September, 1930), was sentenced at the Old Bailey to three years’ penal servitude for receiving stolen property, but was not recommended to be deported. Why?
      It is no secret that the police know of many of these Alien receivers. Who protects them? They must be men with influence.
      In more serious crimes, we still find the Alien occupying a prominent position. We note in the court records many Aliens—described as Russians, Poles, Austrians, Germans, and Roumanians, etc.—who have, since the introduction of the Aliens Act in 1905, murdered one or more persons in this country.
      The following review in the Daily Mail has a bearing on the subject:—
      The identification of Jack-the-Ripper with George Chapman, alias Severin Klosowski, suggested by Mr. Adam in his introduction to the latest volume of the Notable British Trials Series (Trials of George, Chapman, Hodge and Co., 10s. 6d.) would be of extraordinary interest if it could be verified.
      Chapman was a monster of cruelty who was hanged in 1903 for having poisoned three women, perhaps many more, out of sheer lust for murder.
      Jack-the-Ripper killed with the knife seven women in Whitechapel in 1888 and 1889, within an area of less than a square mile. From the circumstances of his crimes—the most hideous in our criminal annals—he must have delighted in bloodshed.
      Thus, if Chapman was not identical with Jack-the-Ripper there were two human monsters at large at the same date and in the same area, for in 1888 and 1889 Chapman was living close to the scene of the murders.
            (Daily Mail, 30 April, 1930.)


      The Daily Mail (23 October, 1930) also published the following:—
      “It is notorious that the audacious and successful share-pushers operating in this country are Americans who have graduated in the United States as stock-salesmen. Many of them have come under the notice of the authorities {59} in their own country, and not a few have crossed the ocean to continue the enjoyment of personal liberty.
      In every sense of the word these men are undesirable Aliens. Under the powers given them by the Aliens Act and the Immigration Regulations the Home Office and the police could prevent them from landing at English ports, or, if they were found in this country, having arrived from the Continent by means of a week-end ticket, they could be expelled after suitable punishment for evading the immigration regulations.
      These men, however, boast that they have no difficulty in entering England and remaining here without molestation.
      The Daily Mail is in a position to furnish the names of many of these American share-pushers, the names of the bucket shops, outside brokers and so-called financial papers by which they are employed, the places they frequent, the addresses at which they can be found, if the authorities can conceive it their duty, in view of the revelations in the Faber-Bowles case, to take more vigorous action than they have done in the past.
      Meanwhile it is of interest to note that a certain American citizen, who was associated with the Stock Market Record, one of the most active of share-pushing organisations, has again left the country, following the exposure of his conduct in the Daily Mail.
      This man was arrested in July, 1930, for contravening the Alien regulations, fined £50, and ordered to leave the country. At that time he was associated with share-pushers.
      No sooner was he out of this country than he set about devising ways and means of returning. On application to the Home Office he was granted a special permit to return to England for “medical treatment,” and he arrived back in London early in September. The “treatment” seemed to necessitate his presence in his old haunts with his share- pushing associates and the frequenting of luxury hotels in the West End.”
      On 9 February, 1932, Jack Klein, the son of a Jewish Rabbi, was sentenced to 21 months’ imprisonment for receiving more than £250,000 from Jacob Factor (an American of Polish parents) knowing it to have been unlawfully obtained. Our Government has applied for extradition from the U.S.A. for Jacob Factor, who is wanted on charges of defrauding British investors of {60} £1,500,000. Most of these investors were people with little money, who gave Factor all their savings.
      It is difficult to understand how English people can trust their hard-earned savings to these Alien Company Promoters. Surely our countrymen have had severe lessons in the past from the time of Baron Grant (whose real name was Gottheimer) to Whitaker Wright, who lived in the U.S.A. under various German names before coming to England. Then of late we have experienced the swindles on a large scale of Lorang, Gialdini and that master-mind, Hatry. Lorang was of German nationality and was not naturalised and did not serve in the War. The parents of Hatry (Hebrew Hatra), according to Somerset House, are Julius Hatry and Henriette Katzenstein.


      Anyone who has studied the London Gazette during recent years will have noticed that as regards London nearly 50 per cent, of bankrupts have foreign names.
      Sir James Martin, Treasurer of the Association of the British Chambers of Commerce, probably our greatest authority on the subject of fraudulent bankruptcy and “long-firm” frauds, speaking at Southampton in May, 1924, said:—
      “It had been found throughout the country, especially since the War, that a number of people had been preying on manufacturers and traders. Some of the worst of these adventurers were persons who had arrived from all parts of Europe and had obtained credit. While the whole world seemed to be raising barriers against us as individuals, we opened our doors, and were not only admitting everybody’s rubbish, but a lot of blackguards of Europe. According to the London Gazette, in the last two years considerably over four hundred men who had been made bankrupt or had compounded with creditors had foreign names.”
My observation here is that the fraudulent bankruptcies and criminal actions allied to them have continued, and will continue, while control remains lax and incomplete. Deportation after imprisonment is the only solution, is the opinion of the Registrar of the Liverpool Bankruptcy Court, Mr. Nield, who said that:—
      “Some of the Aliens, notably from Russia, abused the credit system, which was a necessity in British {61} commerce. By some strange instinct they evaded bankruptcy offences and appeared in court with liabilities of thousands of pounds and assets mostly nil. The usual course of adjourning the public examination sine die was quite futile, because the bankrupt had already arranged for his business to be carried on as usual in the name of his wife or some other relative. They had no fewer than six members of one family in sequence. The fact that deportation was possible would be a strong deterrent to these family arrangements to evade payment of liabilities.”
      At the annual meeting in London, 12 December, 1929, of the Textile Trade Association for the Prevention of Fraudulent Trading, Mr. Charles Hawkins, the Chairman, said it ought to be realised that the bulk of the fraudulent traders were Aliens. He advocated deportation on conviction, as it was a scandal that Alien traders who enjoy the utmost liberty here should abuse our hospitality by engaging in nefarious practices. Mr. John Paynter, a Vice-President, declared that the standard of honesty in the textile trade was not so high as it was when he first joined it 40 years ago. He added: “I attribute this largely to the pernicious and corroding influence of these Alien traders.” (Yorkshire Post, 20 December, 1929; Drapers’ Record, 26 December, 1931, and see cases in the Courts, Appendix II.)


      Prostitution, the gravest of all dangers to the community, more or less controlled by Aliens, who live on the immoral earnings of the unfortunate women, is a subject, distasteful though it may be, which must be referred to here.
      Giving evidence before the Street Offences Committee in London (December, 1927), Brigadier-General Sir William Horwood, Commissioner of Police for the Metropolitan area, stated that in 1922 there had been in the Metropolitan area, 2,291 arrests of prostitutes; in 1923 there were 650. The numbers then rose: in 1924 to 1,117; in 1925 to 1,683; in 1926 to 2,524, and for the first ten months of 1927 to 2,710. These figures give food for serious thought.
      This enquiry seems to have ended in 1927. It has been impossible to get later figures, but from what can be gathered from the Press, etc., this matter has become worse under the Socialist Government.
      A prominent medical authority, with great experience of London’s “underworld,” writing to me on the subject of prostitution, says:
      “There is no doubt that a great percentage of prostitutes are Aliens. This is obvious to anyone who makes an inspection of the areas which these people frequent. It was widely asserted during the War that Alien prostitutes had been imported who were suffering from disease, that many of them frequented the great London termini and endeavoured to catch our soldiers coming home on leave, the aim being to incapacitate the soldiers. To-day, anyone travelling west from Whitechapel, etc., after 6 p.m., can see numbers of these women of ‘easy virtue’ going in the same direction. In my belief a large number of the prostitutes are under the age of consent and are at large for the purpose of catching men of importance and in influential positions.”

      A man who had read my book wrote to me (25 September, 1930):—
      “About a month ago I was in London for two days and about 11 p.m., when walking through Bond Street, was accosted by a woman. She was obviously a foreigner and, recalling your chapter on this subject, I thought it would be interesting to put this matter to the test, so I walked slowly and got into conversation with those who stopped me. Out of nine prostitutes two could hardly speak a word of English. Five said they were French, two Belgian, one Norwegian and one Spanish. I found the latter to be entirely ignorant of her native language, and I can’t help feeling that she and the Norwegian and the two Belgians were more familiar with German. I felt that, if anything, you had understated the case.”
      On the importation of prostitutes, The People (5 August, 1928) wrote:—
      “There is ‘openness’ in the smuggling of women who are brought here for an immoral purpose. I am not suggesting that there is anything of the White Slave business about it, since the girls are well aware of what is expected of them. Indeed, a good many—particularly from Danzic—are already members of the oldest profession—are forced over here on account of their inability to satisfy the medical authorities in countries where periodical inspection is part of the law {63} of the land. Thus is disease brought over here by these women. Ostensibly these women are brought over for the purpose of ‘finishing their education.’ They are met by ‘aunts’ and afterwards married to some poor devil who is willing to go through the ceremony for the sake of a fiver. Thus they become English.”
      In an article in the Ilford Monthly, Mr. William Collinson, Secretary of the National Free Labour Association, stated that in the investigation conducted by the Home Office into the sale of drink in West-end night-clubs, it was discovered that the whole question is closely bound up with the Alien problem. Out of forty-four night dance-clubs in the West-end, thirty-eight were run by Aliens. During the previous two years thirty-nine men had been put on their trial at the Old Bailey for bigamously marrying foreign women, and Scotland Yard informed the judges that since the Armistice, 1,000 Alien prostitutes, many of whom had been repeatedly charged with offences in the West-end, could not be deported because they had married Englishmen. The number of foreign women convicted at Marlborough Street Police Court in one year for solicitation and disorderly conduct was 765.
      The reader who wants more information regarding Alien criminals should examine the cases in the Courts at the end of this book. These cases deal with those incidents actually discovered by the Police. Remembering how artful the Alien is, and how he herds with his kind in the lowest dens of our large towns and seaports, it must be apparent to all people that the cases discovered are but an infinitesimal proportion of those which actually occur. A perusal of the reports given will show up some of the disgraceful acts committed by Aliens, and also the low cunning with which they perpetrate their evil deeds in our midst. It is a national disgrace that such things should be rendered so easily possible through our weak restrictions and lack of administrative power.
      During the past three years there have been a number of cases in the newspapers where Aliens were accused in the Police Courts of serious crimes. They were evidently guilty and were remanded; but nothing further is published in the Press re those cases. Also frequently at the Police Courts the accused are obviously Aliens. Yet nothing appears in the press reports regarding nationality. It would seem that questions are not put on this point.

VII. The Cost of the Alien
Top of page ]

{64} I THINK the preceding chapters prove that in the sphere of our national economics the low-type Alien is an important factor only in the sense that he is a charge to the community. He creates nothing, and therefore adds nothing to the common wealth, and at the best he is nothing but parasitic. It is true that in the past England gained as the result of immigration. In the old days Aliens came to England for conscience’s sake when persecuted for their religious beliefs, and they were grateful to us when we gave them sanctuary. Notable examples are the Flemish weavers and the French Huguenots; and although our people did not like them much in the days when they arrived, there is no doubt they were useful acquisitions.
      To-day, however, Alien immigrants are, too many of them, the riff-raff of foreign Ghettos, who fled here at the outbreak of the war to avoid military service—many of them calling themselves Belgians, and few of this crowd have gone back whence they came. Moreover, the Flemish weavers and the French Huguenots were not only of clean stock and good morals, but their numbers were not so great as to have any appreciable effect on England, racially or economically, except, as in the case of the Flemish people, who introduced the art of weaving into England. On the other hand, the present type of immigrant is an enormous drain on the country in both directions, but more particularly from the racial aspect In this connection I feel I cannot do better than reprint a quotation from an article by the Rev. Dr. James Black, of Edinburgh, in the Scotsman of 7 August, 1928. In discussing Australia, which he had recently toured, he stated that “Australia is more British than Britain, their population is more purely Anglo-Saxon than our Latinised, Russianised and Hebrewised population at home.” As the {65} Rev. Dr. Black is a level-headed Scotsman not given to exaggeration, we may safely accept the statement that we, as a nation, are losing our Anglo-Saxon characteristics through unrestricted immigration of Aliens of a vastly different stock and an exceedingly low type. It should be observed here that the Australian population is more purely Anglo-Saxon because the Australian Government has limited not only the number, but the breed, of its immigrants. New Zealand, which is perhaps populated with Anglo-Saxons of the cleanest descent, has also adopted a rigorous system of selection.
      The question which now arises is: Why cannot we, with our congested population and our blighting economic problems, introduce the same drastic but eminently sane laws? If the subject were brought fairly and squarely before the public—if the case were stated plainly—and if certain apparently strong influences were removed, there is no doubt about an immediate change being made. It is with the desire to hasten the arrival of the long-deferred action that I have presented this book. The task is a hard one, and it is rendered doubly hard when we find that the Socialist Government, when in office, instead of doing its duty in this connection, actually encouraged the Alien. For example:—
      The decision of the Socialist Minister of Labour, Mr. Tom Shaw, in February, 1924, to extend the payment of the dole to Aliens gave a great impetus to the invasion of England by numbers of work-shy and anarchical people. Many of these individuals (according to the Daily Mail of 2 December, 1924) had situations found for them by friends here, but they continued to work only until they got sufficient stamps on their insurance cards to claim the benefit, after which they lived on the dole. This extension order, which was secretly issued by the Labour Ministry, was exposed in the Daily Mail. On this subject Sir William Joynson-Hicks (vide Weekly Dispatch, 30 March, 1924) spoke very plainly. “But what does Mr. Shaw do!” he asks. “He gives orders that in future the claims of Aliens to uncovenanted benefit should be dealt with without regard to nationality. In other words, ex-enemy Aliens in this country who have not contributed one penny-piece towards unemployment insurance are now to be paid a weekly dole which comes out of the pockets of the British taxpayer. It is bad enough when Aliens are given jobs in this country {66} to the disadvantage of our own people, but when it comes to paying them to remain among us in idleness the thing becomes a grotesque and monstrous scandal.”
      Undoubtedly, the Alien regards England as his Mecca, and he tries by every method to enter this country, where he can get more money for doing nothing than ever he earned in his native land where he worked long hours. Here, drawing doles and some Moscow money, he does not find it necessary to work, therefore he can (and does) devote all his time to revolutionary and anti-British schemes.
      Another serious aspect of the Alien question is the fact of our actually permitting him to draw this public assistance and other doles, which means that our own harassed ratepayers are paying not only to help fellow-Britons who are deserving of such help, but they have additional payments to make in order that foreigners, who have no right to be in the country, may subsist. Elsewhere I have shown how the Alien is full of artifice, and in this matter of relief the trickery is universal, as the police records of the detected cases amply indicate (see Cases in Courts, Appendix V).
      We must also consider the Old-Age Pensions, Widows’ Pensions, and the like, and here we are certain that the Alien takes full advantage of all the opportunities offered by the pensions schemes. The traffic in bogus marriages for the purpose of anglicising Alien women proves exactly how the difficulty of qualifying for widows’ pensions may easily be overcome.
      How many artful and ancient Aliens are drawing this pension, and how these wily individuals must rejoice over the sympathetic British methods. Is it not so scandalously easy? Why, even the deportee is enabled to live in a state of ease, although the authorities have found him undesirable and not fit to remain among us. The Sunday Times (1 November, 1925), discussing the deportation of two Alien Communist families from Glasgow, mentioned the discovery that one of the deportees had been drawing the dole (unemployment benefit) for the last two years, and said, “the fact would seem to be as incredible as it is certainly disgraceful were it not boasted of by the recipient of our careless benefactions. He declared to an interviewer that he had been on the dole all the two years he had been out of work in Glasgow.” This is not an isolated {67} case; similar examples are multiplied throughout the country, and in London’s East-end particularly is this fraudulent dole-taking rife. And cases of this sort became more numerous in 1929-31 under the Socialist Government.
      There are yet other cases which show to what extent the Alien becomes a charge to the State immediately on his arrival here. There is one in particular that gives us much food for thought, and suggests to us that the danger of the Alien to the community is greater than we imagined.

What has made immigration of serious import to this country is the system adopted by the Transatlantic steamship companies by which Aliens (usually the scum of Central and Eastern Europe) are medically examined in Great Britain, instead of at the Continental port of departure. Of these Aliens only the best, i.e., those likely to pass the U.S. immigration officers, are sent on to America. Those found too wretched and diseased are detained in this country. This system, therefore, forces England to become a sorting-ground—a kind of filter which retains only the poisonous elements. It is, obviously, a system so pernicious that it calls for instant removal, along with the other many loopholes through which the Alien, discarded by other nations, can enter and settle in this country.
      Not only has this country been a sorting ground for 50 years or more, but also for many years unfit (mentally and physically) Aliens from Eastern Europe who made the voyage to New York, but on arrival were not allowed to land, were brought back and dumped into this country, particularly into Liverpool. This was especially the case just before the Great War and during the first years of the War.
      How was it that this monstrous state of things was allowed? No greater injury could be done to a country. Is it surprising that we have these horrible slums, and that our hospital and asylum populations are so large, and that so many men are now found to be of C3 class.
      What was the Alien influence that allowed this? What were our so-called leaders doing that this traffic over many years was not watched and measures taken to prevent it?
      It appears that Continental nationals en route to the United States enter British ports as “transmigrants,” {68} and they are carried onward in British ships. On arrival in America the United States’ monthly quota may have become exhausted, and on this account, or by reason of their unfit, diseased, or otherwise unwelcome condition, these passengers are rejected. The transmigrants then become, perforce, the guests of the steamship companies (mostly American companies) that carried them, until a more propitious moment for entering the United States occurs, and in the meantime they have been lodged in England, at Eastleigh, near Southampton. Some of these transmigrants from the Continent proceed no further than Britain.
      As to the Alien camp in Eastleigh, one is tempted to ask what sinister influence is working to ensure that people rejected by America may return to Britain, to settle, instead of sending them back to their respective countries? What is the power that enables a man to leave his own country for America and assures his finding lodgment here even if the United States reject him? The real question, of course, is: why should England receive those whom the rest of the civilised world have rejected?
      Incidentally, to prove how easy it is for the foreigner to enter this country, I might mention that I saw the Alien barracks at Eastleigh in 1928, and several times since then, and I found that there was no proper fence around the premises, the guard-room was closed, and the Aliens, of a horrible type, were outside, and many were prowling about the neighbourhood quite uncontrolled some distance from this camp! Compare this condition with those ruling at Ellis Island, outside New York, whence it is impossible for any foreigner to enter America undetected. The following is one example out of many, of this great abuse:
      According to The Daily Express (30 September, 1926), the steamship companies had recently spent nearly £50,000 on these Alien “guests,” and having failed to secure relief from the United States, they approached our Government departments. Our authorities granted permission for 170 Russian transmigrants (who were not accepted by the United States on account of their wretched condition) to settle in London, and these Aliens were lodged in the Jews’ temporary Shelter in Whitechapel, or domiciled with local Jewish families.

In a letter explaining why authority had been given to the Russian transmigrants to remain in England, the Home {69} Secretary said that his decision was based upon humanitarian grounds, and that these Aliens had been kept in the Southampton Hostel for three years. Actually, after three years of apparent attempts to enter the United States these people had not travelled beyond England; and they have now become absorbed in the population here, and are living in (and “on”) England. Here, obviously, is an example of leakage in our “control” regulations.
      I consider that Sir William Joynson-Hicks (now Lord Brentford), who made efforts to restrict the Alien immigration, erred in letting this batch of foreigners loose on London. Instead, he should have told the steamship companies to keep their guests, or else take them back whence they came, and he would have accomplished two things— kept out undesirables and taught the steamship companies a lesson which they badly need to learn. As a matter of fact, the American companies should never have been allowed to erect their barracks and camps in this country. Again I ask what Alien influence was brought to bear to cause this scandalous and noxious state of things?
      Since 1926, according to the Jewish World (29 March, 1928), the number of transmigrants availing themselves of the Shelter has increased. Mr. Otto M. Schiff, presiding at the annual meeting of subscribers to the Shelter, said that “during the year 1,360 persons had availed themselves of the hospitality of the Shelter; 1,170 of whom were under forty years of age. Only 23 of that number went to the United States in consequence of the continued enforcement of the quota laws in that country. There were still a number of transmigrants at Eastleigh dependent upon the Shelter, but it was hoped that in the near future it would be possible to disperse them to their destination.” As the United States quota laws are still being rigidly enforced, it is safe to assume that the “destination” of these transmigrants was not the United States, but Britain.

      It is difficult to control the transmigrants in the teeming foreign elements of London. They will commence work, displace British labour, become eligible for the dole, increase our housing difficulties, spread disease, and permeate our land with anti-patriotic propaganda. Surely there were (as I have shown) obvious and excellent alternatives?
      To a Jewish deputation on 6 February, 1925, Sir William Joynson-Hicks stated that he was not anti-Semitic, {70} and made no distinction in regard to foreigners. He only considered whether any proposed admission of any Alien was for the good of this country.
      Let us be frank and say without equivocation that we have no room in England for anyone but ourselves, and it is our bounden duty to exclude the nationals of other countries if we are to avoid submersion in the depths of poverty and despair. It must always be borne in mind that all the work in Britain that is available can be done (and must be done) by British people, and that we have British people in sufficient numbers and with adequate ability to do it.
      Remember; every Alien and Irishman at work in this country has ousted a Briton, who has been forced “on the rates” and costs the country for the upkeep of himself and his wife over £2 a week. The whole of industrial Britain suffers, directly or indirectly, from the supplanting of British labour by the foreigner. For each Alien and Irishman in this country a British worker can be substituted. I need not give many examples in support of my contentions here, for they are everywhere apparent; but it will not be amiss to quote a Times correspondent, who says that “unemployment is disastrously prevalent among the British population in the East End of London, but not among the Aliens there!
      Remember also that if the Alien and the Irishman does not get work he and his family are kept by us, and on account of his lower code of morals he draws both dole and Public Assistance and anything else he can secure by dishonest means. In other words, he not only forces our own people to become a charge to the country but later, when it suits him, he, too, will become a liability.
      The facts given in this chapter concerning the majority of the Aliens we allow to enter this country raise some important questions for our consideration. Most of these Aliens are from every standpoint thoroughly undesirable. Their characters, morals and health show that they cannot become good and useful members of the community, nor are they likely to perform any services that will cover the losses the Nation incurs by permitting them to remain in our midst.
      It is, of course, impossible to state with complete accuracy the whole cost to the British taxpayers and ratepayers of this Alien population. But it is obvious from the facts submitted in this book that the cost, direct and indirect, {71} must be enormous. Take the question of unemployment. At the time of writing this chapter we have nearly 3,000,000 registered unemployed. It has been shown that Aliens and large numbers of immigrants from the Irish Free State are employed permanently or temporarily on work that would be done by British men and women but for the presence of this cheap Alien and Irish labour. This Alien competition for jobs creates unemployment among British workers and its economic effect upon the standard of living in this country is similar to that from free imports of cheap foreign goods. On economic grounds the case for the protection of British wage standards from the unfair competition of Aliens is as strong as the case for the protection of the British Manufacturer from the unfair competition of the foreign “dumper” of goods. Aliens whose standards of living, as well as morals, are lower than those of the British people tend to bring wages, working conditions, etc., down to the level prevailing in the countries from which the Aliens have come. The Housing problem, as referred to in Chapter V, is greatly aggravated by these millions of Aliens and Irish in Great Britain. If the Alien and Irish questions had been handled in a proper and practical manner there would have been little need for these large Government and Municipal grants for Housing.

And here mention must be made of a new danger that threatens British industrial standards. With the ending of the free import system, foreign firms, as mentioned in Chapter IV, are opening works in this country in order to retain their British trade. Unless great care is taken these foreign firms will bring with them many of their employees because, in many cases, these employees work for lower wages and for longer hours than British workers. If the Alien Regulations are not revised and the entry of Aliens made more difficult than it is at present, the benefits of the Tariff system may go to the Alien firms and their Alien employees, rather than to the British manufacturers and the British people they employ.
      Moreover, these foreign concerns have obtained their hold of the British market, under Free Trade, by “dumping” the products of their cheap labour in this country. To hold this market now, under protection, they must not only build factories here, but they must continue to sell their goods at prices below those of British firms making the same articles. This means fierce competition between the {72} British and foreign concerns, and we may be sure that the Alien firms will use every means to drive out their British competitors. In the chapter on “Alien Influence in Industry,” I shall show how foreign financial interests are obtaining control of many of our most important and basic industries. This control may and will increase if the Alien manufacturer is allowed, behind our tariff walls, to entrench himself and to filch the trade of British manufacturers, both at home and abroad. He will endeavour to drive out his British competitor or, alternatively, to obtain by means of mergers or agreements, the control of British concerns. Protection is economic nationalism. We have, therefore, no right to permit this economic nationalism to be exploited and controlled by Aliens.

In this over-populated country we have no room for Aliens. With very few exceptions every Alien employed in Britain is keeping a British citizen out of a job. As then we have many thousands of Aliens employed in this country, the cost to the nation of maintaining the unemployed British workers which these Aliens have displaced in the labour market must be considerable. To this cost must be added the expense of keeping these Aliens when they, themselves, are unemployed or when they are in hospitals, poor law institutions, or in prison for offences against society. These objections to the employment of Aliens apply with equal force to permitting Alien firms to establish themselves in this country, and to enjoy the advantages of the tariffs provided for the benefit of British Trade and Industry.

VIII. Aliens and the Films
Top of page ]

THE immense power of the films to educate and influence the public does not seem to have been studied by our successive Governments, and this great means of propaganda has been neglected by our ministers in a manner which is difficult to understand.
      What has been the influence during all these years which has prevented the formation of a well-organised Government Film Censor’s Department?
      Statistics show that in England alone some seven million persons attend the films every week. Information is largely conveyed to the brain by the eye, and impressions thus produced are generally lasting, and this is more especially the case amongst uneducated and uncivilised peoples. The talking film appeals to both eye and ear, thus having two avenues of approach to the mind instead of one only as is the case of the wireless loudspeaker.
      Our enemies, almost at once, realised that, in the film, they possessed, perhaps, the most powerful instrument for propaganda that the world has ever known. Even before the Great War they were using it against us, and, since August, 1914, it has been their most potent means for disseminating information calculated to injure us. Wherever, as in India, the masses are illiterate or, as in England, credulous, our enemies’ films have done an incalculable amount of harm.
      Most of the films shown until comparatively lately have been foreign films. A large proportion of these have been demoralising and many are, directly or indirectly, anti- British and subversive in character and have been forced upon the long-suffering British public by some of the Aliens who control and direct the vast film industry in this country, our Dominions, Colonies, India and the Far East. Moscow films, having sown the seeds of revolt in Egypt, India, China, South America, and other disturbed centres, are now being shown here with ever-growing freedom. {74}
      Now, as to the propaganda value of a film. On 5 November, 1926, I was one of a deputation to the Home Secretary, Sir William Joynson-Hicks, which protested against the general management of films in England, a large proportion of which were anti-patriotic, and in particular a strong protest was directed against the exhibition in England of an American film, entitled “The Unknown Soldier,” which portrayed an American in the title role and on that account alone was an outrage to British feelings, having regard to the revered grave in Westminster Abbey. On that occasion I said to the Home Secretary, inter alia:
      “The British public do not sufficiently realise that the foreign film producers have captured the cinema business of the British Isles, not only for the money to be made in it but also for propaganda purposes. These foreign film producers, backed by foreign financiers with unlimited money, are aiming at destroying our patriotism, our traditions, and our ideals. They are educating our people downwards and not upwards. The Government should appoint a Censor of Films—to have the same powers as the Censor of Plays—as is done in Australia.”
      In his reply the Home Secretary expressed his sympathy with the deputation, especially with the remark that our people were being “educated downwards and not upwards.” But he made the amazing statement that in regard to the films he had no legal power to interfere! It is worthy of mention, however, that following on press reports concerning this deputation and the subsequent public outcry, “The Unknown Soldier” was withdrawn.
      On 12 December, 1926, the Daily Mail published a lengthy article describing the U.S.A. film-makers’ grip of the British cinema industry. It quoted a statement by one of the officials of the Cinematograph Exhibitors’ Association that American film companies derived an income of “something like £6,000,000 a year” from British cinemas, and paid no income-tax here on that account— certainly an example of profitable propaganda. What was the political influence behind this?

      I now propose to prove how, instead of preventing the dissemination of subversive propaganda on the films, we encourage it through lack of proper Government censorship. A great parade is made in the cinemas of the “Passed by the British Board of Film Censors” certificate, {75} which used to bear the signature of Mr. T. P. O’Connor, M.P., but now is signed “Edward Shortt.” This certificate is misleading, since it deludes many to believe that there is a Government censorship. The film censors (whoever they are) are neither appointed nor paid by the Government, but by the producers themselves, many of whom are Aliens. This is a Gilbertian state of affairs, and it is on a par with a criminal paying his judge. But in spite of every effort made by patriotic societies and others to effect an alteration in the form of censorship, nothing effectual has been done up to date, and thus the greatest propaganda medium for evil remains to a great extent in the hands of German-American financiers.
      It was not a coincidence that Mr. T. P. O’Connor, who was no lover of Great Britain (and whose wife was an American (U.S.A.)) was appointed Censor. It may also be mentioned that Mr. T. P. O’Connor’s eyesight was very weak during his later life. Since Mr. O’Connor died, Mr. Edward Shortt has been appointed Censor, but the harm has been done.
      Twelve years of films—many of which were propaganda—designed, if only by suggestion, gradually to destroy the patriotism, ideals and traditions of our nation, have had their effect. They have with considerable success achieved their objective.
      Certain films shown in India and the Far East, especially since the War, have been purposely made (in the U.S.A., Germany, etc.) with the definite idea of ruining British prestige among the natives of these countries. The harm these films have done is enormous. They appeal to millions who cannot read.
      The Daily Mail (2 June, 1930) throws some light on this subject:—
      “Surprise has been caused among cinemagoers by a film interview with Mrs. Sarojini Naidu, the poetess and follower of Gandhi, which was shown in London last week and is to appear at provincial theatres this Week.
      “Mrs. Naidu is serving a term of imprisonment for her part in the raid on the Government-controlled salt depot at Dharasana, near Bombay, and a number of people who have seen the talking film have suggested that the screen should not be used for the propaganda of revolutionary leaders, {76} “The showing of this film, which is included in a news reel, raises in an acute form the question of censorship of such films.
      “It was explained to a Daily Mail reporter on Saturday by Mr. J. Brooke Wilkinson, the secretary of the British Board of Film Censors, that news films are outside the jurisdiction of the censorship. The subjects are left to the discretion of the editors, Mr. Wilkinson explained. ‘The Government, the licensing authorities, and the trade,’ he said, ‘have always opposed a censorship of topical films.’”

      It is significant to recall here an interview which the correspondent of the Jewish Guardian had with Mr. E. Godal, Managing Director of the British and Colonial Kinematograph, in May, 1921. The Jewish Guardian, 27 May, 1921, stated that when Mr. Godal was asked: “You have no fear, then, for any invasion of anti-Jewish films?” Mr. Godal replied: “Impossible; remember that our people are in the unique position of being their own censors, their own judges of what fare they shall offer their patrons from the miles of films with which they are tempted.”
      Considering that since 1921 films have become more degrading, anti-British and more harmful generally, besides much greater in number, it would seem that these Alien cinematograph “bosses” have continued to be their own censors.
      It is true that local Committees have been formed to deal with films. And in January, 1932, Sir Cecil Levita, Chairman of the London County Council, 1928-29, was elected Chairman of the Home Office Advisory Committee on film censorship. But it must be remembered that when Chairman of the L.C.C. Film Committee, this K.C.V.O. obtained official recognition for the (so-called) British Board of Film Censors which has proved such a dangerous farce. Following this step the Home Office ordered all local authorities to adopt this censorship. Judging from many of the films shown of late years in London, this appointment does not hold out much hope of improvement in censorship.
      France has a Government censor department with strong powers, which sees all films before they can be shown. No films of a subversive nature are passed.
      Doubtless the reader will remember the great effort that was made at the end of 1927 to bring in a Bill to {77} promote the manufacture of British films, the basic idea being to place the British films in a position of equality with the foreigner, and to ensure our having all-British productions.
      This Bill was passed and is now in operation under the name of the Cinematograph Film Act, 1927. But readers of it will notice an extraordinary omission. As introduced, the Bill provided that in order to qualify as a British film, not only the author of the scenario and the maker of the film, but the producer, should be British subjects. Yet when the Bill was being discussed on the Report stage in the House of Commons on 17 November, 1927, Colonel Applin, M.P., brought in an amendment— which was carried—to permit foreign producers being employed, although, as I have explained, the Bill was intended to foster British productions. Now, as the chief authority and power is the producer, this amendment nullified the whole aim and object of the Bill; consequently German-American producers can carry on as before with their pernicious propaganda, some of which is indirect and subtle, but nearly all designed to destroy British ideals.
      The effect of this amendment has been most serious and far-reaching, not only in the British Isles but in every country where these films are shown. Our prestige in India and the Far East has been seriously damaged by this means.
      From a financial point of view, the practical destruction of the Bill was worth large sums to the Alien film producers.
      The Sunday Express (15 December, 1929) stated “The Quota Act is dead.”
      “The ‘Quota’ companies cannot get any more capital.”
      “American distributors in this country are wriggling out of their quota obligations.”
      “The British film is betrayed at home and boycotted abroad.”

      It would seem that anti-British managers deliberately show poor British films in juxtaposition to high-class foreign ones, in order to belittle this country and bring contempt upon the real British product.
      In proof of this assertion that there is a conspiracy to belittle the British product, the Daily Telegraph of {78} 22 June, 1931, drew attention to this matter. The film critic, discussing the poor quality of many of the British films shown here, explains their origin thus:—
      “Many of the films of which complaint is made are produced here by American Companies for the purpose of technical compliance with the Quota Regulations. They are legal rubbish, made with the minimum of money and efficiency for the purpose of casting discredit on the British film industry.”
      The Australian Board of Film Censors, in its report published (12 February, 1932) “deplored the ‘moral tone’ of British talking pictures.” (Daily Mail, 13 February, 1932.)
      The Times (15 February, 1932) stated that the Commonwealth Film Censor reports that the tone of films in general in the last year has not improved.
      The machinery for talking films was made in the U.S.A., chiefly by the Western Electric group with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (200 million dollars capital reserve) behind them. The machinery has been supplied on the instalment system. This scheme has given these American combines a great control over our film and cinema companies not only in the British Isles, but in our Dominions and Colonies.
      The enormous profits thus made in this country by these U.S.A. companies are not subject to English income tax.
      From the above will be seen some of the extraordinary developments by which the Alien controls our cinemas. These Alien schemes have gained great impetus during the past three years, what time our “Labour” Government was in office.
      The Sunday Dispatch (13 September, 1931) stated that within the next 12 months the American motion picture industry will have invested nearly five million pounds in film production in the British Isles.


      It is difficult to over-estimate the great moral wrong which has been done and is being done to the British nation by the Film Society which was founded in 1926 by the Hon. Ivor Montagu (brother of Lord Swaythling) and Mr. S. Bernstein.
      Mr. Montagu has been associated with Serge Eisenstein in the production of some subversive films. Serge Eisenstein {79} has been for several years Moscow’s chief film propagandist, and has declared revolutionary propaganda to be “the first task of Soviet dictatorship” (Daily Express, 18 October, 1930).
      “The members of the Film Society are drawn chiefly from influential and well-to-do people whose interests are best described by the word “cultural,” and from university lecturers, school teachers, educational publicists and others connected with the instruction of youth, the result being that its performances have a propaganda value far beyond that which would be attached to ordinary film exhibitions” (Daily Telegraph, 4 April, 1931).
      The Film Society, in common with all other private film societies, is understood to be party to an undertaking not to show subversive film propaganda. This Society showed how censorship could be evaded by not charging for admission. Our weak laws and administrations seem unable to control these shows.
      The success with which the Film Society has evaded the law and has not been interfered with, especially under the Socialist Government, has led to the formation of the London Workers’ Film Society which, with Mr. Montagu and other members of the Film Society on its executive, produces most dangerous Communist and anti-British propaganda films that have not passed the Censor. Branches of this society have also been formed in many of our large towns.
      The Federation of Workers’ Film Societies has been formed at 74, Old Compton Street, W.l, and publishes a paper called “The Workers’ Cinema,” a subversive monthly publication which would not be allowed in any other country.
      These Societies obtain their films through the Soviet organisation MEZHRABKOM (Workers’ International Relief). The transmission of money to them has been facilitated by our Socialist Government’s political trade arrangements with Moscow through Arcos. “The Blue Express,” the most vindictive of all Moscow’s anti-British propaganda films, also “The Storm of Asia,” etc., etc., have been obtained in this way. With one exception, these films have been banned by the British Board of Film Censors. There seem to be considerable funds at theĀ« disposal of these Societies. Large audiences attend the shows of the Workers’ Film Societies. Hundreds are {80} brought free in motor coaches and the International is often sung. (Daily Mail and Morning Post, 16 June, 1930).
      The Soviet Union last year produced 232 propaganda films. This year the number will probably be doubled. It is chiefly these films which have done so much harm to British prestige in India and the Far East. Large film studios are being constructed in Central Asia and Eastern Siberia. One of the great aims of these films is representing Czarist Russia as a hell and Bolshevised Russia as a paradise.
      With regard to the evil influence exercised by many films shown in this country, the following impartial opinion is of considerable interest.
      On 11 November, 1931, Capt. A. B. Moore, Inspector of Police for the State of New York, staying in London, told a Daily Mail reporter:—
      “You people see too many films about gunmen. My Censorship Department would not allow the films to be seen in New York that you have advertised all over the West End of London. They are produced by men of no responsibility but unlimited money. They are produced simply to make money, and they don’t care what it costs America in reputation.” (Daily Mail, 12 November, 1931.)
      It is useless to deny (as the late Sir Israel Gollancz, Professor of the English language at the University of London did) that these American talking films are seriously affecting the language of our people, especially the younger generation.


      A great deal has appeared in the Press lately regarding the great British film combine, the Gaumont-British Corporation. This Corporation now controls 350 cinemas in the British Isles. Three million people are said to attend these cinemas each week. This Corporation is arranging to spend one million pounds per annum in talking pictures. The chairman of this Corporation was Colonel A. C. Bromhead, and his brother, Mr. R. C. Bromhead, was managing director. In August, 1929, Mr. Isidore Ostrer was appointed chairman and Mr. Mark Ostrer, vice-chairman. Mr. C. M. Woolf was then appointed managing director, Mr. Michael Balcon was made the production supervisor.
      In an authoritative article in The Sphere (28 December, 1931) it is pointed out that 49 per cent, of the shares is held by the Chase National Bank of New York, while {81} 49 per cent, is the property of the Ostrer interests (acting on behalf of the Fox Film Corporation, U.S. America, according to the Daily Mail, 6 June, 1930).
      The Ostrer brothers have lately bought a controlling interest in the Baird Television Company.
      The following information may be of interest to the reader as regards the various groups of film producers and cinema-owners and the persons who control them.
      Mr. Sidney Lewis Bernstein is a director and the chairman of Bernstein Theatres, Ltd.; a director of the Capital and Counties Electric Theatres, Ltd.; the managing director of the Charing Cross Road Theatre, the Denman London Cinemas, Ltd., Empire Kinemas, Ltd., Film Agencies, and the Kinematograph Equipment Company, Ltd., and a director of the Shrewsbury Empires, Ltd.
      Dr. Rudolph Becker is the managing director of British Sound Films Productions, Ltd.
      Mr. Ludwig Blattner is managing director of the Ludwig Blattner Picture Corporation, Ltd., of Boreham, Elstree. His co-directors include Mr. H. Darewski.
      Mr. Harry Day (formerly Levi) is the chairman of the Theatre Securities, Ltd., a company which controls the Bedford Music Hall (Camden Town), Empire Theatre of Varieties (Bristol), Harry Day’s Amusements, Ltd., and King’s Hall (Dover).
      Mr. V. H. C. Amberg is chairman of the British Talking Pictures, Ltd., and a director of the Associated Film Industries, Ltd.
      Mr. P. Hyams is chairman of the Metropolitan Cinema Investment Corporation, Ltd. His co-directors include Messrs. S. Hyams and L. Benvenisti.
      Mr. Julius Hagen is the general manager of the Twickenham Film Productions.
      Mr. Alfred Levy is the managing director of the Claughton Picture House, Ltd.; joint managing director of the Futurist (Liverpool), Ltd.; director of the Greater Scala (Birmingham), Ltd., and Liverpool Cinema Feature Film Company, Ltd.; director of the London Palace (1921), Ltd.; managing director of the Scala (Ashton), Ltd.; director of the Scala (Birmingham), Ltd., and the Scala (Leeds), Ltd., and joint managing director of the Scala (Middlesbrough), Ltd.
      Sir Frank C. Meyer is the chairman of the Tivoli Cinema, Ltd {82}
      Mr. Hyman Marks is a director of the Scala (Ealing), Ltd., Scala (Kilburn), Ltd., Scala (Maida Vale), Ltd., and Scala (Notting Hill), Ltd.
      Mr. Joseph Davis Marks is a director of Butchers Film Service, Ltd.
      Mr. Isidore Ostrer, who controls the Sunday Referee (Sunday) newspaper, is chairman of the Albany Ward Theatres, Ltd.; Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Ltd.; Denman Picture Houses, Ltd.; Gaumont-British Corporation, Ltd.; Gaumont Company, Ltd.; General Theatre Corporation, Ltd.; and Provincial Cinematograph Theatres, Ltd. Mr. Ostrer’s co-directors include Mr. Charles M. Woolf, Mr. M. Woolf, and his two brothers Mark and Maurice Ostrer. The last named is a director also of the B.B. Pictures (1930), Ltd.; Birmingham West End Cinema, Ltd.; Classic Cinemas, Ltd.; Davis Theatre (Hammersmith), Ltd.; Denman (Midland) Cinemas, Ltd.; Electrical Fono Films, Ltd.; Film Clearing Houses, Ltd.; Gainsborough Pictures (1928), Ltd.; Haymarket Capitol, Ltd.; Ideal Films, Ltd.; International Acoustic Films, Ltd.; Leeds Picture Playhouse, Ltd.; National Electric Theatres, Ltd.; New Century Pictures, Ltd.; North of England Cinemas, Ltd.; Scala (Leeds), Ltd.; Société Française des Filmparlants; Theatres Services, Ltd.; Tivoli Palace, Ltd., and W. & F. Film Service, Ltd.
      Mr. E. Pinto is chairman of the Electric Theatres (1908), Ltd. His co-directors are Mr. E. Hakim, the managing director, and Captain R. J. Pinto.
      Mr. David Roth is a director of the Amusement Securities, Ltd.; Doncaster Majestic Cinema, Ltd.; Leeds Picture Playhouse, Ltd.; Payne-Jennings Theatres, Ltd.; Trocadero Super-Cinema (Liverpool), Ltd., and the Vigo Productions, Ltd.
      Mr. J. W. Schlesinger, of Johannesburg, is the Chairman of the Associated Sound Film Industries, Ltd. His co-Directors are Mr. V. H. Amberg, Dr. F. Bausback (Berlin), W. H. Eeghen (Amsterdam), Dr. R. Frankfurter (Berlin), W. W. S. C. Neville, Dr. E. Noelle (Berlin), and D. P. Out (Amsterdam).
      Mr. Jonas Wolfe is a Director of the Camberwell Picture Theatre, Ltd.; Dundee Cinema Palace, Ltd.; East London Picture Theatre, Ltd.; Futurist (Liverpool), Ltd.; Her Majesty’s Theatre (Dundee), Ltd.; Langfier (Finchley Road), Ltd.; London Palace (1021), Ltd.: London Proprietary Company, Ltd.; Paisley Picture Theatres Ltd.; {83} Regent (Stamford Hill), Ltd.; St. Enoch’s Picture Theatre, Ltd.; Scala (Ealing), Ltd.; Scala (Kilburn), Ltd.; Scala (Notting Hill), Ltd.; Streatham Cinema, Ltd.; and Streatham Hill Picture Theatre, Ltd.
      Mr. C. M. Woolf is managing director of W. & F. Film Service, Ltd.; joint managing director of the Albany Ward Theatres, Ltd., and the Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Ltd.; director of the B. B. Pictures (1920), Ltd.; chairman of the Classic Cinemas, Ltd.; director of the Davis Theatre (Croydon), Ltd.; chairman of the Denman (London) Cinemas, Ltd.; director of the Denman (Midland) Cinemas,Ltd.; deputy-chairman of Denman Picture Houses, Ltd.; chairman of the Gainsborough Pictures (1928), Ltd.; deputy chairman and joint managing director of Gaumont-British Picture Corporation, Ltd.; director, Gaumont Company, Ltd.; deputy chairman and joint managing director of Leeds Picture Playhouse, Ltd.; director, National Electric Theatres, Ltd., and New Century Pictures, Ltd.; chairman of North of England Cinemas, Ltd.; joint managing director, Provincial Cinematograph Theatres, Ltd.; chairman of Scala (Leeds), Ltd.; director, Sheffield Music Hall Company, Ltd.; joint managing director of Tivoli Palace, Ltd., and the United Picture Theatres, Ltd.


      The leading American companies and corporations whose films are shown in this country include Columbia Pictures Corporation (Harry Cohn); Fox Film Corporation (Winfield Sheehan); Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures (Louis B. Mayer); Modern Film Productions (James Cruze); Paramount Famous-Lasky Corporation (B. P. Schulberg); Pathe Pictures (W. Sistirom); Radiotone Pictures (F. J. Balshover); Mack Sennett Pictures (Sennett and Klinger); Tiffany Productions (P. Goldstone); Universal Pictures Corporation (Carl Laemmle); Warner Brothers Pictures (Warner and Marks); Alexander Film Company (Alexander and Morris); Weiss Brothers Pictures (Louis and Max Weiss).

IX. Aliens and the B.B.C.
Top of page ]

APART from the presentation of patriotic “movies” and “talkies” in cinemas, talks by patriots to the millions who are daily and nightly listening-in are obviously the most effective means for counteracting hostile film-propaganda. Unfortunately, no such talks can be delivered without the permission of the small group of men and women constituting the British Broadcasting Corporation whose citadel towers up to-day in Portland Place.
      This most formidable body, the B.B.C, with an income derived from licences for radio sets amounting in 1930 to over £1,000,000 and another income of £160,000 or so from profits on the sale of its publications, Footnote: Fourth Annual Report of the British Broadcasting Corporation (Stationery Office, 4d. net), p. 19. The Report for 1931 has not yet (March, 1932) been issued.] received a Royal Charter in January, 1927, when Mr. Baldwin was Prime Minister. At that date it took over the entire staff of the British Broadcasting Co., Ltd., a company promoted by the late Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, brother of Lord Reading, [Lord Reading was Rufus Isaacs-RW] and incorporated in 1922. The company, of which Mr. Isaacs was then a director, had, in 1922, appointed Mr. (now Sir) J. C. W. Reith to be its General Manager. To it had been granted a monopoly of broadcasting by the Postmaster-General, Mr. Lloyd George’s friend, Mr. F. J. Kellaway.
      In the spring of 1928 the B.B.C. published New Ventures in Broadcasting, which embodied the conclusions arrived at by a Committee of Inquiry “set on foot by the joint action of the B.B.C. and the British Institute of Adult Education,” which Institute had for its honorary life president the late Lord Haldane, for its president the Socialist Lord Sankey, for its Chairman Dr. Albert Mansbridge, and its vice-chairman Professor H. J. Laski. From those names it will readily be surmised that the Institute of Adult Education, founded in 1921, was and is Socialistic. {85}
      What did the Committee of Inquiry set on foot by it and the B.B.C. do? It proposed, we learn from New Ventures in Broadcasting, that a “Central Council for Broadcast Adult Education should be created,” which Council was promptly formed. The Council—it contained no clergyman, priest, or woman on it—met with the Socialist Lord Sankey in the chair and appointed an executive Committee to “assist the B.B.C. in preparing its future adult educational programme.” On the committee was the Guild-Socialist, Mr. G. D. H. Cole, who, with his wife, has frequently broadcast.
      Later the Archbishop of York replaced Lord Sankey as Chairman of the Central Council and listening groups of adults were organised. By the end of 1929 the B.B.C. was in touch with well over two hundred of such groups. [Footnote: The British Broadcasting Corporation’s Third Annual Report, 1929, p.9.] It was mainly for the “benefit” of the listening groups that Professor John Macmurray, a Balliol man, now Grote Professor of the Philosophy of Mind and Logic at London University, was in 1930 broadcasting certain shocking ideas (see page 95) on a “Philosophy of Freedom,”[Footnote: Fourth Annual Report of the B.B.C., p. 10.] Among other “serial talks” arranged by the Central Council for Broadcast Adult Education for 1930 were “The World and Ourselves—a series of international conversations in which representatives of Great Britain discussed national differences, habits, and political outlook with representatives of ... Germany, ... Russia, Turkey,”[Footnote: Ibid]
      In 1929 a Central Council for School Broadcasting was established. Its chairman was Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, friend of Professor Laski. [Footnote: Third Annual Report p. 8.] During 1929 lectures—some of them such lectures!—were broadcast to thousands of our schools and over 500,000 pamphlets were issued in connection with the various courses of study. [Footnote: Ibid., p. 9.] The B.B.C, therefore, aspires to “educate” not only adults but pupils in schools and, through its “Children’s Hour,” very young boys and girls. In addition to this, it competes with booksellers and with publishers of books and journals. It issues three illustrated weekly journals, the Listener, Radio Times (since 28 September, 1923), with a circulation in 1930 of over 180,000 copies, and World Radio, the net sale of whose Christmas 1930 number reached 236,408. In World Radio {86} are given both the broadcasting programmes of the Bolsheviks and the wave-lengths from Bolshevik wireless stations!
      Unlike the films, the matter broadcast and published by the B.B.C. does not appear to be now censored in any way. According to the B.B.C. Handbook (1929), the Post Office in January, 1927, ceased to exercise any censorship functions over the corporation and, since 5 March, 1928, the Government has permitted it to broadcast “statements involving matters of political, religious, or industrial controversy.” The result, as even Mr. Baldwin might have anticipated, has been that subversives of the most dangerous type have been poisoning the minds of the millions possessing radio sets, [Footnote: On 31 January, 1932, “there were 4,475,000 wireless licences in force in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”—Daily Mail.] and listening in. For example, in 1929 H. G. Wells and Bernard Shaw were broadcasting their “Points of View.”
      Thus, from January, 1927, onwards, the B.B.C. has been censoring itself. That the censorship exercised over it by the Post Office before that date was hopelessly ineffective, listeners-in will remember. Why, for example, did the Post Office permit, in the “early part” of 1923, a wireless debate on Communism?[Footnote: Statement of Mr. (now Sir John) Reith in Radio Times of 30 November, 1923, p. 329, col. 3.]

In the January of 1925 an incident occurred which showed that the B.B.C, under the management of Sir John Keith, was leaning heavily towards the left. At the instance of the British Empire Union, Mrs. Nesta Webster, who is a public speaker of the first order, was requested by the Company to broadcast. She selected for her subject the French Revolution, on which she is our leading authority. She sent to the Company notes which were, as she said, “calculated to offend nobody except the exponents of bloody revolution.” She was, however, refused leave to broadcast because her notes, in the opinion of one of the Company’s omniscient officials, had “the air of an ex parte statement.” Mrs. Webster thereupon proposed that she should talk on “Women in Public Life.” The Company consented to this and, at great trouble to herself, she prepared a talk which “could not appear to be on party politics,” and submitted it. This seemed to be acceptable to Sir John Reith and his coadjutors and she was expecting to deliver her talk when, the day {87} before it was due for delivery, she received the following letter from a woman employed by the Company:—
Dear Madam,
      The Director of Education has handed me your MS. on “Women in Public Life,” as being more suited to the Women’s Hour, but I regret that it is too controversial in tone to be permissible, and, moreover, I have had a series of talks on women in Parliament given under the auspices of the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship. I regret therefore that I have no alternative but to return your MS.
    Yours faithfully,
        Ella Fitzgerald,
            Central Adviser,
      Women’s and Children’s Sections.[Footnote: A letter from Mrs. Webster from which I have quoted, together with Mrs. or Miss Fitzgerald’s letter, was published in the Patriot of 12 March, 1925.]

      The National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship advocated votes for “flappers”!
      While objecting to Mrs. Webster’s “ex parte” statements, or rather to her telling the truth about the Jacobins, the Company appears to have had no objection to statements of an “ex parte nature” about the Bolsheviks. On 25 March, 1925, a Dr. L. Storr-Best broadcast from Sheffield a roseate account of Bolshevised Moscow and advised his hearers who wished for more information to apply to the Secretary of the Society for Cultural Relations Between the Peoples of the British Commonwealth and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics,[Footnote: Patriot, 2 April and 9 April, 1925.] as to which pernicious Society see Mrs. Webster’s The Socialist Network (Boswell). Among the more prominent supporters of that body are, or were, H. G. Wells, Bernard Shaw, Mr. Bertrand (now Lord) Russell, E. F. Wise (at one time paid servant of the Bolsheviks), Mrs. Sidney Webb and Leonard Woolf and Michael S. Farbman, some of whom at any rate would be classed as subversives. Questioned as to the character of the S.C.R., the Company in its reply is reported to have said, i.a., “We are assured that the Society for Cultural Relations between England and Russia has no political intention. “[Footnote: Patriot, 30 April, 1925, p. 564.]
      By whom was the Company “assured”? Shortly before, a delegation of Bolsheviks, headed by Tomski, had, owing to the stupendous folly of our Government, been permitted to come to England and to prepare {88} with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress a General Strike. That the Bolshevik delegation was in close touch with the S.C.R. may be reasonably presumed. From the Blue Book, Communist Papers (1926, Cmd. 2682, p. 132), we learn that “the S.C.R. has a curiously mixed membership of ‘intellectuals,’ persons of ‘left’ sympathies, and members of the Russian organisations in this country and of the Communist Party of Great Britain” and that “the Communist International favours it as fertile ground for Communist propaganda of the intellectual variety.”
      Continuing the narrative: a little over two months or so before the General Strike of 1926 there appeared in the Broadcast Programmes for 24 February:—
8.50-9. Speeches at the Special General Council of the Trades Union Congress in connection with the handing over of Easton Lodge, as a centre of working-class education under the control of the General Council; relayed from Easton Lodge, Dunmow, Essex.
Speakers: The Countess of Warwick and Mr. A. Pugh, Chairman of the Trades Union Congress.[Footnote: Patriot, 4 March, 1925, p. 204.]
A patriot like Mrs. Webster had been debarred from broadcasting, yet the B.B.C. relayed the speech of the Socialist Countess of Warwick!

From the above examples it is apparent that the British Broadcasting Company was not unsympathetic towards left-wingers. Before considering the misdeeds of its successor, the British Broadcasting Corporation, it will be well to inspect the latter’s personnel in January, 1927.
      The Director-General, with the very high salary of £6,000 a year, was, as now, Sir John Charles Walsham Keith.
      He was aided by a Board of Governors. The Chairman of the Governors of the B.B.C. was a Conservative, the Earl of Clarendon, with a salary of £3,000, and the Vice-Chairman a Liberal, Lord Gainford (a Pease), with a salary of £1,000 a year. Lord Clarendon has since been succeeded in his post by a Liberal, the Right Hon. J. H. Whitley, Ex-Speaker of the House of Commons, whose first wife was Marguerita Virginia, daughter of Giulio Marchetti. The other Governors of the Corporation in 1927 were the Socialist Mrs. Philip (now Lady) Snowden, Sir J. Gordon Nairne, a Director and formerly Comptroller {89} of the Bank of England, who married a daughter of the late Baron da Costa Ricci, and Dr. Montague John Rendall, late Headmaster of Winchester. Each of them was paid £700 a year.
      On the rest of the personnel of the B.B.C. the public has very little information. On 27 March, 1929, I, as Chairman of the London Council, National Citizens’ Union, addressed a letter to Lord Clarendon asking him to inform me where I could see a “complete list of the staff of the B.B.C, and of the persons employed by it in editing the Listener, Radio Times, and its other publications.”
      Lord Clarendon did not answer my letter but Sir John Reith, on behalf of the B.B.C, under date of 4 April, 1929, wrote to me as follows:—
      “Lord Clarendon has sent me your letter to him of the 27 March.
      “While we may regret that you should object to the composition of any of our Committees, or question the political impartiality of our work, we cannot agree the rationality of such objection or doubt, and in view of the tone of your letter do not feel called upon to make any further reply. We might, however, refer you to the third paragraph of Clause 6 of the Corporation’s License.”
      I imagine that Russians asking, if any of them dare do so, for similar information from the Broadcasting Commissars in Bolshevia receive replies not unlike the one received by me from Sir John Reith. My letter to Lord Clarendon had contained, in addition to that already given, other questions.
      “The B.B.C. has apparently on its staff a Mr. C A. Siepmann. Is he a British-born subject, and were his parents and grandparents British-born subjects? Who recommended that Ludwig and Feuchtwanger should broadcast? Why, within a few weeks of the General Election, are the Socialists, Mrs. Sidney Webb, Mrs. Barbara Wootton, and Professor P. J. Noel Baker broadcasting, while, so far as I can see, no prominent Anti-Socialist (e.g., Mrs. Nesta Webster or Professor Hearnshaw) is doing so? You may reply that Conservatives have taken part in some of the topical talks or discussions. In that case, I would ask you who selected ... Mr. Ponsonby’s daughter to discuss the political parties with her pacifist and Socialist father? {90}
      “In conclusion, I would remind you that on the 8th ult. I sent you a report, which I presume you read, dealing with the activities, and containing some of the ultra-Socialist utterances of Professor H. J. Laski. From it you must have gathered that Professor Laski was unlikely to deliver impartial judgments on political subjects. Judge then of my surprise when, on opening The Listener of the 6th inst. I found that a broadcast talk by Professor Laski[Footnote: An account of Professor Laski’s activities will be found in Potted Biographies (Boswell, 8d.).] on the 25th ult. was published in it, the subject of such talk being, of all things, the autobiography of the late Lord Haldane.
      “That a Socialist and Internationalist professor without any expert knowledge of military matters should have been chosen by the B.B.C. to review the autobiography of a politician who was Minister of War, who put the nation unwise as to Germany’s attitude towards it, and who from a Liberal Imperialist became a follower of the Pro-German and Pro-Bolshevik, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, is to my mind conclusive proof that the conduct of the B.B.C. has passed into the hands of Socialists and Internationalists.
      “If under a Conservative Government the B.B.C. behaves in this fashion, what, my Lord, are we to expect from the B.B.C. in the event of the Socialists obtaining an independent majority in the next House of Commons?”
      With regard to Mr. Siepmann or another person of the same surname: the Evening Standard of 12 December, 1928, p. 15, col. 1), published correspondence between Sir John Reith and an aggrieved broadcaster, Mr. E. N. Da Costa Andrade, Professor of the University of London. The Professor alleged that a member of the B.B.C.’s announcing staff—one Colonel Brand—had been rude to him. Sir John Reith’s answer was:—
      “While I regret the occurrence, I am afraid no good purpose would be served in pursuing further your complaint referring to Colonel Brand. On the occasions of your future talks, Mr. Siepmann or his assistant will meet you.”

      Siepmann and Da Costa Andrade are not British surnames! If I may venture to make a suggestion, it is that some patriotic Peer or M.P. should force the “National” Government to procure from the B.B.C, and {91} publish a list of the names and addresses of all persons employed by it as broadcasters or in any other capacity, changes of names and nationality by employees being notified on the list. That Bolsheviks under real or assumed names may be lurking in the Portland Place citadel is not an unreasonable supposition. If the B.B.C. is to be judged by the performances of one of its star-broadcasters, the Hon. Harold Nicolson, one would not be astonished to learn that Bukharin himself was on the B.B.C.’s premises.
      Son of that patriotic diplomat, the late Lord Carnock, but educated at Balliol College, Mr. Nicolson on 21 February, 1930, in his Talks on “Persons and Things,” said:—
      “The Moscow Government can scarcely be said to ‘persecute’ religion in the historical sense of the term. They make fun of it, and they render it highly inconvenient and irksome. They persecute individual religious leaders just as they persecute other elements in the State. But the man who wants to worship in his own way is still, I am told [told by whom?], at liberty to do so.” [Footnote: Morning Post, 25 February, 1930, p. 11, col. 7.]
      On 7 March, in his Talk, this peculiar person deprecated all protests against the infamous behaviour of the Bolsheviks towards Christians, Moslems and religious Jews.
      “To put it quite baldly—if we intervene in the internal affairs of Russia, the Russians (sic) would feel justified in intervening in the internal affairs of the British Empire,” [Footnote: The Listener, 12 March, 1930, p. 468.]

      The Bolsheviks, as he was perfectly well aware, had from the outset, and were at that moment “intervening in the internal affairs of the British Empire.”
      Thus much, or rather thus little, about the personnel of the British Broadcasting Corporation: I will now, by means of a few salient examples, show what the trend of its policy has been. On 12 January, 1927—at the time when it received its charter—Professor Gilbert Murray was “talking on ‘The Year’s Work of the League of Nations’ (under the auspices of the League of Nations Union).[Footnote: Radio Times, 7 January, 1927, p. 56.] The Professor and the League of Nations Union, of which {92} he is the Chairman, are apparently on very intimate terms with the B.B.C., just as the L.N.U. is on very intimate terms with our “Labour” Party.[Footnote: The L.N.U.’s Leaflet No. 6 contained a manifesto signed by Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and other “Labour” leaders boosting the L.N.U. The manifesto stated that:
      The League of Nations will not supplant the Labour ‘Internationale’ [a Socialist body dominated by Aliens], but will supplement it.
      The L.N.U.’s Annual Report for 1920 showed that among the large subscribers to its funds were not only the Peruvian Government and the Zionist Organisation, but also Barons E. B. and F. A. d’Erlanger, M. Embiricos, His Excellency Etats Raad H. Anderson, Mr. Gluckstadt, Sir Basil Zaharoff, M. Madsen-Mygdal, H. W. A. Deterding, F. Eckstein, Sir Carl Meyer and other men and women whose names suggest a foreign origin. See also The Origin and Development of the League of Nations Union (Boswell, 4d.), a documented pamphlet proving, amongst other things, that the L.N.U. is attached to the World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches, a body which emanated from a Conference of German and other pastors held at Constance on 2 August, 1914. Lord Dickinson (father-in-law of Mr. Baldwin’s fidus Achates, Mr. J. C. C. Davidson, M.P.), has helped to organise both bodies.]

      Shortly after Professor Gilbert Murray broadcast his address Professor P. J. Noel Baker, a cosmopolitan and another light of the L.N.U., was discussing “Foreign Affairs and How They Affect Us,” [Footnote: Radio Times, 21 January, 1927, p. 161] over the wireless. Later in the year the Communistically-minded German Jew, Ludwig, and another German Jew, Feuchtwanger, author of Jew Süss, were pouring their ideas into the ears of listeners-in.
      After the triumph of “Labour” at the polls in May, 1929—in fact on 31 May, the day after the General Election—the mischievous and well-advertised crank, Mr. Osbert Sitwell, was permitted to broadcast eulogies on the American-born Jewish sculptor, Epstein’s abortion of a statue, “Night.” He said:—
      “A statue ( “Night.”) of real interest and beauty has recently been erected in London, and, as usual, the man in the street has expressed the utmost horror. This is only to be expected, however, for a multitude of bad statues jostle him at every turn, and when confronted with a genuine work of art he is by now incapable of any other emotion. Public taste has been degraded to a depth to which it has never fallen before.”[Footnote: Though even the Observer commented adversely on Mr. Sitwell’s insolent rigmarole, The Listener of 12 June published his Talk as its first article!]
      The belauding of “Night” was followed, on 10 July, by the first appearance of H. G. Wells in front of the microphone. The topic of his Talk was “World Peace.” In the course of it Wells said:—
      “World controls of the common interests of mankind, world controls leading to a world government, to a world state, to Cosmopolis, that is the only way to enduring peace in the world ... Let us set our faces {93} hard as learners, as teachers, as parents and rulers, as people who talk and influence others, against the teaching of patriotic histories that sustain and carry on the poisonous war-making tradition of the past ... And let us discourage the emotions and hysteria of patriotism. Let us check patriotic cant and bear ourselves with a certain critical detachment on the face of patriotic symbols ... Patriotism has become the enemy of civilisation.” [Footnote: The Listener, 17th July, 1929, p. 106. Italics mine.]

      Wells could not have failed to notice that millions of men—and in Russia, also, thousands of women—on the Continent were being trained to fight and that our army, in comparison with Continental armies, was a tiny one. His unpatriotic balderdash was not rebuked in The Listener. A verbatim report of his Talk filled the first three pages and half of another page of its issue of 17 July, and in a leading article the public was informed that:—
      “Men who can see into the future, and who can describe what they see as clearly as Mr. H. G. Wells, are all too rare in this world, and it would be a calamity were they not to hand on their message by means of the microphone.” (p. 84.)
      On 7 August, 1914, in the Daily Chronicle, the seer of Dunmow had prophesied that within three months from then “the Tricolour would be over the Rhine”!
      On 21 October, 1929, Wells was again broadcasting. Among other things, he stated that:—
      “Militarism and warfare are childish things ... They must become things of the past. They must die. Naturally my idea of politics is an open conspiracy to hurry these tiresome, wasteful, evil things, nationality and war, out of existence, to end this Empire and that Empire, and set up the one Empire of Man.” [Footnote: The Listener, 30 October, 1929, p. 594.]
Shaw and Astor
A week before, on 14 October, Bernard Shaw, in a broadcast Talk beginning “Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, Your Excellencies, Your Graces and Reverences, my Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen, fellow citizens of all degrees” had said:—
      “I must conclude by warning you that when everything has been done that can be done, civilisation will still be dependent on the consciences of the governors and the governed. Our natural dispositions may be good; but we have been badly brought up and are full {94} of anti-social personal ambitions and prejudices and snobberies. Had we not better teach our children to be better citizens than ourselves? We are not doing that at present. The Russians are. That is my last word. Think over it.” [Footnote: The Listener, 23rd October, 1929, p. ?553]
      I invite the reader to look at Shaw and the “Russians” in the photograph opposite, reproduced from one taken at Petrograd (Leningrad) in July, 1931. Observe the face of Lunacharsky, the atheistic Minister of Education in Soviet Russia!
      As has been seen from the Talks of Messieurs Shaw and Nicolson, the B.B.C. is very indulgent towards the “Russians.”
      Just as in May, 1930, the B.B.C. refused to broadcast the appeal of the late Duke of Northumberland in favour of ex-service men in Southern Ireland, the B.B.C., in the preceding February refused to relay speeches at the Christian Protest Meeting (against Anti-Christian atrocities in Russia) held in the Albert Hall.
      “Shielding,” as Mr. Ramsay MacDonald would say, the Bolsheviks “from the blasts of criticism,” has not, however, been the only good service done them by the B.B.C. At the beginning of August, 1930, the Bolsheviks’ very active ex-servant, Mr. E. F. Wise, C.B., then M.P., who, like Mr. George Lansbury in 1920 and 1926, had been on a visit to the Burglars’ Mecca, broadcast a talk entitled “Try Russia for a Holiday.” He said:—
      “I stayed in a small but comfortable little hotel [in the Caucasus], but most of the accommodation is in holiday homes belonging to the various trade unions.
      . . . Russians are generally friendly and sociable and, though some of them will be critical at times of England, just as people in England are sometimes critical of Russia, they seldom bear any ill-will at all towards English men and women. ... Of course, there are risks and difficulties about travelling in Russia, as there are in most other foreign countries. Criminals are to be found in all countries, but my own experience and that of many friends who have enjoyed delightful holidays in Russia is that the long arm of the Government authority [the Moscow murder-gang] maintains [by massacres and torturings] peace and order even in the remoter places on its distant borders ... If you are {95} interested in seeing at close quarters an experiment in national reorganisation ... of vast world importance, a visit to Russia is one of the most interesting and novel of holidays.”[Footnote: The Listener, 6 August, 1930, p. 206.]
      An honest Socialist M.P., Mr. Joseph Toole, who had also visited Russia, in an article published in the Daily Herald of 28 August, 1930, flatly contradicted Mr. Wise.
      “I have returned profoundly shocked. From the time I embarked on a Russian ship ... to the day I crossed to Poland I could see nothing but incompetence, insecurity, insanitation, disease and want . . . The State there is held by the sword and the rough brutal bludgeon. No personal liberty exists: there is only room for one view, the Soviet view.”
      The facts adduced and the quotations would suggest that the British Broadcasting Corporation, like its parent, the British Broadcasting Company, is being directed by Pinks or Reds. How else can it be explained that Professor John Macmurray, educated at Balliol College, was permitted to broadcast this?
      “Our current morality may quite well be a false morality. . . . There is no such thing as a moral law . . . the more law there is in our lives the less morality here is.”[Footnote: The Listener, 25 June, 1930, p. 1,132.]

      Sir John Reith was surely speaking ironically when, on 2 January, 1930, he said in the Daily Mail:—
      “Wireless can broadcast friendship, for it is a very friendly thing. ... Wireless can broadcast peace. ... World unity is realisable chiefly because broadcasting is a mighty co-ordinating force. Imagine ... if the Wise Men had broadcast to the world: ‘We have seen His star in the East’.”
      It is more easy to imagine King Herod broadcasting that he had massacred the Innocents!

X. Aliens and Revolution
Top of page ]

THAT strange Alien influences exist in England is obvious, and I propose, as far as is possible within the limits of this book, to examine one or two aspects of this particular menace to the nation.
      First, we have to remember that, despite their pious protestations, the so-called British Labour Party is pledged, through affiliation with the Second International of 1923, to remove even our present ineffective restrictions in relation to Alien immigration. They commenced to redeem that pledge in 1924, as is proved by no less an authority than Mr. Ronald McNeill (now Lord Cushendun), who, speaking in the Canterbury Division on 24 October, 1924, said that the Socialist Government had withdrawn control of Aliens, and any number were now coming into the country. He did not suppose that these even required to go to Germany for forged passports. So easy was it for them to come to this country under our present system that probably at this moment in the country, hidden away in London, Manchester, Glasgow, and in places of that sort, were men—they could not tell how many—of exactly the same class as the men who had produced the horrors in Russia.
      And during 1929-31 these regulations were further relaxed.
      Why this tender regard for the foreigner? What is the driving force behind it? Why is the foreigner always conspicuous in all movements of a subversive nature? Is he a welcome guest, or has he behind him a power that forbids any attempt to oust him from the deliberations of any of these associations? On Sunday, 4 December, 1927, I {97} attended a meeting at the Albert Hall, London, organised by the “International Class War Prisoners’ Aid,” when those well-known Communists, the late A. J. Cook and J. T. Murphy, were the chief speakers. After carefully examining the audience from points of vantage in the hall, and again at an exit, when it dispersed, it was obvious that about fifty per cent, were Aliens, of a low, dark type. And there immediately arose in my mind the question: “Why should we (and why do we) harbour these foreign parasites whose chief object, judging by the speeches at this meeting, is revolution?” It was not without purpose that the doctrine of “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” was proclaimed by the Alien instigators of the French Revolution. When accepted and acted upon, it admitted an Alien influence and Alien agents into every French institution, which until then were in the main the preserve of Frenchmen. The French subversives in 1789 were but the vanguard movement of an Alien invasion that ultimately spread to every European country, including England.
      The Hyde Park meetings, especially on May Day and on Sundays, show the type of Alien revolutionary in this country. Few of these Aliens do any honest work. Some beg “doles,” others live by crime, and most of them get Moscow money.
      When we talk of the “Doctrines of Moscow,” we do not always realise that we have actually imported the teachers of these doctrines, with apparent willingness, if not pleasure. Many of them have come here definitely to extend the Moscow and other equally subversive and pernicious movements, and, as for the remaining Aliens who may not actually be active, it must not be expected that they will have a love for Britain implanted in their hearts on landing. They are Aliens, and Aliens they will remain, no matter whether they change their nationality or not.
      How was it that noted Alien revolutionaries were allowed into this country under the Socialist and Baldwin Governments? Here are the names of some of them.
      Bukharin, the great brain of Moscow, came here in July, 1931, “as a scientist,” as the Socialist Government have been at great pains to explain. How long did he remain? He is well known as one of the chief Soviet {98} organisers. He is joint author of the ABC of Communism, which has been so much used by our Socialist politicians, and he was Lenin’s “Pen.”[Footnote: “Nicolai Ivanovich Bukharin is one of the most inveterate foes that the British Empire has known. Beside him the notorious Zinoviev, of Red Letter fame, pales. Until recently Bukharin was the Official Propagandist-in-Chief of the Soviet Government, and his last post was that of President of the Third International, from which he ousted Zinoviev. In that capacity he directed all anti-British propaganda. The claim that Bukharin is a scientist is devoid of all foundation. True, he graduated at the Moscow University, but he has never engaged in any branch of scientific work or study. He has always been and is a red revolutionary politician whose pamphlets, theses and speeches emphasise world revolution in general and the overthrow of the British Empire in particular. For years he has abandoned himself to a fury of bitter hatred towards Britain and the British Empire, and he is the co-author of a plan of ‘Colonial Wars,’ the idea of which is to reduce Britain, the ‘Bulwark of Capitalism,’ to dust. He has always sought to undermine British prestige, and he has devoted most of his time to writing anti-British diatribes, to preparing catechisms and instructions, and to lecturing at propaganda schools for agents destined to be sent to India, China, and other parts of ‘the zone of British influence.’ In fact, one of the leading schools is named after him. During the last six months he has been lecturing to agitators and teachers of agitators from every part of the British Empire. And he is inordinately proud of being the compiler of the so-called ‘Policy of the Indian Communist Party’ pamphlet, which demands the expulsion of every British man and woman from India. I cannot quote any scientific theories propounded by Bukharin, but I can give one or two examples of what the gentle scientist has said in the past. 1926: The British miners’ strike and the Chinese revolution are two gains due to Communist activities. British capitalism, more than other capitalism, is on the eve of its final downfall. . . . This strike is one of our battles which will in time multiply.”—(Daily Mail, 30 June, 1931.)]
      Gustav Sobottka is secretary of the International Miners’ Committee of the Red International of Labour Unions of Moscow. He was in this country for some months at the end of 1930.
      Ossipoff and Stoutsky of the Central Committee of the Miners’ Union of the U.S.S.R. landed in Great Britain on 28 September, 1929, and remained several weeks, during which they addressed miners in various parts of England and Scotland. So anti-British and Communist were their speeches that the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain raised complaints.
      Helmuk Oppermann, who admitted he had been eighteen months in the British Isles when examined (28 December, 1928), was found to have a forged German passport and to be carrying arms.
      Eduard Soermus, a Russian revolutionary, after preaching his dangerous doctrines in South Wales and other places for several months after the War, was deported; but the Socialist Government of 1924 allowed him to come back.
      Isidore Dreazon, a naturalised American of Polish birth, arrived in England, 29 January, 1930. He was found at the end of April, hiding in the headquarters of the Communist Party in Ancoats, Manchester. The police described him as “the most dangerous man in England to-day,” and as an important member of the Executive {99} of the Third International of Moscow. He had visited every Communist centre in England where there was industrial unrest and was said to he behind recent strikes. This man had been in England at an earlier date and on 1 May, 1930, he was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment and recommended for deportation. On 6 June, 1930, he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment; but he did not leave this country until 22 October, 1930.
      Xaver Franz Kugelmann, a German, landed here in March, 1929, for a limited period. Then he was granted three extensions by the Home Office up to 3 December, 1929. He was stated to be a member of the Communist party. But he was still here on 22 August, 1931, and a quantity of Communist literature was found at his lodgings. (See Cases in the Courts, Appendix II.)
      And how many other dangerous Alien revolutionaries in this country have not been arrested but are secretly at work in these islands? The author knows of some of these and has tried in vain to get the authorities to take action about them.
      On 27 November, 1930, Mr. Henderson stated in the House of Commons that members of the O.G.P.U. (the terrorist Moscow Soviet police) would be permitted to enter this country.
      Moses Boisenman arrived in England in June, 1930, under a false name. He is chief of the Foreign Section of the O.G.P.U. He is known to have been in touch with a number of military spies, English and foreign, in order to obtain information re latest type of tanks, armoured cars and big guns. (Daily Mail, 5 July, 1930.)
      Moscow transferred the Communist International “Western Bureau from Berlin to London in 1930.
      It is of importance that the amazing network built up by the Bolshevists for world propaganda for Communism should be fully realised. They have set up organisations, similar to the Western European Bureau, all over the world.
      The Western Bureau covers this country, Ireland, France, Portugal, Spain and Belgium.
      In addition to other European branches, there are also the Indian Bureau, the Latin American Bureau, the South African Bureau (with headquarters at Cape Town), the Far Eastern Bureau, which includes {100} Australia and New Zealand, and the North American Bureau, which includes the United States, Canada, and Mexico. (Morning Post, 12 May, 1930.)
      It is evident that Moscow knew that this Bureau could plot with greater freedom under our Socialist Government than in Berlin.
      In the House of Lords on 17 November, 1931, Lord Bertie of Thame drew attention to the activities of the expert Soviet agent Klyshko, which have been described by the Morning Post. This useful revolutionary was deported with Litvinoff (Finkelstein) in 1918 and returned with diplomatic immunity in 1920; but was withdrawn by his masters in 1923, at the instance of Lord Curzon, after it had been discovered that a number of £100 bank notes: passed to him through Lloyds Bank and the Russian Commercial Bank in London, had been cashed by a Punjabi revolutionary in India. He was evicted from China in 1925, having conspired with the Jew Borodin. Lord Lucan gave an account of his recent visits to this defenceless country— once in 1930 and twice this year. He said that the Home Office “have the situation well in hand”; but, in reply to Lord Newton, he added that Klyshko “has to get a visa to come to the country,” and “is backed by individuals or firms “wanting to do business with the Soviet, “I understand that there is no objection raised.” Could there be any better proof of the necessity for promptly clearing out the “nests of conspirators,” enjoying the hospitality of this country and entrenched behind diplomatic immunity? (The Patriot, 26 November, 1931.)
      In May, 1930, a significant visit to England was paid by Herr Eberlein, one of Moscow’s big men. He is a member of that mysterious and all-powerful body, the I.C.C. (International Control Commission of the Communist International). He is controller of Finance. Thus is revealed the link between the money of Moscow and the British Communist Party.
      These Alien anarchists waited until the Socialist Government was in office before coming, or returning, to this country. The facts set forth above show the long red arm of Moscow in our midst.
      “Pussyfoot” Johnson, of the United States of America, who more than once has been in England {101} endeavouring to put Prohibition over us, is another example of Alien interference in our national interests. We do not want the state of affairs here which Prohibition has brought about in the U.S.A. Had not the visits of this mysterious man, not only in England, but also in India twice and in Egypt, some ulterior object beyond that of Prohibition! The inhabitants of Egypt are Mohammedans, and most of the inhabitants of India have no interest in Prohibition as they do not drink alcoholic liquor. Whence did the money come to pay Mr. Johnson’s heavy expenses when travelling in so many countries?
      After reading this chapter doubtless the reader will wonder why a British Government should go out of its way to admit these dangerous Alien revolutionaries.
      And these are some of the gang to which trade credits have been given, to which this country has been supplying munitions of war on credit, including tanks, guns, etc. No one, who has studied matters of late years, expects these credits, which now run to several millions, to be honoured by this Moscow Soviet!
      In his book “An Expert in the Service of the Soviet” (Benn, 1929), Mr. M. J. Larsons, a mining engineer, and a well-known business man, relates how he was sent by the Soviet to Berlin in 1918 to assist Menshinsky, then Consul-General of the Soviet Republic in Berlin, in negotiating large credits. Mr. Larsons tried to impress on Menshinsky and his colleagues that they should be careful as to declarations and promises to the Reichsbank. Menshinsky smilingly observed: “I do not understand you. As long as there are still idiots to take our signature seriously and to put their trust in it, we must promise everything that is being asked and as much as one likes, if we can only get something tangible in exchange.”
      But the point of this story is that Menshinsky was the most powerful member of the Moscow Soviet in 1929 when Dovgalevski was in England negotiating trade credits with Mr. Henderson, our Foreign Secretary.
      All this substantiates what the author and his colleagues have been pointing out for several years, viz., that the MacDonald Cabinet were not their own masters in dealing with Moscow.
      It is well known that many British men, especially Welshmen, are in the pay of the Moscow Soviet. Here {102} is one case out of several—it is these Communist agents who have done so much to destroy the Welsh coal trade:—
      “Twenty-nine persons, who had been found guilty of unlawful assembly at Mardy, a mining township known as ‘Little Moscow,’ were brought up for sentence at Cardiff Assizes yesterday.
      “The case arose from an attempt to prevent a distress for rates from being levied on a miner’s house. “Police Inspector William Rees said that the ringleader was Arthur Horner, who had assumed the role of a ‘dictator.’ During the coal strike of 1921 his conduct was most revolutionary, and he terrorised the officials. On one occasion he compelled the stove workers at a local colliery to withdraw the fires, thereby flooding the pits.
      “‘Horner,’ continued the inspector, ‘has paid frequent visits to Russia, and it is assumed that he is being well paid by Russia for his efforts to destroy the peace of this country. Before his advent Mardy was a prosperous industrial mining district. The collieries employed 2,500 men, of whom the majority earned £9 a week. Now the place is almost derelict.
      “‘Respectable miners have been compelled to dispose of their houses, which cost £250 to £300, for £5. This is all attributed to Horner and a few of his disciples.’ “Horner was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment; the others to lesser terms.
      “Referring to some of the other defendants, Inspector Rees stated that Jesse Sweet, who was described as a dangerous agitator, after a visit to Moscow, attempted to join H.M. Forces with a view to spreading disaffection among the troops. He had never been down a pit in his life.”—(Times, 25 February, 1932.)
      In the House of Commons (12 February, 1932) Sir Herbert Samuel, Home Secretary, stated that 36 persons connected with the Soviet Embassy in London, including two members of the Trade Delegation, enjoy diplomatic immunity. Foreigners who possess this privilege can enter this country with an unlimited amount of baggage which the Customs officials cannot examine.
      The Morning Post (20 February, 1930) published the following:—
      “Nothing could better illustrate the utter worthlessness of the Soviet promise to Mr. Henderson, the {103} Foreign Secretary, to cease Communist propaganda in Britain than an institution in London’s Dockland.
      “Posing as an innocent club, this institution is actually the clearing house in Great Britain for inflammatory literature of all kinds.
      “It consists of a couple of small rooms in a house, and the officials in charge have been entrusted, among other things, with the work of fomenting revolution among ships’ crews.
      “The ‘club’ is also one of the principal agencies by which ‘Red’ gold is smuggled into Britain. Advantage is taken of the fact that the crews of Russian ships visiting London are allowed ashore, while British crews in Russian ports also obtain shore leave.
      “The money is handed to trusted emissaries of the Communists and brought to England in sailors’ pocket cases and belts. Afterwards it reaches, in devious ways, the headquarters of the Communists in Britain.
      “The club officials are in correspondence with extremist movements in every part of the world, and recently a large batch of ‘letters was received from India announcing the advent of what was described as a ‘blood bath.’
      “Seamen visiting this club are supplied with every sort of revolutionary literature, and are given introductions to dubs in various ports. By this means young British seamen fall into the clutches of the worst kind of international political scum to be found in towns such as Buenos Aires, Barcelona, Marseilles, and Hamburg.
      “Strenuous efforts are being made to establish these clubs in other British ports. The London centre is the clearing house for the despatch of the worst type of Communist literature. This is received from Russia, translated into English, printed at a press in the home counties, and distributed everywhere.”
      About 30 to 40 years ago thousands of miners were imported into Scotland from Eastern Europe, and since then more have come over on various excuses as relatives, etc.
      The following, from the Evening News (2 October, 1931), is interesting:—
      “Why there are so many Communists on Clydeside is explained by Mr. Bain Irvine in ‘The Scots Year Book {104} for 1932.’ He says: ‘Large and ever-increasing numbers of Poles have settled in the mining districts of the West of Scotland.
      “‘They are largely responsible for the great sympathy with the Communist movement for which such a town as Motherwell, for example, is noteworthy. And the wild men of the Clyde owe their following largely to the Bolshevik doctrines which have been so assiduously preached by those strangers in our midst.
      “’ Now these Poles are, one by one, dropping their original names and assuming those of their Scottish wives, or they are altering their own so that it has more of a Scottish flavour. Thus Simski becomes Simpson and Watski alters itself readily to Watson.’ “The large proportion of Aliens or children of Aliens in the Glasgow area is mainly the result of this large immigration.
      “P.S.S.”, in a letter in The Patriot (8 October, 1931), said:—
      “Sir,—The disturbances in Glasgow draw attention again to the number of Aliens to be found in some of the Scottish coalfields; and in other industries.
      “It was my duty as a railway employee at a remote village in a beautiful part of Ayrshire regularly to handle large sacks of Mack bread which were sent in for the use of the Polish community, whose presence seemed incongruous to the Scots, who resented the policy of a large colliery company in employing such labour at the pits.
      “These Aliens naturally make pliant material (as do types of Irish revolutionaries, advocates of ‘Home Rule’ for Scotland under Irish dictatorship) for the advocates of sedition and mass disturbance, knowing, and caring nothing about the solid traits of Scottish and British life.
      “One cannot, of course, blame these Aliens for everything, but the effect of them is as a boomerang to the proprietors who encouraged them as some protection against the ruinous policy of trade union Bosses to prevent profit-earning in the coal industry.” The Daily Mail (19 September, 1929) says:—
      “Pravda of 12 September states that two Soviet delegates are leaving Moscow for Scotland to take part in the Scottish miners’ conference which is to take place on 28 September. {105}
      “The paper says that the delegates are going at the invitation of the Scottish Miners’ Union, which ie affiliated to the Red Trade Union International.
      “The two delegates are members of the International Miners’ Committee of Action and Propaganda.”
      In Ireland the new organisation Saor Eire is believed to have direct affiliation with the Bolsheviks.
      (Daily Mail, 17 October, 1931.) The Dublin Correspondent of the Daily Mail reported (17 October, 1931), regarding the situation in Ireland, that the Irish Cabinet was seeking from the Irish Parliament stronger powers. This had been made necessary by the discovery of a scheme by those who are at the dictation of Moscow to kidnap or intimidate the deputies and so bring to naught the plans of the Government. Since then Mr. de Valera has ousted Mr. Cosgrave from office!
      The Morning Post (27 October, 1931) said: “Many people are lulled into a false sense of security by the apparent quiet on the revolutionary front, the Minority Movement (formerly the Red International) is very busy in the Trade Unions.”
      Our last Socialist Government seem to have been associated and co-operating with anti-British elements all over the world.
      In October, 1931, Monsieur Chiappe, Prefect of the Paris Police, visited London. One of his objects was the development of a scheme he had formulated for international action to combat Communist agitation and political crimes. It is clear that police co-operation is desirable on a more comprehensive scale than at present.
      It is significant that M. Chiappe did not come on this mission until the Socialist Ministry had fallen. No doubt the French Government knew fully about the revolutionary activities of our Socialist gang and that it would be useless to send such a mission whilst they were in office.
      In the winter of 1930-31, the United States of America held a Government Commission on the Alien question. On the recommendation of this Commission the U.S.A. decided to deport about 120,000 undesirable Aliens. Most of these people were anarchists or criminals in their native countries. It was therefore impossible for them to return {106} home. Whither did they go? As other countries, except the British Isles, have a thorough system re immigration or registration of Aliens, many of these undesirables naturally made for this country. No doubt many knew that under the Socialist regime regulations re Aliens had been further relaxed. Did Bukharin come here in July, 1931, to help to organise these anarchists?
      This Commission reported that “70 per cent, of the advocates of revolution (in the U.S.A.) were Aliens.” The Commission highly praised the American Federation of Labour for repulsing all Communists’ attempts to bore from within and for frustrating completely all subversive efforts. (Daily Mail, New York correspondent, 19 January, 1931.)
      This is a fine example to our labour leaders and Socialist politicians who have been acting for several years past under the dictatorship of Moscow.
      When all the above facts have been considered by readers who take an interest in the affairs of our unfortunate country, they will not be surprised that there has been so much unrest in the British Isles of late; not only labour strikes and a great increase of crime with violence, but such serious matters as mutinies in our Navy. It would be interesting to know how many of the rebellious convicts in Dartmoor were Aliens.
      And it is not fair to other countries, who deal with Anarchism within their own territories in a drastic manner, to allow this large and well organised centre of Anarchism to be here, not only unmolested, but even encouraged and financed, whilst it plans in a thorough and masterly but sinister manner the destruction of civilisation.
      It is greatly to be regretted that so many clergy of the Church of England show their sympathy with the Moscow gang. To give one instance out of many. On 27 June, 1931, a Garden Party was given in the grounds of King’s College, London, W.8, to Madam Sokolnikov, wife of the Soviet Ambassador. This was organised by the Society for Cultural Relations with Soviet Russia, whose parent Society is in Moscow. This body was established by the Soviet Government for promoting Communism among the “intellectuals.” The Garden Party was attended by several well known foreign anarchists and the Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Hewlett Johnson, presided at the function. {107}
      Did this leader of our Church realise that he was supporting an organisation responsible for one of the greatest campaigns against Christianity that the world has known? In December, 1929, Lord Glasgow and that great patriot, the late Prebendary Gough, with the aid of the Morning Post, inaugurated the National Christian Protest Movement against the Soviet destruction of the Christian religion in Russia and the Bolsheviks’ war against God in other countries. It is difficult to understand why our Church did not whole-heartedly support this fine effort.
      The Soviet of Moscow are destroying all religions in Russia and Turkey, and their agents, who have now seized the Government in Spain, are doing the same thing in that unfortunate country.
      Regarding Australia, in the 2nd edition of this book, published January, 1929, I wrote:—
      “The serious Communism and unrest in Australia has been fomented in much the same manner by Aliens and renegade British, mostly Irish, supplied with Alien money. Theodore, of Polish extraction, late Premier of Queensland (now in New South Wales), Johannsen, a Dane, and others of Alien origin, have, by their Communist schemes and intrigues, brought about a very serious state of affairs in that country. Should Australia experience any sort of set-back, such as drought, there will probably be a financial crash, which would be the opportunity for the financiers of Berlin and New York to come forward with some of their surplus money, and so get Australia well in their grip.” How true this has proved can be gathered from private letters received by the author from leading men in Australia. The Melbourne Argus (8 November, 1929) states that Australia is determined to protect herself from Bolshevist propaganda. This is not an imaginary danger. There is abundant evidence to prove that Moscow has well defined channels of communication with agitators in the Commonwealth who are in touch with Russia and have taken an active part in the promotion of disastrous industrial strife.
The special correspondent of the Daily Mail (7 July, 1928) stated that Mr. Brodsky Marlen (or Marx-Lenin) had founded in Sydney the International Seamen’s Club.
      The Morning Post Australian correspondent said (24 October, 1931) that the Government’s appeal to the men to man the ships and a statement that the Government {108} would support the police forces of the states to protect volunteers, brought bitter attacks from Garden, Johannsen and other extremist leaders.
      The Daily Mail (30 October, 1931) stated that Communists, many of whom were foreigners, took charge of a meeting of the Seamen’s Union at Sydney and, despite opposition by officials, decided on a strike at all ports.
      The Daily Mail correspondent at Sydney reported (12 December, 1931) that with reference to Communist meetings “Mr. Scullin declared last night that the Communist theory was all right and refused to consider the organisation unlawful.”
      But Canada is handling the Communists in a practical manner. By law in that country they are an “unlawful association.”
      “At Toronto yesterday the Supreme Court of Ontario dismissed an appeal by eight members of the Communist Party of Canada from conviction and sentences on charges of acting as an unlawful association. The Court, however, ruled that a charge of seditious conspiracy could not be upheld, but declined to interfere with the sentences, which range from one to five years’ imprisonment. All the prisoners save one, who is a native-born Canadian, will be deported at the end of their sentences.”—Times, 20 February, 1932.
      In India the gigantic network of Communist centres and propaganda has been shown up in the Press. These Soviet agents are mostly natives of India who have been educated at the School of Oriental Propaganda in Moscow. As to the Far East: One of the avowed aims of the Moscow Soviet is to destroy British trade in China. Karl Radek, in his “England and the East,” said: “English Imperialism is forcing us to look for a place where it is most vulnerable. This place is Asia. Soviet Russia will be able to inflict more harm upon British Imperialism in the East than British Imperialism could inflict on us in the West.”
      Bukharin said (1926): “. . . our immediate task in China is to defeat the Imperialist enemy.”
      More than one Chinese General has during recent years been subsidised by Moscow. One of the leading Communists is Feng Yu Hsiang, the so-called “Christian” General, who was educated at Moscow, and is at present back there. {109}
      Finally, it must not be forgotten that the revolution in the Rand mines in South Africa, 1922, was organised by Aliens. Most of these revolutionaries were described as “Russians.” But the Government there, knowing the kind of people with which they had to deal, took strong and effectual measures. Thousands of troops were used and the Communist centres were shelled with field guns. Several of these Alien leaders were killed and the remainder hanged. Many of the less prominent Aliens were deported.

XI. The Hidden Hand
Top of page ]

MOST investigators of the Bolshevist Revolution in Russia have observed a close connection between the leaders of Bolshevism and certain groups of International Financiers. A full and complete record of the part played by certain eminent International Financiers of Berlin, London and New York in the “Russian” Revolution of October, 1917, and in the subsequent extension of Bolshevist propaganda, especially within the British Empire, would throw a flood of light upon many otherwise inexplicable events since the end of the Great “War. In the second edition of this book brief reference was made to this connection between International Finance and Bolshevism; but it is now necessary with more information available and with increasing evidence of Alien interference with and control of British finance, industry and politics, to discuss this connection more fully.
      To my mind there is no doubt that Bolshevism is controlled by a combination of internationalists in which those of the Jewish faith predominate. In 1919, a section of the Jewish press in London openly encouraged Bolshevism and Bolshevist propaganda in this country, and so strong was the advocacy that the Morning Post had to give wide publicity to the whole matter until it drew a letter (which appeared on 23 April, 1919) signed by Lionel de Rothschild, Lord Swaythling, Sir Philip Magnus, Sir Marcus Samuel, Harry S. Samuel, Leonard L. Cohen, I. Gollancz, General Sir John Monash, Claude G. Montefiore, and Isidore Spielmann, in which these gentlemen admitted “with deepest concern and sincere regret” the publication of Bolshevist propaganda in sections of the Jewish press, and “welcomed the suggestion that British Jews should disassociate themselves from a cause which is harmful.” Prior to this letter there had not appeared any expression of Jewish disapproval of Bolshevism.{111}
      A statement in The Times of 29 March, 1919, shows that “of the twenty or thirty commissaries, or leaders, who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement, not less than 75 per cent, are Jews. . . . Among the minor Soviet officials the number is legion.”
      It is generally known that when Lenin and Trotsky went to Russia in 1917 to start the Bolshevist Revolution, the way for which had been prepared by the Kerensky Revolution of March in the same year, they received large sums of money from Germany. This fact has always raised the more important and interesting question: “Who enabled Germany to provide the money for this sinister gang of revolutionaries? It is now known and clearly proved that the money was provided by a group of International Financiers with headquarters in Berlin, Stockholm and New York. Quite apart from the desire of the German Militarists to force Russia out of the War and their readiness to employ Lenin and his associates for this purpose, the International Financiers of Berlin, London and New York, for their own private reasons, also wished to destroy the old regime in Russia. For this purpose they naturally availed themselves of the opportunity provided by Germany’s military situation and needs; and in anticipation of their ultimate aims, selected and financed members of their own race to carry out their plans in Russia. While Lenin took with him from Switzerland a number of Alien revolutionaries collected from all parts of Europe, his chief lieutenant, Trotsky, brought with him a horde of Aliens from the United States. Most of these Aliens had in previous years been forced to leave Europe on account of their revolutionary and criminal activities, and had in the meantime found a temporary place of refuge in America. A considerable number of them were ex-convicts. Trotsky himself was in prison in Halifax, Nova Scotia, when the call came for him to join Lenin in Russia. His release from prison so that he might assist Lenin in organising the Bolshevik Revolution is a mystery that has never been explained. What powerful influence compelled the British authorities to order his release and to grant permission for his transport to Russia? While there have been rumours that the order for his release came from a responsible person in the British Government, no authentic explanation has ever been published concerning this act Of treachery to both Britain and Russia. {112}
      This Alien attack upon Russia was not unpremeditated. It was part of a considered plan that had been maturing for many years, and in which leading Jewish financiers had displayed much interest. Mr. Wickham Steed in his book “Through Thirty Years” states “that the late Jacob H. Schiff, the well-known American banker, was known to be anxious to secure recognition for the Bolshevists, among whom Jewish influence was predominant.”

This is the Jacob Schiff who financed Japan in her war against Russia in 1904-05. He was then head of the Banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., New York, and in the “Jewish Encyclopaedia,” 1906, we read: “It (Schiff’s firm) subscribed for and floated the large Japanese war loan in 1904-05, in recognition of which the Mikado conferred on Schiff the second order of the Sacred Treasure of Japan.”
      This reference to the help given to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War by this firm of international financiers—and a firm whose ramifications are to-day almost world-wide— recalls the 1905 Revolution in Russia. In that revolution a Workers’ Soviet was formed with Leon Braunstein (now known as Trotsky) as its leader. When Braunstein had the misfortune to be arrested his place in the Soviet was taken by another member of the same race who is almost equal in fame as a revolutionary. This was a Dr. Helphand, whose literary pseudonym was “Parvus.” He was the mysterious possessor of considerable wealth, and he appears to have found that the advocacy of Communism could be combined with the acquisition of riches. This man was an ideal person to act as a go-between for the financiers and the German militarists in their relations with Lenin and Trotsky. Valeriu Marcu, in his biography of Lenin (Victor Gollancz, London, 1928) says (p. 38):— “Parvus, a friend of Trotsky as far back as 1905, had set out to prove that the Master’s (Lenin’s) theories could also bring good fortune to the individual in business life, and accordingly had speculated during the War, as a true internationalist, in Berlin, Copenhagen, Vienna and Constantinople; now hoping for political laurels, he advised the Foreign Minister at Berlin to let Lenin “pass through.”
      This Internationalist, who appears to have enriched himself by his contacts with many countries, made Stockholm his chief centre of operations, both financial and {113} Socialistic, during the War. Here he established a Socialist Bureau, and from this Bureau he arranged the abortive Socialist Peace Conference of 1917. This Conference would have been attended by certain British Socialist leaders who were then on intimate terms with Parvus, but they were, it will be remembered, prevented from reaching Stockholm by the action of the late Havelock Wilson and his patriotic seamen. At that time persons who were secretly meeting the enemies of our country were not as popular as they are to-day; they were regarded as traitors. Associated with Parvus was a friend named Ganetsky-Furstenburg, whose international financial interests were as extensive and as mysterious as those of Parvus. Mrs. Harold Williams, in her book “From Liberty to Brest-Litovsk” (Macmillan, 1919), says that it was through this mysterious person that “the Bolshevists used to obtain large sums of money from an unknown source abroad.” She quotes the Russian Socialists (not Bolshevists) Plekhanoff and Pankratieff, who stated that they had “documentary proofs that the Bolshevists had received money from Berlin, through Stockholm. Even the banks were named: the Disconto-Gelleschaft, Nya Bank, the Siberian Bank. The names of the intermediaries were also given: Parvus, Ganetsky, Summonson, and Kozlousky” (p. 144). Similar information, Mrs. Williams adds, was given by the Procurator of the Kerensky Government in documents published, 3 August, 1917, in which it was shown that large sums of money had reached Petrograd from Dr. Helphand ( “Parvus”)— “a Russian Jew,” who is described as an “obscure international speculator who acquired an enormous fortune, and styled himself as the ideal inspirer of Bolshevism.”
      How these subsidised Alien revolutionaries, having invaded Russia, proceeded to murder and rob on a wholesale scale has been recorded by many persons who had the misfortune to be in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. All are agreed that the leaders of the Revolution and the persons responsible for the most brutal and revolting murders were Jews. No more terrible account of the horrors of this Jewish invasion and conquest of Russia has been written than that of Mr. Robert Wilton, Times correspondent in Russia before and during the Great War, and during the first and second revolutions. In his book, “The Last Days of the Romanovs,” Mr. Wilton shows {114} from personal investigations that the foul murder of the Tsar and his family was arranged and carried out by Jews.
      The Germans, says Mr. Wilton, knew what they were doing when they sent Lenin’s pack of Jews into Russia. . . . The whole record of Bolshevism in Russia is indelibly impressed with the stamp of Alien invasion. The murder of the Tsar, deliberately planned by the Jew Sverdlow (who came to Russia as a paid agent of Germany) and carried out by the Jews Goloshchekin, Syromolotov, Safarov, Voikov, and Yurovsky, is the act not of the Russian people, but of this hostile invader.[Footnote: Times articles by Robert Wilton, August, 1920. The book is now out of print. Long extracts from the book were published in The Patriot, 10 and 17 April, 1930.]

      For the crimes and horrors of the Russian Revolution the Germans and their financial backers in the Great War are morally responsible.
      I have not the space for further details of this plot of Alien financiers to organise a world revolution, beginning with the Bolshevist Revolution in Russia. Those who wish to go further into the history of this plot against civilisation should consult the books from which I have quoted; also the “Russia’s Ruin,” by Wilcox (Chapman & Hall, 1919). The study of this financial aspect of the Bolshevist Revolution of 1917 can only lead to one conclusion; namely, that the Revolution could never have been achieved by Lenin and Trotsky without the aid of considerable financial resources. As Mrs. Williams says, page 291 of her book:—
      “One is forced to draw the conclusion that the hundreds of thousands, or rather millions, spent by Lenin and his followers were furnished to them from some exchequerwhich had millions at its disposal. Only banks and State exchequers have the possibility of subsidising propaganda on such a scale.”
      The most complete record of these financial arrangements made with Lenin and his associates is the Sisson Report, published by the American Committee on Public Information. This Report gives in Document 28 full particulars of the millions received by the Bolshevist leaders from the German Imperial Bank viá Stockholm. In Documents 10 and 11, extracts are published from a resolution sent by the German Commercial banks to the Chairman of the Bolshevist Central Executive, declaring that “the German banks after the War were to control Russian industry.” This is important, because the post-war {115} relations of the German financiers and their associates in New York, London and Stockholm, with Soviet Russia, tend to confirm this resolution. Keeping this resolution in mind, let us now turn to post-war Bolshevism.
      One of the post-war links between International Finance and Bolshevism was the late Leonid Borisovitch Krassin, a native of Siberia. Krassin, who in his student days had been a revolutionary, was an engineer, and, like Parvus, had combined revolutionary activities with a successful business career. After taking part in a revolutionary plot in Russia in 1907 he escaped to Berlin where he obtained employment in the firm of Siemens Schuckert, which was affiliated to A.E.G. (Allgemeine Elektrizitats Gesellschaft). In 1909 he became a director of the St. Petersburg branch of this firm. Early in 1917 we find him in Stockholm in association with the mysterious friend of Parvus—the German-Jewish financial agent, Ganetsky-Furstenburg, to whom I have already referred. With this financial agent Krassin travelled to Berlin. As it was at this period in 1917 that the financial arrangements were made in Berlin for the transfer of Lenin and his Alien gang of conspirators and cut-throats to Russia, it is not surprising to find Krassin, after the Bolshevist coup détat, resuming his old position in Russia as the representative of Siemens Schuckert. Among Krassin’s most powerful supporters in Germany were the International Financiers—Hugo Stinnes, Felix Deutsch, Manager of the A.E.G., and Walter Rathenau, President of the same concern. As Mrs. Nesta Webster says in “The Surrender of an Empire,” p. 107:—
      “Krassin thus played a dual rôle, on one hand representing the interests of the great German-Jewish capitalists and on the other acting as the lieutenant of Lenin, whose avowed aim was to destroy Capitalism. If any further evidence were needed of the connection between Bolshevism and International Finance, the case of Krassin would provide it.”
      In 1921 Krassin came to London as leader of the Soviet Trade Delegation—the negotiations for which had been initiated by persons in the City of London with powerful international financial interests behind them. Some of these same Anglo-German interests in the City had been mixed up in the Marconi scandal of 1912, and now they found in Krassin the man to further their scheme to link {116} this country with their Germano-Russian enterprise. This enterprise was in accordance with the resolution of the German Commercial Bank quoted in “the Sisson Report, to secure, after the War, the exploitation of Russian resources by the international financiers of Berlin. To further these aims, Stinnes, Felix Deutsch and Walter Rathenau, the A.E.G. chiefs and friends of Krassin, came also to London in 1921. The object of their visit was to open negotiations to form an international syndicate to undertake the reconstruction of Russia. It is known that these visitors had private and confidential interviews in London with politicians and financiers, and the Vossische Zeitung stated that the visit “was for the purpose of arranging with the British Government a project for the combined exploitation of Russia by Great Britain and Germany.” (See “The Surrender of an Empire,” p. 121. Also Morning Post, 16 December, 1921.)
      The Evening News (London) reported on 11 January, 1922, that Krassin was again in Berlin conferring with Rathenau. All these negotiations after the War were consistent with the policy and intentions of the international financiers, with the German group at their head, who had established Bolshevism in Russia. Having succeeded in destroying Russia and in placing it under the corrupt and despotic rule of an Alien oligarchy, it only remained, as the Morning Post, 19 March, 1921, had said, “for the international capitalist, who is the paymaster, to exploit Russia.” And it added: “It is well known that there are certain syndicates in this country, mainly Jewish, that have long been willing to trade with Russia.” This connection between Bolshevism and International Finance is very clearly shown by M. André Chéradame in his book La Mystification des Peuples Alliés, in which he asserts, on the evidence he had obtained, that the Communists had been backed up throughout by the Deutsche Bank, which maintained relations with German-Jewish financiers, naturalised as English or American in London and New York.
      “Bolshevism,” he states, “leads necessarily to the exploitation of Russia for the profit of a syndicate of super-capitalists, of which the real leaders are Jews and Germans.”
      This statement supports Rathenau’s own declaration that “Three hundred men, all acquainted with each other, control the economic destiny of the Continent.” {117}
      At that time Rathenau was one of the three hundred and was associated with eighty-four large concerns. Mrs. Webster, reviewing these facts, says: “Viewed from this angle the Trade Agreement with Great Britain and Russia in 1921 takes on a different aspect. No longer a compact with a derelict empire, but with the most formidable Power in the World, the Power of International Finance, it is seen not as an act of folly, but as a surrender to forces with which its authors were either unable or unwilling to contend.” [Footnote: The Surrender of an Empire, p. 123]
      That Mrs. Webster is right is proved by more recent events. The Bolshevist danger to this country lies not so much in Communist propaganda per se, but in the fact that Bolshevism is one of several weapons employed by Alien financial interests to bring Britain and the British Empire under their control and domination. What they have done in Russia they may do here by similar methods. I shall deal more fully with this influence of Alien finance in Britain in another chapter. But before concluding this survey of the relations of Alien financiers with Bolshevism I will quote some recent evidence to show that this connection still exists and is in some measure responsible for the financial crisis in Europe, and threatens the security and solvency of our own country. Our financial crisis in July, 1931, was largely due to the international financiers in the City of London having granted large credits to Germany, which Germany declared herself unable to repay. The newspapers described these loans or credits as being “frozen” in Germany. This statement was not strictly correct. Germany had passed on these loans or a good portion of them to Soviet Russia, and it was in Russia where they were—or are still— “frozen.” The financial collapse of Germany, or even of Great Britain, would not necessarily mean any loss to the international financiers who “wangled” our money into Soviet Russia. The money is at least in the keeping of members of the same international family. The following extracts from recent statements on this question of “frozen” credits not only prove that the relations between International Finance and Bolshevism continue, but they suggest that these relations may have serious consequences for this country.
      On 18 September, 1931, Mr. James W. Gerard, American Ambassador in Berlin during the War, after {118} returning from a visit to Europe, declared that Germany “did not need any financial assistance and that a large percentage of the loans from the United States was lent to Russia.” He added: “If we’re going to do business with Russia, let us do it directly and not through Germany, which has arranged to give Soviet Russia millions of dollars’ credit to purchase commodities in Germany.”[Footnote: See National Review, January, 1932.]
      Mr. Gerard does not mention the fact that the American financiers who arranged the American loans to Germany have both blood and business relations with the German financiers who passed those loans on to other members of the same fraternity in Russia. This story of Germany passing loans received from England and America to Russia has been told many times in the Socialist journal Forward, and the story is now confirmed by a paper closely associated with Soviet interests. The British Russian Gazette and Trade Outlook, December, 1931, said in an editorial article:—
      “It must be ironic for them (British manufacturers) to view the forced cessation of work on the giant Cunard liner, which is attributed to this country’s ‘frozen’ credits in Germany—credits which have been used in great part by Germany to finance orders from Russia. During 1931 orders amounting to over £45,000,000 have been placed with German firms by the Soviet buying organisations.”
      Further information on these credits was given by Lord Beaverbrook in an address at Lincoln, reported in the Daily Express, 16 January, 1932. Speaking on German Reparations, Lord Beaverbrook said: “It is true that Germany owes our international financiers in the City of London £50,000,000. . . . Our international financiers in the City borrowed that money from France and America and paid 2 per cent, for the accommodation. They lent it to Germany for 8 per cent. And what did Germany do with the money? She lent it to Russia for 15 per cent, interest. That is what became of the money.”
      Lord Beaverbrook added that “these buck-jumping financiers . . . have ramifications all over Europe. We need not worry ourselves about them.” While Lord Beaverbrook is correct in his account of the operations and ramifications of these international financiers, he is wrong in saying we need not worry about them. We have every reason to be concerned over this Alien control and direction of our finances, politics and industries, as I shall {119} show in another chapter. How, for instance, can Lord Beaverbrook’s “Empire Free Trade” proposals be fully adopted while Britain and a large part of the British Empire are dominated by powerful Alien financiers, whose interests are not reconcilable with the national and imperial interests and needs of this country?
      In this chapter I have shown how international financiers, working through their German connections, have supported Bolshevism in Russia. I have also shown that even now the connection between these financiers and Soviet Russia continues, and is, by means of credits, obtained from England and America, enabling a corrupt Alien oligarchy to maintain its control in Russia and to extend its demoralising influence far beyond the frontiers of the Soviet Union. Though the Communists profess to hate Capitalism and order their paid agents in England to cry “Down with the Capitalists” the leaders in Russia never fail to give the international financiers a hearty welcome whenever they visit the U.S.S.R. When Felix M. Warburg, of New York, visited Russia in 1927 he had a great reception, and the speeches delivered on that occasion indicated that the Bolshevist leaders and the leaders of world finance understood each other very well, that their aims were not dissimilar, and altogether they were a united family working in their respective ways for a common end.[Footnote: See The Patriot, 9 June, 1927, and La Croisade (Paris), April, 1931.]
      Felix M. Warburg and his brother, the late Paul Warburg, both of New York, came to the U.S.A. from Hamburg and belong to the German banking firm of that name. They became partners of Jacob H. Schiff in the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and Paul, who organised the Federal Reserve Bank, became the dominant force in New York banking and finance circles. That certain financial groups in the United States had and still have close relations with the German financiers who found the money for Lenin’s adventure in Russia is a well-known fact, and that one or more of these American groups assisted the same adventure through Trotsky is more than probable. Trotsky, we know, was mysteriously released from prison at Halifax (Nova Scotia) and provided with the means to enable him and his associates from New York, mostly very undesirable Aliens, to proceed to Russia.
      The facts submitted in this chapter leave little room for doubt concerning the financial backing of Bolshevism, {120} not only during the Great War, but right down to the present time. Not only is Russia to-day governed and ruthlessly ruled by an Alien gang, but this gang has been, from the very beginning, financed and maintained by a group of International Financiers, who are also Aliens in the sense that their aims and objects are inconsistent with the national desires and purposes of the countries and peoples they dominate. Knowing what we do to-day of the power and ramifications of these International Financiers, who exploit all nations, can we say England is not under their control and direction?

XII. Alien Influence in Politics
Top of page ]

Trebich Lincoln and Jewish spies
BEFORE the World War the Alien penetration of our political parties had become very noticeable, and it will be remembered how Alien financiers in the City of London urged the Liberal Government in August, 1914, to remain neutral during the German attack on France and Belgium. The Liberal Party was then supported by many politically-minded Aliens and some of them proved during the War to be most undesirable persons. Sir Edgar Speyer, Bart., and Ignatius Timothy Trebich Lincoln, son of Nathan Trebich, both personae gratae with the Liberal leaders, maintained relations with the enemy during the War. Lincoln was an active and clever spy. He was by birth an Hungarian and a British citizen by naturalisation. A clergyman of the Church of England, and, later, secretary to Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree, he had been, in 1910, elected M.P. (Liberal) for Darlington. [Footnote: In the early hours of Christmas Eve, 1925, one of Lincoln’s sons, calling himself “John Lincoln,” then Bombardier in “E” Battery, Royal Horse Artillery, murdered a brewers’ traveller. He was convicted of the murder, sentenced to death, and hanged. This throws light on the way in which our armed forces are penetrated.] Then some years before the War, at a dinner given in London by Free Traders in honour of Mr. Lloyd George, a list of those present included a considerable number of rich Aliens and persons of recent Alien extraction. This Alien influence in the Liberal Party and the great financial support the Party received from foreign sources explains the hostility of the Liberal Government and the Liberal Party to all proposals to restrict Alien immigration.
      But it was after the Great War and during the Peace Conferences at Paris that this Alien influence in our politics became not only conspicuous but dangerous to British interests. Whatever may be said for the conception of a League of Nations, the Peace Conference, out of which the Covenant of the League was evolved, was dominated by interests hostile to the British Empire. The economic {122} consequences of the Peace are in a large measure the result of Alien intervention in the framing of the Peace Treaty. The policy enunciated by President Wilson was in some of its main aspects, not unlike the policy of the Bolsheviks. Both desired the international control of the World. President Wilson wanted this to be through the League of Nations; the Bolsheviks through the Third (Communist) International. Both used similar slogans, such as “No Annexations,” “No Secret Diplomacy,” and “The Right to Self-Determination.” The “Self-Determination” slogan has been well described as having the effect of dynamite upon the British Empire. It has done great harm in many countries, but in none more than in the British Empire. These disruptive proposals and slogans provided common ground between Washington and Moscow, though on other matters there might be considerable differences.
      In the chapter on “The Hidden Hand” it is shown how International Financiers in Berlin and New York helped Lenin and Trotsky to enter and conquer Russia. The same Alien financial influence is to be found behind President Wilson and his League of Nations. This connection was well-known in Paris during the Peace Conference, and “Pertinax,” writing in the Echo de Paris of 28 April, 1920, described this financial influence as follows:—
      “M. Max Warburg is the chief of the banking firm Max Warburg & Co., of Hamburg. He is the principal shareholder in the Hamburg-American and German-Lloyd Steamship Lines. His two brothers, Paul and Felix Warburg, married respectively to the sister-in-law and the daughter of Jacob H. Schiff (born at Frankfurt), are the associates of the latter at the head of the Kuhn Loeb & Co. Bank of New York. Here we have a financial group which, up to the declaration of war by America, in April, 1917, was the most powerful link between the politicians of Washington and those of Berlin. From 1914 to 1917 this powerful syndicate showed itself extraordinarily active against the Entente.”
      Before the War Mr. Schiff was the great financial supporter of the “Mutual Society of German Jews,” and this Society had close relations with high German circles. During the War, before America intervened, Mr. Schiff, says “Pertinax,” {123}
“founded the American Neutral Conference Committee, which took upon itself the task of bringing about peace with a victorious Germany. Then appeared for the first time all the formulae of the League of Nations, the anathemas launched against the ‘old diplomacy,’ which was said to be responsible for bringing about the War. On this point consult the work, How the Diplomatists Caused the War, written by Mr. Heubsch, the colleague of Mr. Schiff on the Neutral Conference Committee.”
      More light on this Alien influence behind President Wilson, the Peace Conference and the League of Nations is provided by M. Charles Maurras, in his book Les Trois Aspects du Président Wilson. He refers to
      “The decisive influence exercised on Mr. Wilson by a very small company, financiers by profession, domiciled between Hamburg, Frankfort and New York. They were identified with the Association for the League of Free Nations, with its seat in America, and including, among other people, Mr. Felix Frankfurter, President of the War Labour Policies Board, a great banker, Jacob H. Schiff, the Cohens, the Blumenthals, the Chapiros, not to speak of Mrs. Mary Sunkovnich.”
      Dr. Dillon, in his book on the Paris Peace Conference, also alludes to this Alien domination of Mr. Wilson, and remarks:—
      “Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Roumania, Greece, Britain, Holland and Belgium, but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States.” [Footnote: These quotations are taken from The Cause of World Unrest, pp. 176-183 (Grant Richards, 1930). {124}]
      Dr. Dillon seems to be surprised at the influence these Aliens of many lands had over the American President. But if Dr. Dillon had read the Intimate Papers of Colonel House he would have known that the Schiffs, the Warburgs, and other great International Financiers of New York, had succeeded in 1913, by means of confidential negotiations conducted through Colonel House, in persuading Wilson to accept and support in Congress their Federal Reserve Bank Scheme. It was therefore not so surprising, as Dr. Dillon imagined, to find those International Financiers, with great interests at stake, in the Peace Conference, keeping in close and constant touch with President Wilson.
      These facts give force and meaning to a letter sent by the late Israel Zangwill to a banquet given by the Maccabeans in London in 1920 in honour of the late Mr. Lucien Wolf—” the man who fought for Jewish rights at Versailles last year.” Mr. Zangwill wrote:—
      “The Minority Treaties were the touchstone of the League of Nations, that essentially Jewish aspiration. And the man behind the Minority Treaties was Lucien Wolf.”—(Jewish Guardian, 11 June, 1920.)
      These Minority Treaties have caused much trouble and friction in many countries, and British Governments have had more than their share of trouble and expense in attempting to satisfy the “aspirations” of the Alien promoters of those Treaties. British money, arms and prestige have been used to protect interests that were and are a menace to the British Empire. (See “Alien Control in Palestine,” p. 162.) The success of Alien intrigue and wire-pulling at the Peace Conference, and the way in which British rights have ever since been sacrificed to comply with the demands of Alien minorities, justify the comment of Dr. Dillon in the book quoted above. “Large numbers of the Delegates at the Conference,” Dr. Dillon wrote, “believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic,” and that the Alien formula was: “Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements.”
      This criticism of Jewish influence is not anti-Semitic. The critics quoted above are, on the whole, friendly to the Jews, but they recognise that this persistent attempt to dominate and control the financial and political policies of the nations of the world and to make them serve the interests of a minority possessing much power, especially in world finance, must create friction and disturbances.
      This criticism would apply with equal force to Germans, Dutch, Italians, French, or any other race if they attempted by similar methods to impose their will upon other peoples and to make those peoples more or less subject to their domination. As stated in the Preface to this book, I do not approach this subject from a sectarian point of view but from the point of view of an Englishman who believes in “Britain for the British,” and who strongly objects to Alien interference, irrespective of the faith or nationality {125} of the Alien. If the Jews are mentioned frequently, especially in quotations from books, reports and other documents, it is because they have the fortune or misfortune, according to the point of view, to be more active and more successful than any other Aliens in influencing and controlling British affairs. [Footnote: Much valuable information on this Alien influence at the Peace Conference, and its effect upon British and allied interests, will be found in Mrs. Webster’s book, The Surrender of an Empire, Chapter H, “The Surrender of an Empire, Chapter II, “The Sabotage of Victory.”
      With this evidence of Alien interference at the Peace Conference it is not surprising to find British policy constantly deflected from British interests, and British Governments becoming more and more subservient to Alien influence. Conservative and Socialist Governments have been mysteriously committed to policies and acts fundamentally at variance with the true interests and needs of Great Britain and of the Empire overseas. The Coalition Government, after the War, began this policy of surrender to foreign interests. Our troubles in India started with Mr. Edwin Montagu’s efforts, as Secretary of State for India, 1917, to disturb “the placid pathetic contentment” of the Indian masses. Since then, successive governments have pandered to the revolutionary and Alien elements in India, and to-day the Conservative no less than the Socialist Party is committed to the granting of Dominion Status to India; though most Conservatives know that India is totally unfitted for Dominion Status. How is this acceptance of an obviously wrong and mischievous policy for India to be explained! It can only be explained by the evidence submitted in this book, namely Alien control and direction of British political parties and Governments.
      Other examples of this surrender policy include the termination of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, to please the financial powers of the United States; the abandonment of our naval supremacy at the Washington Conference for similar reasons; the “surrender to murder” in Ireland, where we permitted what is practically a Republic to be set up in Southern Ireland in order to placate a gang of murderous revolutionaries, and to win the “good will” of our American cousins! The recently enacted Statute of Westminster is but the latest and perhaps most complete instance of the triumph of the Alien forces that are working for the dismemberment and destruction of the British Empire. In this latest example the Conservatives, Liberals and Socialists of the “National” Government, supported {126} by the Socialist opposition, are to be found passing a measure that actually makes it easy if desired, for any constituent part of the British Empire to repudiate the British connection and to set up a separate and independent Republic. Only Aliens and revolutionaries have ever demanded this concession, and it is, as Carlyle would have said, “significant of much,” that even the Conservative champions of Patriotism and Imperialism have readily conceded this thoroughly disruptive and anti-British demand of a comparatively small body of Aliens and revolutionaries.
      These illustrations of policies that are Alien and dangerous to British National and Imperial interests justify the late Leo Maxse’s criticism of the Conservative Government of 1923. Speaking in London on 12 April, 1923, on the failure of the Conservative Government to stand by France rather than Germany, Mr. Maxse commented on the strong family likeness between the machinations of our Parliamentarians although bearing different and distinctive labels, “so that if one read the public utterances on international affairs of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Bonar Law) or either of the ex-Prime Ministers or the official leader of the Opposition (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald), they would hardly know whether it was Mr. Bonar Law, Mr. Asquith, Mr. Lloyd George, or some Labour leader, who was speaking.” Mr. Maxse ended by asking what was the “intangible, invisible influence in the background bringing pressure to bear on British Statesmen, which must ultimately involve them in political catastrophe.”
      In the chapters on Alien Revolutionaries and Alien Influence in Industry, will be found further evidence of how Aliens endeavour to direct political policies by (1) creating revolutionary situations within the Empire, either through political rebellions as in Ireland and India, or by causing industrial disputes, strikes, etc.; or (2) by obtaining control of financial and industrial concerns, through which they are able to bring pressure to bear on all governments, especially since the recent practice was adopted of appointing ex-Civil Servants and ex-Cabinet Ministers to Directorships in concerns that are financed and controlled, wholly or partly by Aliens.
      Finally, it may be pointed out that for a long time past the nominal rulers of our Empire have been allowing {127} persons of Alien extraction, on our behalf, to undertake diplomatic and financial negotiations of the utmost importance. Two examples of this leap to the eye. During the Great War the Liberal Lord Reading, a lawyer who for a brief period had been on the Stock Exchange, was sent to the “U.S.A. to arrange gigantic sums of money for us. In September, 1929, our delegates to the Conference at Geneva, which was held to decide what financial assistance was to be given to “small” nations in the event of war were Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer and Sir Henry Strakosch, whose nephew, as reported in the Press, is a certain Baron Georges Strakosch von Feldringen of Vienna!

XIII. Alien Influence in Ireland
Top of page ]

WHILE the Aliens at the Peace Conference were depriving the Allies and Britain in particular of the victory won at great cost in life and treasure, other Aliens were attempting to organise a revolution in Great Britain. Immediately after the end of the War industrial disputes, strikes and riots broke out in London, Glasgow, South Wales, Belfast, and other places; while in Southern Ireland there was armed rebellion and wholesale assassinations. The Irish rebellion and the manner in which the British Government finally surrendered to murder is an illuminating though tragic example of the power acquired by an Alien-directed movement. The Irish were and are incapable of organising such a movement without foreign aid and guidance. The Irish revolution was aided and abetted by the Socialists and Communists of Britain, who, while guilty of treachery to their own country, were pursuing the historic role laid down for them by Karl Marx. To understand this disloyalty of the Socialist Party we must remember that modern Socialism or Communism owes its origin and its methods to the Prussian, Friedrich Engels, and the Prussian Jew, Karl Marx—who came here about 1850. These two Aliens devoted themselves to revolutionary and subversive propaganda, their object being the destruction of British capitalism and the dismemberment of the British Empire. Engels was a rich man who came to this country ostensibly to take part in his father’s cotton mills near Manchester. He was both the financier and the brains behind Marx, and he is generally admitted by Marxists to have been the real author of the famous (or infamous) Communist Manifesto, written by Marx and Engels in 1847. This Manifesto is the basis of the so called “Dictatorship of the Proletariat” in Russia to-day. These two promoters of the World Revolution concentrated upon this country because they believed that the British Empire was the {129} greatest obstacle to world revolution, and that their conspiracy could only succeed if and when the Empire was destroyed. This was admitted by Karl Marx, and the plan of attack was outlined in a message he sent to a meeting at Geneva in 1870 of the First International. This message declared that:,—
1. England is the only country in which a real Socialistic revolution can be made.
2. The English people cannot make this revolution.
3. Foreigners must make it for them.
4. The foreign members, therefore, must retain their seats at the London board.
5. The point to strike at first is Ireland, and in Ireland they are ready to begin their work.

Marx went on to tell his foreign associates “that England seems to be the rock against which all revolutionary waves are broken and which starves the New Society already in the maternal womb. England dominates the World’s markets. A subversion of the National economic relations in any country of the European Continent, or in the whole of the European Continent, would be, without England, no more than a storm in a glass of water.”
      It was, therefore, necessary to destroy England, the bulwark against the world revolution. Marx and his colleagues were planning, and Ireland was the country in which to begin, the attack on England.
      “Ireland is the stronghold of English landed aristocracy,” he wrote. “The exploitation of this country is not only the main source of the national wealth, it forms likewise England’s greatest moral strength. It represents, in fact, the domination of England over Ireland. Ireland, therefore, is the great expedient by means of which the English aristocracy maintains its domination in England itself. On the other hand, withdraw the English Army and police from Ireland to-morrow and you will straightway have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. The fall of the English aristocracy in Ireland, however, needs must imply and inevitably leads to their overthrow in England. Through this the primal condition for the proletarian revolution in England would be fulfilled.”
      All this advice and instruction from Marx was accepted and applied by his followers in their relations with the {130} Irish revolutionaries, and from 1919 to 1922 the Socialists and Communists were closely associated with the anti-British factions in Ireland. Even the rebellion of 1916 was led by a Communist, James Connolly (executed for his part in the rebellion), who received his early training in Communism and revolution from Daniel de Leon, founder of the American Socialist Labour Party and one-time leader of the notorious I.W.W. (Industrial Workers of the World)—an organisation responsible for many strikes, acts of violence and sabotage in the United States. Connolly, on his return to this country, founded a branch of the Daniel de Leon organisation at Glasgow, out of which evolved the Clyde Workers’ Committee, led by Emanuel Shinwell (of Polish ancestry) and other revolutionaries, some of whom are now well-known Socialist and Communist leaders. (Note.—Shinwell was Financial Secretary to the War Office in the Socialist Government, 1929-1931.)
      But to return to the Irish troubles after the War. One of the most prolific writers at this time on British affairs was a Dr. Hermann Gorter, author of the World Revolution, a leader of the Dutch Communists, and described in the Communist Press as a Professor at the Moscow University. His articles appeared in the English and Irish Communist papers, and in an article in the Workers’ Dreadnought, edited by Miss Sylvia Pankhurst, entitled “Ireland: The Achilles Heel of England,” Dr. Gorter urged Bolsheviks to support the demand of small nations for independence (see what we have written re President Wilson’s self-determination slogan, p. 122) because “this independence now becomes a means to weaken the position of all the big capitalist nations, and even to cause their downfall.” He added:
      “For no country is this more true than for Ireland. If Ireland should become independent, Great Britain would be struck to the very foundations. Now, therefore, it is the duty of all British Communists to demand the complete independence of Ireland, and to take all the measures required to bring it about, and for the entire Third International this is of the utmost importance. Again, England is the rock on which Capitalism is firmly rooted, the bulwark of world capitalism, the hope of all counter-revolution and reaction. But Ireland is the Achilles Heel of England. For the revolution on the European Continent, therefore {131} for the world revolution, it is a vital question that British capital should be hit there.”—(Workers Dreadnought, 8 May, 1920.)
      Dr. Gorter also quotes the instructions of Marx on this Irish question, and remarks that “the gigantic genius of Marx saw all this long ago.”
      Similar views were expressed by the Socialist (Glasgow), the organ of the Socialist Labour Party—the Glasgow organisation of the de Leon Marxists of America, founded by Connolly. (This Leon, by the way, counted Lenin as well as Connolly among his disciples.) In the Socialist, 17 June, 1920, it was stated in a leading article that
      “L’affaire Irlandaise will yet prove the rock on which the British Empire, the greatest partnership of world-robbery and slaughter in history, will perish. The dissolution of the British Empire, the centre and stronghold of world-capitalism, is the necessary prelude to the success of the world revolution of the working class. We of the Socialist Labour Party of Great Britain are everywhere attempting to the best of our ability and resources to awaken British Labour to action in recognition of its duties and responsibilities to Ireland. . . . The success of the Irish working class is our success.”
      Similar articles were published in many Socialist and Communist papers during 1920. The Worker, organ of the Scottish Workers’ Committees, affiliated to the Communist International, Moscow, in its leading article, 24 April, 1920, said:—
      “Come, fellow workers, stir yourselves. We have to go through it yet, for until we do Ireland cannot be free, nor can we ourselves be free. . . . Down tools and let Britain rot until Ireland’s wrongs are removed.”
      The Alien inspiration in the Irish and English troubles of 1919-1920 is admitted in such declarations as the following in an appeal to the young written by Tom Quelch in the Call, 29 April, 1920:—
      “Think of the men of ’48; think of the Communards, think of the Chicago Martyrs, think of Marx, of Bebel, of Jaures, of William Liebknecht, of William Morris, of Jim Connolly, of Debs, of Lenin, of Karl Liebknecht, of Rosa Luxembourg, of Bela Kun [Cohen]—think of all who have given so much for the solidarity and {132} happiness of the human race—and work, and strive, and, if needs be, fight in the service of the World Socialist Republic.”
      In this anti-British spirit the Alien directors of revolution and rebellion were actively engaged in Britain, Ireland, India, Egypt, Australia and elsewhere in the years immediately after the War. In the light of the statements quoted above we cannot ignore the significance of the association of persons of Alien extraction with the industrial disturbances in this country. Can we regard as a mere coincidence the fact that the great strike and riot, with looting, in Glasgow in January, 1919, was led by Emanual Shinwell (later to become Secretary for Mines in a Socialist Government); while a simultaneous outbreak in Belfast was led by Simon Greenspon? As the Morning Post, 1 February, 1919, remarked:—
      “The bell-wether in the Glasgow upheaval is a Jewish tailor called Shinwell; in the Belfast strike Shinwell’s counterpart is one Simon Greenspon, a Jew of Russian descent. These two are the Trotskys of Belfast and Glasgow; they have Trotsky’s aims and are using Trotsky’s methods, and there is little room for doubt that they have a common source of inspiration. Who, may we ask, is pulling the strings of both these movements? Where are the funds coming from which finance them? These Semitic anarchists—we may be certain—are not working for any love of the British working-man. Their design is nothing less than the destruction of this country and its industries; they propose to make England another Russia. What grudge they have against this country we do not know, for it has treated them well; it has been made their refuge and their home, and they have been made free of its institutions. Yet they work for its destruction.”
      The reason for these Alien attacks on our country and its industries has been given in the extracts quoted from Marx and other Alien writers on world revolution. Britain is the obstacle to the success of that revolution and to the achievement of world power by the hidden directors of these subversive movements. In the chapter “The Hidden Hand,” I have shown that the Lenins and Trotskys are the agents of big financial interests, racially allied to the Trotskys, the Shinwells, and the Greenspons. These “proletarian” leaders attack and undermine the Nation {133} through the Labour movement; while the master-minds of the world-revolution attack us through la haute finance, big business and the higher politics.
      It is not necessary to recall the terrible crimes and outrages committed in Ireland by the Republican Army and its supporters. We are only concerned here with the influences behind the Irish rebels and with the surrender of British Statesmen to the murder gangs. The worst feature of that surrender was the way in which the Loyalists in Ireland were deserted and left to their fate among their bitterest enemies by the British Coalition Government of 1922. Why did the Conservatives, with few exceptions, immediately forget those who had faced murder, robbery and outrage, to maintain the Union with Great Britain? The only explanation is that Alien influence at Westminster and pressure from New York were too great for even Conservatives to resist; they therefore acquiesced in not only the surrender to the Irish Republicans, but in the betrayal of the Loyalists in Ireland, with the result that De Valera is to-day virtually President of a Republic in Ireland.
      It was assumed that the setting up of a Free State Government in Southern Ireland would placate the enemies of England. This, however, has not been the case. In fact, anyone familiar with the history and character of the Irish Rebellion and its leaders must have known that the seen and unseen organisers of the Rebellion would never be satisfied with anything less than a separate and independent Republic for the whole of Ireland. The Free State General Election (February, 1932) has shown how mistaken and illusory were the views of those who tried to justify the surrender of 1921-22, by saying that the Free State would become a loyal member of the British Commonwealth of Nations. The new President—Mr. De Valera—is just as determined as he has always been to establish a Republic in Ireland and to repudiate the Treaty with Great Britain. This is not surprising. Mr. Eamon De Valera was born in the U.S.A. and is said to be of Spanish parentage. This Alien has always hated Britain and the British Empire. He was one of the leaders, with the James Connolly, already mentioned, in the Easter Week (1916) Rebellion. In an ambush at Balls Bridge, organised and commanded by De Valera, the Sherwood Foresters suffered 216 casualties in two minutes from the rifles of De Valera’s {134} command. For this “exploit” he was tried for his life by Drum Head Court-Martial, where he claimed to be an American citizen. On another occasion this Alien was captured by our troops, but Mr. Lloyd George and a Dublin Castle official secured his release, behind the backs of the military authorities.
      It is this Spanish-American Jew, who now proposes to abolish the Oath of Allegiance, to cut the connection with the United Kingdom, and has set free the gunmen and terrorists of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Here we have an Alien doing exactly what Marx and other Alien revolutionaries have advocated in Ireland for many years. It is the Marxian plan of a revolution organised by foreigners. For this humiliating state of affairs the leaders of all political parties must share responsibility. They have, under Alien pressure, supported our enemies and deserted our friends. Even now as I write, so called Conservative and Empire newspapers, with Alien directors, are urging us to give De Valera fair play—that is give a sympathetic hearing to the preposterous demands of a foreign revolutionary, who has been directly and indirectly responsible for the murder of Irish loyalists and British soldiers. Conservatives who advocate sympathy and consideration for Alien and anti-British revolutionaries are bigger Traitors to their country than either Socialists or Communists. We expect the Socialists and Communists, with their affiliations to foreign and anti-British organisations, to be more or less disloyal; but Conservatives profess to be the upholders of the Crown and Constitution, to be whole-hearted supporters and defenders of the Empire; yet we find them pandering to our enemies, forsaking our friends and passing measures like the Statute of Westminster, that facilitate the dismemberment of the Empire by the Alien-inspired leaders of revolution. This extraordinary desertion of the fundamental principles of Conservatism and Constitutional government by the leaders of the Conservative Party can only be explained, as I have said in the chapter on “Alien Influence in Politics,” by the fact that the Conservative Party, like the other parties, is now under the domination of Aliens or persons of Alien extraction.
      To-day Aliens are directing Anti-British movements in Ireland, India and the Dominions; in Egypt and Palestine. We ask: what are the Conservative leaders and other {135} professed supporters of the Empire doing to resist and defeat the plans of these Alien movements? Dare they defend British rights and interests? Will the Conservative leaders, for the sake of the Empire and all it represents, dare to risk offending the powerful Aliens, who at present shape—mainly in secret—our National and Imperial policy? We doubt whether there is much hope for us in the present leaders of the Conservative Party; but if this Alien influence in our affairs is not removed, the end of the British Empire is not far-distant.

XIV. Alien Influence in Industry and Finance
Top of page ]

PATRIOTIC Englishmen often ask themselves: How is it that all political parties seem incapable of defending vital British interests? In preceding chapters it has been shown that since the end of the Great War there has been an almost continuous series of surrenders to the demands of foreign persons and organisations, and these surrenders have weakened the Empire and diminished Britain’s influence and prestige abroad. The latest and most disquieting example of this policy of retreat is the Statute of Westminster—a Statute based upon a compromising formula devised by the late Lord Balfour and endorsed by the Conservative leaders. Under this Statute the dissolution of the Empire is possible whenever some determined faction in Ireland, South Africa or elsewhere decides to end the connection with the British Crown. It is the sort of thing required by the anti-British elements to give their demands the appearance of legal and constitutional sanction.
      As I have already stated in another chapter, we are not surprised at Socialists and Communists acting subversively, because as we know they are affiliated to all kinds of anti-British organisations, both at home and abroad. The information I have given in Chapter XI, “The Hidden Hand,” confirms what Captain Howard wrote in the North China Daily News, 17 January, 1927: “Bolshevism is in reality the agent of a power working for world-revolution and the destruction of our Christian Civilisation.” But events since the War have linked not only the Socialist Party but all other parties with organisations outside this country. As I wrote in the Second Edition of this book:
      “The headquarters of all these bodies are outside the British Isles. In fact, the British Isles (and the British Empire) are now to a great extent governed by parliaments {137} and councils which meet in foreign countries. We have become subject to a super-government (the League of Nations) manned mainly by Aliens sitting at a spot far removed from England.”
      I believe it is this foreign supervision of British policy that is responsible to a very large extent for the peculiar anti-British deviations of all political parties. But there is evidence of a still closer and more effective connection between the politicians and Alien financiers than those already mentioned. Under the modern conditions of industry and finance, Parliaments have become occupied more and more with economic questions and industrial legislation. And if there is a world-wide financial power directing revolutionary and subversive movements like Bolshevism, we may be sure that this power will also influence the industrial and legislative policies of Governments, and will make the politicians of all parties serve the aims and purposes of International Finance. A financial disturbance, or the control of essential national industries, may be as valuable and as necessary to the unseen Alien directors of subversive movements as strikes and riots, or Socialist victories at the polls. If the Alien Financiers can devise plans to control and direct all parties, then their interests will be served no matter how the people vote or what changes in party government may take place.
      It is generally admitted by students of politics that whoever controls industry and finance controls governments. The magnitude of modern industrial undertakings has made large financial resources a necessity. The Industrialist is now almost completely dependent upon those who can grant or withhold the money and credits he needs for the maintenance and development of his business. The creation of large associations of Employers and Workpeople and the National issues raised by their activities and conflicts, have also compelled the State to interfere to an ever increasing extent with private enterprise, and to regulate productive methods and business procedure. Moreover, the growth of combines and mergers with interlocking directorships, and their agreements and alliances with foreign firms, have brought the more important industries into close contact with governments and politicians. In Parliament to-day the Members of all parties represent big industrial and commercial and financial interests. In the present Parliament (1932) there {138} are 646 companies represented by 691 directors; while in the last Parliament 546 companies were represented by 581 directors. And if we look at the 1924-29 Parliament we find that 694 companies were represented by 766 directors. Parliament is rapidly being transformed into a system of representation for business and vocational interests, but this transformation is disguised by the retention of the illusory democratic and geographical system of election.
      From these facts it will be readily seen that all legislation must be viewed from the standpoint of the interests represented in Parliament. Under these conditions the relations between leading politicians and the leaders of commerce and finance are bound to be close and intimate. In fact, the director of some big industrial or financial concern to-day may be a Cabinet Minister to-morrow, or vice versa. It is, therefore, not surprising to find that men who have held high office in the State, either as Cabinet Ministers or as Civil Servants, are eagerly sought after on retiring from office and offered positions as directors of great industrial and financial concerns. This, in recent years, has become quite common. Ex-Cabinet Ministers and ex-Civil Servants have obtained very lucrative appointments in the City, especially in firms dominated by Aliens. The business relations of these Alien-controlled concerns with Governments are now so constant and important that it is obviously a distinct advantage for these concerns to have leading politicians and ex-Civil Servants on their Boards of directors, or as advisers.
      In this way much valuable information may be gained and many useful concessions obtained. This is no doubt the explanation of how Aliens, who control large companies and combines, have, especially during the last decade, exercised a sinister power on the governments of this country. These Aliens move in all circles—social, political and diplomatic. They find out which of our leading men or rising politicians are pressed for money, and, gradually approaching them, offer them jobs or directorships.
      No doubt these Englishmen accept the offers in good faith. They at first think that they can do this financial or commercial work without it interfering with their political duties. But later they discover their mistake. They cannot give up their lucrative job or jobs. Incomes {139} have decreased and taxes are very heavy; they have a wife and family and position to keep up. So the political work becomes subservient. They must sink their patriotism, their traditions and their code of ethics which have been handed down to them by their fathers and grandfathers. They must sell their birthright as Englishmen.
      It is no secret that some of our leading men who have been in Parliament for years have been subsidised directly or indirectly by Aliens, from the time they entered the House of Commons and in some cases before that time, for no ostensible reason. This, to a great extent, explains the extraordinary happenings so markedly evident, especially during the past decade, which have so puzzled those who take an intelligent interest in the affairs of our unfortunate country. It also explains, in a great measure, why England, which has always been looked up to as the Mother of Parliaments, finds parliamentary government more and more difficult.
      How many of our members of Parliament have gone there for purely patriotic motives? How many have gone there to make a living, for their own aggrandisement—to get jobs, directorships, etc.?
      The various happenings, especially since 1918, which have brought our country and most of our Empire in such a short space of time to the verge of ruin have not been merely coincidences without apparent connection as most of the public think. These happenings were so cunningly planned that in many cases they seem to have deceived some of our Ministers, but in most cases, sooner or later, directly or indirectly they tended to wreck our country and break up our Empire. Looking back it can be seen that there has been distinct co-ordination.
      Those who have knocked about the world and studied affairs know that the extraordinary sequence of blunders and conspiracies in our Government are the outcome of a world-wide organisation run by a collection of extremely clever, ruthless and in many cases fanatical people, few of whom are of British blood.
      Our leaders (so called), men who have scarcely ever been outside the British Isles, have been bluffed, fooled or bribed at almost every turn by “The Hidden Hand.” Some of our so called leaders have been led away by an insane ambition and desire for power. The combination of Lloyd George and Mr. W. Randolph Hearst, that very {140} dangerous anti-British U.S.A. citizen and newspaper magnate, has played a great part in bringing about our perilous position.
      When our greatest modern historian, Mrs. Nesta Webster, named her devastatingly instructive book, recently published, “The Surrender of an Empire,”[Footnote: Publishers: The Boswell Printing and Publishing Company, Limited, 10, Essex Street, London, W.C.2. Price 15s. net.] the title chosen gave a true interpretation of what has really happened.
      The increasing control of national industries by International Financiers is a most serious and difficult problem for many countries, especially in Europe. Britain before the War was the financial centre of the world and this gave her not only world-wide influence and prestige, but it also gave the nation and its industries security and independence. The War, by impoverishing all European countries and leaving them burdened with debts, opened the way for the International Financiers to control world finance and to influence the policies of governments by the exertion of financial and economic pressure. As Sir Arthur Michael Samuel, M.P., has said, the finance houses of the U.S.A. have “pushed loans on nations, cities and commercial enterprises far beyond the limits of economic justification,” and have “unloaded at a profit the paper certificates of those loans on the investing and speculating public.” By these methods the U.S.A. finance houses, says Sir Arthur, have wrecked “a large part of ‘impecunious’ Europe.”[Footnote: Times Trade & Industrial Supplement, 4 March, 1932.] Associated with this plan to place whole nations under the control of International money lenders are various schemes to form gigantic industrial mergers, financed and controlled by New York bankers and finance houses. Already this plan has been successful in Britain and other European countries, and some of our most important industries, especially electrical, films, aircraft, etc., are now wholly or partly controlled by German-American Jewish interests, though the names of the companies and the nominal directors may be British. It is these Alien-controlled concerns that seem to offer the most attractive and lucrative jobs to ex-Cabinet Ministers and to ex-Civil Servants. The appointment to the Boards of Directors of a few men who have held high rank in British governments or in the Civil Service does undoubtedly provide excellent cover for the Aliens who really {141} own and direct these British industries and does enable them to camouflage their exploitation of the British people.
      To expose this Alien control of British industries in detail is impossible within the space at my disposal. The reader who wishes to obtain fuller information should read “America Conquers Britain: a Record of Economic War,” by Ludwell Denny. This book contains a mass of information and is well documented. Mr. A. N. Field, whose book “The Truth About the Slump” should also be read, says of this American work:
      “In this book, which is little more than a thinly disguised paean of triumph over the creation of huge American-controlled (or in reality German-Jew controlled) international combines to the detriment of Britain, Mr. Ludwell Denny tells the whole story. His book is worth the closest study of all who desire to see civilisation freed from its present domination.”
      Mr. Denny does not refer to the Jewish part in the financial operations he describes, but most of the industrial and financial concerns he mentions are included in the Report of the Pujo Commission (1913) on the Money Trust in the U.S.A., and they are quoted in full in Mr. Field’s book.[Footnote: The Truth About the Slump, pp. 78-82.] The American concerns that control many British industries to-day were then and are still in the Money Trust of the U.S.A. In 1913 the dominant influence in this Trust was J. P. Morgan, Senior, but, as our Ambassador, Sir Spring Rice wrote, “since Morgan’s death the Jewish bankers are supreme.” This means Messrs. Kuhn, Loeb and Co., and the Warburgs and their allied concerns, including the Federal Reserve Bank. At this point I interpolate a very important article which appeared in the Patriot of 31 March, 1932:—
      Mr. Eugene Meyer, whose appointment as governor of the Federal Reserve Board necessitated two resignations, having become chairman of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the particulars of his career published by the Financial Editor of the New York Journal on 19 January are of more than American interest. Mr. Leslie Gould wrote that:—
      “For the first time since the days of Alexander Hamilton the United States will have a financial Tsar. The Tsar will be Eugene Meyer. His power will be wielded through the Reconstruction Finance Corporation when it is finally approved and set up by Congress, {142} and the Land Bank system and the Federal Reserve. All three will be identically controlled, and Meyer will be the power on or behind the throne. Meyer is already Governor of the Federal Reserve. He is the father of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which is being patterned after the War Finance Corporation. Meyer was head of the War Corporation. The Land Banks came in through the Treasury. Meyer for a time headed the Land Bank system. Meyer, who is 56, inherited a fortune from his father, Eugene Meyer, Sen., who was a successful Jewish exchange broker in California.”
      He graduated at Yale in 1895 after his father had become a partner in the international banking house of Lazard Frères, where he served a four years’ apprenticeship.
      “In 1901 the Stock Exchange firm of Eugene Meyer, Jun., and Co., was born, when he had just turned 25. Although known as the mart ‘Frisco banker, Meyer in reality was never more than a large-scale stockbroker and market operator and statistician.”
      Between 1901 and 1917 he had made a fortune of his own, and
      “His first Government appointment was adviser on non-ferrous metals to the National Council of Defence. Later he filled a similar role to the War Industries Board, headed by his democratic friend Bernard M. Baruch.”
      He then became managing director of the War Finance Corporation, which, against his wishes, was suspended in May, 1920, by President Wilson’s Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. D. B. Houston. He returned to the corporation when it was revived in 1921 at the time of the slump, which he had foretold. After the final disappearance of this corporation he was appointed in 1927 Farm Loan Commissioner and a member of the Farm Loan Board of this period, and he reorganised the Land Banks, which were in difficulties. Resigning when Mr. Hoover took office, he has again been recalled to Washington in most important capacities. Among outstanding financiers, few have had such a remarkable career as Mr. Eugene Meyer.
      Going back to the Report of the Pujo Commission on the Money Trust, that Report is worth quoting because its {143} statements are more true to-day than when written in 1913, and the dangers described are now greater, especially for Great Britain. The Commission said:
      “The powerful grip of these gentlemen is on the throttle that controls the wheels of credit and on their signal those wheels will turn or stop.”
      The Report goes to show how, through “the vast ramifications of this group” of financiers in the U.S. A. and in foreign countries, the financing of enterprises not approved by the group can be prevented.
      “Therein, said the Commission, lies the peril of this money power to our progress, far greater than the combined danger of all existing combinations.”
      This group of International Financiers through their control of the Federal Reserve Board and their worldwide ramifications in industry, can and do exert a tremendous influence upon world affairs. Sir Josiah Stamp has stated in an interview with the New York Evening Post:
      “Never in the history of the World has so much power been vested in a small body of men as in the Federal Reserve Board. These men have the welfare of the world in their hands and they could upset the rest of us either deliberately or by some unconscious action.”[Footnote: Reprinted In National City Bank Monthly Circular, February, 1926.] Mr. Ludwell Denny says:
      “Many nations may laugh at our State Department, but all must tremble before our Federal Reserve Board. High money rates in the United States early in 1929, for instance, forced an increase in official discount rates almost at once in England, in ten European countries, in two Latin-American countries, and two in the Far East. And in almost every case that action restricted business and brought suffering to millions of foreign workers.”[Footnote: America Conquers Britain. (Knopf, 1930.)]
      Mr. Denny adds that this blow to trade “hit Britain hardest of all” and checked our trade revival. This is true. But Britain had been badly hit by these financiers before 1929. The preparations, begun in 1921, for Britain’s premature return to the gold standard in 1925, necessitated the adoption of a deflation policy. In 1920 the Lloyd George Government, in which, as Mr. Field says, “Jewish financial influence was very strong indeed,” announced through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. (now Sir) {144} Austen Chamberlain, that the government “had set its heart on deflating the currency.” This was the beginning of the prolonged trade depression and unemployment in Great Britain. This policy of deflation was undoubtedly due to New York influence in the City of London. In 1925 Mr. Winston Churchill, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Conservative Government, restored the Gold Standard, and was complimented for doing so by a number of financiers and economists in London, whose names do not suggest British origin. Mr. Reginald McKenna, chairman of the Midland Bank, condemned this policy of monetary deflation and warned the nation of the consequences. Subsequent events have justified Mr. McKenna’s warnings and have disproved the predictions, accepted by the Conservative Government, of the Schusters, Schroeders, Niemeyers and Gugenheim Gregorys, who urged deflation and congratulated Mr. Churchill on his acceptance of their advice.
      It was also in 1920 that the shareholders of the Bank of England appointed Mr. Montagu Norman as Governor of the Bank. Since his appointment as Governor, Mr. Norman has paid frequent visits to New York, but his efforts to improve British trade do not appear to have been successful. His evidence before the Macmillan Committee on Industry and Finance shows that he possesses the international mind and wishes to shape British financial policy in accordance with the needs of International Finance. We do not, of course, question the good intentions and sincerity of Mr. Norman, but we think his point of view and his close relations with New York financiers have not produced the most happy results for Great Britain.
      One of the officers of the Bank is Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer, ex-Controller of Finance in the Treasury, and here I would observe that among the high officials of our Treasury to-day is Sir E. J. Strohmenger.[Footnote: Another high financier of ours and apparently a persona grata with the powers that be is Sir H. Strakosch.] Sir Otto in 1922 accompanied Mr. Bonar Law to the Paris Conference on Reparations. At this Conference Mr. Bonar Law proposed a four years’ moratorium for Germany. The French refused to agree. After the failure of this Conference the German mark depreciation began, and Germany defaulted on her payments. Sir Otto also accompanied the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Stanley {145} Baldwin, to the United States to arrange for the funding of the American debt. It is not necessary to comment on the consequences to Britain of that unfortunate “Settlement!” (See Chapter XVIII of this book). In 1923 Sir Otto Niemeyer was one of the experts on the Exchange Committee set up at the Imperial Economic Conference. This Committee, says Mr. Field,
declared that the Australian and New Zealand Exchange, then standing at 30s. per cent., would automatically right itself to the pre-War figure of about 17s. 6d. per cent, as soon as the Gold Standard was resumed. We know how incorrect that has proved.[Footnote: The Truth About the Slump, p. 107-8.]
This financial expert was also a member of the Treasury Committee 1924, which reported in 1925 in favour of the immediate return to the Gold Standard. The benefits predicted by this Committee have been falsified by subsequent events. Mr. Field remarks:
      So far as the writer can discover, pretty well every financial step of importance taken by Britain in recent years which has tended to make money dearer, to increase the deadweight of the National Debt, and generally to depress trade, increase unemployment, and break the backs of the British producers and manufacturers, has been distinguished by the support of Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer.[Footnote: Ib., p. 103.]
      During 1930 Sir Otto and another distinguished authority on finance, Professor Theodor Emanuel Gugenheim Gregory, of the London School of Economics, visited Australia and New Zealand to advise on the finances of those two Dominions. While in New Zealand Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer stated in a Press interview at Christchurch that:—
      “If the United States would lend money more readily to foreign countries it would help the situation greatly,”
and when he returned to Australia he repeated this advice.
      This statement seems to mean that the U.S.A. should lend to the Dominions. Why? Many countries, including the British Dominions, are already suffering from the readiness of New York financiers to make them the Debtors of the U.S.A.
      The visits of these experts and advisers did not please many Australians and New Zealanders. Mr. Hughes, ex-Premier {146} of Australia, protested strongly against the acceptance of their financial recommendations, and Mr. Field, in his book, expresses the views of many New Zealanders when he says:—
      “What it cost to bring Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer and Professor Theodor Emanuel Gugenheim Gregory to New Zealand has not been disclosed. Perhaps the good people in Christchurch who pressed for the invitation will tell us what we have gained by the visit of these two distinguished Englishmen—if that description is considered correct.”[Footnote: The Truth About the Slump, p. 108.]
      Mr. Field’s remarks remind us that “Englishmen” with foreign names are to be found at the Bank of England, both as its directors and official advisers. During the financial crisis in 1931, when this country was negotiating for loans from France and the United States, the British representatives at a Conference in Paris were Sir Frederick Leith-Ross, deputy Controller of Finance to the Treasury and Mr. H. A. Siepmann, of the Bank of England.[Footnote: Daily Express, 28 August, 1931. There was or is a Mr. C. A Siepmann on the staff of the B.B.C. See p. 89.] I do not know who Mr. Siepmann is, and he may be a great financial expert; but I do wonder how it is that the Bank of England seems to prefer gentlemen with foreign names to represent it at important conferences to consider vital British questions. In January, 1930, it was announced in the Press that Dr. O. M. W. Sprague, Professor of Banking and Finance at Harvard University, had been appointed as economic and statistical adviser to the Governors of the Bank of England.[Footnote: Daily Express, 29 January, 1930.] Dr. Sprague’s predecessor at the Bank was a Mr. Walter Stewart—appointed in 1927—who before coming to London, was formerly head of the Statistical Division of the Federal Reserve Bank in Washington, and had been special adviser to the New York banking firm of Case, Pomeroy & Co.
      These American experts may be most efficient and admirable persons. I am not questioning their abilities or qualifications. I am only expressing surprise that an Institution like the Bank of England should apparently be unable to discover persons of British origin and citizenship to fill such important positions in the Bank. Nor can one avoid wondering whether this noticeable preference for American advisers and for persons whose {147} names suggest at least Alien extraction, has any connection with American—i.e., New York—financial dominance in British industry and finance!
      This American control of British industries has become very conspicuous in recent years. Attention to this fact was called by the Sunday Sun (Newcastle) on 17 November, 1929. Below are extracts from its article:—
      “One great menace to British industry in general and to the vital, basic industries of the North in particular, is the growing amount of control which foreign finance is securing over British industry. It is a movement which has been going on for years, but so stealthily that only those in close touch with the inner councils of business have been aware of it.
      “If this insidious canker is not arrested we shall, before long, find that the greater part of our most important productive industries and our public utility services are under the direction of the foreigner.
      “But the ultimate control must remain in British hands, no matter how great the amount of foreign funds which come here. That is the point of paramount importance. Yet, as things are to-day, there are abundant signs that British industries are ceasing to be British in everything but name.”
      The above protest is exactly my case against this Alien control of our industries. The Sunday Sun goes on to show how even the processes for the liquefaction of coal are covered by world master-patents, and, almost without exception, those
      “rights are held by foreign corporations. . . . The result is that every ton of coal treated by one or other of these methods pays a royalty which goes to swell the profits of other countries, and which puts a further tax upon an already over-burdened industry.”
      The article on this foreign control of our vital industries ends with this statement, which is absolutely true:
      “The maze of ‘agreements’, ‘understandings’, ‘associations,’ and so on to-day in international finance is so intricate that it is sometimes difficult even for those in the stock markets to decide who or what is the ultimate controller. It is no wonder, therefore, that so few realise how much we are now dependent upon the foreigner.” {148}
      The Newcastle paper refers to the American control of our electrical industries. We have not space for a full account of this control by the “Money Trust” of New York, but complete details will be found in Mr. Ludwell Denny’s book “America Conquers Britain,” especially in Chapter 6—"Dollar Versus Pound.” I can quote only one or two extracts. Describing the world-wide ramifications of the American General Electric, Mr. Denny says:—
      “Meanwhile the American General Electric stockholders, besides large holdings in British General Electric, have become the largest stockholders in a giant merger of other British electrical companies which dwarfs British General Electric. American General Electric (through the International General Electric Company) for many years had controlled British Thomson-Houston. Then it bought large holdings in Metropolitan- Vickers Electrical, Edison Swan Electric and Ferguson Pailin. Early in 1929 those four were fused in a holding company, Associated Electrical Industries, representing ‘the largest combination of undertakings engaged in electrical manufacture in Great Britain.’ At the time of fusion American General Electric was the largest individual shareholder, though lacking a majority of the shares in value or in voting power.
      “Negotiations are under way to merge Associated Electrical Industries and British General Electric into one complete British manufacturing monopoly, in which American General Electric interests would be the chief and perhaps the majority shareholders.”[Footnote: America Conquers Britain, pp. 143-4.]
      Mr. Denny states that the American General Electric is one of the largest and most powerful “international trusts and combinations of international trusts in the world,” and it now has partial control of the famous German General Electric— “A.E.G.” (Allgemeine Elektrizitaets Gesellschaft).[Footnote: See Chapter XI, “The Hidden Hand.”]
      Continuing his account of the penetration of Britain by American finance, Mr. Denny writes:—
      “Utilities Power and Light Corporation (an American concern with assets now approaching $475 million), in 1929 acquired the entire common stock of Greater London Counties Trust, one of the largest British Utility corporations. This London corporation controls {149} the seven chief British power companies, which operate on a monopoly basis in 95 cities in England and Scotland, and also controls the Edmundson Electrical Corporation, which owns 12 electrical supply companies. The deal whereby American capital acquired the entire common stock of this super-trust, dominating such a large portion of the British utilities industry and so many British cities, was investigated by the British Government. The Minister of Transport, Colonel Ashley, on 18 February, 1929, told the House of Commons the Government had decided that efficient operation was of more consequence than ‘whether the capital happens to be British or American’.”[Footnote: America Conquers Britain, p. 146]
      The chairman of this huge American combine was the late Earl of Birkenhead, who resigned his position as Secretary of State for India in order to take up this appointment. Other Conservative ex-Ministers also joined the Board of Directors of this American combine. Lord Birkenhead, in an “explanation” of his position, said that although the organisation was associated “with the Clarke interests in the United States” it was British, and would employ British labour and use British material, “and its entire staff will remain British.” He added:—
      “So far as finance is concerned this has been found up to the present almost entirely through Clarke interests in America, but the broad policy of the Trust is to obtain money in the cheapest market, and it is within its province to obtain funds in Britain if it is possible to do so at a cheaper rate than elsewhere.” [Footnote: America Conquers Britain, p.147.]
      Mr. Denny makes the following rather caustic comment on this “explanation”:—
      “That language of a great legalist cannot obscure the fact that the Americans own this huge semi-monopoly, but it apparently indicates that the owners have agreed to use British materials and labour and retain, nominally at least, a British ‘board of directors.’ Obviously such an arrangement is a happy one for the Americans, who own and control the trust—especially if such an arrangement will quiet British opposition to American financial and industrial penetration.” [Footnote: America Conquers Britain, p. 147.]

      I cannot give more space to further examples of this foreign penetration in other industries, including our Air {150} Services and Radio. But sufficient has been quoted to show how deeply Alien financiers now control vital and essential industries. If these Alien influences in British industries are traced to their financial sources in New York, we are brought round once more to the German-American Jewish financiers whose many and peculiar interests have already been described in another chapter. We also see in the above extracts the importance, even the necessity, of these Alien financial operations being disguised by the appointment of British directors to the Boards of these American-owned Trusts. If these directors are ex-Cabinet Ministers and ex-Civil Servants so much the better. Under these circumstances the government—even a Conservative government—can reply to questions that the foreign finance —and therefore control—in British industry does not matter. Such an answer is not consistent with the claims of an ultra patriotic party—the party that tells the people to “Buy British,” yet admits its indifference regarding whether the capital in vital British industries is British or foreign, and shows no resentment when its leaders forsake Imperial politics to become City directors of Alien financed and controlled concerns. In this foreign control of our industries and financial institutions we have the Alien Menace in its most acute and dangerous form, and unless we end this Alien control we shall pay a big price for our folly and indifference.

XV. Alien Influence in Education
Top of page ]

OUR British educational institutions have been undermined by Alien influence. Many of the professorial chairs and lectureships are held by men of Alien race, while quite a perceptible proportion of the students are of Alien blood.
      We opened our educational institutions (many of them endowed by old benefactions and more recently subsidised by the British Exchequer) to all comers, irrespective of age or sex, race or creed. Age and sex matter little, but race and creed are fundamental. And now, alike among the teachers and the taught, an Alien influence boding ill for English traditions, customs and codes, has long since sprung into existence and is making its presence felt. None of these elements lose an opportunity to abuse the tolerance which we have accorded them; their influence and activities are devoted to the promulgation of disloyal, seditious, and revolutionary teachings. They are eternally seeking to replace patriotism and nationalism by Pacifism and Internationalism. Alien people are corrupting our young, and they constitute a dangerous and weakening element in our midst.
      Old foundations endowed for the purpose of teaching Christian children are passing into the hands of those who will use them as instruments by which the Alien shall benefit and the native shall suffer.
      But the subversive movement is not limited to the higher educational institutions: it embraces the elementary schools, and (what is more alarming) our spheres of entertainment, particularly the films. As to the schools, the reader may perhaps remember that in a recent case reported in the press (in which a school teacher took action against a number of people for libel, and won his case) we read that portraits of the King and Queen Victoria were removed from the school; a wooden model of the Cenotaph had also been removed; a number of boys from the {152} Socialist Sunday-school objected to singing “Rule Britannia,” and that the whole idea of Empire Day celebration by the school, as a whole, was given up. A report of the case appeared in the Times of 17 July, 1928, and I recommend the reader to study it closely. It is illuminating as an example of the trend of political thought fostered in the minds of the young to-day.
      The Red Schools—Socialist, Communist, or Proletarian—are of Alien birth and are maintained by Alien funds and influence. The Proletarian schools in our large cities and towns are blatantly blasphemous, filthy, and revolutionary in their teaching. They extol the Russian murderers as heroic figures. The Communist schools have been replaced by “nuclei,” on instructions from Moscow, which has adopted the newer doctrine that is to infect “Masses.” “Mass” work is the new Communist creed, for it was found that the schools were insignificant and only helped those already converted to Communism. The schools have disappeared to give way to the “nuclei”—the “cells” within the State schools, factories, etc.—a method by which two or three Communists can scatter, day in and day out, in worktime, in mealtime, and in playtime, the evil seed of communism, which later is to produce the Bolshevisation of Britain.
      The Socialist schools, now about 35 years old, are merely seed-ground for Communism—“the shadow before the substance.” There are about 150 in number, and the teaching is a watered Communism, with a mild form of class-hatred, and a set of primâ facie altruistic “Precepts,” only to be applied to fellow-Socialists. There is, generally, a mass of doctrine leading the children to grow up to hate and despise their fellows; children (easy prey) whose nature and outlook become distorted—Communists in embryo.
      The whole plan of these schools, nuclei, etc., being Alien in origin, is fed by Alien teachers, who give regular or occasional lectures of an un-English type, always anti-patriotic, if not always openly disloyal. The British children are encouraged to correspond with Soviet children, and very evil are most of the replies coming here. They see plays and playlets with titles such as “Mr. God is not at Home,” and altogether are cunningly made familiar with atheistic and anti-British ideas at every possible opportunity. And wherever one finds Socialistic or {153} Communist work proceeding, one “will also find an Alien in charge, or in close counsel with those conducting the diabolical work of poisoning the decent British child at its most impressionable age.

      In 1861, a systematic attack was begun on our great Public and our Endowed Schools. The Public Schools Commission investigated the condition of Eton and Winchester Colleges and the Schools of Harrow, Shrewsbury, Rugby, Westminster, Charterhouse, St. Paul’s and Merchant Taylors’, while in 1864 the Taunton Commission, on which sat Dr. Jowett’s friend, Frederick Temple, set to work to report on the other endowed schools. It is noteworthy that the former Commission “received a Memorandum on higher education in Prussia,” furnished by Bethmann-Hollweg.[Footnote: Adamson’s A Short History of Education, p. 313.] The Commission’s Report adversely criticised Eton College and the other Public Schools, and in 1868 an Act radically “reformed” them.

      Similarly, the very voluminous Report of the Taunton Commission which, according to Professor Adamson was “greatly impressed” by the “example of Prussia with reference to the administrative side of their problem,”[Footnote: Ibid, p. 320.] was followed by drastic legislation in 1869. That both sets of Schools needed remodelling cannot be gainsaid, but why the Commissioners paid such attention to Prussian precedents it is difficult to understand. What suited militarized and despotic Prussia was not likely to suit pacific and democratic England and Wales. It is, also, a most illuminating fact that the one wholly laudable thing in Prussian education, viz., the inculcation of patriotism, was not thought worthy of imitation here. In neither our Public, Endowed nor our State Schools have pupils, as in the U.S.A., been obliged daily to salute the national flag! Moreover, owing to Greek and Latin remaining compulsory subjects at Oxford and Cambridge Universities, the teachers—mostly classical men—in the Public and Endowed Schools continued, as a rule, to look down on modern languages, with the result that the number of Britons who, before the Great War, could read, write and speak German and French remained very small, which distinctly benefited polyglot Aliens and prevented any considerable section of our Upper and Middle Classes properly observing the manoeuvres of the House of {154} Hohenzollern. Some hidden hands protected the Greek and Latin industries at Oxford and Cambridge!
      Meanwhile politicians and agitators were clamouring loudly for State education, some of the serious objections to which were overlooked. In 1870 W. E. Forster, a Quaker, married to a sister of Dr. Jowett’s friend, the Balliol agnostic Matthew Arnold, who was an apostle of Kultur, spelt by him “Culture,” passed an Education Act revolutionising our system of elementary education. Accompanied by the foundation of the National Union of Elementary Teachers (later the National Union of Teachers), which has to-day such a stranglehold on our Government, it brought into existence School Boards and Board Schools. In the new Schools no religious catechism or religious formulary distinctive of any particular denomination was to be taught. At Forster’s elbow was his brother-in-law, the poet Matthew Arnold.
      “The bulk of the pioneer work which led to the Act of 1870 was done by Matthew Arnold. . . . For the State control of education in Prussia he had nothing but praise ... On the whole, the example of Prussia in educational matters, as reported by Arnold, was one of the main causes of the passing of the Act of 1870.”[Footnote: The Encyclopaedia and Dictionary of Education (Pitman), Vol. II., p. 695.]
      At Forster’s elbow, also, stood Anthony John Mundella. He was son of Antonio Mundella, an Italian refugee from a village near Comp. In 1848 Mundella had been taken into partnership by Messrs. Hine & Co., hosiery manufacturers in Nottingham.
      “His business took him to Chemnitz (in Saxony), where his firm had a branch factory; what he saw there led him to study the educational systems of Saxony, Prussia and other States.” [Footnote: Dictionary of National Biography, Supplement, article “Mundella.”]
      Returned to Parliament in 1868, Mundella had become a prominent advocate of compulsory education for all, and “none,” we are told, “rated more highly than Forster his (Mundella’s) share in procuring the Education Act of 1870.”[Footnote: Ibid.] Appointed by Gladstone in 1880 Vice-President of the Committee of the Council for Education, he was responsible for the Act of 1880 making attendance at school compulsory.
      The next great step in our Elementary Education, the unstatesmanlike Balfour Act of 1902, appears to have been the outcome of intrigues by the pro-Alien Fabians. {155}
      “In May, 1899 ... a Members’ meeting (of the Fabian Society) was held to discuss ‘The Educational Muddle and the Way Out’ in the form of sixteen resolutions, six on ‘General Principles’ and the remainder on ‘Immediate Practicable Proposals.’ These were introduced by Sidney Webb [now Lord Passfield], and the ‘General Principles,’ advocating the transfer of education to the local government authority and the abolition of School Boards, were adopted . . . At the adjourned meeting in November, 1899 ... a draft tract was submitted . . . and with minor amendments the scheme was adopted. It is unnecessary to describe the Fabian plan, because it is substantially the system of administration established by the Act of 1902, under which present-day education is organised . . . The scheme proposed by Mr. (A. J.) Balfour followed almost precisely the lines laid down in our tract, which was published in January, 1901. . . . Our support of the Conservative Government in their education policy caused much surprise.”[Footnote: Pease’s History of the Fabian Society, 2nd Edition, pp. 143-8. (Italics mine.)]

      Mr. (afterwards Lord) Balfour abolished School Boards, placed elementary education in the hands of municipal councils (i.e., of demagogues), and put denominational schools on the rates. Nothing did more, as Webb and his friends had doubtless anticipated, than did the Act of 1902 to cause the electorate to reject the Conservatives at the Election of 1905. But worse for the nation was yet to come!

      During the Great War, Mr. Lloyd George—to the amazement of everyone who knew Mr. Fisher’s record— appointed Mr. H. A. L. Fisher President of the Board of Education. In the latter’s Education Bill of 1918, which added hugely to the burdens of the taxpayers, there was no mention of Science—the Great War apparently had not convinced Mr. Fisher of the importance of science!—and Lord Sydenham’s amendments to introduce elementary science into the curriculum, to fix the minimum hours for physical exercises, to embody training of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides type, were, of course, rejected by the Liberal pandit. Had those amendments been accepted it might, however, have given great offence to the Aliens and the Pro-Aliens who, in 1918 were, as now, orienting the policy of our Government. {156}
      That Aliens had gained control of our elementary education was forcibly brought home to me, personally, in 1928 in connection with an item before the London County Council meeting on 7 February, 1928.
      In the agenda there was a recommendation by the Education Committee to amend the Standing Order, which states that: “No persons other them natural-born British subjects shall be taken into the employment of the Council either in a permanent or temporary capacity,” by the inclusion of the words, “and naturalised British subjects.”
      Immediately I heard of the matter I communicated with several friends and well-known people on 6 February (the day before the meeting), and letters were sent to individual members of the Council with the result that the amendment was not moved at the meeting “in deference to the adverse opinion expressed beforehand,” as one member stated later. It was thought then that we, who had taken such energetic measures with conspicuous success, had no further need for troubling ourselves over this particular matter. We had, however, overlooked a mysterious influence and underrated the pertinacity of the promoters of the amendment. On 4 December, 1928, the London County Council, without any adverse comment in the Press, amended Standing Order 382 (which lays down that no persons other than natural-born British subjects shall be employed) so as to permit naturalised aliens to be employed in any capacity by the Council. This means, of course, that German teachers can be employed in our schools and, as is well known, according to the law of the Fatherland, a German does not lose his nationality by becoming naturalised outside his country. “Once a German, always a German.”
      When the amendment was brought before the General Purposes Committee of the L.C.C. there was put forward as a reason for the amendment the fact that the recently naturalised Aliens—Poles, Germans, Russians, etc.—who failed to secure employment, “would have to be given public assistance or charitable doles.” This, to me, is a futile excuse, and it leads me to ask why should we allow these people to come to this country at all; and why naturalise them if, by so doing, we are compelled to find them employment to prevent them becoming a charge on the public? {157}
      Strong protests have been made against this unnecessary action by the Council, and it was hoped that the) decision to amend the Standing Order would be reversed, especially since it was pointed out to that body (if its members did not already know) that there was a long waiting-list of British-born and fully qualified teachers seeking employment, and that there were 700,000 unemployed ex-Service men. Seeing however that the London County Council each year is getting more and more under the control of people of recent Alien extraction I am afraid the hope is illusory.
      Does not the above incident show how easily official people may be induced to acquiesce in the relaxations of regulations? Moreover, what can one think of an Education Committee which, knowing that large numbers of British-born teachers are out of work, recommend Aliens (who observe the mere formality of naturalisation) to enter an already over-crowded field of our public service? Is it likely that they will teach their pupils from a British standpoint? It is now well known that the Communist Party do not concentrate so much on their “Red” schools, but rely on the Socialist teachers of Council schools.
      The vast majority of the teachers in our Elementary Schools are members of the N.U.T.; a considerable number of them belong to the Educational Workers’ League, formerly the Teachers’ Labour League, affiliated to the Educational Workers’ International, an International formed in 1919 and manifestly designed for the purpose of Bolshevising teachers.

      The hub of Academic Socialism is the London School of Economics, founded in 1894 by the Fabians, Mr. and Mrs. Sidney Webb (Mr. Webb had been educated in Switzerland and Mecklenburg-Schwerin), with the aid of the late Lord Haldane. Professor J. H. Morgan, K.C., has thrown a flood of light on the aims of that institution’s founders and endowers.
      “When I once asked Lord Haldane why he persuaded his friend, Sir Ernest Cassel, to settle by his will large sums in trust on a certain educational establishment [the London School of Economics] of a peculiar type (six of whose teachers stood at the last General Election as Labour candidates) ... he replied, ‘Our object is to make this institution a place to raise and train the bureaucracy of the future Socialist State.’’ [Footnote: Quarterly Review, January, 1929, pp. 187-8.] {158}

      Who were in 1929 at the London School of Economics “training the bureaucracy of the future Socialist State”? In that year among its “appointed and recognised teachers” were—nearly ⅓ of them—the following:—
Frederic Rudolf Mackley de Paula, O.B.E.Sir Ernest Cassel Professor of Accountancy and Business methods.
Edith Verena EckhardSociology.
Herman FinerPublic Administration and Political and Economic Science.
Morris GinsbergReader in Sociology.
Theodor Emanuel Gugenheim GregoryProfessor of Banking and Currency
Harold Joseph LaskiProfessor of Political Science.
Hersh LauterpachtInternational Law.
Bronislaw MalinowskiProfessor of Anthropology.
Alexander Feliksovich MeyendorffReader in Russian Institutions and Economics.
Charles Gabriel SeligmanProfessor of Ethnology.
Sir Henry Herman Slesser (Schloesser), K.C., M.P.Industrial Law.
Edward Alexander WestermarckMartin White Professor of Sociology
Abraham WolfProfessor of Logic and Scientific Method.
      On the competence and patriotic sentiments of the above gentlemen and the lady I make not the slightest reflection, nor, of course, do I say that these teachers are Aliens or naturalized Aliens. Their forbears may have been here for generations, but the names do inevitably lend a foreign colour to this educational institution.
      There have been, also, citizens of the U.S.A. among the “appointed and recognised teachers” in this institution which receives from the British Government a grant of £40,000 a year.
      Since 1929 Sir Henry Slesser has been raised to the Bench and been made a Lord Justice of Appeal. But Messieurs Finer, Ginsberg, Gregory, Laski, Lauterpacht, Malinowski, Meyendorff, Seligman, Wolf and the lady are there, while Mr. G. L. Schwartz, Mr. M. M. Postan, Mr. Emile Cammaerts, Dr. F. A. Hayek, Mr. J. C. Flugel, Dr. Margaret Posthuma, Mr. S. P. Turin, Mr. Jules Menken {159} are Professors or teachers at it, and, among the instructors with English names are the Socialist ex-M.P., the Right Hon. Hastings Bertrand Lees-Smith, Reader in Public Administration, and the Balliol Socialist, R. H. Tawney, Professor of Economic History. The Director of the London School of Economics is another Balliol man, Sir William Beveridge, whose anxiety, with the assistance of the B.B.C., to obtain an insight into the private affairs of his fellow countrymen and countrywomen, has recently brought him into the limelight.
      At the London School of Economics an important pandit is the Mr. Harold Laski already referred to. He is a friend of Mr. H. A. L. Fisher, contributor to the Daily Herald, an instructor especially favoured by the B.B.C., and the most influential person on the Education Committee, London County Council, on which he was co-opted five years ago. Mr. Laski’s record will be found in Potted Biographies, which shows his very revolutionary outlook.[Footnote: “Potted Biographies,” Boswell Publishing Co., 10, Essex Street, W.C.2. Price 6d, The Daily Express, 30/10/31, reports that Mr. Lazarus Aaronson is lecturer in Economics at the London University.]
      Born in 1893 and educated at New College, Oxford, he went in 1914 to America, and was lecturer at Universities there. When at Harvard from 1916-1920 he was assistant-editor of the “New Republic” (N.Y.), a subversive journal. During the Boston Police Strike he is alleged to have addressed and encouraged the strikers. In 1921 he and Mr. Tawney contributed an Introduction to Lord Haldane’s Problem of Nationalisation. Five years later he was appointed Professor of Political Science (sic) at the London School of Economics. His inaugural lecture was published with a dedication to his “friend Mr. Justice (now Lord) Sankey with enduring affection.” Here are two extracts from his writings. The first is from his Karl Marx (1922), the second from his Communism (1927), a work in the Home University Library, two of the editors of which were in 1927, and are now, Mr. H. A. L. Fisher and Professor Gilbert Murray.
      “Marx is, in fact, a noble but not an attractive figure . . . When the roll of those to whom the emancipation of the people is due comes to be called, few will have a more honourable and none a more eminent place.” (p. 46.)
      “Those who represent the Bolshevists as a set of unprincipled adventurers in German pay do sorry {160} service to the understanding of the greatest event in history since the Reformation . . . Most of their leaders, and notably Lenin and Trotsky . . . had dedicated their lives to the service of their cause ... It is illegitimate to question either their honesty or their idealism.” (p. 45.)

      When we have a National Government immune from Alien influence one of its first actions should be to Anglicize the London School of Economics. As at present constituted it is, in the opinion of many, a danger to the Empire, and I consider it to be a most unfortunate circumstance that Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer in his tours through Australia and New Zealand was accompanied by one of its Professors, Mr. Theodor Emanuel Gugenheim Gregory.
      Mr. Gugenheim Gregory may be a most estimable individual, but patriots would have preferred that two other persons should have been sent on this important mission whose names would have recalled the “old country” to Australians and New Zealanders!
      The author has had several letters from both these Dominions, some from leading men, deploring that these two men should have been despatched. This mission was received with a good deal of suspicion, especially when Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer advised the Dominions to borrow from the U.S. America.
      In conclusion, it should be pointed out that one of the greatest educational influences in this country is the Press. Certain newspapers and periodicals, controlled by Aliens or by people of recent Alien extraction, have taken full advantage of this, especially since 1918. By a process of suggestion—clever, very gradual suggestion—these publications have re-educated a large proportion of our people, destroyed their Patriotism and made them International and Pacific.

XVI. Alien Control in Palestine
Top of page ]-->
[ Top of page ]-->
[ Top of page ]

MILLIONS of British taxpayers’ money were spent during the War in driving the Turks out of Palestine, Since the War ended British taxpayers have provided many more millions to make this rather barren and desolate land a National Home for the Jews. The British people have gained nothing out of this effort and expenditure except the hostility of the Arabs—who feel that we have betrayed them—and the contempt of the Jews. The English have been ousted out of anything that might be profitable to the Jews. We find the money; the Jews take the profits, if any.
      The work of colonising Palestine began in 1870 by the establishment, by the “Alliance Israelite Universelle” of an agricultural school at Mikveh Israel. In 1884 the Society of “Lovers of Zion” (Choveve Zion) was founded to promote Jewish resettlement on a more extensive scale. Later the Jewish National sentiment was organised and developed under the leadership of Theodor Herzl, an Austrian Jew, and after the Turkish Revolution of 1908 the Zionists were allowed by the Ottoman Government to extend their scheme of colonisation and educational activity.[Footnote: See “Jewish Life in Modern Times,” by Israel Cohen, 2nd Edition (1929), pp. 305-6.]
      The Great War interrupted these colonising plans of the Zionists. But with the entry of Turkey into the War Palestine came into the political limelight. Sir Herbert Samuel in January, 1915, presented a Memorandum on “The Future of Palestine” to Mr. Asquith, then Prime Minister, and in the following March his plan for our annexing the Holy Land and making it the National Home of the Jews was supported by Mr. Lloyd George, who at an earlier date had been solicitor for the Zionists.
      Subsequently, two of the Zionist leaders, Dr. Chaim Weizmann and Mr. Nahum Zokolow, “entered into relations {162} with members of the British Government, particularly Lord (then Mr.) Balfour, who had previously evinced sympathy with their cause. ... As early as October, 1916, a document setting forth the aims of Zionism was drawn up . . . for submission to the (Asquith) Cabinet, but the latter was indisposed to subscribe to anything but a broad general statement of policy.”[Footnote: “Jewish Life in Modern Times,” by Israel Cohen, 2nd Edition, p. 306.]
      The fall of Mr. Asquith (to be replaced by Mr. Lloyd George), the “Russian” Revolution, and President Wilson’s belated breach with Germany, brought things to a head. Three months after Kerensky & Co. started the revolution in Russia, and thus prepared the way for later Bolshevik Revolution under the leadership of Lenin and Trotsky, the Zionist organisation delivered (July, 1917) to Mr. Lloyd George’s Cabinet a formula embodying “the principle of recognising Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish people.”[Footnote: Ibid., p. 305. See also “The Undoing of Palestine” (Boswell 3d.).] A few days before Mr. Edwin Montagu, cousin of Sir Herbert Samuel, landed (11 November) at Bombay, and Lenin and Trotsky expelled (7 November) Kerensky from Russia, Lord Balfour made on 2 November, in a letter to Lord Rothschild, his Declaration, which has been the basis of Jewish demands ever since. The next development was the decision of the San Remo Conference, 24 April, 1920, to confer the Mandate for Palestine upon Great Britain. Sir Herbert Samuel was then appointed High Commissioner, arriving in Palestine on 1 July; and on 24 July, 1922, the Mandate was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations.
      The result of all these events has been not only to cause intense friction between Great Britain and the Moslems, 60,000,000 of whom live in India, but to place the natural resources of Palestine chiefly at the disposal of Jews born outside the British Empire.
      The “white coal” of Palestine has passed into the hands of Mr. Pinhas Rutenberg, one of Kerensky’s ex-Ministers, the potash, bromine (used among other purposes in the manufacture of poison-gas) and other salts, practically unprocurable in any quantities by us except in Palestine, have been donated to another Russian Jew, Mr. Moi’se (Moses) Novomeysky, and to Major Thomas Gregorie Tulloch, who plays second fiddle to him, while, though the British Empire at present produces only derisory {163} quantities of petroleum—an essential for the propulsion of most of our ships of war, motor transport and aircraft—every effort has been made to prevent Britons drilling for it in Palestine.


      A little over a year after Sir Herbert Samuel entered Jerusalem as High Commissioner, the water-power, or “white coal,” of that country was, as I have said, coolly transferred by him to Mr. Rutenberg. The nature of Sir Herbert’s unpatriotic action was described by Lord Brentford (then Sir William Joynson-Hicks) in two letters to The Times which appeared in its issues of 29 May and 15 June, 1922. Below are extracts from the first of them:—
      “In September, 1921, Mr. Pinhas Rutenberg, a Russian Jew who was a prominent member of the Kerensky Administration, obtained two concessions from the British Administration in Palestine, granting to him the most complete monopoly of the future commercial position in that country that it is possible to conceive. The documents are before me as I write. The first one deals with the Auja Basin and the other one deals with Palestine and Transjordania, with the exception of the Auja Basin—in other words, the country is covered by the two contracts.
      “His control consists of the business of supplying and distributing electrical energy. He has two years in which to form a company with a capital of a million, but it is sufficient if £200,000 is put up in cash, and, if so, then at the end of two years he gets his full concession; but during this period the development of Palestine is blocked, and Sir Herbert Samuel agrees not to grant any licence conflicting with this one.
      “However, having founded his company, he then gets seventy years’ monopoly for the utilisation of the waters of the Jordan and its basins, including the Yarmuk River and all such tributaries of both rivers as should now be, or hereafter be brought within the control of the High Commissioner. The concessionnaire may erect a dam on the River Jordan; he may make a canal from Lake Tiberias to his power house, and he may dam up Lake Tiberias.
      “He may go further than that. He may divert the Yarmuk River as he sees fit. It is only right to say that he is bound to provide the present users of water {164} with such water as they may want, but not exceeding the amount they now have. That looks bad for the future of intensive cultivation. This delightful concession further provides that the High Commissioner shall, at the request and at the cost of the company, expropriate any existing undertakings and hand them over to Mr. Pinhas Rutenberg.
      “If Mr. Rutenberg wants some lands or buildings which he cannot get by mutual agreement, the High Commissioner is to expropriate these also. Anything, in fact, that Mr. Rutenberg may require for the erection of his power-house, buildings, premises, offices, warehouses, houses, stores, and all other shops and conveniences, and for buildings, roads, bridges, private sidings, wharves, etc.—all are to be obtained for him by the High Commissioner—a veritable fairy godmother.
      “Finally, for the whole of the seventy years there is no installation for providing and supplying electrical energy to be permitted in Palestine (except private installations), and for the same period no concession shall be granted throughout the whole of Palestine to construct canals, dams, reservoirs, watercourses, pumps, stations, and other works of whatever kind for the development of electrical energy from water power, and/or to operate overhead lines and underground cables, and/or to construct or operate any power stations, or to instal electric lighting in streets or buildings of whatever kind, or to supply electrical energy for docks, wharves, railways, factories, etc., unless any such concession has been first offered to the Rutenberg Company.
      “One would have thought that this monopoly would have sufficed. Not at all. If it should appear that there is a valid, pre-existing concession, the High Commissioner shall get rid of it and annul it for the benefit of the Rutenberg Company.
      “The last item to which I will draw attention is that Customs duties on the importation of his machinery into Palestine may be postponed until he has made certain profits on his undertaking. There is no condition of any kind that this Russian Jew shall purchase his machinery in Britain; in fact, I have a letter from the Colonial Office in which they express indignation at such a suggestion of mine, and add:—{165}
      ‘Indeed, it was thought that to have inserted such a condition would be a flagrant violation of the whole mandatory principle.’. . . If this is so, the sooner we get rid of mandates the better.”
      Lord Brentford, in his second letter, dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s. I have italicized certain passages in it. He said:—
      “Three weeks ago you were good enough to publish a letter from myself setting out some of the facts relating to these concessions and demanding the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons fully to consider them.
      “Since that date evidence has been pouring in to me which more than justifies such demand, and goes far to show that this concession is part of a long-thought-out scheme for placing the whole economic development of Palestine in the hands of the Zionist Commission.
      “May I set out a few facts that I think would be proved before a Select Committee?
(1)Sir Herbert Samuel was a leading member of the Zionist organisation as long ago as 1916 and was the channel of communication between them and the Government of which he was then a member.
(2)He was present at Dr. Raster’s house in February, 1917, when the first formal meeting with Sir Mark Sykes on behalf of the Government took place.
(3)The Balfour declaration of 1917 was not a spontaneous act on the part of the Government, but was drafted and re-drafted in consultation with the Zionist Committee.
(4) It was at the request of the Zionist Committee that Sir Herbert Samuel went to Palestine as High Commissioner. Dr. Weissmann declares that he was mainly responsible for Sir Herbert’s appointment.
(5)Dr. Weissmann told the Zionist Congress that Sir Herbert Samuel, ‘as our friend, at our request, fortified by our moral support, accepted the difficult position. He is our Samuel, he is the product of our Judaism.’
(6)The Zionist Commission followed hard on our military occupation of Palestine and assumed even then a quasi-Governmental position. {166}
(7) The policy of H.M. Government as long ago as 1919 was definitely to increase the numbers and economic influence of the Jew as a prelude to political favours, so that by this means the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine might gradually come to welcome his presence, and it was laid down at this time as British policy that nothing should be done and no steps taken which would enable either British or foreign commercial interests to establish themselves in Palestine until the decision of the Peace Conference enabled H.M. Government to work out the full implication of their acceptance of the Palestine mandate and of the policy of the National Home for the Jews.
(8) This policy was acted upon by civil and military in Palestine, and all applications for concessions, etc., were refused pending the grant of the mandate.
(9) Proposals were submitted for a Jordan Valley Railway and many other schemes, and the proposers were told that concessions must first be offered to the Jews before the Arabs or English.
(10)There are rivers flowing into the Dead Sea through Transjordania which could be used to supply Jerusalem with all the electrical power she would need.
(11) There are other streams flowing through Transjordania which could be used for the irrigation of land there. These are all included in the Rutenberg scheme. Transjordanian towns, such as Amman and Kerak, have abundant water supplies for their own electric light purposes. They cannot move now without Rutenberg.
(12) Transjordania was originally not included in the National Home. Rutenberg’s scheme brings it economically within this.
(13) The delimitation of the Syrian Boundary depended a great deal upon Rutenberg’s wishes and his schemes.
(14)Various Australian officers who had fought through Palestine asked for facilities to settle on the land which they had helped to conquer; none of these applications was allowed, with one exception, and that was a man who subsequently sold his property to the Zionists. {167}
(15)Mr. Rutenberg’s first pamphlet, which he published in Hebrew and English, in reference to his scheme, insisted that it was to be one entirely for the benefit of, and run by, Jews, and that Jewish workmen should be educated to work as well as the Arabs did, as otherwise the Arabs would have to have a share in the scheme which it was necessary to keep entirely in Jewish hands.”
      What has happened since Lord Brentford wrote these letters may be gathered from the answer given by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Leopold Amery, to Colonel Howard Bury on the 23rd April, 1928, in the House of Commons.
      I understand [said Mr. Leopold Amery] that the Palestine Electric Corporation [the body to which the concession has been transferred], which has an authorised capital of £1,000,000, has, up to the present, issued shares to the extent of £657,951, and that arrangements have been made for a loan to the Corporation guaranteed by the (British) Treasury, under the Trade Facilities Act, of £250,000. (Hansard, 1928, Vol. 216, col. 607.)
      According to the Directory of Directors of 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931, Mr. Pinhas Rutenberg “of Jaffa, Palestine,” was and is “Managing Director of the Palestine Electric Corporation, Ltd., 3, Bedford Square, W.C.I; also Chairman of the Jaffa Electric Company, Ltd.” These bodies being registered in Palestine, I have not been able to consult their files, but from other sources I learn that they are under the control of Jews!


      Thus a Russian Jew and his backers were, in 1921, given a monopoly for seventy years for the utilisation of the water of Palestine for supplying and distributing electrical power and light. Eight years later, when Mr. Amery was Secretary of State for the Colonies in the second Baldwin Ministry, a monopoly of potash and other mineral resources in the Dead Sea and its vicinity was conceded to another Russian Jew, Mr. Moi’se (Moses) Novomeysky, and Major Thomas Gregorie Tulloch.
      Long before the Great War it had been realised that in the waters of the Dead Sea and in its neighbourhood there was vast mineral wealth, including potash. Now as is or should be well known, Germany, from 1858 to 1914, {168} had, by reason of her mines at Stassfurt (between Magdeburg and Leipzig) and in its vicinity, and those in Alsace, a virtual monopoly of potash, an article which is, in the words of Mr. Julius Klein, Director of the Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce at Washington, “absolutely essential in producing adequate supplies of foodstuffs”[Footnote: In a letter to Mr. Herbert Hoover, Secretary of Commerce, dated 28 January, 1926. See Potash, by H. M. Hoar (Washington Printing Office, 1926), p. iv.] being used for fertilising land on which are grown cereals, potatoes, and beet. It is, also, utilised in fertilising soil bearing cotton shrubs and tobacco plants, for photographic, weaving, bleaching, dyeing, electrical, canning and preserving processes, for the making of soap and glass, and for the manufacture of aniline dyes and explosives.
      The cession of Alsace to France in 1919 and the working of potash fields in Spain, Russia and the U.S.A. interfered with Germany’s virtual monopoly of this most important material, but the agreement arrived at in 1924 by the owners of the Stassfurt potash field with those of the Alsace mines, coupled with the facts that Germany, directly or indirectly, regulated and regulates the output and disposal of potash in Spain and Russia, has enabled her very largely to regain her privileged position.
      Before the Great War, notably in Spain and Galicia, and during the Great War, in the U.S.A., attempts, more or less successful, were made to break into Germany’s virtual monopoly of potash, and as early as 1864 it was suggested by a Frenchman, M. Lartet, that the exploitation of Dead Sea potash might put an end to it. Coming down to later times: in 1911 the Zionist organisation sent a German geologist, Professor Blankenhorn, to investigate the potentialities of the Dead Sea region, and in his reports he laid great stress on the, richness of the mineral deposits of the district, with special reference to the bromine, phosphates and asphalte in them. Before his reports were in part published the Sultan of Turkey had granted (1913) to two writers and an editor of a newspaper—all Turkish Nationals—a concession giving them the right to extract potash, common and other salts from the Dead Sea and the sole right to produce bromine from the brine.
      It was not, however, till after the outbreak of hostilities that any steps appear to have been taken in the British Empire to provide us with potash, bromine, etc., from the Dead Sea or anywhere else outside Germany. The {169} effect of our supineness was that there was speedily an acute shortage of potash salts for fertilisers and explosives, and a special department of our Government had to be created to control potash supplies and to investigate all proposals dealing with the improvisation of methods of manufacture of potash salts. Among the proposals investigated were those of Dr. Annie Homer, put forward by her consulting-engineer associate, Mr. Bicknell, in the autumn of 1917, and the already referred to Major Thomas Gregorie Tulloch, the future associate of the Russian Jew, Moise (or Moses) Novomeysky.
      Dr. Homer and Major Tulloch were British-born. Dr. Homer in 1916, and Major Tulloch, according to his own statement, in 1917-18, when he communicated his ideas to the Secretary of the War Cabinet[Footnote: Hansard, 16 December, 1927. “Mr. Ormsby Gore.—So far as I am aware, the first person to approach His Majesty’s Government on the subject [of the Dead Sea salts] was Major Tulloch in January, 1918.” (Vol. 211, col. 2504). Major Tulloch’s first formal application with a detailed scheme was not made till 16 June, 1922. It was in the form of a letter to the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Churchill) and began, “As you are aware, I have been working on the question of a Concession for the regaining of the Potash Salts and Phosphates in the Jordan Valley and Dead Sea since 1917, and early in 1918, and on 1 January, 1918, I wrote to the Secretary, War Cabinet (Sir Maurice Hankey), on the subject.”]], began to investigate the possibility of obtaining potash from the Dead Sea and its environs.
      Dr. Annie Homer, who is a M.A. of Cambridge University, a Sc.D. of Trinity College, Dublin, and a Fellow of the Institute of Chemistry, and has obtained many research and other Fellowships at Newnham College, Cambridge, Toronto, etc., took up the investigation.
      While engaged on research work at the Serum Laboratories of the Lister Institute at Elstree in 1916, Dr. Homer, experiencing some difficulty in obtaining proper food for the 5,000 or more animals, which had to be kept in a state of efficiency for the production of antitoxic sera, was led to consider the mineral potentialities of the Dead Sea and its neighbourhood with a view to extracting potash salts in Palestine.
      In the autumn of 1917, when British control of Palestine seemed to be imminent, Dr. Homer and the group of specialists and financiers whom she had by then interested in the matter inquired how a concession might be obtained for procuring potash and other materials in the Dead Sea region. They were informed that before an application for a concession could be granted their scheme, which would have to be approved by the Potash Controller (Mr.—now Sir—Arthur Colefax, K.C.), must be such that it {170} could be immediately carried out. Thereupon the Dr. Homer Group prepared a scheme of the kind and formally applied at the Foreign Office on 4 October, 1918—three years before Major Tulloch submitted his detailed scheme to the Colonial Office—for a concession. Their application was drafted so as to include rights to exploit the chemical resources of the Dead Sea Region, and any other minerals, including petroleum, which might be discovered, and their engineering programme included a plan for the development of hydro-electric power from the Jordan. It would, therefore, seem that they had anticipated by several years the project of the Russian, Mr. Pinhas Rutenberg, for harnessing that river. They asked for permission to send out experts to make the usual surveys, etc., required to be made prior to the formation of a Company with limited liability.
      On 30 October, the Foreign Office replied that they had no power to deal with Palestine concessions and refused to give them the necessary passports.
      Undeterred by this rebuff, on the day (26 April, 1920) when the terms of the Mandate for Palestine were announced in the Press a second formal application to the Foreign Office was made. The Foreign Office’s answer was that until peace with Turkey was signed, no investigations could be permitted or any concessions granted in Palestine.
      After the appointment of Sir Herbert Samuel as High Commissioner for Palestine, still another formal application was put in by Dr. Homer’s Group. The only result was that the Department of Overseas Trade requested Dr. Homer’s Group to submit to them for transference to Jerusalem a Memorandum, including their schemes for the development of Dead Sea chemicals, of hydro-electric power from the Jordan, etc. This Memorandum was some months later returned to the Dr. Homer Group with a covering letter which stated that nothing could be done in the matter until peace with Turkey was concluded. Yet, before the peace treaty with Turkey was signed (July, 1923, but not ratified by the Turks until 1926) the concession to Mr. Pinhas Rutenberg had been granted, and Mr. Moses or Moise Novomeysky had been allowed to investigate on the spot the minerals in and around the Dead Sea. Mr. Novomeysky, who became a Palestinian citizen in 1927 and is a mining engineer, had arrived in the Holy Land six years earlier. {171}
      In 1922—the year after the Rutenberg Concession— Major Tulloch, as already related, at last made a formal application with details of his scheme, for a concession to exploit minerals in and near the Dead Sea. His application was registered at the Colonial Office. The next year (1923) a Government Commission of Enquiry and Investigation of the Dead Sea Scheme was appointed and, as its report was favourable, the Crown Agents advertised in 1925 for tenders for a Dead Sea concession. Four tenders were sent in, one of them being from Dr. Homer’s Group, another from Major Tulloch and Mr. Moses Novomeysky, who had joined forces to constitute an Anglo-Palestinian group of applicants, a third from assignees of the pre-war Turkish concession, and a fourth from an American chemist. On 27 October, 1926, Dr. Homer’s Group were officially informed that their tender would be considered. Yet in or about March, 1927, the Colonial Office offered the concession “in principle” to Mr. Novomeysky and Major Tulloch!
      Although Mr. Novomeysky and Major Tulloch appeared to be joint recipients of this concession, the following astutely drafted letter from Mr. Novomeysky to Major Tulloch suggests that the latter had been placed in a position of almost complete subordination to the former.
          25 October, 1926.
Dear Major Tulloch,—Referring to our conversation to-day, I now write to confirm you that the arrangements between us as set forth in the letters of 30 January, 1925, still exist, and are of full force and effect. It is also agreed between us, and I now confirm that in supplement and in addition to the arrangements in these letters:—
(1)    All negotiations with the Government in connection with the grant of the concession are to be left exclusively in my hands, and also all negotiations with third parties relative thereto. You to undertake not to enter into any such negotiations, whether with the Crown Agents or other Governmental authorities or with any third parties, the intention of the understanding being that we are to remain associated together in this matter, to the exclusion of all other persons whatsoever, unless I shall in writing agree. If, however, I should find it necessary to establish relations with any third parties, then I am at liberty to do so {172} at my own discretion on our joint behalf, but I shall, of course, in any such event protect your rights as well as my own.
(2)    The concession is to be granted either in my own name or in my name and yours jointly as may appear more desirable in our joint interests.
(3)    I am not only authorised to negotiate at my discretion on our joint behalf as mentioned in the letters of 30 January, 1925, but to carry the negotiations into effect by sale or transfer on our joint behalf.
(4)    With regard to the letters of 30 January, 1925, if I should find it necessary to conduct the negotiations with and to transfer the Concession to a company other than the Palestine Mining Syndicate, Ltd., then I am at liberty to do so, provided I protect your interests as well as my own.
(5)    You agree that if you should act in any way so as to restrict the unqualified discretion reposed in me which this letter is intended to confer, you will indemnify me against any damage which directly or indirectly I may suffer as result of your action.
(6)    It is, of course, understood that I for my part will do all that I reasonably can to endeavour to obtain as early as possible a concession along the lines of the application made by me in conjunction with you.
     Yours faithfully,
            (Signed) M. A. Novomeysky.
Nevertheless, owing to agitation within and without Parliament, the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Leopold Amery, was obliged, in the House of Commons, on 11 June, 1928, to give an assurance that the Dead Sea concession would not be signed without its terms being previously disclosed and discussed by Parliament. He renewed this pledge on 6 May, 1929. Some forty-eight hours afterwards, on 8 May, a White Paper was issued giving the terms of the draft, concession agreement with Messieurs Novomeysky and Tulloch, the financiers of whom, according to a White Paper (1929, Cmd. 3317), were:—
Messrs. C. Tennant, Sons & Company, Ltd., London.
      Messrs. Basil Montgomery & Co. (who are a firm of stockbrokers), London. {173}
      Mr. Leslie Urquhart, London.
      Messrs. Pauling & Company, Ltd., London.
      The Jewish Colonial Trust, Ltd., London.
      The Palestine Economic Corporation, New York.
      Two days later Parliament was dissolved and, before the new Parliament met, the Dead Sea Concession agreement was signed (22 May)!
      The news that the agreement had been signed evoked from Mr. Jacob de Haas, as recorded in the American ‘Jewish Daily Bulletin, of 24 May, the following comment:—
      “With the signing in London, on Tuesday, of the Dead Sea Concession there was achieved what is, in all probability, the most remarkable effort ever undertaken by a group of American Zionists. The victory, which assures Jewish national dominance in the management and direction of the exploitation of the Dead Sea, belongs to the group variously known as the Mark-Brandeis group, the Association for the reorganisation of the Zionist Organisation of America and more generally referred to in Zionist circles as the “Opposition.”
      These efforts of the American Zionists to obtain this concession in Palestine and to oust the British group who were trying to secure it, were due, no doubt, to the advice of the late Lord Melchett, who, in a speech to his fellow-Jews and Zionists in New York, 20 October, 1928, said:—
      “You cannot afford to wait. While we are discussing other people are acting. Whereas we have reports on possibilities in Palestine, Gentiles are acquiring land and beginning to take possession of the best thing in the country. . . . Powerful syndicates are being formed by wealthy men, non-Jews, and this movement is growing rapidly.”
      Why was there such jubilation in the U.S.A. over the “signing of the Dead Sea Concession”.? A glance through the files of Palestine Potash Ltd., at Somerset House, enables one to answer that question. On 14 November, 1929, the directors of that Company were:—
The Earl of Lytton, Ernest William Dalrymple Tennant,
Lt.-Col. Harold Josiah Solomon,
Lt.-Col. David Lyell, “Director of Pauling Co., Ltd.,” {174}
Major Thomas Gregorie Tulloch,
Bernard Flexner, “Lawyer, American (U.S.A.),”
Felix Warburg, “Banker, American (U.S.A.)” whose “nationality of origin” was “German,”
Israel Benjamin Brodie, “Lawyer, American (U.S.A.),” whose “nationality of origin” was “Lithuanian of Russian origin,”
Edward Friedman, “Manufacturer, American (U.S.A.),” whose “nationality of origin” was “Lithuanian of Russian origin,”
Moïise Novomeysky, “Palestinian” of “Russian origin.”

      At the above-mentioned date the bulk of the shares, both Preference and Ordinary, were held by Jews.

XVII. Naturalisation of Aliens
Top of page ]

“THAT our naturalisation law needs to be very radically reformed is perfectly obvious. It should be made so difficult as to be almost impossible for any Alien to become a British subject. British patriotism cannot be “made” by naturalisation: neither can our national ideals be assimilated by this formality. Such a consummation, however devoutly to be desired, is not to be expected. An Alien immigrant whose character has been formed in foreign slums cannot be expected to adopt the English outlook, no matter whether he came over in 1894 or in 1914. The British people have a great heritage and noble traditions, and their birthright should not be sold for a few paltry pounds; least of all to Aliens who, by instinct and heredity, can never be anything but inimical to British interests. An Englishman is not made in a generation, and it is greatly to be regretted that the Socialist Government in 1929 made the naturalisation regulations easier and cheaper.
      The table given below is compiled from the official Government returns presented to Parliament, and it shows the number of certificates of naturalisation issued during the past few years. Some of the people naturalised are ex-enemy Aliens; and I suggest that in view of the German dictum “once a German, always a German” (by which the German is not allowed to lose his nationality) it is absurd to give him a certificate of naturalisation.
1920. 2,249.  Including over 1,300 Russians.
1921. 1,247.  Including over 400 Russians.
1922. 894.  Including over 200 Russians.
1923. 943.  Including 375 Russians.
1924. 935.  Including 365 Russians.
1925. 1,073.  Including 352 Russians.
1926. 1,734.  Including 473 Russians. {176}
1927. 1,435.  Including 500 Russians.
1928. 1,502.  Including 534 Russians.
1929. 1,273.  Including 444 Russians.
1930. 1,535.  Including 499 Russians.
1931. 2,186.  Including 838 Russians.
It would be interesting to know how, in the case of an Alien calling himself “Russian,” his correct nationality is arrived at.
      These figures, of course, do not even pretend to represent the number of Aliens entering the country; they are details concerning naturalisation only, and they show that naturalisation certificates are too easily obtainable. “I met a man who asked me if I would like to be naturalised,” said an Alien charged on 17 November, 1926, with making a false statement.
      It would not be too drastic a measure to insist that a certificate of naturalisation shall not be granted to any Alien, however long he resided here, unless the name and country of origin, the history of the applicant and his predecessors have appeared in an annual list to be passed by both Houses of Parliament. It should also be insisted that no person naturalised after the passing of the Bill —a draft of which will be found in Appendix VII—shall be eligible for certain public offices or to serve in Parliament or on County Councils. Furthermore, to ensure that there shall be no evasion of the restrictions, it would be as well to establish a register containing the names and other particulars of all applicants for naturalisation, and that a copy of the register shall be open to inspection by the public gratis. There should be severe penalties for Aliens registering as British. In this connection it may be observed that numbers of Aliens are allowed to vote.
      “A number of Aliens in various parts of the country are believed to have had their names entered upon the registration lists of parliamentary voters—certain parts of London, including Poplar, Whitechapel and Stepney are believed to have the greatest number of unnaturalised Aliens on the voting lists.” (Daily Mail, 8 May, 1928.)
      An Alien voting at a Parliamentary or Municipal Election ought to be deported.
      It would be as well, too, to make it a rule that no Alien (naturalised or not) should hold land in perpetuity, and, as in the case of other countries, special taxation of all {177} Aliens, naturalised or otherwise, should he imposed. These regulations would have the effect of discouraging Alien immigration, which is exactly what is needed.
      Many Aliens, as I have already remarked, seem to have an idea, which has been circulated from certain sources, that they become British automatically after five years residence in this country.
      The country has suffered by the naturalisation of the Alien to whom a certificate has been too hastily issued. The weakness of our laws connected with naturalisation and the careless way they have been administered cost us very dearly in the Great War, and they are causing great damage to us at the present time and will, unless tightened up, bring further disaster to this unfortunate country.
      Here it might be suggested that all cases of Aliens being naturalised since 1918 should be reviewed, and, if necessary, that certificates should be revoked and the individual deported. It should also be a law that no naturalised Alien shall be permitted to change his name. We find in a list that certain people whose original names were Apfelbaum, Abramovitz, Bakon, Barlasoff, Binstok, Brunengraber, Bogucki, Cassapis, Chapfleish, Dzwonkowski, and the like, have become Applebaum, Bacon, Barlow, Barnett, Jacks, Barker, Butcher, Janes, Adler, etc. The majority of the “name-changers” are Russians and Poles, a significant point in these days of Soviet propaganda. We find, too, the following interesting examples of name-changing: Eli Barbierne (Russian) to Alec Goldberg; David Beidenkopf (Pole) to David Cope; Leonard Michael Larenzy Booz (no nationality) to Henry Booth; Hyman Cwang (Russian) to Hyman Franks; Mary Fasbender (German) to Mary Dawson; Mojsiej Jelenkiewicz (Russian) to Morris Jelen, and Yukiel Lichtenszajn (Pole) to Jack Stone.
      The most common names used by Aliens are Stanley, Gordon and Curzon.
      The following paragraph, entitled “The Association and Naturalisation,” appeared in the Jewish World of 19 July, 1928:—” At the last annual conference of the Association ( “Order Achei B’rith and Shield of Abraham”) one of the constituent societies proposed that the Association should set up a Committee to undertake the full work involved in promoting applications for naturalisation by members of Jewish Friendly Societies . . . there {178} are certain directions in which a body like the Association could smooth the way of members desirous of embracing British citizenship who, for one cause or another, remain unnaturalised.”
      The italics are mine, and I refrain from making any comment; but, instead, I leave it to the reader to place his own construction on the meaning of the words: “there are certain directions.”
      The menace, therefore, is more real than apparent, and immediate steps should be taken to remove all the possibilities of which the Alien can profitably take advantage. There must, in short, be adopted a stringent policy.
      The following from The Times 17 March, 1932, throws some light on the business of naturalisation. This is by no means an isolated case. There are many such agencies in Great Britain. These methods show up the kind of Alien on which we confer all the advantages of a British citizen.
      “Agnes Schneider, 25, a milliner, of Woodville-road, New Barnet, was charged on remand before Mr. Pry, at Bow-street Police Court yesterday with fraudulently obtaining sums of £16 10s. from each of four Italians by representing that she was in a position to obtain for them certificates of naturalisation. Mr. E. Clayton conducted the case for the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr. H. Cooper defended.
      “It was alleged that Schneider posed as an official from the Home Office able to obtain naturalisation certificates for Aliens. According to the prosecution, she was notified in 1927 that no requests for naturalisation would be considered by the Home Office if they were submitted through her agency.
      “Detective-sergeant Beard, of Scotland Yard, said that Schneider had carried on, under various names, a large business as a naturalisation agent. In the seven months ended April, 1926, she obtained £300 from 40 Aliens, and in that year she was indicted for fraud at the Central Criminal Court, but was acquitted. She was made a bankrupt in 1928 while trading as an importer in City-road. She was initiated into the naturalisation business by her father, who died last November.
      “A representative of the Home Office said that applications for naturalisation certificates were sometimes submitted through solicitors or friends, but there were no recognised agents. Schneider’s father was black-listed in 1913. {179} “Mr. Cooper urged that the offences were committed under the influence of Schneider’s father, to whom she handed all the money she received.
      “The Magistrate, in passing a sentence of six months’ imprisonment in the second division, said that Schneider had been consistently preying on ignorant people.”
      For more information on this subject the reader is referred to Appendix V.
      Before leaving the subject of naturalisation, I would call my readers’ attention to a most important change recently (1930) made in the regulations concerning admission to the Home and Indian Civil Services, the Foreign and Diplomatic Service, the Consular Service and Eastern Cadetships—a change made by administrative action behind the back of Parliament and enuring for the benefit of Aliens. Under the old regulations candidates for posts in the above-referred to services had to be children of fathers who were “natural-born British subjects.” In the new regulation “natural-born” is missing, so that children of naturalized Aliens are now eligible for the highest administrative and diplomatic posts in our Empire.

XVIII. War Debts
Top of page ]

THE “Statement” issued by the Conservative Central Office to Conservative Members of Parliament and published in the daily Press on 12 January, 1931, contains presumably Mr. Baldwin’s own defence against the volume of criticism launched at the present position of the War Debts settlement matter.
      With an election approaching, this seems to have been Mr. Baldwin’s “apologia” for his fateful trip to Washington, January, 1923, when he signed the agreement over the War Debts; an agreement which, as Mr. Bonar Law stated, “would reduce the standard of living in this country for a generation and would be a burden upon us which no one who talks of it now has any conception of.”
      The burden was aggravated by the fact that, just as the agreement was concluded, the U.S.A. heavily increased its tariff on British imports and made it far more difficult for this country to pay its debts to them.
      It is no secret now that the U.S.A. were prepared at this Conference at Washington to allow us considerably easier terms had Mr. Baldwin not been so precipitant.
      Do the British people realise that among the financial advisers accompanying Mr. Baldwin, and provided for him by our Government there were men of Alien descent, including Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer? Obviously of German descent—married also to a lady of the same name—this gentleman was an important functionary at the Treasury from 1906 until 1927. He was Controller of Finance from 1922 to 1927, and during that period, in 1924, he was also a member of the German Reparations Committee. On {181} leaving the Treasury he became an adviser of the Bank of England and, in 1928, chairman of the Financial Committee of the League of Nations.[Footnote: Many of my readers will remember that a London periodical in August, 1921, published what purported to be a correspondence between the late Dr. Ellis Powell (then editor of the Financial News) and Mr. Bonar Law, who was then Chancellor of the exchequer—correspondence referring to Mr. Otto Ernst Niemeyer. From a copy of the periodical in my possession I see that Dr. Powell, on 18 December, 1918, asked the Secretary of the Treasury whether certain Germans of the name of Niemeyer who ill-treated our prisoners of war in Germany had “a near relative occupying a high position in the Treasury and married to a German wife.” In answer to that question, Mr. R. M. Gower, writing five days later from Treasury Chambers, Whitehall, said: “Mr. Bonar Law wishes me to inform you that the case of Mr. Niemeyer was recently considered by the Committee appointed by the Government to examine the cases of persons not the children of British-born subjects who are employed in Government Departments and that the Committee had decided that it was in the national interest that Mr. Niemeyer should hold the post which he occupies in the Treasury.” Thereupon Dr. Powell wrote direct to Mr. Bonar Law two letters, in the second of which he pointed out that no answer had been given him to his question whether Mr. Niemeyer of the Treasury was any relation “of the Germans referred to.” At this point the correspondence seems to have ended. I now put to Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer the same question.
    I make no reflections upon the integrity and personal character of Sir Otto Ernst Niemeyer; I publish the above facts because I feel strongly that it should be known to the British people to what extent our Government services are directed by officials of Alien extraction.]

      The following note is appended to the “statement” issued by the Conservative Central Office:—
      On 1 August, 1922, the late Lord Balfour, who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in what is now known as the “Balfour Note,” stated that Great Britain was prepared to cancel all inter-Allied debts and all claims on German reparations provided that the United States would do likewise. As, however, the United States had made it clear that it was not prepared to do that, Lord Balfour proposed that our total receipts for Allied debts and reparations should be such sums as would equal our payments to the United States. The principle laid down in this Note has governed all subsequent debt settlements. The position to-day is that in accordance with the principle of the Balfour Note we are receiving from Germany and from our Allies each year sums which slightly exceed our payments to the United States. In the current year the receipts from the Allies and reparations amount to £34,500,000, while our payments to the United States Government amount to £33,038,000. This position will continue until the year beginning 1 April, 1966, and thereafter the receipts and payments each year will balance.
      How does the Conservative Central Office reconcile the above statement with the following? {182}
      In a written reply to a question from Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, M.P., the Financial Secretary to the Treasury states that:—
      “The total sums paid to the United States Government on account of the British War Debt to date, including the payment which is being made to-day, exceed the total sums received in respect of Allied War Debts and Reparation by the amount of £140,000,000, The accumulated deficiency is close on £200,000,000 if interest on past payments and receipts is taken into account.”—(The Times, 19 December, 1930.) See Hansard, 15 December, 1930.
      It transpired in Parliament in December, 1930, that we are paying America far more than we receive from our Allies, on whose behalf we borrowed from the U.S.A. enormous sums of money. We alone of all the Allies in Europe paid our way from the beginning to the end. There is, then, no reason whatever for us to be paying any of the items unless our Allies, whom we guaranteed, default. Our position is in effect that of Collector for America.
      Mr. Snowden has said we have been bilked! Mr. Lloyd George says that our other Allies, by “skilful negotiation,” secured fairly easy terms whereas we were “rushed precipitately” by Mr. Baldwin into a settlement that was at least “three or four times” as bad as those subsequently achieved by France and Italy. This is Mr. Lloyd George, on 13 January, 1931, being wise “after the event,” of course!
      Again, the debts were contracted in goods and munitions. Repayment might have been arranged similarly—in goods not subject to American tariffs. Then, too, the debts were contracted when the purchasing power of gold was half, or less than half, what it is to-day. Repayment might have been regulated by an index number indicating successively the state of the gold market. That would have been skilful and astute negotiation.
      In view of these points and of the horrible fact that we have paid out two hundred millions more than we have received, the Central Office Statement, in its soothing complacency, is quite misleading. The bargain of Mr. Baldwin was a bad bargain and is turning out disastrously for us. If we go on for the full sixty years of the repayment period {183} on the lines as arranged, we shall be a perpetual example indeed of the futility of war and of politicians. The statement from the Central Office was intended to soothe. It has had, instead, the effect of irritating the public mind; and has revived the feeling that our national and international affairs have been affected by influences to which I have referred in the later Chapters of this book. If it is otherwise, then the whole thing becomes inexplicable, and it becomes impossible to reconcile the Central Office Statement with other pronouncements, and the progress of the repayment of war debts.


      The loser pays! That is an axiom of life. The loser expects to pay! In games, in business, in litigation, in hunting, at the card table,—in all that is worth while or that is not worth while, the loser pays!
      Does he! The Allies won the war and therein were enabled to impose on Germany the task of paying the cost. How glib and profuse we were in those days of 1918 and 1919. Germany should pay—yes, to the uttermost farthing! All our losses should be recovered; all debts paid. The Germans should find the money. They had lost the war!
      Quite so; and then, as between themselves, the Allies could proceed to set their own finances in order and to straighten out the position regarding their own interborrowings and spendings. All that is so logical as to be trite. But the year 1931 dawns and we find that the British payments on account of war debt to the U.S.A. exceed the total sum received from our Allies and in reparations by £140,000,000; and further, as we commenced to repay before reparations and our Allies’ debts were computed, that the total deficiency from our point of view is £200,000,000! What a farce—and what a sardonic example of the loser paying!
      America entered the war only after a long period of frenzied employment, overtime work and unprecedented production—when her workers received the highest wages they had ever been paid, her farmers the highest prices ever secured, and her own government reaped a handsome harvest by the taxes imposed on the enormous profits being made. Is it too late, to-day, to tell America that the war was fought as much for her as for ourselves or Belgium? {184}


      No one in the U.S. can deny that the money lent by America was borrowed for the purpose of a common war, and that the expenditure of this money by America’s European Allies was for America’s benefit as well as ours. Speaking in the American Congress three years ago, Mr. Crisp representative of Georgia said, “If Germany had won the War where would the United States be to-day? Instead of reducing taxes by 2,500,000 dollars since the war, you would have been adding millions and millions of dollars to your taxes and your children’s children would have been working for Germany.”
      The money borrowed from America was expended in America to America’s gain, and is now being repaid to that country to America’s further gain while we, the innocent borrowers of money for others and in a common cause, bear the scars of war, the aftermath of poverty, and the perpetual load of repayments. These are the facts that should have been emphasised by Mr. Baldwin at the time of negotiation. Possibly they were, and quite possibly the Yankees outwitted him in argument, and secured his acquiescence on a “Do it now or it will be worse for you” policy.[Footnote: If the Ministry of Munitions Investigations Committee (1920), of which Mr. (now Sir) Arthur Michael Samuel was Chairman, had fully investigated and its report had been published that would have had a great bearing on Reparations—on our War Debt to the U.S.A. Why was this not done?
      Obviously the reason was that very serious scandals would have been exposed. The British public were never told the truth regarding the millions of pounds which had been paid to the U.S.A. for faulty and dangerous ammunition, which greatly handicapped our armies in the field, and at times resulted in heavy losses of our own men. Enormous quantities of these faulty and uncertain shells had to be scrapped.
      Had the public been told this, and also that very large sums of money could not be traced in the U.S.A. munition accounts, there would have been such an uproar throughout the British Isles and the whole Empire which would have resulted in our debt to the U.S.A. being approached in a very different manner at Washington, January, 1923, or at any rate in the amount being considerably scaled down.
      What was the power which caused the closing of this Enquiry before it had scarcely begun, and which power kept this out of our newspapers so that the public should hear nothing, and soon forget all about this very grave and important matter?
      Did Mr. Baldwin at the Conference at Washington ever allude to the old debts owing to us from the Southern States) Vide the following from the Evening Standard:—
The Report of the Council of Foreign Bondholders (1929) tells me that for periods varying from 60 to 90 years the following eight States of the Union, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina, have owed British bondholders sums of money, which were originally 75,200,000 dollars, but which now with simple and compound interest at 6 per cent., must amount to near £100 millions sterling. The loans do not Include Confederate bonds or war debts, but were contracted for public improvements, such as railways. Some of the States, Pennsylvania and Minnesota, have settled. (19 January, 1932.)]


      In 1928, the late Lord Birkenhead, in an authoritative article in which he made all due allowances for errors and possible eventualities, stated that the cost of the war to Britain amounted to nearly three-quarters of our national {185} wealth before the war; and that, on the same basis, America’s cost would not reach one-fifth of her pre-war wealth!—(Britannia, 7 December, 1928.)
      In 1914, the U.S.A. held gold valued at £377,000,000; in 1921 this had increased to £660,000,000, an increase of £283,000,000. The average annual excess of America’s merchandise export over her imports from 1910 to 1914 was £95,000,000. In the war period (1915-1922) this average rose to £530,000,000. Further, America’s pre-war indebtedness by way of foreign investments in the U.S.A. was £500,000,000, and this was transformed after the war period, including the Allied war debts, to a credit balance of no less than £4,000,000,000, a turnover of £4,500,000,000.
      Altogether, apart from mere money, America might have been reminded that in the common cause, the Allies suffered more than fifty times the casualties of the American nation; and even when America’s armed effort was strongest, the Allies put in the field four times as many men. When the U.S.A. became, in President Coolidge’s words, “one mighty engine for the prosecution of the War,” that engine was three years late in starting! And it never could have functioned, or continued to function, without the British navy and transport.


      America’s honoured dead were less than one-eighth of ours, not a tenth of France’s, a quarter of Italy’s, a fifteenth of Russia’s, and less than Serbia’s.
      It must be remembered, too, that not only the wounded had to be pensioned or otherwise compensated, but the dependents of many of the dead. The U.S.A. had 322,000 killed and wounded against Great Britain’s nearly 3,000,000. Our pensions alone numbered in 1928 1,500,000 as against America’s 300,000. It could have been argued that the whole liability for War debts should be wiped out.
      When the U.S.A., at the end of the War, showed that she wanted a great “say” in making the terms of peace, it should have been pointed out that they must therefore pay their proportionate share of the burden resulting from this long and destructive War. As it is, she had a very full “say” and not only paid nothing into the pool but profited enormously.
      All these facts should have entered the discussions over repayment. If they had, surely we British would not have been left with the devastating load of financial trouble! {186}
      As one result, our own home taxation has been increased so enormously that trade and export are in a state of collapse. Subsequent increases of American tariffs have made it even more difficult for us to secure the money with which to repay America! So that America has us all ways and every way! We have been jockeyed into the most vicious of vicious circles! And the, net result of our so-called “satisfactory negotiations” is that we have paid £200,000,000 in excess of what we have received!


      Do the British public realise that Great Britain is paying on its debt to the U.S.A. a rate of interest more than double that paid by Belgium or France, and something like eight times as much as that exacted from Italy?
      How long shall this thing be?
      When will some common sense, businesslike arrangement be concluded, and America told that the present position is most unfair?
      According to Mr. Wickham Steed, the “Balfour Note,” referred to by the Central Office, was ill-conceived and very damaging to any British prospects of revision of the terms. Mr. Steed also considers that Mr. Lloyd George’s Government prior to January, 1923, quarrelled with France so persistently that any readjustment of terms with the U.S.A. was rendered almost impossible.—(See Sunday Times, 18 January, 1931.)
      It is time that the British Parliament required a rearrangement of terms, which are so much worse than those made later between others of the Allies, and which leave Britain paying other people’s debts—and paying Germany’s debts, too. No one who has studied recent events now believes that Germany will pay any more reparations. It would seem that the loser does not always pay!
      The only good effect of the Central Office Statement is that, as it has drawn attention to a monstrous “bargain” and has roused public opinion against that bargain, this may result in a revision of the terms being insisted upon so that the “bargain” is displaced and a readjustment made on a fair all-round basis.
      In conclusion, we must, in justice to Mr. Baldwin, not lose sight of the fact that his task was a difficult one owing to Lord Reading’s amazing arrangements when our debts were taken over by the Government of the United States.

XIX. What Should Be Done
Top of page ]

ON 22 June, 1926, a meeting of patriotic societies was held at Berkeley Square, London, when Lord Queenborough presided. This meeting was organised by the author, and subsequently a joint letter was sent to the Prime Minister containing the unanimous decisions arrived at at this meeting. The letter was signed by the chairman of each of ten of the foremost patriotic societies and also by Lord Queenborough as Chairman. The Prime Minister was desired to take action on the resolutions, which were as follows:—
(1)     We, the accredited representatives of the undermentioned societies, are of the opinion that there can be no real settlement of labour unrest in this country whilst difficulties are fomented by Alien Communist influence.
(2) While we desire to express our recognition of the action taken by the Government with regard to the money tendered during the General Strike from Alien Communist sources, we strongly urge the Government vigorously to take such action as to prevent the entry of Alien Communists into the country. It is our belief that these Alien Communists came into the country for no other purpose than to foment industrial unrest as a preliminary to revolution.
(3) We also urge that all Aliens who have been or may be convicted of being instrumental in fomenting sedition or disaffection be at once deported on the same rigorous lines adopted by the Governments of other countries.
(4) We further urge the Government to condone no longer the confiscation of property of and repudiation {188} of debts to private British citizens by the Soviet Government without compensation, as by so doing they are jeopardising the property of British subjects in other parts of the world.
      Thus it will be observed that the Alien menace is recognised not merely by a few private individuals, but by large and influential organisations which, through their ramifications, are fully conversant with the salient data, which gives cause for much concern.
      The author personally took the above letter to Downing Street. Many members of these societies have asked whether Mr. Baldwin saw it?
      I have shown that other countries and our Dominions are drastically restricting immigration. France and Belgium have expelled many thousands of foreigners, and in 1926 introduced exceedingly strict measures which demand, among other things, special forms of taxation, identity cards, guarantees, etc., in respect of all Aliens who remain in the country for more than sixty days. We must adopt similar measures. Our Alien Restrictions must be tightened up again and again! It is clear that a thorough system is necessary whereby our Aliens shall be kept under constant control and supervision.
      In 1927, France found that some 40,000 nationals were unable to get work. There was a great outcry all through the country. The French Government immediately began to cancel permits of foreigners employed and in a few weeks there was no unemployment. Why does not our own Government do this instead of allowing more Aliens to come into the country?
      This plan has been repeated in France whenever there is any marked unemployment. The Daily Mail, 20 February, 1931, said:—
      “The gradual reduction in the number of foreigners working in France is being seriously contemplated as a remedy for unemployment.
      “Since January 1 the situation of 21,500 foreigners in the Seine Department has been examined, with the result that 1,122 have been expelled, while 300 firms who employed unregistered foreign workers have been heavily fined.”
      The Sunday Express, 28 February, 1932, stated:—
      “A group of metallurgical factories at Anzin has dismissed all its foreign employees. {189}
      “There are 250,000 Poles in the Nord and Pas de Calais departments, and thousands who have been thrown out of work are returning to Poland every week.—Reuter, Paris.”

      We must protect ourselves in the same manner as other countries have done. Immigration must be restricted; the loopholes must be closed, and there must be complete overhaul of the existing Alien population in this country. There is no alternative. We must do away with the farce of the Continental excursion trips (for one or two days only without passports), and the so-called British seamen coming from Riga.
      The Passport Office needs attention, if we are to avoid the trading in bogus passports (which I have already drawn attention to) that enable the Alien crooks to masquerade in this country as British subjects.
      The ease with which women enter this country on passports as “students” has been dealt with in the chapter on Unemployment.
      The Alien comes by devious ways! He regards England as the “Tom Tiddler’s ground” of his hopes. The news seems to have spread through Central Europe, and even further East, that in the British Isles the laws are weak, life is easy, and much money can be got for nothing, in fact more than he earns in his own country by long hours of hard work. So every effort is made by the Alien to enter this El Dorado and it would seem that many are successful. And he arrives! He arrives in spite of red tape regulations which he can treat with scorn; or, on discovery, by an affectation of ignorance which receives a good hearing by our too-sympathetic British authorities. To the Bolshevik it is a great opportunity, as once in England a Socialist municipality gives him substantial relief each week and, with some Moscow money—with no need to work—he can give up all his time to revolutionary schemes.
      Regarding Dangerous and Undesirable Aliens.—It is true that the authorities are enabled to deport undesirable Aliens, but it is equally true that in most cases deportation orders are ineffective. Moreover, under the regulations, there are certain crimes which do not involve the penalty of deportation. I maintain that any Alien who breaks the law should be deported automatically, and {190} there should be no appeal. Our present regulations are farcical. It will have been noticed by readers of the newspapers that magistrates continually “recommend” the deportation of convicted Aliens, and the authorities themselves also decide on deportation in the case of Aliens who do not come before the Courts. But do these Aliens go? The writer—and the reader too—knows that in very many cases they just stay here, as in the cases of Joseph Alexandrovsky and Hyman Cohen. The few cases from the Courts quoted at the end of this book are instructive in this respect. The might of Britain and her right to have within her borders only whomsoever she will, are flouted utterly by Aliens, and, in many instances, the Alien country to which they should be deported. Russia, for example, refuses to receive its own nationals except in certain eventualities: those nationals must stay here! Therefore, the order, or “recommendation,” for deportation is a dead-letter, and another of the farcical results of our administrative weakness—a weakness which permits our Alien population to multiply enormously!
      A Russian cannot be deported unless he signs a declaration that he is willing to live under the Soviet régime. Therefore, any Alien criminal or undesirable has only to say that he is a Russian and refuse to sign this declaration, to insure his remaining in this country, where he can draw doles or relief of some kind. With this and some Moscow money there is no necessity to work, and so he can give his full time to revolutionary work.
      Undesirable and criminal Aliens who refuse to be, or cannot be deported to their own country, should be sent to an island at some distance from this country, as, for example, St. Helena. If this were the sentence upon those Aliens who cunningly state, when ordered to be deported, that they belong to no country, they would soon claim to originate from somewhere.
      It is unfortunate that there is no law as in other countries which compels judges and magistrates to recommend all Alien criminals to be deported. People appearing before magistrates in London and other large towns are, in many cases, obviously Aliens, yet nothing is said by the police or the magistrate of the important fact. This has been especially the case during the past three years. And during recent years magistrates seem to have given up recommending deportation. .Who has given these orders? {191}
      It is shown earlier in this book that England has for many years been the dumping ground for unfit and diseased Aliens. But few people realise that it has been the refuge of the worst criminals and revolutionaries of Europe for the past hundred years or more.
      In recent years, France and Italy and other countries have become much more strict, not only regarding foreigners, but in hunting down their own nationals who cause trouble. The Italians now boast that they have made their country “clean.” They have driven out or imprisoned all those who were not loyal to the Government. France has now made that country too hot for wrong-doers. The Central European countries have been doing much the same thing.
      The result has been that these unwanted ones had to find some other country where to lay their heads. The British Isles with easy regulations and easier administration has been the sanctuary of thousands of these undesirables.
      Deportations seem to have been carried out in a very lax manner, and many deportees just double back again, treating our laws with contempt. The cases from the Courts (see Appendix V) are instructive in this respect.
      Holland has a good system as the following two letters to me show.
      “May I point out that by adopting the methods of the U.S.A. and Holland, it would be possible to check the entry of undesirable Aliens and get rid of foreign paupers? While I was engaged as His Majesty’s Consul in Holland I noticed that by a simple police regulation all foreigners who were unable to support themselves were deported to the country of their origin. The plan worked very smoothly and efficiently. Not a few British subjects were handled in this rational manner.”—W. A. Churchill, Worfield House, Malvern. (16 December, 1924.)
      “Referring to previous correspondence regarding pauper Aliens, our Consul in Holland informs me that during the years 1922, 1923, and 1924, the number of foreigners deported from Holland amounted to 5,272, 6,720, and 2,696 respectively. The proportion in respect of nationality could not be given, but it is said that the majority were Germans. The reasons for which they {192} were taken across the frontier are chiefly: no means of subsistence, criminality, and papers not in order.” (Signed) W. A. Churchill, Malvern. (21 January, 1925.)

      Destitution is not necessarily a crime, but even so, I think that in the case of the Alien, destitution should carry with it the certainty of deportation. It does so in the United States and Holland, so why not here? We cannot afford to keep our own nationals, so why the Alien? I maintain that Guardians’ relief should never be given to Aliens, and unemployment benefit should be extended only to contributors. The above two letters are instructive on this point.
      In the House of Commons, 14 July, 1928, Sir W. Joynson-Hicks stated:
      “During the three years, 1925-27, 797 aliens, on conviction, were recommended for deportation. In 573 cases deportation orders were made and enforced. Of the remaining 224 cases, in 11 the recommendation was quashed, 42 Aliens left the country without the necessity of deportation orders, 17 were found on investigation to be British subjects, and 10 are still serving sentences. In 129 cases the nationality of the Alien, and therefore the country to which he could be sent, could not be established. The balance of 15 is made up of cases in which the Alien died, or became insane, or in which it was decided, on good cause being shown to me, not to deport.”
      It was stated in the House of Commons, July, 1928, that some sixty Alien criminals recommended for deportation were still here. But the number is much greater than this. Compare these numbers to the thousands of foreigners deported each year by France, Italy, the U.S.A., etc. Under the Socialist Government, 1929-31, all regulations regarding Aliens have been so relaxed and the public and the Press kept so in the dark about this important matter, that no one knows what has really happened.
      Why do we not adopt the French method of getting rid of undesirable Aliens? The Paris police and the police of large towns in France, for several years past, have carried out nightly round-ups on a big scale. Some hundreds of police surround an area and every person within that area has to prove his or her identity. In this way large numbers of foreign Communists have been arrested. {193}
      In a series of round-ups in Paris recently, 20,000 persons were questioned, 1,800 arrested and 600 deported. At another round-up fifty-five Italian Communists were arrested in one night. A few round-ups like this in this country would reveal an amazing state of things, and would show that our regulations and so-called system are a farce, and are set at utter defiance by Aliens. What is the mysterious power which prevents our police taking these really effective and common-sense measures which are carried out in other countries?
      Our Government authorities do not know how many Aliens there are in this country, or where they are, or what they are doing. In other countries, as I have pointed out, there is real control of Aliens, who, incidentally, have profound respect for the regulations of those countries. Here, in England, the case is different. The average Alien regards with contempt our easy-going administration, and he takes but little trouble to comply with the regulations.
      In the U.S.A. deportation warrants are issued for all Aliens convicted of two offences involving sentences of one year or more.
      Each year the U.S.A. has deported several thousand Aliens. In 1928, 8,500 Aliens were deported, and many thousands for the following years until 1931 when, as a result of a special Government Commission, 120,000 undesirable Aliens were deported.
      Brigadier-General Burt, late British attaché to Latvia and more recently attached to the Latvian and Esthonian armies, has recently informed me that in February, 1920, the United States of America landed at Libau about 300 undesirable Russians from the United States. The U.S.A. Government notified the Latvian Government that these undesirables were arriving. The Latvian Government took them by train to the frontier under escort and handed them over to the Russian Soviet Frontier guards.
      I understand that other batches of undesirables were dealt with in this manner, and the question that arises is, what is to prevent our own Government taking similar action in the case of undesirables!
      Undoubtedly the Alien question is handled in a ridiculously futile manner, for it seems that once a man gets into this country it is extremely difficult, and often impossible, to get rid of him. How differently such matters {194} are handled in Australia and South Africa is proved by the following news item, which appeared in the Daily Mail, (11 July, 1928), under the heading “Centre for Deportees”
      “John Melbourne was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment for stealing a wallet. Sir Robert Wallace, Chairman of the London Sessions, said: ‘As you are an Australian by birth, I cannot recommend you for deportation. If an Englishman is convicted in Australia he is deported, and I notice that when you were expelled from South Africa as an undesirable in 1914 you were sent to this country. This seems to be a centre for deported persons.’”
With regard to deportation, here is a recent case.
      “Mr. Bingley, the Marylebone magistrate, yesterday was faced with the problem of how to get rid of an international swindler of Russian nationality, who had crept into this country after being banished from Austria and Belgium.
      Louis Cohen, aged 40, described as a butcher of Warren Street, Tottenham Court Road, W., was charged with stealing two satin night-dresses, valued at £3 2s., from the shop of Betty’s, Ltd., Baker Street, W.
      Sergeant Green said that Cohen was an international criminal. In 1923 he was sentenced in Vienna to seven months’ imprisonment and banishment for swindling and false registration. He had also been sent to prison in Philadelphia, and had received a sentence of 12 months in Massachusetts for theft. In 1930 he was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment in Belgium and expelled. There was also a warrant in existence in New York for his arrest.
      On 1 December he was recommended for deportation by the Old Street magistrate for being in the unlawful possession of three lengths of cloth, but the order was not enforced, and he was released on parole.
      Mr. Bingley: His country is Russia, but unfortunately we cannot send him there.
      Cohen was sentenced to three months’ hard labour.
      On a repeated request from Sergeant Green Mr. Bingley recommended Cohen for deportation.”
      Why was this Alien not sent to New York?
      If in this country we had a proper system of dealing with Aliens, and if all undesirable Aliens were deported {195} not only would our asylums and jails be emptier and Guardians’ relief much less, but there would be a saving in the machinery of the law—less police, less magistrates, less judges.
      The Ministry of Labour, too, must be reorganised so that it is next to impossible for any Alien to come to this Country, even for a short spell, and dispossess a Briton of his job. I have pointed out how easy it is for certain classes of people to do so—but I now suggest that there may be other kinds of Aliens who receive permits which should be refused. This may mean complete overhaul of certain departments, but we cannot bother ourselves with such trifles in face of the grave perils confronting us. Let us overhaul and re-overhaul, if necessary; the desired object is more than worth the preliminary work.
      On 25 November, 1924, the author was a member of a deputation to the Home Office on the Alien Question. When he mentioned, among other points, that there is really no job in this country which cannot be done by a Briton, it was very noticeable that Mr. Irons, representing the Ministry of Labour, strongly objected to my statement.
      To conclude—our own livelihood, our very existence, depend upon the policy of “Britain for the British.” What are the obstacles to this plan? Why cannot we do as other countries have done in this direction?
      The remedy is the setting up of tribunals to deal with Aliens.
      In the spring of 1927, a Committee appointed by the National Citizens’ Union discussed a plan for National Tribunals to deal with Aliens in the country. The brief results of the decisions arrived at may be seen below; and if this scheme is regarded as unwieldy or difficult, at least it has the advantage of being comprehensive as well as economical.
      1. Delegate the administration of alien laws to local authorities, who would be requested to establish a Voluntary Alien Tribunal comprised of persons of wholly British origin.
      2. Each tribunal would be requested to appoint a clerk (for preference, the Town, etc., Clerk), and an Aliens officer (the Chief Constable, etc., for choice). Then (by notice) all Aliens by a given date would be called on to register on a form provided, and to pay a fee of £1. {196}
(a) Present name and address;
(b) Any previous names and addresses;
(c) Where and when born;
(d) Since when in Britain;
(e) Nationality of spouse;
(f) Number and ages of children;
(g) Occupation;
(h) Details of other relatives in Britain;
(i) Since when has each member of family been free from contagious or infectious disease or infirmity;
(j) Whether convicted criminally anywhere. The Aliens officer to investigate thereon.
      3. Then the Alien should be called before a Tribunal to show cause why he should remain. Failure to register, to entail severe penalties and deportation. Tribunals would consider:—
i. The Alien’s character;
ii. Whether the Alien is:—
(a) Spreading sedition;
      (b) Keeping a British-born subject out of employment.
      (c) An undesirable from the point of view of mental, physical, or moral infirmity;
      (d) A work-shy or a burden on the rates;
      (e) Keeping British-born out of housing accommodation.
Three Certificates to be awarded either:—
A. To remain.—If of undoubted respectability or of value to the country, or long resident of good character.
B. Temporary stay.—If of good character, engaged in work needed by the country for a time.
C. Close observation and frequent reporting.—If of doubtful character, a work-shy, or one whose presence is inimical to commerce, industry, credit, Government welfare, Briton’s health or British tradition.
      Otherwise an order would be made for deportation to country of origin or. to an island set apart for the purpose.
      4. The Alien should have right of appeal to a special tribunal and, further, a final appeal to a central tribunal in London by leave of the special tribunal. {197}
      5. Where any tribunal is proved unsatisfactory, the Home Office to be empowered to appoint its own local executive to administer.
      In carrying it out, due regard would, of course, be paid to the business man from abroad. We should not restrict too harshly the foreigner coming here in the interests of trade, to give orders, etc. On the contrary, we should do everything possible to encourage him and give him every facility. And the bona fide tourist, whose presence here is greatly to the advantage of our own people should be shown every courtesy.
      It is said that our passport system deters foreigners from coming to our country. But a proper system of passports would not interfere with the real business men or the bona fide tourists, as these people always procure passports. And if the day return tickets and the week-end tickets, without passports, were done away with, these foreigners whom we want here would not be affected.
      What the foreign tourists do not like in our country are the badly managed hotels and the stupid and annoying restrictions connected with restaurants.


      Our deliverance rests with us alone. The task may be great, but it is not impossible of fulfilment—provided, of course, immediate action, backed by the utmost vigour, is taken by every patriotic citizen who realises that he can live only when England lives.
      Let us, therefore, commence the work of cleansing; let us all, from those who represent us in Parliament down to the lowest, the most humble, individual, take the essential work in hand at once.
      I end by asking certain vital questions.
      Has everything I have described come about automatically? Is all that has happened pure coincidence, or is there not some directing-power, some anti-British force, which through decades has been to a large extent responsible for the terrible conditions existing in our unfortunate country? If this present state of affairs continues will it not be that England will no longer be English, and our Dominions no longer British? {198}

      “English men and women are constantly asking themselves how it comes about that a twist is so frequently given to British policy that is clearly not in accordance with British interests. There is usually somebody in a position, at the psychological moment, to deflect our Government, whatever party be in power, into some line of action that is unintelligible at the time and is fraught with disastrous consequences. ... It is as though some hostile influence were steadily throwing grit into the machine. In every international financial arrangement we fare badly, and the whole story of Reparations and War Debts is humiliating in the extreme and calculated to make us the world’s laughing stock as well as the world’s milch cow. It is in this connection that such a book as Colonel Lane has written . . . throws a timely searchlight.
      “It is in the higher ranks of society that the alien menace is formidable through the influence exercised in Government Departments, in Downing Street and High Finance by gentry of unmistakable foreign origin.”
      LEO MAXSE in The National Review.


Top of page ]


      Below is reprinted an article I contributed to the British Lion of January-February, 1934:—
      Great efforts have been made by the Government and the Press, now almost entirely controlled by the Alien, to try to show that the number of Aliens entering the British Isles, for permanent residence, is becoming less. But everyone who has not been doped by propaganda, knows that, so far from the number being less, it is year by year becoming greater. And this year the influx has very much increased.
      This is chiefly owing to the great invasion from Germany. On December 5th, the League of Nations officially stated that 3,000 refugee Jews had lately arrived in England from Germany for permanent residence. These, of course, arrived by the ordinary routes with passports. This number does not include the large number who have entered the British Isles surreptitiously. Almost all these Jews fled from, or were deported by, the German Government for the reason that they were dangerous revolutionaries or criminals. Many of such undesirables have entered illegally. The chief ways of illegal entry are:—
(1) Day or week-end excursion ticket, no passports required. (See The Alien Menace, page 7).
(2) Through Ireland. No passports required.
(3) Through the Channel Islands. (See letter in The Times, 13.9.33, from Sir Harry Gloster Armstrong, late British Consul, New York). No passports required.
(4) By conducted cruises to the British Isles from foreign countries. No passports required.
(5) By motor boats from France, Belgium, Holland, etc. (now a regular trade), which land passengers at isolated places on the coast or up our estuaries and rivers. {201}
      It is well known that almost anyone in any country can get hold of a passport and that there are several places in which they are being forged. As these people cannot return to Germany and as no other country will accept them, they remain here to increase our unemployment and to add to our already large numbers of revolutionaries.
      But a still larger number—many thousands—have come over here legally but on temporary passports (60 days).
      From the above it will be seen that the Government statistics re Aliens are inaccurate and very misleading.
      In other countries such as France, Germany, Italy, etc., every person is registered, nationals and foreigners, and carries a card of identity; there is thus a system of control.
      Most of these refugees from Germany are undesirable, many of them having been expelled for the reason that they are revolutionaries, others because they are persons engaged in obscene propaganda, by pamphlets and pictures; others are connected with the white slave traffic.
      The Earl of Lucan in the House of Lords, July 25th last, confessed that five hundred “persons” had lately come from Germany for permanent residence and that more were coming.
      Is it realised that our (Inter) National Government is harbouring the leaders of most dangerous secret societies? Under the Socialist Government, 1929-31, and since then, England has become the headquarters of Anarchist Societies which are not only trying to disrupt the British Empire, and succeeding, but are also promoting revolution in other countries. Putting aside the British Empire, it is not fair to other countries to give sanctuary to these foreign revolutionaries. It is actually giving encouragement to World Revolution.
      And these dangerous Aliens are not only allowed to remain in this country, but our internationally-minded people, and the foreign revolutionaries who live here, who now have so much influence, have already found jobs for many of these recently arrived aliens, and are forming societies and schemes to get more of them lucrative work.
      And this is going on unchecked when there are some four million people in our country unemployed. Most of the hordes who have managed to enter this year are without means. So unless jobs are found for them, they will become a charge on the public. {202}
      Our Government, always trying to delude the people, continually state that only two million people are unemployed. But the following is from recent Government returns:—
Registered Unemployed, Great Britain and Northern Ireland, approximately ...2,300,000
In receipt of Poor Relief (Public Assistance, England and Wales), approximately ...1,300,000
      The figures for Poor Relief do not include rate-aided patients in Mental Hospitals and various Institutions (a large proportion of the inmates of which are Aliens— mostly kept entirely out of rates). (See “The Alien Menace,” Chapter 5.) Also these figures for Poor Relief do not include Scotland and Ireland.
      The above returns do not include many thousands of the professional and clerical classes, who are not eligible to be registered at the Labour Exchanges and who are too proud to draw Poor Relief—Public Assistance.
      The writer has represented all this to certain Members of the House of Lords and House of Commons. Some of these Members have written to the Home Secretary on the subject. In two cases, replies from the Home Secretary have been shown to me. They have been evidently drafted by the same permanent official, probably schooled during the Herbert Samuel régimes. Sir Herbert Samuel it will be remembered, was Home Secretary 1916 and again 1931-2, when Lord Reading was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
      These replies are an insult to the intelligence of anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of what is really happening. In other cases, Members requested that these replies might be published, but permission was not given. Comment on this is unnecessary.
      The Belgian Government are now holding a Commission to consider what is to be done regarding some 20,000 refugees who have recently entered the country from Germany. Why does not our Government do the same? {203}
      The following extracts from the Press are samples of the efforts made in this country to employ these Jews who have recently wormed their way in:—
Extract from “The Patriot,” May 10th, 1934.
      According to the Daily Telegraph of May 3rd, 1934, “The Academic Assistance Council” has recently found jobs in the British Isles for 178 “refugee German professors.” Cambridge University has taken 31, Oxford University 17, Manchester University 16, London Institutes 67, of whom 17 were taken by University College.
      These German people are given valuable appointments here when there are hundreds of highly qualified British men and women without jobs.
      This Council has also given maintenance grants to 49 students from Germany to enable them to continue their research in universities in this country. Presumably they will later be found work in the British Isles.

      Extract from “News-Chronicle,” 3rd October, 1933.
      The names of five German teachers and professors who are to occupy at Manchester University specially created Research Fellowships, were announced yesterday.
      They are among the teachers who have been suspended or dismissed by the German Government on the ground either of their Jewish origin or of political “unreliability” or both. For two years they will occupy posts which will allow them to assist in the teaching particularly of advanced students, but will place them under no obligation to do so.
Dr. Martin Weinbaum, Berlin (History);
Dr. R. Baer Halle (Mathematics);
Dr. Rudolph Peierls, Leipzig (Physics);
Dr. Walter Deutsch, Dusseldorf (Physiology); and Professor David Katz, Rostock (Psychology).
      One or two further appointments may be made.
      *It is announced that the appointments will mean no burden on the University, since the Research Fellowships have been founded principally through funds raised by a group of Manchester people, with the collaboration of the Academic Assistance Council, which was formed as a national organisation when the plight of the dispossessed professors and teachers in Germany became known.
      Within the last few days, three famous German doctors—victims of the new Government’s policy—have been appointed honorary consultants at the Manchester Victoria Memorial Jewish Hospital.
      They are: Dr. Herman Zondek (Physician), Dr. Bernard Zondek (gynaecologist), and Dr. Samuel G. Zondek (bacteriologist).
* Cannot British people be found competent to fill these appointments?

Extract from the “Daily Express,” 3rd October, 1933.

      Mr. F. G. Edwards, secretary of the Catering Trades Unemployment Association of 67 Dean Street, London, W., sends the following letter to the “Daily Express,” which he has received from the Jewish Refugees’ Committee of Woburn House, Upper Woburn Place, W.C.:— {204}
To the Secretary,   Catering Trade Society,     67, Dean Street, W.C.
Dear Sir,
      At the request of the Berlin Committee, who are working on the same lines as our London Committee, we are sending you particulars, and are asking you whether you will be able to find employment.
      We should be very much obliged if you could succeed and get the necessary permission from the Ministry of Labour for the applicants in question.
      Yours faithfully,

      Mr. Edwards said to a “Daily Express” representative yesterday:— “We have a steady flow of young Englishmen perfectly equipped for their trade and ready to take up any post which may fall vacant.
      “Our waiting list for the type of job which the Jewish Refugees’ Committee are asking us to find for the German waiter must be between 3,000 and 4,000.
      “Is it reasonable that we should be called on to find employment for a German resident in Berlin when it would mean leaving a British waiter among the ranks of the unemployed?

Extract from the “Daily Mirror,” October 27th, 1933.
From our Special Correspondent.
Otterden, Thursday.
      Hidden away in the secluded village of Otterden, near Faversham, Kent, a strange community of German Jews is taking root.
      Most of the members are children. They have been transplanted from the school in Germany which their parents and teachers considered it advisable for them to leave.
      They refuse to be called refugees. All are the children of well-to-do families, and it is felt that here they will have a better chance to complete their education.
      At present, there are about seventy-five children at the school, but eventually there will be more. They are under the care of about a dozen adults, some of their own race, others English.
      Members of the Party travelled separately out of Germany, were met on the other side of the border, and completed the journey to Otterden together.
      That was four weeks ago, and since they reached the country house which has now become their home, they have made many changes which make it far more like a traditional school building. . . . And as I waited there, sturdy children, all speaking broken English, stopped on their way to bed to eye me curiously.
      One went over to a notice-board hanging on the wall, and I could see him reading a sheet of paper headed: “Everybody is expected to do his duty.” An incongruously English touch. {205}
      But the notice is more understandable when the aims of the school are realised. Many of its pupils will be expected to sit for English examinations, such as matriculation, and so the teachers are determined that their charges shall be steeped in English ways.[Footnote: These Jewish students and children, when they have finished their education here, will not be allowed to re-enter Germany. They are evidently being trained to take up work in the British Isles, or perhaps the British Dominions and Colonies.]
      So much labour has been involved, and so much lies ahead, before things are running with clockwork German regularity, that up to the present the establishment has had little intercourse with the outside world.

The following is from a circular recently sent out:
Headquarters in London:
        3, Endsleigh Street, W.C.1.
        Patron: Professor Einstein.
      In it a “Plan” for helping students expelled from Germany is described.
      “These young people can now be trained for a profitable life. They will complete their courses in Britain. ...”
      “All these refugees can be helped if each person in this country gives one farthing.”
      Why should these students come here to attend our already overcrowded schools and Universities which, supported by British benefaction and endowments, were meant for the education of children of British people?
      It is also difficult to understand why, on November 2nd, a street collection and flag day was allowed in London in aid of these foreign students, when so many of our own students and their parents are very impoverished. Why not flag selling and collection for British students?
      The news of this hospitable reception of Jews, who have by various means, mostly surreptitious, found their way into this country, is no doubt being circulated in Germany and other countries with the result that thousands more undesirable Aliens will be wangled or sneak their way, into the British Isles.

Top of page ]

Reprinted from THE PATRIOT, 7 June, 1934.

      In THE PATRIOT of 18 July, 1929, and 20 February, 1930, two articles, under the heading of “Censorship of the Anglo-Saxons,” gave details of the unquestionable fact of the powerful exercise of Jewish influence in the settling of what English-speaking people are free to publish, or read, on a very important range of subjects affecting the British Empire and the United States. Since those two articles were published, the course of events in many countries has established their accuracy, and demonstrated the ever-growing strength of the censorship and its influence on the foundation of public opinion—here and in America—with consequent effect on political parties and policies. Some events, showing the methods of application of the power of censorship, are worth mentioning at this time.
      The attack of the Nazis on many Jews, in the campaign against Communism and financial corruption, was used to such effect in the Press of most countries that a wave of indignation swept over the civilised world, and the solidarity and power of Jewry have been made evident to great numbers of people previously ignorant of the existence of any “Jewish question.” The publicity resulting has led to an uprising of the spirit of anti-Semitism in many lands, where it has always been latent, if not open, and although not entertained among English-speaking people. These outbreaks of anti-Semitism, with the large-scale antagonism created by German actions, have led to a drawing together of the individuals and organisations of dispersed Jewry, always fearing racial attacks when any publicity is given to their united action. That fear has led to attempts being made in several countries to get the law of libel and defamation extended to cover attacks on the race as well as on individuals: it being argued that they are provocative of disturbance of the peace, and therefore should be made criminal. Even in Britain the claim for this protection has been put forward, and against some anti-Semitic French-Canadian papers Government action {207} has been urged. In January last an action was begun in Cairo, which is described as follows, in Die Zeit, a Yiddish daily paper published in London:—

A trial of great international Jewish interest commenced at Cairo. Mr. Jabès, an Italian Jew, sued the President of the German Club for libel contained in a pamphlet published by the above-mentioned institution. Last summer, when the Jews started to boycott Germany, the German Club issued a pamphlet under the name “The Expansion of Jewry in Germany,” in which the actions of the Nazis against the Jews were justified, indicating the “immense” power of the Jews in professional life and the “deleterious” influence they exert on the German nation.
      Mr. Jabès, backed by important Jewish circles, sued the President of the Club who is responsible for this publication asserting that the Jews are libelled by the following statements: (1) That they are a parasitical growth; (2) That they exert a destroying influence; (3) They are inclined to race-degeneracy; (4) And that as merchants they make use of criminal methods. On the ground that he, as a Jew, is directly affected by these libels, he claims £101 damages. M. Kestro, counsel for the plaintiff, cited a decision from an English court under King George II, when a Portuguese Jew, Mr. Fazakerly, applied to the court for aid against a, then, widespread libel that the Jews burn their illegal children that are born from Christian women, and the Court decided that every Jew was affected by this libel. “This claim is undoubtedly part of an international Jewish action against the Nazis,” is the opinion of the Times correspondent who sent the telegram, “and should it be granted by the Court, then every Jew in Egypt will be entitled to the same claim for damages as Mr. Jabès.

      Mr. Jabès lost his case, and had to pay costs of £101, the same sum as he claimed for damages.
      In America, as here, newspapers and publishers cannot disregard the Jewish censorship, which is able to prevent by boycott any wide circulation of the works of certain writers, even if they find a publisher daring enough to disregard prohibitions. We give on the next page a photographic reproduction of a circular letter to publishers received from an American friend of THE PATRIOT. It illustrates one of the methods of discouraging revolt. There are other and more direct methods. It will be remembered that Mr. Ford, in 1920-1922, published four books on various aspects of world-Jewry, and in 1927 he suppressed them and recanted their contents. Also Monsieur Coty, with his two great Paris papers—Figaro and L'ami ‘du Peuple—took up the Jewish question for a year or two, but has now stopped the treatment of that subject.
      The irresistible power behind the censorship is a complex one. There is much Jewish money in the ownership of the general Press, and absolute ownership of some papers. There is much Jewish ability among the influential journalists; the news agencies—including (see The
Jew ADL book censorship 1933
130 N. WELLS ST..” SUITE 1419
December 13, 1933


Scribner & Sons have just published a book by Madison Grant entitled “Tho Conquest of a Continent.” It is extremely antagonistic to Jewish interests. Emphasized throughout is the “Nordic superiority” theory, and the utter negation of any “melting pot” philosophy with regard to America.

Scribners, in a sales circular concerning the book, points to Herr Hitler as tho man who has demonstrated the value of “racial purity” in Germany. The author insists that American development depends upon the elimination of unassimilable alien masses in our midst. This, book is considered by some as even more destructive than Hitler’s “Mein Kampf.” Mr. Grant also avers that “national problems are in the end racial problems.”

We are interested in stifling the sale of this book. We believe that this can be best accomplished by refusing to be stampeded into giving it publicity. Every review or public criticism of a book of this character brings it to the attention of many who would otherwise know nothing of it. This results in added sales. The less discussion there is concerning it, the more sales resistance will be created.

We therefore appeal to you to refrain from comment on this book, which will undoubtedly be brought to your attention sooner or later. It is our conviction that a general compliance with this request will sound the warning to other publishing houses against engaging in this type of venture.

      Sincerely yours,
      Richard E. Gutstadt,

{209} Patriot, 29 June, 1933) the special “Jewish Telegraph Agency"—are amenable to pressure; there is influence, almost leadership, in all three of our political parties. But, as a method of enforcing the judgment of the censorship, there is the dominating power of the bestowal of advertisements, which decide the question of life or death for the individual newspaper.

Top of page ]
      In the Preface at p. ix I have stated that Marx “in the interests of the Hohenzollerns” hatched out plots against us, the French, and the Russians. Below is reprinted a very important article published in THE PATRIOT of 12th July, 1934. The quotations in it throw further light on the villainous methods of the Hohenzollerns who, since the days of Voltaire, have been constantly employing men of letters for the purpose of stimulating revolutionary movements in countries marked down by them for conquest:—
      “In her ‘Secret Societies and Subversive Movements’ (Boswell) Mrs. Webster, with a wealth of authentic evidence, has proved that since Frederick ‘the Great’ was initiated (1738) into Freemasonry the Hohenzollerns have utilised Grand Orient Freemasonry for the furtherance of their projects. This all-important fact has, of course, been concealed as much as possible, but the disgruntled Bismarck, in the ‘Reflections and Reminiscences’ which after his fall he composed with the assistance of Marx’s friend, Lothar Bucher, let the tiger out of the cage in the following passage:—
      Usedom was appointed [Prussian representative] to [the Diet at] Frankfurt. His subsequent conduct in Turin and Florence [as Prussian Minister to the Kingdoms of Sardinia and Italy] showed that I had done him no injustice in my [Bismarck’s very unfavourable] judgment. ... He had dealings with Garibaldi and Mazzini. ... He was absent from his post for weeks and months, and left signed blanks upon which the secretaries of the Legation wrote reports. ... But he was a high Freemason. In February, 1869, when I demanded the recall of such a useless and irresolute employé, the King [afterwards the German Emperor, Wilhelm I], who fulfilled his duties towards the [Masonic] brethren with an almost religious fidelity, offered a resistance which was not to be overcome. (“Bismarck ... Being the Reflections and Reminiscences of Otto Prince von Bismarck,” translated under the supervision of A. J. Butler, Vol. I, pp. 222-3; our italics.)
      “Whether Bismarck was telling the whole truth may be doubted. Count Usedom’s ‘dealings with Garibaldi and Mazzini’ were, is is highly probable, ordered by Bismarck himself. A fortnight or so after the Battle of Sedan Mr. (later Sir Edward) Malet, our representative in Paris, wrote to Lord Lyons, the British Ambassador in France, {211} then at Tours, a letter reporting two interviews he had had with Bismarck on 15 September, 1870. Here is an extract from the letter:—
      Count Bismarck spoke of Italy and appeared to think that it was in immediate danger of Republican Revolution. He said, “If,as appeared likely at the beginning, “Italy had sided with France, such a movement would have broken out at once; we had everything prepared, and could have forced on a revolution within three days after a declaration of war. (“Lord Lyons,” by Lord Newton, Vol. I, p. 321; our italics.)
      “The leaders in such an Italian Revolution would naturally have been Garibaldi and Mazzini! Intoxicated by the German victories of Wöaut;rth, Spicheren, Gravelotte, and Sedan, the ‘Man of Blood and Iron’ had incautiously revealed that the Hohenzollerns were employing the foulest means for achieving their ends. [Footnote: In his “Reflections and Reminiscences” Bismarck wrote, “Just as in 1866 ... I had not shrunk from the idea of assistance by a Hungarian insurrection, so I should also have considered [in 1870] that of the Italian Republicans as acceptable, if it had been a question of averting defeat.” (II, p. 113; cf. also his statements on pp. 6, 37-8, 63-4 in the same volume.)]
      “The above passage from Malet’s letter incidentally throws a flood of light on the mysterious activities of the Prussians, Engels and Marx. If Prussia had made preparations for a revolution in Italy, she is certain to have made preparations for one in France. From September, 1864, onwards to the Commune of 1871, the First International, dominated by Engels and Marx, unquestionably stimulated the revolutionary movement, which so effectively prevented the French Governments from preparing for, and engaging successfully in, war with Prussia and her allies.
      “In our own times Lenin, Trotsky, Bolo, Trebich Lincoln, and many of our ‘Labour’ leaders have been agents of the Hohenzollerns. Is there, then, the least improbability in supposing that the Prussian soldier, Engels, and the Prussian Jew, Marx, who was brother-in-law of Ferdinand von Westphalen, the reactionary Prussian Minister of the Interior (1851-8), were, as was asserted by their contemporaries, ‘Prussian agents’?”
      Though there is just a possibility that Engels, who died worth over £25,000, was a fanatical megalomaniac, genuinely believing in Communism, the odds are enormously in favour of the view that both he and the indigent journalist Marx—the personal property of Marx, according to the records at Somerset House, was valued after his death at only £300!—were agents of the Hohenzollerns.

Top of page ]
By Captain W. Stanley Shaw, of the London Police Court Mission.
      Extract from the “Daily Mail,” 16 April, 1928.
      The master-crooks in this country are mostly Aliens; so are master-crooks in the United States. The British and Irish races are on the whole naturally honest. With thousands of the Aliens who settled in Great Britain and the United States during the past 35 years the reverse is the case. They are naturally dishonest. When not actually trying to break the law they are trying to dodge the law. Their instincts are predatory.
      When I founded the British Brothers’ League and organised the Alien Agitation in East London in 1901, which led to the appointment of the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration in 1902, destitute Aliens were pouring into this country at the rate of over a hundred thousand a year. Many were undesirable and unclean in their manners and habits, many were diseased, many were criminal. Their fire-starting propensities were such that fire insurance companies operating in East London refused to insure them.
      In some trades—the fur trade in particular—their fire-starting and their fake bankruptcies were a constant source of amusement to those who did not suffer by those sinister operations. I remember telling a leading man in the fur trade nearly twenty years ago of a certain Alien who, after two fires and three bankruptcies, had retired to the Continent to live as a country gentleman.
      “Oh,” he said, “you mean So-and-So,” mentioning the actual man’s name, and I found that this practitioner’s exploits were quite well known.
      The International White Slave traffic also is entirely in the hands of Aliens. They work from country to country. When one quarter becomes unhealthy they move to another. Many of them would sell their own daughters, wives, or sisters into shame. The natures of some I have known were so diabolical that they smacked more of fiction than of real life. To get money they would sacrifice decency, honour—they did not possess—kindred, anything.

* * * * *

One of the first moves of the Aliens that flocked to these too-hospitable shores in those days was to change their names—usually for Scotch names. Izzy Dizzy Imoffsky would quickly become Duncan Campbell MacGregor, or something of the kind, and all the little MacGregors (late Imoffskys) that were born in this country were returned in our census as British.
      I drew the attention of the Statistical Society to that iniquity. A census which returns the children of Aliens as British is misleading even if the children were born here. They should be returned under a special heading. Name-changing ought to be more strictly regulated. A good many of the Stewarts, Sinclairs, Gordons, and so forth in London originally came from {213} Poland or Rumania, or their fathers did. When I meet in the street a man who has changed his name from Schwabacher to Shaw I feel like calling the police.
      The intention of name-changing is very often to deceive. In such cases it is essentially dishonest.

* * * * *

I mentioned in a previous article that real crooks are usually too cunning to find their way into our police courts. They know something better.
      I remember an Alien firm that opened operations in Mincing Lane eight or nine years ago. At first they paid for goods; then they bought on a much larger scale, shipped the goods to Amsterdam, or New York, or Lisbon, and shut down their London office. In New York, or Lisbon, or Rotterdam they follow the same procedure, always shipping away the big lots and then closing down.
      Alien immigration has been a curse to this country, and has injured our national life beyond repair. It was the root of the housing problem of the working-classes 30 years ago. There was practically no housing problem in Stepney until Stepney became flooded with Aliens. Even the United States, with their vast territory, had to introduce the quota, and, even then, found themselves getting too many of the wrong sort. There are immigrants and immigrants.
      Race is race, and blood is blood. You may change the name of Imoffsky to MacGregor, but you still have the same old Imoffsky to deal with. Otherwise, blood means nothing at all. As with dogs and horses so with men, it is breed that tells. That is what our politicians, who allowed us to be swamped with the scum of Eastern Europe, forgot. They allowed the national body to become diseased. To speak of “new blood” is futile. We want no blood of that sort.
      I repeat that most of the serious crime in this country is committed by Aliens, instigated by Aliens, or controlled by Aliens. The homebred crook amounts to very little. He seldom has the necessary brains to devise big operations. The Aliens have the brains and ability, but it is ability divorced from integrity.
      That type is dangerous to any country.

Top of page ]

      Sir Ernest Wild, speaking in the House of Commons on April 15th, 1919, stated (Hansard, April 15th, 1919, page 2778):—
      “You cannot be in the Criminal Courts without realising what an enormous amount of the work of our Courts is caused by the Aliens and their crimes. . . . Vice! why they are at the bottom of one-half, at least, of the vice of the Metropolis and of this country. The White Slave Traffic, unnatural vice, the exploitation of English girls whom they marry, and then live upon the proceeds of their prostitution; the brothel-keepers, who are too clever to be caught because they keep in the background; the people with Gambling Hells, who lead young men to destruction, and who bring in such horrible practices as Doping and Unnatural Offences —that is the sort of atmosphere that has been introduced into this country by these people.”
      This pronouncement by Sir Ernest Wild, who is now Recorder of London, is an important one, coming as it does from one whose experience in law and the criminal courts—the Old Bailey, etc.—is so extensive. His statement and those which I have made in the foregoing pages receive abundant and continuous corroboration, as the cases reproduced below from the columns of the national Press show. Every week similar cases are reported in the newspapers. The author has hundreds of these cases filed, but owing to lack of space a few cases in each can be given. {215}

“He has been expelled from this country 14 times,” said Detective McCarthy, when Jose Jimenez, aged 42, a Spaniard, was charged before Mr. J. B. Sandbach, K.C., at Lambeth on Saturday with being in the United Kingdom while an order for deportation was in force against him.
      It was stated that he had been charged many times. Last April he was sent to Spain, but he returned in August.
      Mr. Sandbach passed sentence of one day’s imprisonment and recommended Jimenez for deportation.
      Detective McCarthy: He will come back by the next boat, I expect. (Laughter.)
      (Daily Mail, 4 November, 1929.)

      Mr. Dummett, the Marlborough Street magistrate, yesterday congratulated three Flying Squad officers on “arresting and breaking up a gang of international crooks.”
      It was a case in which three men, wearing evening dress under overcoats, were watched as they moved suspiciously among the crowd and on omnibus steps in Haymarket and Charles Street, and were arrested later, in the stalls of His Majesty’s Theatre, when the orchestra was playing the National Anthem after a performance of “Bitter Sweet.”
      The prisoners were:—Franz Oberman (51), commercial traveller, a Uruguayan subject, of Torrington Square;— – –(36), dealer; and Lipman Pomozny (31), a Russian subject, traveller, of no fixed abode.
      It was stated that Oberman ascended bus stairs while the others hustled passengers at the bottom, and, turning, descended as passengers were going up, and attempted to pick pockets. After three attempts they went into the theatre just as the performance was ending, got into the stalls, and, as the audience began to leave, Oberman attempted to pick a man’s breast pocket. Pomozny tried to pick another man’s pocket, but at that moment was arrested.
      Det.-Sergt. Ferrier, who arrested – and Pomozny, said that as Oberman was being put into a car he saw him pass a wallet to Pomozny, who looked at it and dropped it.
      All three denied the charges. Oberman declared that he did not know the other prisoners.
      Previous convictions were put in against Oberman and Pomozny, including several on the Continent.
      Mr. Dummett said the case showed an audacious attempt to rob the public, and it would be the gravest possible dereliction of duty if he, as guardian of the public, did not send these “crooks,” who preyed on the public, to prison. He sentenced each to three months’ hard labour, and recommended Oberman and Pomozny for deportation.
      For being an Alien, found in the United Kingdom after a deportation order had been in force against him, Pomozny was sentenced to an additional six months.
      (Sunday Times, 12 January, 1930.)

      Soren M. Lonneth, a Dane, appeared on remand at Burton Police Court on Friday, charged with being an Alien failing to furnish the registration officer of the district with particulars required by the Registration Order. Superintendent Arnold said he gathered from his interpreter that he was a private teacher of languages, was a well-educated man and received payments from the Danish education authorities. He had been viewing England at somebody else’s expense.
      After a lengthy hearing in which Lonneth, who at times had difficulty in explaining his views in English, but was assisted by two Danish students who had met him at Nottingham {216} University, the magistrates found him guilty, and sentenced him to one month’s imprisonment without hard labour, and ordered him afterwards to be deported.
      Superintendent Arnold stated that the police had been to a lot of trouble in the case. The Aliens’ Department at the Home Office reported that Lonneth landed at Harwich on 7 September, last year, and was allowed to land without conditions because he told them he was a schoolmaster visiting England for a three weeks’ tour. They had discovered that from 8 to 15 September prisoner lived in Station Road, Cambridge, and left owing about 2 guineas for board. He hired a bicycle in Cambridge, and went about England with the cycle, visiting places and leaving his bills owing. He came to Burton and had bed and breakfast at the White Hart Hotel, leaving without paying and he also slept at the Midland Hotel, the Queen’s Hotel, and had supper and bed at Tutbury without paying. He had been going to country public houses and staying and going away without paying. The bicycle he had was the one he borrowed from Cambridge, where he proposed to send it back.
      The magistrates found the case proved without retiring. (Burton Chronicle, 1 August, 1929.)
      Sentence of six months’ imprisonment with hard labour was passed by Mr. Wilberforce at Bow Street Police Court on Jack Balener, 36, a Russian toymaker, of Euston Road, for failing to comply with a restriction order made upon him under the Aliens Act. Police-Constable Young said that Balener, against whom there was a number of convictions for fraud, had been recommended for deportation to Poland, but the Polish Government refused to recognise him as one of their citizens.
      (The Times, 8 December, 1925.)
      In passing sentence of 17 months’ hard labour at the Old Bailey on Hyman Marlick Cohen, aged 30, traveller, for theft and fraud, the Recorder remarked: “I shall recommend you for deportation. That will mean three recommendations for deportation have been made against you, but the country still has the benefit of your presence.”
      A police officer said that on a previous occasion Cohen refused to sign Soviet Government papers, and they refused to have him back in Russia.
      The Recorder—These Russians apparently are too wily to sign these papers. They know the difficulties in carrying out the orders for deportation in the case of Russian nationals. It seems to me mere waste of breath to make these recommendations.
      (Morning Post, 13 December, 1926.)
      “The more I hear about the registration of Aliens the less I am impressed. We hear a lot about undesirable Aliens drifting about, and we don't seem to have any control over them.”
      This was the observation of the North London magistrate in dealing with a Russian racing tipster charged with theft. It was stated that he had registered as an Alien five years ago, and though he had been twice convicted since, it was not discovered that he was an Alien who had failed to re-register.
      “They have not got the courage to dump these Aliens on the shore,” added the magistrate, who declined to make a deportation order.
      (Weekly Despatch, 4 July, 1926.)
At the London Sessions, David Backer, 45, described as a photographer’s agent, who had been convicted {217} at the North London Police Court of being an incorrigible rogue and obtaining charitable contributions by fraud, was brought up before Mr. H. W. Wilberforce (Deputy-Chairman) to receive sentence.
      Detective-sergeant Gulliver, of Stoke Newington, stated that Backer was born at Vitebsk, Russia, and came to this country some 26 years ago. After detailing various sentences since 1921, witness said that on five occasions he has been recommended for deportation, but that admission to Russia was not granted to any subject who would not take the oath of allegiance to the Soviet Government. Backer had always refused to take this oath although he had shown considerable interest in the Russian mode of government and had been an active member of the Communist Party since 1923. He had been associated with the Ardwick, Manchester, branch of that party for some time, and after his arrest a quantity of Communist literature was found in his room at Islington. He was a most undesirable person. He had been known to become very violent on arrest.
      Mr. Wilberforce passed sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment with hard labour, and again recommended Backer for deportation.
      (The Times, 23 June, 1926.)

At the Old Bailey — — —, 38, clerk, was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude for bigamously marrying two Frenchwomen. Mr. Travers Humphreys, prosecuting, said that — was married in August, 1916, and the bigamous marriages were contracted within a month of each other last February and March.
      The object was to enable these women to escape being sent back to their own country if convicted, and recommended for deportation.
      Detective-Sergeant Berringer said that with Chief Inspector Savage he had been engaged in examining this conspiracy, which was of an extensive character. — had been previously convicted of embezzlement and of living on the immoral earnings of two women. On the latter occasion the judge said he was sorry —'s physical condition did not permit him to receive corporal punishment. — had obtained flats for other Frenchwomen, and the detective said he was satisfied that he was one of the principal members of the conspiracy.
      Judge Atherley Jones, in passing sentence, said the offence was one that struck at the very roots of our marriage laws. It constituted a grave danger to the public and was a serious offence against the State.
      The master mind is believed to be living in Paris and to have agents in various Continental towns. These agents get into touch with women of undesirable character, and after they have paid to the headquarters sums ranging from £100 to £500, passports are obtained for them. They are then conducted to England and put into touch with a man who will marry them. In this way they become British citizens.
      The marriages are usually very hard to detect. In many cases, where it is urgent that the marriage should take place soon after the woman has landed, false residential qualifications are given to the registrar when the man applies for a licence.
      (Daily Mail, 15 November, 1924.)

Natan Poisner, aged 26, a Russian seaman, was remanded for inquiries at Bow Street on 18 November, 1927, on a charge of having landed in the United Kingdom without permission.
      The Magistrate (Mr. Fry).—How is it that a man who cannot speak a word of English is able to get into this country unobserved?—The detective suggested that the man probably got in as a seaman. {218}
      He cannot be deported to Russia? —No, the Soviet Government will not accept him.
      The Magistrate.—Then he must remain here as a voluntary acquisition. No one else will take him.
      The detective was commended for is alertness. (Morning Post, 19 November, 1927.)
A man with no country named John Athene Mesher, aged 37, was charged at Leeds yesterday with failing, as an Alien, to give notification of his change of address and with being drunk.
      Det.-Sergt. Medley said Mesher stated that he was born in Boston, but the United States would not accept him as an American citizen. In March, 1925, Mesher was refused permission to land in this country, but a year later was found in Sheffield.
      The Stipendiary, Mr. Horace Marshall, said he would make a deportation order, though it was of no use as nobody would have the man.
      Mesher was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment.
      (Daily Mail, 1 January, 1928.)
Before Mr. Boyd, at the Westminster Police Court, yesterday, Zelman Geer, alias Abraham Sclumberg, 34, a Polish subject, was charged, on a warrant, with making a false statement for the purpose of obtaining a passport, and further with having been found in the United Kingdom while a deportation order was in force against him.
      Mr. C. Wallace appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions, and the accused asked to be dealt with by the Magistrate rather than be committed for trial.
      The defendant stated that in 1912 he again came to London, married an Austrian Jewess, and was in business as a provision merchant in Brick Lane, E., and Stratford. In 1919 he met another woman, and she had been the cause of his downfall, as his association with her resulted in a sentence of three months’ imprisonment at Brighton, followed by deportation an an undesirable Alien Last August he met a man in Paris who said he could arrange to get him back to England for £50. He paid £34, and supplied two photographs. He had been to England several times since, and he was arrested as he was on his way to see his four children.
      Mr. Boyd said that the defendant well knew he had not the slightest right to come back to this country. It was clear he was an undesirable Alien, and he would undergo six months’ imprisonment with hard labour.
      (The Times, 7 July, 1928.)
Sentence of seven years’ penal servitude was passed by the Recorder (Sir Ernest Wild, K.C.) at the Central Criminal Court yesterday, on Lucas Panchenko, 56, fitter, a Russian, for burglary at Streatham Hill Post Office.
      Mr. Forster Boulton, prosecuting for the Post Office, said that as Police Constable Attewell was on his beat on the early morning of June 21st he saw three men outside the post office. Becoming suspicious, he went down a passage at the back and surprised the men, who thereupon ran away down a side turning to a waiting motor car, where there were two other men. Four of the men escaped in the car. After a struggle the constable succeeded in capturing Panchenko as he was getting into the car. On him were found some pick-locks, one of which fitted the door of the Post Office and another the safe, which contained a large sum of money and Post Office Stock. {219}
      Detective-Sergeant Bush said that Panchenko was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment at Antwerp for burglary in 1911, and to three years’ penal servitude in this country in 1916 for house-breaking, and to six years’ penal servitude in 1922 also for house-breaking.
      The Recorder, in passing sentence, said the prisoner was undoubtedly the master mind in the attempted robbery. His (the Recorder’s) only surprise was that this country had tolerated him here for so many years. On two occasions he had been recommended for deportation and he would be recommended again in this case. Sir Ernest Wild also complimented Police Constable Attewell on the vigilance and courage he had displayed, and said it was another illustration of what we owed to the police.
      (The Times, 19 July, 1928.)
Some concern is felt in official quarters at the difficulty of deporting Russian undesirables, of whom there are a disquieting number in London alone.
      The subject was brought forward again at Bow Street Police Court last week, when a detective mentioned that a prisoner had already been recommended for deportation, but that “in the present state of diplomatic relations with Russia the order could not be carried out.”
      (Morning Post, 19 November, 1929.)
Detectives from the special branch of Scotland-yard yesterday deported to Germany Gustav Sobottka, a notorious German propagandist.
      Sobottka, who has worked as a miner in Germany, has for some time past been noted in that country for the violence of his views. He obtained permission to enter Great Britain for a short period on personal grounds, and the next that was heard of him was in Cardiff. He addressed a meeting of Welsh miners in German, and his speech was interpreted by a “comrade” who understood the language.
      It is believed that Sobottka urged the Welsh miners to strike, and told them that their German “comrades” intended to take similar action in the immediate future. The matter was reported to the Cardiff police, who decided at once that Cardiff was no place for Sobottka. He was accordingly invited to return to London, and, there being no option, he accepted the invitation.
      Sobottka, on his arrival in London, put up at a leading hotel, where he was visited by two Scotland-yard officers. The outcome of the interview was that Sobottka was invited to take a train for Dover.
      He made the journey yesterday, and was then escorted to the Ostend boat by detectives, who watched the departure of the vessel.
      (Daily Mail, 11 Jan., 1931.)
There was sentenced at Manchester yesterday a Communist, described by the police as “the most dangerous man in England.” This man, Isidore Dreazon, is an important member of the executive committee of the Third Communist International of Moscow.
      He and a number of fellow-Reds, plentifully supplied with money through mysterious channels which the British Secret Service is now investigating, were the agitators and organisers behind several recent industrial disputes, and they are responsible for much of the trouble which caused the present stoppage in the woollen industry. {220}
      He was sentenced to a month’s imprisonment and recommended for deportation on a charge of failing to register as an Alien.
      Daring his amazing career of espionage and agitation while staying for five weeks in Manchester, he is believed to have:—
      Organised, behind the scenes, the recent Salford dock strike;
Been at the back of the wool trade trouble in Bradford and other Yorkshire towns;
Made plans and provided money for a number of other strikes and labour disputes in the north of England, which it is expected will not now materialise;
Provided money for increasing the activities in Manchester and the north of England of Communist agitation among iron workers and the unemployed.
      Dreazon’s passport was last visaed in Berlin, and although he was ostensibly going from Berlin to the Irish Free State he landed at Dover, saying that he wished to stay in England for three weeks on a business tour. As an American subject he was allowed to land on those conditions, but five weeks ago vanished from London and came to the notice of the Manchester police.
      He called meetings of all the prominent Communists in the north of England at the headquarters in Manchester. His private address he kept secret, even from his most intimate colleagues.
      When police officers discovered this secret address at Altrincham and visited it they found that all Dreazon’s papers and other property had been removed.
      It was stated in court, however, that in his possession, when he was found hiding at the Communist premises, was a list of names and addresses of Communists, four of whom were considered to be most dangerous and responsible for a great deal of trouble in this country.
      Dreazon was well supplied with money. When arrested he had £74 in Bank of England notes, including six £10 notes bearing consecutive numbers.
      (Daily Mail, 2 May, 1930.)
      The Special Branch at Scotland Yard were represented at Bow Street Police Court on Saturday when Xaver Franz Kugelmann, 29, a German, of Great Ormond Street, W.C., stated to be a member of the Communist Party, was charged before Sir Chartres Biron with breaches of the Aliens Act. He pleaded “Guilty.”
      Police-constable Young, of the Aliens Department, said that while making inquiries about another Alien that morning he questioned Kugelmann, who gave his name as John Colman, and declared that he was a British born subject. Noticing that he spoke with a foreign accent, the officer made inquiries and found Unit Kugelmann was permitted to land in this country on 3 March, 1929, for a limited period. He was granted three extensions by the Home Office, and was finally required to leave on 3 December, 1929. Later in the day Kugelmann was arrested at his lodgings. A quantity of Communist literature was found in his room, and he admitted that he was a member of the Communist Party.
      Sir Chartres Biron said that whatever Kugelmann’s motives were, he had deliberately violated the law, and he sentenced him to one month’s imprisonment, and recommended him for deportation.
      (The Times, 24 August, 1931.)
Alexander Geddes and William Brain, both of Grasslot, Maryport, Cumberland, and John Rafferty, a clogger, of King Street, Maryport, were each fined £1 at Maryport ffll wilfully obstructing a street by holding a meeting. Brain asked for time {221} to pay the fine. The Chairman said the bench would grant them seven days if they had not the money.
      Brain: The money has to come from Moscow.
      The Chairman: It will be a bit before it gets here.
      Brain: It comes every week.
      (Daily Mail, 20 August, 1927.)

Theodore Ainley or Abramovitch, of Manchester, who has been living at Wigan, described as a paid speaker, was sentenced at Wigan on Tuesday to 28 days’ imprisonment for making a speech likely to cause disaffection among the civilian population. According to the prosecution, while addressing a meeting of miners and their wives the accused appealed to the crowd if they had relatives in the Air Force, Army, or Navy to tell them, if ordered to shoot in any industrial dispute, they must not do so, but must remember they, too, sprang from the working classes. The prosecution described the accused as a Russian or of Russian extraction, but his solicitor said that defendant, who was 22, had changed his name when 18 years old.
      (The Times, 1 October, 1926.)
William Landinsky, 20, a cabinet maker, of Pole Street, Stepney, was charged before Mr. Cairns, at the Thames Police Court, under the Emergency Powers Regulations, with doing an act calculated to cause disaffection among the civilian population in Commercial Road. He was also charged with being in possession of a document of a seditious nature. Evidence was given that the defendant shouted to soldiers guarding a convoy of transport, “Don't shoot the workers!” When arrested he said: “I am only doing my duty as a class-conscious worker.” At the police station a quantity of Communist literature wag found upon him. The defendant was also stated to be an active member of the Communist Party. The Magistrate sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment with hard labour on the first charge.
      (The Times, 13 May, 1926.)

At the Thames Police Court, a young man named Jacob Prooth, of Russian nationality, described as a trade union secretary, living at Beaumont-square, Mile End, again appeared to answer several summonses under the Emergency Regulations and other regulations. The offences charged were doing an act calculated to prevent the proper working of a vehicle; having in his possession certain documents containing statements calculated to cause disaffection among the civilian population; failing to notify, under the Aliens’ Order of 1920, his change of occupation, and, being an Alien, attempting to promote industrial unrest in an industry in which he himself had not been bona fide engaged in the preceding two years.
      The Magistrate (Mr. Snell), alluding to a remark he made at the previous hearing about the documents found in the defendant’s possession, said it was quite clear that they were documents which had been created by a foreign nation for the purpose of that nation’s policy being spread to other countries. The defendant was a Russian, and was formerly a furrier here. Englishmen’s troubles were their own among their own people, and did not require men to come from Russia or other countries and set themselves up, with the aid of the information and brain of those countries, as agents to foment discontent among Englishmen who otherwise would have been working peaceably.
      A police officer proved several previous convictions against the defendant, and said Prooth was regarded by the police as a particularly bad influence in East London. He had {222} been known for the past two years as an active foreign Communist orator.
      The Magistrate sentenced the defendant to five months’ imprisonment with hard labour, and made a recommendation for deportation.
      (The Times, 27 May, 1926.)
      Sir Kingsley Wood asked the Home Secretary “whether he could state the nature of the permit he recently gave to two Russians, Ossifor and Stoutsky, to enter this country; what was its duration; and what information he had in his possession concerning their activities in this country.”
      Before Mr. Clynes had time to reply Mr. Thurtle sprang to his feet, and wanted to know, seeing that no initials or prefix had been attached to the names mentioned, if it was in order for such an unmannerly question to be put.
      “The names in the question are not correctly spelt,” quietly commented Mr. Clynes, who went on to explain that the two persons were, with his full knowledge, given leave to land on 28 September for seven days, which period was subsequently extended to two weeks.
      It would be quite contrary to the established practice to state what information he had in his possession concerning their activities in this country.
      Sir Kingsley Wood asked whether Mr. Clynes was aware that a strong complaint was made by the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain again at the activities of these men in this country.
      Mr. Clynes replied that the representatives of the Scottish miners raised no objection to the incoming of the two gentlemen referred to, though he believed some complaint was afterwards made in respect to their activities.
      [Mr. Ossipoff, of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the Miners’ Union of the U.S.S.R., and Mr. Stoutsky, a member of the same Central Committee, visited the Tilmanstone Colliery in Kent. The report on their visit was issued to the Press.]
      (Daily Herald, 22 November, 1929.)
At the Thames Police Court, before Mr. Disney, Ernest Martens, master of the German steamship Barbara, was charged with aiding and abetting two Aliens, Fritz Pincener and Albert Faber, to land in this country without the permission of the Immigration Officer.
      Mr. Saunders, prosecuting, said that the two Aliens landed without passports and without leave. They were clerks, and being unable to get employment gave themselves up to the police on 22 October. By this time the ship had left.
      The chief officer in the ship said another stowaway in the ship was taken back to Germany.
      The Magistrate said he had come to the conclusion that the defendant knew that, at any rate, Pincener was in the ship. It was a serious matter for a captain to countenance in any way the landing of Aliens contrary to the law, and he should impose a fine of £50. It was stated that unless the fine was paid by Friday the vessel would be distrained on.
      (The Times, 8 November, 1923.)
      At Tower Bridge Police Court, Joseph Jacquens or Szanto (40) and Ladislas Sos (33) described as commercial travellers, were charged with three offences under the Aliens’ Restriction Order. They pleaded “Guilty” to landing in this country without a permit. The solicitor who defended them said that the men were Hungarian barristers and it {223} meant death to them if they were sent home. Mr. Muskett, for the Home Office, said that the men were not quite the innocent people that had been suggested, but were Socialists of an undesirable type.
      They were sentenced to two months’ imprisonment each, and were recommended for deportation.
      (The Times, 3 November, 1923.)
Ivan Sesin, 40, a Russian tailor, described by the police as a dangerous member of a revolutionary organisation, was sentenced to two months’ hard labour at Hull for absconding to Russia and leaving his wife and seven children chargeable to the Hull Guardians and landing again in England without permission.
      Sesin said he went to Russia 15 months ago intending to send for his wife and family, but found it impossible to maintain them on the wages he received and came back as a stowaway in a German ship.
      The magistrates made an order recommending him for deportation.
      (Daily Mail, 12 November, 1926.)
Described as a German Jew from the Ruhr, Fritz Berger, 21, was charged at Boston (Lines) with being an Alien and landing at the port without leave of the Immigration Officer.
      It was stated that Berger arrived in a steamer from Finland. Some days later he was found to be employed by a firm in Boston. Chief Constable Johnson said that certain things had come to his knowledge as to why Berger left the Ruhr, and the Home Office was being communicated with.
      The Court sentenced Berger to a month’s imprisonment with hard labour, and recommended him for deportation.
      (The Times, 29 August, 1923.)
      At the Marylebone Police Court, Victor Louis Vacher, 53, described as a clerk, of Fitzroy Street, St. Pancras, pleaded “Guilty” to five charges of stealing and receiving goods from unattended motor-cars. He was also charged with failing to register himself as an Alien.
      Detective Jenkins stated that for the past 12 months extensive thefts had been taking place from motorcars left unattended.
      From France he had slipped into England at Southend in a fishing boat at the beginning of 1920. For four years he had worked in various restaurants in London.
      Mr. Ivan Snell passed sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment with hard Labour, and recommended Vacher for deportation.
      (The Times, 1 January, 1926.)
      At the Tower Bridge Police Court yesterday, before Mr. Gattie, Max Halff, 19, alias Jack Cooper, of Mildenhall Road, Clapton, was charged on remand, under the Aliens Act, with failing to supply certain particulars to the Registration Officer of his district. He was now further charged with landing in this country without a permit and with giving false particulars to the police.
      Mr. Barker prosecuted and Mr. Thompson, solicitor, defended and said the defendant would plead “Guilty” to the first charge.
      Mr. Barker said that would satisfy the authorities. The defendant was a young man and a very dangerous young Communist. He was part editor of the Young Worker, a Communist paper, and a lot of Communistic trash, including communications from the Soviet leaders, was found on him when he was arrested. He came to this country in 1913, and started Communist propaganda {224} early in life, going to Salford in 1924 and back to Manchester in 1925, when he was fined 20s. for holding a Communist meeting without a permit. In September, 1925, he left for Leningrad, and owing to information received by the Home Secretary an order was issued that he was not to be allowed to land.
      Mr. Gattie sent the defendant to prison for 21 days and recommended him for deportation.
      (The Times, 21 March, 1928.)

An Alien, Mark Klingoffer, of East Street, Walworth, fined £2 and £2 2s. costs and ordered to pay a cabman £2 4s. at Thames Police Court on a bilking charge, pleaded “a kink” due to mental trouble.
      Magistrate (Mr. J. A. E. Cairns): “I have been impressed by the number of Aliens who develop insanity. It is not a matter that concerns a Metropolitan magistrate, but one of State policy, when there is such an increase of insane persons. We seem to have no machinery for dealing with the influx of Aliens with this tendency. We are intensifying a very grave social problem.” (Weekly Despatch, 2 November, 1924.)
The easy entry into this country of foreign criminals and sweated workers has become a scandal.
      Officers of the Criminal Investigation Department stationed at the principal ports are supposed to keep a watchful eye on persons who are not welcome to this country. They do their best, but they cannot close the wide mesh that lets in undesirable big fish and small fry.
      An Alien visits Somerset House with an English, Irish, or Scottish surname on a search form and places a query mark in the column for the Christian name and date of birth.
      He selects a period of five years for the search, paying a fee of 1s., and when he finds the surname he has chosen with a suitable birth date he enters the particulars on his form. A certificate is then prepared at Somerset House for a fee of 2s. 7d.
      There is a steady traffic in fake birth certificates and the law is powerless.
      Foreign girls who compete with British domestic servants are supposed, under the immigration laws, to return to their own countries after a residence in this country of six or twelve months. Many, however, elude the regulations by becoming British subjects by marriage, leaving their subsidised husbands at the door of the register office.
      (Daily Mail, 4 July, 1931.)
The Aliens Return issued by the Home Office yesterday shows that during the last nine months 5,215 Russians were allowed to land in this country, while 30 were refused admission to these shores.
      Americans again head the list of admittances with 70,769, which includes all American holiday-makers and business visitors. The totals of all nationalities for the past nine months are 364,775 admitted and and 1,534 refused.
      (Morning Post, 19 November, 1929.)
      Interesting details regarding Sheffield’s population from abroad were given to a “Sheffield Telegraph” reporter by Superintendent Naylor, head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Sheffield City Police, who is responsible for the supervision of Aliens in the city.
      Of the foreign population in Sheffield, Russia is most represented, the number of Russians resident in the city, according to the latest statistics, being 403. The approximate number of Americans is 97, Austrians {225} 19, Belgians 41, Chinese 27, Dutch 27, Egyptians 19, French 46, Germans 125, and Italians 141.
      Other countries represented are Algeria, Denmark, Hungary, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Persia, Poland, Portugal, Rumania, and Spain.
      Mr. Naylor said that very serious inquiry must be made when an Alien desired to become a naturalised British citizen. Ordinarily, the matter is taken up by a solicitor, and is eventually brought to a conclusion at the Home Office.
      (Sheffield Daily Telegraph, 14 July, 1930.) ]

Described by the prosecution as a runner or messenger for the Communist Party both in England and abroad, Nathan Dean, 32, an electrical engineer, of no fixed address, was sentenced at Bow Street to six months’ imprisonment for entering the country with an irregular passport and stealing a passport. He was recommended for deportation.
      Mr. Melville, for the police, said that Dean registered in England as a Russian in the name of Neumann in 1916. Neumann was believed to be his correct name. In 1918 he appeared to have gone to America, and in 1924 returned to London, living in the East End. During the general strike last May he was very active. When that was over he left the East End and went to live with a friend named Prowse at Tottenham, N. Last June he stole Mr. Prowse’s passport, and travelled on the Continent with it. Last year he bought a passport for 500 francs from a Frenchman, and went with it to Germany and Holland, and last Friday arrived at Harwich.
      Detective-Sergeant Foster, of Scotland Yard, said that Dean had used the names of Gurowitz, Neumann, Newman, Caquin, and Prowse. He had tried to become naturalised in America.
      (Daily Mail, 1 January, 1927.)
Sentence of four months’ imprisonment in the second division was passed by Mr. Graham Campbell at Bow Street Police Court on Gershon Schatz, 20, British subject, an accountant, of Collingwood Street, Bethnal Green, for being in unauthorised possession of one used and six unused identity books as issued to Aliens resident in this country. He pleaded “ “Guilty.”
      Mr. Eustace Fulton, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that Schatz recently gave an order to a firm of printers to print him 100 identity books. The book which he handed to them as a specimen had been stolen from an Alien some time ago. He said that he had obtained the necessary permission from the Home Office, but the printers communicated with the police and Schatz was arrested when he called to collect the books.
      Foreigners were allowed to visit this country for a day without passports, and if they could be furnished with these identity books it would facilitate their chances of being able to remain here without detection by the police.
      (The Times, 12 July, 1927.)

      Alexander Fischer, 20, appeared before the Leeds Stipendiary on 22 November, 1927, having previously pleaded “Guilty” to stealing a purse. He again pleaded “Guilty” to unlawfully entering Great Britain after having been refused admission by the immigration officer at Swansea, and to having later obtained a British Empire passport by falsely representing himself to be Simon Zaidman, a British subject {226} born in London. It was stated that Fischer was a Pole born in Warsaw, and a deserter from the Polish Army. He was convicted for larceny in Belgium and expelled. He escaped from a ship at Swansea, and eventually went to Leeds. In April this year the prisoner, in the name of Simon Zaidman, applied for and obtained a British passport. The application was supported by one Philip Kaski, who described himself as a Jewish rabbi. Inquiry revealed that Zaidman was not the prisoner and the rabbi could not be traced. The prisoner was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labour for larceny, and one month’s imprisonment on each of the other two charges, and recommended to the Home Office for deportation to Poland.
      (The Times, 23 November, 1927.)
Remarkable disclosures concerning a Frenchwoman’s two marriages were made at Marlborough-street Police Court on Saturday when – – — , aged twenty-seven, a French citizen, of Stafford-street, W.l, was accused of failing to furnish, as an Alien, particulars to the Registration Officer.
      Mr. Vernon Gattie, who prosecuted, stated that in July, 1929, a “marriage”was gone through in Brussels between — and a Mr. – — –, a British subject. It turned out that Mr. – was married.
      “That,” said Mr. Gattie, “was purely a marriage of convenience. – , who did not see the woman after the ceremony, was paid £20 for his services. The marriage was to enable this woman to come to this country to carry on a certain mode of life.
      “When it was known that the marriage was invalid and that she was in danger of being expelled from this country, another marriage of convenience took place. While she was on remand, — married Mr. – — , at Weston-super-Mare.”
      Mr. Marston Garsia, defending, pointed out that — was now a British subject by marriage.
      “She did not know that she had contracted a bigamous marriage,” he added, “and I ask you to deal with her on the charge of failing to register.”
      The magistrate, Mr. Mead, fined — £6.
      (Daily Express, 14 September, 1931.)
At the Central Criminal Court yesterday, before the Recorder (Sir Ernest Wild, K.C.), Ernest Jacob Crane, 31, merchant, and William Braithwaite, 60, merchant, pleaded “Guilty” to conspiring to attempt to obtain £11,000 by false pretences from Mr. Lawrence Carr, of Bournemouth.
      Crane also pleaded “Guilty”to obtaining £1,250 by false pretences from Mr. Clinton Gray Fisk, a music critic, of American birth, who had lived in this country for many years.
      Evidence by the police showed that Crane told Mr. Carr that he had shares in the Kirby Gold Mines for sale and, under police instructions, Carr handed over his cheque for £11,000. Detectives followed Braithwaite as he went out with the cheque, and arrested him.
      It could not be discovered, added Mr. Hutchinson, that anything like the Kirby Gold Mines ever existed. {227}
      Mr. John Maude, prosecuting in the second case, said that Crane, calling himself Kershaw, discovered that Mr. Fisk had some shares in the Singer Company of America on which he had not paid income-tax or been asked to pay it. Soon afterwards a man, calling himself Mr. Whitlaw, inspector of taxes, called on Mr. Fisk and told him he was likely to be prosecuted for non-payment of tax. He was eventually told that arrangements could be made to stop any prosecution by payment of £1,250, and he actually paid this money over to Crane. Crane was arrested and charged in the name of Kershaw, but he “jumped” his bail and subsequently engaged with Braithwaite in the attempted fraud on Mr. Carr.
      The Commissioners of Inland Revenue were aware that people were pretending to taxpayers that they could obtain some remission from the department at Somerset House, and the Commissioners were determined that such people should be brought before the Court in every instance.
      Detective-sergeant Hudson, of Scotland Yard, said that Crane had declined to give any account of himself. He was believed to be an American named Calvin, who had been convicted in America. He arrived in this country in 1928 and produced a Canadian passport, giving his name as Noah Catlan, born in Montreal. Braithwaite’s real name was Edmond Aaron Louis. He was born in Glasgow. In 1923 he was sentenced in Paris in his absence to five years’ imprisonment for being concerned in obtaining £23,000 from Sir Walter Cockerline, the Hull shipowner, by means of a confidence trick in the South of France. Extradition proceedings, the witness stated, were still pending in regard to this matter.
      The Recorder sentenced Crane to three years’ penal servitude for the fraud on Mr. Fisk, and 18 months’ imprisonment, with hard labour, for the fraud on Mr. Carr, the sentences to be concurrent. Braithwaite was sentenced to 18 months ‘imprisonment, with hard labour.
      The Recorder commented on the vigilance of the police in the case, and said that the conduct of Detective-sergeant Hudson and his colleagues in the one case, and that of Detective-sergeant Burt and his colleagues in the other, should be brought to the knowledge of the Commissioner of Police.
      (The Times, 21 January, 1932.)
 '     — — , 31, parlourmaid, in service at Sheffield Terrace, Kensington, pleaded guilty to stealing two pairs of shoes and two hats belonging to John Barker & Co., High Street, Kensington. Mr. Pierron, who prosecuted, said that when the police, after the woman’s arrest, searched her room they found a number of other articles which, it was believed, had also been stolen. Accused was a Norwegian subject and for the past two years had been living in this country with occasional trips to Norway. The magistrate remanded her in custody for a week. (Kensington News, 3 February, 1928.)
Mario de Santio, 42, Umberto Shinelli, 32, and Battista Giovanni Bussone, 33, Italian subjects, were charged at Bow Street Police Court on Thursday, before Mr. Fry, with attempting to steal from persons boarding omnibuses in Whitehall and the Strand. It was alleged that the men were caught trying to pick pockets under cover of a newspaper, which one of them held just under the chins of intended victims. Detective-Inspector Ockey, of Scotland Yard, said the men were believed to be members of a gang of 11 Continental thieves who came to this country last month. Eight of the gang had now been arrested on similar charges. The Magistrate sentenced {228} the men each to one month’s imprisonment, and recommended them for deportation. He commended Inspector Ockey and Detective-Sergeant McPherson for their very clever captures, and directed his remarks to be conveyed to the proper quarters. (The Times, 23 June, 1928.)
      Five suspects of various nationalities—three men and two women—were arrested by Scotland Yard officers on Saturday as the result of an eight-hours’ watch at Victoria Station and the Zoological Gardens, N.W.  Passports and considerable sums of foreign and English money were found upon them.
      When they appeared before Mr. Hay Halkett at Marylebone Police Court on a charge of loitering with intent to commit a felony they described themselves as Metel Ber, 63, commercial traveller, Polish nationality, of Testerton-street, North Kensington; Jacob Bercovitch, 57, storekeeper, of Torrington-square, W.C.; Ernst Veeser, 29, commercial traveller, a Swiss, of Torrington-square; — — , 47, and — — , 29, both Rumanians.
      Detective Salisbury, of the Flying Squad, said that shortly after noon he saw the three men at Euston-square (Underground) Station hustling passengers. Afterwards they went to Westbourne Park Station, where Bercovitch hesitated on the steps of a train, preventing others from alighting. Ber and Veeser were behind.
      Subsequently at Torrington-square the men were joined by the two women, and all went by omnibus to the Zoo. There, said the officer, Veeser, under cover of a newspaper, put his hand on the hip pocket of a man watching parrots. Later all five pushed into a crowd watching giraffes and Veeser put his hand on the pocket of another man, while the other four covered his movements.
      The officer explained that the gang were suspected of being international thieves. They had come to this country by tourist ticket from Ostend about a fortnight ago.
      A remand was ordered. (Daily Mail, 11 September, 1928.)
      Mr. Levy prosecuted for the Commissioner of Police, and Mr. Garsia defended Bercovitch and Veeser.
      Ber and Bercovitch denied on oath that they had any intention to pick pockets.
      Cross-examined by Mr. Levy, Ber denied that he travelled about the Continent picking pockets. He could not recollect being sentenced to two months and fined 150f . at Brussels for picking pockets in 1923. He was expelled from Prussia the year before for crime and he was arrested in Amsterdam on suspicion of picking pockets, but it was only suspicion and he was released.
      Bercovitch admitted that he had been sentenced to six months’ imprisonment about four years ago for an alleged theft in Germany. He was deported from Brussels in 1925, and subsequently received ten days’ imprisonment for returning there. Cross-examined, he denied that he had been expelled from most Continental countries. It was true that he was expelled from Venice in 1925 on suspicion of picking pockets and was arrested when he returned there.
      Detective-sergeant Sharp said the police had been unable to obtain any information about the two Rumanian women. — had been in this country before, and she and — — came here in the same boat and on the same day as the three men. Veeser’s correct name was Benjamin Lowerkraut. He was sentenced in May, 1924, to 12 months’ and six months’ imprisonment for “repeated and aggravated larceny,” and was expelled for ever from Zurich. Before the arrest of the prisoners serious larcenies were taking place at the Zoo. Mr. Hay Halkett sentenced the two women to seven days’ imprisonment without hard labour; Ber and Veeser to 28 days’ imprisonment with hard labour; and Bercovitch to nine weeks' {227} imprisonment with hard labour. He also recommended the whole of them, except Bercovitch, for deportation, and marked the charge sheet that the Flying Squad officers had shown great keenness and capacity in bringing the accused to justice.
      (The Times, 5 November, 1928.)

      Melbourne, Australia, Sunday.
      The police to-day raided a house in the scrub at Ocean Grove, near Geelong, and seized 10,000 forged £5 notes almost ready for circulation. A printing press and a quantity of tools were also discovered.
      Two Russians—a man and a woman —have been arrested.
      The forgeries were so good that detectives were unable to distinguish between real notes and the imitation.
      Within the past 12 months innumerable attempts by Russians to forge British banknotes have been discovered. In April of last year 40 forgers were arrested in Athens, Greece, and bags containing Egyptian banknotes representing more than £1,000,000 were found. In the same month ten people were arrested by the Italian police at Florence, and notes representing £500,000 were found.
      In the following month forged English bank and Treasury notes Were circulated in Latvia, and in September forged £50 notes were passed in various Scandinavian towns. In every case Russians, Greeks, Armenians, and Italians were arrested.
      There was a sequel in the Courts here to-day to the raid on a house in Ocean Grove, near Geelong, in April last, when the police seized 10,000 forged £5 notes, which were almost ready for circulation, and two Russians, a man and a woman, were arrested.
      The man, whose name is Stefan Karasiewicz, was sentenced to ten years’ hard labour for attempted forgery. The woman was acquitted.
      (Daily Mail, 30 April, 1928.)
JACOB FACTOR’s TRUST FUND (From our own Correspondent)
New York, 10 Sept.
The Rev. Arthur T. Faber and Ada H. Hayhurst, of London, are named as petitioners in a suit to tie up a trust fund of £600,000 which John Factor, the alleged swindler of British investors, has established for his wife and son. 1 October has been fixed for the hearing of the petition to have the fund placed in the hands of a receiver.
      Factor’s counsel denied the petitioners’ assertion that Factor was an American citizen. The records, he said, would show that he was born in England of Polish parents. Judge Wilkerson has announced that he will first decide whether he had jurisdiction to act in the case.
      (Morning Post, 11 September, 1931.)
      It was revealed at Marylebone Police Court yesterday that Scotland Yard has broken up a dangerous gang of international criminals operating in this country, all the 14 members being now in prison.
      The last two, Samuel Singbon, aged 49, a Russian merchant, of Hanway Street, Oxford Street, W, and Isaac Medovnek, aged 30, a Russian tailor, were sentenced by Mr. Hay Halkett, Singbon to six months’ hard labour and Medovnek to four months. Both were recommended for deportation.
      They pleaded guilty to stealing and receiving 100 Havana cigars, valued at £3 10s., from Edwin Drucquer, a tobacconist, of Clifton Road, Maida Vale, W., and Medovnek also pleaded guilty to landing in the United Kingdom without permission.
      Det.-Sergt. Salisbury said that the gang had been followed for a month. Singbon was sentenced to 21 months’ hard labour for larceny and receiving {230} in 1905. In 1916 he was deported to Russia, but “sneaked back,” and in February, 1928, was sentenced to two months’ hard labour and again deported.
      He used one of his many passports to get to Rio de Janeiro, and shortly afterwards slipped back to this country.
      (Daily Mail, 14 January, 1932.)
At Marlborough Street Police Court yesterday Carosi Saturno, 29, of Mornington Crescent, N.W., described as an Italian subject, was charged jointly with Kiba Wollman, 29, of Albert Road, Hampstead, with stealing 1,000 cigarettes, valued at £2 7s. Saturno admitted the theft, and Wollman, through Mr. J. F. Eastwood, pleaded “Guilty” to receiving, a plea which Mr. Vernon Gattie, for the prosecution, accepted.
      Mr. Gattie said that the men went into the shop of Mr. Max Posner, in Tottenham Court Road, and when they came out detectives, who had been watching them, followed them to a quiet side street, where Saturno opened his overcoat and Wollman helped him to strap to his body a parcel. They were stopped as they walked away, and Wollman denied knowing Saturno. The parcel was found to contain 1,000 cigarettes. On Saturno an altered passport was found, extending the year of his stay in this country from 1930 to 1931. Saturno admitted altering it to save a fee of 150 francs.
      Detective-Sergeant Greeno said that Saturno came to England as a visitor. When arrested he was wearing an overcoat such as he had never seen before. In the witness’s opinion it was expressly constructed for shoplifting. It had an opening which looked like a pocket through which the wearer could put his hand and steal things, and then it had pockets in which he could conceal them and button them up.
      Wollman, he said, came to this country as a visitor for a week. He stated that he was a naturalized subject of Panama and presented a passport from Panama. He had regularly reported himself. As a matter of fact he was a Russian, and it was not known how he got the passport.
      Mr. Gattie pressed for a recommendation for deportation in both cases, and Mr. Mead, in granting these, sentenced Saturno to five months’ imprisonment with hard labour and Wollman to two months’ imprisonment with hard labour.
      (The Times, 29 December, 1931.)

Sentence of twenty-two months’ hard labour was passed at the Old Bailey yesterday on Isaac Malakoff, aged 32, french polisher, charged with attempting to break and enter a building in Artillery Lane, E.C.
      A plot to steal furs valued at £15,000 was alleged by the prosecution.
      – – , aged 34, a traveller, who was charged along with Malakoff, was found not guilty and discharged.
      Malakoff, a Russian Jew, was recommended by the Recorder, Sir Ernest Wild, for deportation.
      Mr. G. G. Raphael, prosecuting, said that although only two men were before the Court it was submitted that at least five men were concerned.
      On the morning of 9 January, after information had been received at Scotland Yard, Detective-Sergeants Salisbury and Greeno were concealed on the premises in Artillery Lane.
      At the time Malakoff was hidden in a toy bazaar next door.
      (Daily Express, 16 February, 1932.) {231}
      Joseph Rotenberg, alias Roberts, 45, a Russian, who was stated to have lived at Avenue Crescent, Harehills, Leeds, for the past four years, and for whose arrest a warrant was in existence for the non-payment of arrears amounting to £280 due to his wife under a maintenance order, was before Mr. Boyd at the Westminster Police Court on Saturday for failing to comply with police directions under the Aliens Order. He was arrested in Pimlico. A Liverpool detective sergeant stated that in 1924 the prisoner was sent to prison for a month for obtaining money by false pretences. He was given money in advance for photographic enlargements, and they were not forthcoming. Mr. Boyd said that the prisoner was an undesirable Alien. He had been twice convicted for obtaining money by false pretences and more recently for not complying with the regulations for which he was now again before the Court. He would undergo six months’ imprisonment with hard labour and be recommended for deportation.
      (The Times, 29 December, 1930.)
      At the Old Bailey Solomon Michaels, 36; Nathan Michaels, 37; and Myer Angel, 34, cloth merchants, were found guilty of obtaining goods by false pretences and of conspiracy to defraud the London and Liverpool and Globe Insurance Company.
      The Common Serjeant, Sir H. F. Dickens, K.C., sentenced Solomon Michael to three years’ penal servitude, Nathan Michael to 15 months’ hard labour, and Angel to six months’ in the second division.
      Sir H. F. Dickens said that there was not one redeeming feature in this case—deliberate and persistent getting of goods which they never intended to pay for; books so kept as to disguise what became of the goods; fabricated documents, and an impudent claim of more than £8,000 for burglary.
      (Daily Mail, 23 December, 1924.)
In the London Bankruptcy Court Mr. Registrar Francke suspended, until his creditors had been paid 10s. in the £, the discharge of – – , silk, woollen and general merchant, Bishopsgate, E.C., remarking that the debtor was one of those undesirable Aliens who were a curse to this country.
      Creditors had received a dividend of 1d. in the £ on proofs of debt admitted for £5,462.
      The debtor, who came from Poland in 1902, was naturalised in 1914. (Daily Mail, 4 December, 1926.)

      When a bankrupt named, – , the seventh member of his family to come before the Court, appeared for public examination at Liverpool, yesterday, Mr. Registrar Symond was moved to quote from Macbeth: “Will the line stretch out to the crack of doom? Another yet—a seventh.” He added that the continued appearances of the members of this family were approaching the dimensions of a public scandal.
      The Official Receiver (Mr. Allcorn) said the previous – bankruptcies had involved creditors in the furniture trade in losses amounting to £30,000.
      The debtor, Yankel (otherwise Jack) – , who traded as a cabinet maker in – – – , disclosed a deficiency of £1,785. He said that a few days before his premises were burned out he was served with a writ for £300, and two more claims were made against him.       The Official Receiver: It looks frightfully suspicious. {232}
      Debtor: How can it look suspicious I I was not even there at the time. I was playing cricket.
      The Official Receiver: Not with your creditors?—I have done my best for all my creditors.
      I am going to put it to you quite plainly and frankly that all the circumstances of your failure point to nothing less than a swindle?—I have always played the game. I have been unfortunate.
      Mr. Registrar Symond: My experience of these Alien bankruptcies is that in almost every case there is some unsatisfactory or sinister feature. (Yorkshire Post, 14 May, 1930.)

     Before the Common Serjeant (Sir Henry F. Dickens, K.C.), at the Central Criminal Court, the trial was concluded of Hyman Philip Inberg, 39, traveller, on bail on the indictment charging him with obtaining goods by false pretences and with bankruptcy offences. The hearing of the ease occupied five days. The jury found the defendant Guilty, and the Common Serjeant sentenced him to 12 months’ imprisonment in the second division. The defendant pleaded “Not Guilty.”
      The defendant, a Pole, came to England in 1910, and later began business as a woollen merchant in Notting Hill. In November, 1922, a receiving order was made against him. He attributed his bankruptcy partly to the theft of his attache case containing £4,355 in treasury and bank notes, while on a train journey to Yorkshire. The Common Serjeant, in passing sentence, said he was afraid that the £4,000 was waiting for him somewhere at the expense of his unfortunate creditors. “These fraudulent bankruptcies,” continued the Common Serjeant, “are now getting almost insupportable. I have tried many of them, and I have found as a rule that the people who are fraudulent bankrupts are Aliens.”
      (The Times, 28 October, 1924.)
£200,000 BANKRUPT
      Stated to have been three times bankrupt, with total liabilities of £200,000, John Christoforides, formerly of Groombridge, Tunbridge Wells, a tobacco merchant, applied for his discharge at Tunbridge Wells yesterday.
      The Official Receiver said that Christoforides, a Greek subject, had been guilty of gross misconduct. Despite his previous experience he had embarked on fresh transactions and lived extravagantly.
      Replying to the Official Receiver, Christoforides said he did not remember if he was arrested by the London police in a gambling den.
      “I consider you a danger to the British public,” said the Official Receiver.
      Judge Sir Edward Parry, refusing to grant a discharge, said it was one of the worst cases he had heard. Christoforides came to England, received its hospitality and then treated the bankruptcy law as a farce. He was a useless person and must be restrained.
      (Daily Mail, 6 April, 1928.)
In the London Bankruptcy Court, before Mr. Registrar Meller, application for discharge was made on behalf of Jacob — .   Mr. F. Vyvyan (Official Receiver), reported that the unsecured indebtedness apparently amounted to £27,722, the assets had realised £748 and that amount had been absorbed in payment of preferential claims and other charges. The Official Receiver opposed the application on several statutory grounds. His Honour suspended the discharge for four years.
(Jewish World.){233}

TWO £5,740 FINES
      Heavy penalties were inflicted by Alderman Sir George Truscott, at the Mansion House yesterday, on two tobacco smugglers.
      Louis Lesser, aged 28, formerly of West India Dock-road, E., was fined £5,740 or six months’ imprisonment for the smuggling, and was sentenced to 12 months’ hard labour for making a false declaration.
      Alexander Goodstein, of Capel-road, Forest Gate, E., a Russian, was also fined £5,740 for aiding Lesser in the Customs evasion.
      It is alleged that between February and May nearly three tons of tobacco was smuggled from Antwerp to the West India Docks. The trick was discovered by a Customs officer who put a steel spit into a bale of waste paper. He detected a smell of tobacco, so tried another one with the same result. Then it was found that 28 out of a consignment of 39 bales contained tobacco.
      Mr. Winfrey, for Lesser, said his client married a Christian girl and was ostracised by his family. He could not make a living, and becoming destitute, conceived this smuggling scheme.
      Goodstein is an unnaturalised Alien. Years ago he had a prosperous cigarette-making business, and at one time he had 350 people in his employment. He is an undischarged bankrupt, and when he failed in July, 1928, his liabilities totalled £55,613 and his assets £16.
      (Daily Mail, 30 August, 1930.)
      At the Mansion House yesterday, before Alderman Sir George Truscott, Julius Nelken, of Hatton-garden, was summoned, at the instance of the Commissioners of Customs, for making and subscribing a false declaration in respect of watches imported from the Continent. Two other summonses charged him with making similar declarations, and eight summonses charged him with being knowingly concerned in the evasion of duty on imported watches.
      Mr. J. P. Davies appeared for the Commissioners of Customs; Mr. St. John Hutchinson defended.
      Mr. St. John Hutchinson said that the defendant was born in Austria. He came to this country in 1895 and became a naturalized Englishman in 1906. The defendant had made a voluntary payment to the Customs of £250 on account of the £550 duty.
      Sir George Truscott said that he had decided that in connexion with the case of making a false declaration he should fine the defendant £300; on the first two charges of fraudulent evasion of Customs duty he should fine him £100; and on the four remaining cases under the same description he should fine him £50– making a total of £700. In assessing the penalty he had taken into account that the duty evaded had been represented to him as £550, of which the defendant had paid £250. He should allow the defendant three months in which to pay the money, and if at the end of that he wished to appeal to the Court again he could do so.
      (The Times, 29 August, 1930.)

At Folkestone, – – , a Swiss subject, was charged with smuggling a large quantity of cigars, cigarettes, liqueurs, &c, the single duty and value of which was £11 6s 2d. Evidence was given that the defendant arrived from Flushing on Friday night. He declared only a box of 50 cigars and a few cigarettes. An immigration officer stated that the defendant arrived in the country in 1921 as a student. He had broken the law by working here, and would now be refused to land because of his attempting to smuggle the goods. A further charge of having in his possession two revolvers and {234} three rounds of ammunition was preferred. The defendant was fined £32 18s. 6d. on the smuggling charge with the alternative of six weeks’ imprisonment, and £5 15s., with the alternative of 14 days’ imprisonment, on the second charge.
      (The Times, 12 November, 1923.)
      “There is reason to believe that Louquet has sold a young girl to go abroad, for £50.”
      Such was the statement made by Mr. Parker, prosecuting counsel, in a white slave traffic case from the West-End of London before Sir Chartres Biron at Bow Street, following a police raid on a flat in New Oxford Street.
      Louis Hubert and Lucy Louquet were arrested and charged with certain offences under the Aliens’ Order, including failure to register. Hubert was said to have been formally registered as a Cuban, while Louquet described herself as a French teacher. A further charge of being in possession of a convertible pistol was also preferred. Louquet pleaded guilty to both charges, and Hubert to the first charge.
      Detective Sergeant Bennett said that Louquet had failed to notify her change of address from Flat 6, Queen Alexandra Mansions, Grape Street, to Flat 4.
      “I have reason to believe that there is an Alien man at your flat,” he told Louquet, when he called at Flat 6. She denied the allegation, but was detained. The police then raided Flat 4, where they found Hubert in bed. They searched the place, and found obscene photographs displayed in all the rooms, while, under a mass of old clothing in a wardrobe, a number of articles such as canes, whips and ropes were discovered. A further search revealed an automatic convertible pistol, for which Hubert was unable to produce a licence. Hubert denied that he was the occupant of the flat, saying that he had been taken there the previous night by “Madame,” meaning Louquet. His photograph and many articles of dress and toilet, however, went to indicate that he was living there permanently.
      A young girl, who identified Hubert, stated that she had been kept in the flat for improper purposes.
      Both prisoners were sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, with hard labour. Hubert was also ordered to pay £5 5s. costs and Louquet £10 10s. Both were recommended for deportation.
(Sunday Express, & November, 1923.)

Remarkable evidence of the manner in which the Alien immigration regulations imposed by the Home Office are flagrantly broken week by week at Tilbury and the Channel ports was laid before me yesterday.
      Undesirable women and girls who would never pass the Aliens officers at the ports if they travelled under their real identity are regularly entering this country without hindrance.
A well-organised, highly remunerative traffic has grown up for bringing these women to England. They come in as British subjects by means of the return halves of week-end tickets issued from London to the ports of northern France.
Once in this country they never report to the police as Aliens are supposed to do.
      How the traffic, is carried on is explained in the following confession of a young man who in one year made more than twenty journeys to France to bring girls back. The name of the informant cannot be printed, for obvious reasons, but from exhaustive inquiries I have made I am satisfied that his statements are correct. {235}
      “I would guarantee to bring any girl from France into England without a passport or identity papers,” he said. “It is as simple as anything once you know the way and can carry it through.
      “The financial return is excellent, for these girls will pay anything from £10 to £50—in addition to expenses—to get to London without question.
      “The secret lies in the week-end tickets which are issued by the railways to British subjects between London and the French ports. Those tickets are supposed to be signed by the persons to whom they are sold, and some sort of identity paper is supposed to be carried, but ah addressed letter is enough for this purpose.
      “It is essential that the man who is going over to meet a girl must have a passport of his own; otherwise the whole scheme would break down.
      “I was working for a firm with offices in Regent Street when the business was suggested to me by another man in the firm, and for more than a year we carried it on, until I thought better of it and gave up the whole thing.
      “We used to get the names of the girls we had to meet and the address where we were to pick them up from agents on the other side. Usually we would travel by way of Tilbury and Dunkirk.
      “In London we would buy weekend tickets for Dunkirk. We did not fill in our names; if we had to do so at any stage of the outward journey we had means of obliterating the name and address afterwards.
      “When we landed at the port of entry in France the ticket would be stamped, and that stamp was all that was essential for the return journey.
      “Then we would meet the girls. I have picked them up in Paris, Lille, and all the French Channel ports.
      “I would then fill in my ticket with the name of an English girl. Any name would do, with an address in London to which a letter had been previously sent in that name by us.
      “The ticket and the letter would be handed to the girl, and we would see her in the boat for England on the Sunday or Monday. We ourselves, would travel back on ordinary single tickets, using our proper passports at the English port of arrival.
      “On only one occasion did I know girls to be turned back because suspicions were aroused.
      “Several of the girls we ‘ferried’ across in this way could scarcely speak any English. I have sat with a girl for an hour in a French hotel schooling her in how to speak her supposed name and address in English.
      “All these girls had other girls or men in England to whom they could go when they reached London. In many instances flats had been taken for them.” (Daily Express, 14 February, 1930.)]
      Two blackmailers, both aged 42, Arthur Frederick Victor Hafner, a stockbroker, and Thomas William Mulholland, a fruit bottler, whose victim was a widow referred to as Mrs. “H.”, were convicted at the Old Bailey yesterday.
      Hafner was the son of a German of noble birth.
      When the war came his German ancestry brought him into disfavour and his business dwindled away. He changed his name to Frederick Victor Hamilton and started in business as a produce broker. In May, 1917, he was sent to prison for a breach of the food regulations, and soon afterwards he was again sent to prison for breaking the Business Names Act. {236}
      When he came out of gaol he returned to the City and opened a “bucket shop” and made a fortune out of worthless companies. By the end of 1919 he was said to be worth at least £100,000.
      He visited West End gambling haunts. At these tables, where chemin-de-fer and baccarat were played, £1,000 frequently changed hands on the turn of a card.
      Money came from investors all over the country, and he used it to pay for his own excesses. The result was that on 15 June, 1920, he was sentenced to three years’ penal servitude for fraudulently converting £80 to his own use. It was stated, however, that between £20,000 and £30,000 was involved. More than 100 people complained of having lost their money through his activities.
      In 1924, after a career in Westminster as an outside broker, he again fell into the hands of the police and was sent to three years’ penal servitude.
      (Daily Mail, 29 January, 1930.)

“£1,000 FROM A Man&lrquo;
      “She works in conjunction with two other women and blackmails men who go to her premises,” said Police Sergeant Robbings at Marylebone Police Court yesterday, when – – , alias — , aged 49, a German, described as of independent means, was convicted by Mr. Hay Halkett of permitting a flat at Wymering-mansions, Maida Vale, to be used for improper purposes.
      Sergeant Robbings, who kept observation on the premises owing to complaints, said that — — was a most undesirable character, and had kept as many as four of these houses going at once.
The police had received numerous complaints about her, and petitions had been sent to the local authority asking them to rid the neighbourhood of her.
      “While men are being entertained by the other women,” said Sergeant Robbings, “— obtains information about them by the simple expedient of going down their pockets, and this she has used so successfully that, in one case, a man gave her £1,000 and was prepared to pay another thousand rather than that his wife and daughter should know of his indiscretions.
      “Her flats are well furnished and are let out to women of a certain class at exorbitant rents.”
      The magistrate fined — £20, with £5 5s. costs, and recommended her for deportation.
(Daily Express, 18 February, 1928.)
      A dramatic story of a raid by the police on an opium den with many doors and a secret alarm bell was told at Thames Police Court yesterday when two Chinese, Man Fat and You Ah Hing, were charged with frequenting a house in Limehouse-causeway, E., for opium smoking.
      Detective Lount, of Scotland Yard, said that when he and other officers entered the house at 3.30 p.m. on Thursday he found an electric bell concealed under the linoleum at the foot of the stairs placed so that it could be pressed by the foot. He continued:
      I went to the next floor, where I found a stout black door, which I forced. On the landing leading to the next stairs I found another stout black door, made of planks and battens about six inches thick. I forced that with considerable difficulty, and found further progress was barred by a stout trapdoor completely covering the staircase. It was bolted. {237}
      Two rooms were full of opium fumes, but no one was in them. In the large room were two iron bedsteads converted into couches with mats and wooden pillows. On a small table there was a lamp used for heating opium.
      Detective Lount produced an old teapot, which he said was used for heating opium. There were also other utensils for preparing opium.
      Detective Fairbairn said that he saw Hing climb from the roof to another house and disappear. He was later arrested in the street. Under his coat was a warm bamboo pipe half-filled with opium.
      Fat and Hing, who denied the offence, were each sentenced to two months’ imprisonment and recommended for deportation.
      (Daily Mail, 18 November, 1929.)
Following a police raid on the Rutland Social Temperance Club in New-road, Stepney, early yesterday morning, 71 persons were charged later at Thames Police Court.
      Six were charged with keeping a gaming house and the other 65 with frequenting.
      The principals were remanded on bail and all the others pleaded guilty and consented to be bound over for 12 months not to frequent gaming houses.
      Before the men left the Court the magistrate (Mr. John Harris) said: “It is obvious that most of you are Aliens in origin, if you are not now. If you choose to break the laws of this country which gives you asylum you are running risks not only of punishment but of being expelled to your own countries.
      “You had better consider that matter very carefully,” he said, “because I do not suppose any of you want to go back. You only stay here on sufferance and on condition that you obey the laws. If you don't you will have to be deported. I have warned you. If there is a breach of your recognisances you know what will happen.”
      (Morning Post, 9 October, 1931.)
At Marlborough-street Police Court on Tuesday, Jacob Muller, a Dutchman, appeared to answer two summonses, one for failing to report to the Registration Officer under the Aliens Act his change of occupation, and the other for continuing to use the name of Jack Millar, by which name he was not ordinarily known before August 4, 1914. He pleaded “Not guilty,” and was defended by Mr. O'Malley.
      Detective-inspector Keech said that Muller was known as Captain Millar. He was fined 20s. at Bristol on November 27, 1917, for boarding a hospital ship at Newport and bound for Avonmouth without the permission of the Aliens Officer. He was employed at the Blue Lagoon Club by another Dutchman who was in touch
      with ex-Police-sergeant — whom he bribed all the time, until in June, 1927, the Dutchman himself closed the club because — told him to do so. The Dutchman then opened another club, the Blue Moon, of which the defendant became manager, although he denied it and told the police, “I am manager in name only; I am actually an entertainer; I am a singer.” That club was raided on May 19, 1928. The defendant was now conducting a night club called the Piccadilly Club on premises in Regent-street which had twice previously been raided. There was no complaint against the club except that there had been one or two disturbances outside it in the early morning.
      Mr. Dummett convicted on a summons for failing to inform the Registration Officer of his change of occupation to manager of the Piccadilly Club. On this he ordered Muller to pay a fine of £5 and £5 5s. costs. He made no recommendation for {238} deportation, remarking, “These cases are always reviewed by the Home Office.”
      (The Times, 2 January, 1930.)

By the conviction of Simon Gershcowit, aged 68, a Russian, of Tenter Street, Spitalfields, E., yesterday, the police and the Customs authorities believe they have solved a problem which has baffled them for many months.
      Gershcowit was fined £90 and £21 costs at Old Street for selling industrial methylated spirits without a licence, and Abraham Majosky, aged 63, a Rumanian, of Frostic Mansions, Old Montague Street, Whitechapel, who was alleged to have bought some of the spirit from Gershcowit, was fined £21 and £9 9s. costs.
      It was stated that Gershcowit’s son was fined for a similar offence in 1924.
      Mr. Clarke Hall, the magistrate, said he was satisfied that Gershcowit had been carrying on this traffic to a considerable extent, though he posed as a “dear, innocent old man.”
      The police had had considerable difficulty in getting to the bottom of this traffic. Many women who had been found intoxicated on methylated spirit had said they had drunk a red wine, but the explanation was that they had probably added this potent methylated spirit to the wine.
      “This dealing in methylated spirit is very serious indeed in this part of London. Its effects are in many ways worse than those of cocaine, and all kinds of crime arise from it.” He had no power to make a deportation order, but the facts would be brought to the notice of the Home Secretary. (Daily Mail, 4 January, 1928.)
At Thames Police Court yesterday, before Mr. J. A. R. Cairns, Chong Soi Kwai, a Chinese, was charged on remand with possessing utensils for opium smoking, possessing opium, and allowing his premises at Pennyfields, Limehouse, to be used for opium smoking. Four other Chinese, Fong Bean, Chang You Sing, Chang Tan, and Chin Qwong, were charged with possessing opium utensils.
      A raid was made on the premises by Detective-sergeant W. Mayne and other detectives. They knocked at a top back room, and the door was opened by Chong Soi Kwai. The other men were in the room. On the floor were a blanket and pillow. A tray was on the blanket, and on the tray were a lamp, lighted, and a paper containing a piece of opium. Qwong was lying on the blanket, holding an opium pipe over a lamp. On a bed were another lighted lamp, two needles, and a tumbler containing a wooden spoon. Two other pipes, some brown substance in paper, a bowl, and a tin containing ash were also found.
      Chong Soi Kwai was fined £15, and the other defendants £5 each.
      (The Times, 1 February, 1928.)
For failing to notify the authorities of a change of passport, the Barry magistrates yesterday sent Timothy Slavenke, described as a Russian subject, to prison for three weeks and recommended his deportation.       The police stated that Slavenke was an active Communist, who refused to work. He had received 41s. a week relief from the guardians for the past three years, and had also been given extensive free treatment at the Barry rate-maintained hospital. A Roumanian by birth, he entered the country during the war as a seaman. {239}
      Three years ago he was claimed as a Russian subject and given a Soviet passport, which entitled him to remain in England. He did not inform the authorities of this, and when relief was stopped in February he requested the police to pay his passage to Russia.
      (Daily Telegraph, 29 March, 1927.)
      Philip Cooper, tailor, of Winterton Street, St. George’s-in-the-East, a Russian, was summoned at the Thames Police Court for obtaining relief from the Stepney Board of Guardians, by wilfully making false statements with regard to his income. Mr. Pail, solicitor, who prosecuted, said the defendant had received £18 13s. from the Guardians, and during the period in question he had been in regular employment and had earned £28 13s.9d.
      Abraham Bernkoff, also an Alien, of Old Gravel Lane, was similarly summoned, and it was stated that he received £6 7s. 6d. in relief whilst he was earning £5 l1s. 6d. from various other sources. . . .
      The Magistrate (Mr. Snell) said that the community must not be robbed in this way, and unless punishment was inflicted these offences would become more and more prevalent. Cooper and Bernkoff were each sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. During the proceedings it was stated that no fewer than 80,000 persons were receiving relief from the Stepney Board of Guardians. (The Times, 17 June, 1926.)
Henry Rogulski,— – — , and — — , casual waiters at the Hotel Cecil, appeared before Mr. Francis at Westminster, charged with fraudulently making false representations for the purpose of obtaining unemployment benefits. It was stated that for many months, with a few breaks, the defendants had drawn from the Westminster Employment Exchange £1 4s. a week. They made no disclosure of the fact that on occasional days, when employed at the Hotel Cecil, they were paid 6s. 6d. and 7s. and probably received tips.
      Mr. Francis: Even foreign waiters coming over here to defraud! Each defendant was fined 40s. and ordered to restore money improperly obtained. The alternative was 21 days’ imprisonment. All three paid up. (Daily Mail, 20 March, 1925.)
When a middle-aged Russian named Harris Rosenberg, of Stepney Green Buildings, was charged at Thames Police Court, Mr. Fail, for the Stepney Board of Guardians, said Rosenberg had received £16 5s. in relief while he was at work and received £14 18s. 6d. in wages. In addition he was a choirmaster at Richmond Road Synagogue. He told the guardians he was out of work and had no means of support.
      The magistrate, Mr. Snell, said that some people were apparently cheating their friends and neighbours as well as the State. Rosenberg was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment. (Daily Mail, 18 June, 1925.)

Moris Tatarsky, alias White, aged 50, a hairdresser, of Brunswick Buildings, Goulston Street, and — were charged at Old Street with keeping and managing Tatarsky&lquo;s premises as a common gaming house.
      Fifteen other men, found on the premises, were bound over not to frequent gaming houses for twelve months.
      Superintendent Sygrove said that he found a game of chemin de fer in progress in the kitchen. Tatarsky said: “I admit it all. We started in a little way, and it has grown. I have been out of work and cannot live on the 24s. dole. The gamblers have paid me what they like for the use of the room.” {240} Tatarsky, he added, was a Russian, and had been in this country since 1897.
      Mr. Clarke Hall, in fining Tatarsky £100 or three months’ imprisonment, said that he would not make a recommendation for deportation, but if anything else occurred he would.
      (Morning Post, 18 December, 1929.)
      The statement that a large number of international criminals have come into the country recently was made by Detective Sergeant Greeno, of New Scotland Yard, at the North London Police Court yesterday, when the position in regard to Aliens was the subject of strong comments by the Magistrate (Mr. Basil Watson, K.C.).
      Sam Geer, aged 38, of Southend Road, Plaistow, E., and David Getriar, aged 26, of Arthur Street, Bloomsbury, were charged with loitering at Clapton greyhound meeting with intent to pick pockets. When arrested, it was alleged, Getriar pushed a £1 note into the hand of Sergeant Greeno, and said something in a foreign language.
      Getriar was further charged under the Aliens Order with being in the United Kingdom without the consent of the emigration authorities.
      Getriar, giving evidence through an interpreter, said that he was a Russian, and came to England on 22 September, without a passport.
      “When I arrived I saw no policeman,” he explained. “I took my baggage and I walked off.”
      Sergeant Greeno stated that Geer was fined £8 at Thames Police Court in 1928 for failing to have an identity book in his possession. He was sentenced to three months’ hard labour at Brighton in 1921 for living on immoral earnings and an offence against the Aliens’ Restrictions Order, and to two terms of six months’ hard labour at Westminster in 1928 for obtaining a British passport by false pretences and being found in the United Kingdom after a deportation order had been made.
      Getriar, he said, was believed to be an international criminal, but his finger prints had not been returned from abroad.
      “I am very glad to see that the regulations are going to be tightened up,” said the Magistrate. “It is very undesirable that Aliens, even if they are honest workers, should be allowed to come into the country, because there is not enough work for our own people.”
      Referring to the declarations which are signed before a magistrate when employment is given to Aliens coming into the country, he said, “It is my duty to sign them, but I do so with the greatest horror and disgust. I wish that these scoundrels were driven out of the country and that no more were allowed in.”
      The prisoners were sentenced to three months’ with hard labour on the charge of loitering. Getriar was sentenced to six months’ hard labour on the second charge.
      They were recommended for deportation, and the Magistrate added, “I sincerely hope that they are driven out of the country.”
      (Morning Post, 21 October, 1931.)
“There is nothing to prevent a foreigner from being on the dole if he is engaged in an insurable trade,” said an official of the Ministry of Labour employment department yesterday. (Daily Mail, 19 December, 1929.)] {240}
The following is a statement made by “R. E. Corder,” who has been the Daily Mail reporter at police courts for several years, and therefore speaks from a long experience (Daily Mail, 6 August, 1932):—

      “Aliens are pestering the Metropolitan Police Courts. They are working big and little crimes, and compared with their offences the average Britisher is more of a fool than a felon.
      “Much of the crime in this country is committed by Aliens, who have a queer facility of ‘getting away with the goods.’ These foreign criminals are well organised, and in the more unsavoury side lines of crime they make rich profits.”
      Since 1931 the author has collected several hundred cuttings from the Press dealing with Aliens charged with offences in our Courts, but space prevents publication in this book. The most important of these cases have been arranged in categories and can be seen on application to the author.
      Some of these cases are very startling. They show the deplorable and dangerous state of affairs in this country regarding Aliens.

Very few of those Aliens recommended for deportation by magistrates are deported. In many cases pressure is brought to bear from certain quarters and the deportation orders are revoked.

Aliens deported within the last few years are making desperate efforts to get back to this country.
      In the last two months about 350 have succeeded in getting the barrier against them removed.
      All of them are men and women who were found to be “undesirables.” Many of them have convictions in this country as well as abroad.
      Presumably the applications for a lifting of the ban are made to the Home Office on compassionate or business grounds.
      —Sunday Dispatch, 5 June, 1932.

{240b}       The revoking of deportation orders has greatly increased under the Socialist and National Governments.
      Many Aliens who have been deported or refused entrance get naturalised in the Colonies, particularly in Canada, and so enter the British Isles.
      According to the Morning Post, 13 April, 1932, in the past ten years 1,000 “American” musicians have received lucrative engagements in this country. Meanwhile the U.S.A. refuses to allow British bands to accept offers in America.
      Foreign musicians are employed in large numbers by the B.B.C.


Top of page ]


AN effort was made by Parliament in 1914, in the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act of that year, to consolidate and improve the law on the matters appearing in the title of the Act. This measure remains to-day what is called in subsequent legislation the “principal Act”; though in 1918, and again in 1922, amending Acts were passed.
      The first section essays to state what is a natural-born British subject, but the definition, though only re-stating old established law, has already been amended. There is first the definition that
      “Any person born within His Majesty’s dominions and allegiance” shall be deemed to be a natural-born British subject, which of course remains intact. But then comes a further definition:
      “Any person born out of His Majesty’s dominions, whose father was a British subject at the time of that person’s birth and either was born within His Majesty’s allegiance or was a person to whom a certificate of naturalisation had been granted.” This definition has been extended by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1922, so as to comprise also a person whose
      “father had become a British subject by reason of any annexation of territory,”
or whose
      “father was at the time of that person’s birth in the service of the Crown,”
or whose
      “birth was registered at a British consulate within one year or, in special circumstances, with the consent of the Secretary of State, two years after its occurrence,”
but in this case the person loses his British nationality when he is 21 unless he makes a declaration of British nationality. (If a naturalised Alien has a child included in the certificate that child may make a declaration of Alienage within a year after attaining his majority.—1914 Act, section 5.)
      The third class of person deemed to be natural-born British subjects in the 1914 Act is
      “any person born on board of a British ship whether in foreign territorial waters or not.”
But a person born on board a foreign ship does not become a British subject by reason merely of the fact that the ship was at the time in British territorial waters.
      NATURALISATION.—The Act of 1914 next deals with the naturalisation of Aliens. Section 2 provides that the Secretary of State’s certificate of naturalisation may be granted when the Alien applicant has resided in His Majesty’s dominions for at least 5 years, the final year being in the United Kingdom (or in the service of the Crown—Act of 1922), or for not less than 5 of the previous 8 years has been in the service of the Crown; is of good character and equipped with an adequate knowledge of the English {242} language; and intends (if his application is granted) to reside in His Majesty’s dominions or to enter or continue in the service of the Crown. The Secretary of State’s decision as to granting a certificate is not open to appeal, and he need not state reasons for refusal. He may also waive the residence or service qualifications in special cases, and must do so in the case of a widow or divorced woman who was previously to her marriage a British subject; and he may grant a naturalisation certificate to a minor, although the conditions have not been complied with (section 5). All the procedure in connexion with naturalisation is placed under the regulation of the Home Secretary (section 19).
      False representations in an application for naturalisation expose the applicant to three months’ hard labour (section 23).
      The naturalised Alien must take an oath of allegiance before his certificate has effect.
      Section 3 states the effect of a certificate of naturalisation. The holder is to
      “be entitled to all political and other rights, powers and privileges, and
      be subject to all obligations, duties and liabilities, to which a natural-born British subject is entitled or subject.”
The Governments of British Possessions may also grant naturalisation (section 8).
      Before the modern process of naturalisation there existed an equivalent process called denization—a high prerogative of the Crown, which is still retained (section 25).
      Certificates of naturalisation may be revoked. Section 7 of the 1914 Act makes short provision for this, but the section has been much developed by two new sections in the British Nationality Act of 1918; and now a certificate may be revoked not only in cases where it was fraudulently obtained but where, within five years of its grant, the holder has been sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 12 months or subjected to a fine of not less than £100; was not of good character when the certificate was granted; or has ceased to reside in or maintain substantial connexion with His Majesty’s dominions for a space of at least 7 years (unless trading for a British firm or engaged in the service of the Crown). Revocation may, but does not necessarily, include the wife and minor children.
      Sections 10, 11 and 12 of the 1914 Act deal with the status of women and children. By section 10 a British subject’s wife is deemed to be a British subject, and an Alien’s wife an Alien. If a man ceases to be a British subject his wife may by declaration retain her British nationality. The Act of 1918 (section 2) permits a British woman married to an Alien whose State is at War with this country to regain her British nationality. By section 11 a woman who becomes an Alien by marrying an Alien does not cease to be an Alien by reason only of the fact that her husband dies or the marriage is dissolved, and a converse persistence of British nationality applies in the case of an Alien woman who has become British by marriage.
      By section 12 the child of a British subject who changes his nationality, if a minor, also ceases to be a British subject, unless he does not, by the other country’s law, become naturalised in that country. But this does not apply to children by a former husband of a British widow marrying an Alien.
      LOSS OF NATIONALITY.—difficulties in the way of those who wish to give up their British nationality, and sections 13 to 16 of the 1914 Act make this clear, and discharge an ex-subject from all obligations and liabilities in respect of any act done before he ceased to be a British subject. {243}
      STATUS OF ALIENS—This Act also deals with Aliens who remain such. Section 17 states, or restates, the law that
      “real and personal property of every description may be taken, acquired, held and disposed of by an Alien in the same manner in all respects as by a natural-born British subject.”
      The section also states the exceptions to this rule. They are principally that an Alien cannot qualify for any office or for any franchise, or be the owner of a British ship.
      An Alien (section 18) is triable in the same manner as a British subject.
      As a matter of historical interest reference may be made to a provision in the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1918 (section 3) whereby it was forbidden, within ten years of the end of the War, to naturalise a subject of an enemy State, unless the applicant had served in the British or Allied forces, was “a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy governments,” or was at birth a British subject.


Side by side with the legislation for admitting Aliens to British nationality has proceeded legislation of an opposite character—for excluding Aliens from settling in this country.
      Legislation of this type should properly be dated from the Aliens Aet, 1905, designed to prevent the landing of undesirable Alien immigrants and the expulsion of undesirable Aliens already within the country. But war-time and post-war legislation began with the Aliens Restriction Act, 1914. As its title declares, it was passed as an emergency measure, and was enacted hurriedly; and though it received the Royal assent on the 5th of August, two days in advance of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, it must be regarded as a later production than the other Act, with which its tone is so little in keeping.
      Its purpose is declared at the beginning of the first section: “when a state of War exists between His Majesty and any foreign power, or when it appears that an occasion of imminent national danger or great emergency has arisen,” then restrictions may be imposed on Aliens by Order in Council.
      The Order might make provision for prohibiting Aliens from landing or embarking, generally or at specified places, and imposing restrictions and conditions upon their landing or embarking, for deporting them, for requiring them to remain within certain areas, for requiring from them conditions as to registration, etc., and for giving powers of arrest and search, etc., in order to carry out the provisions of the Order. An Order has been made, and as amended from time to time is still in force. The Act provides stiff penalties —£100 fine or 6 months’ imprisonment with hard labour for infringement* of the Order.
      THE ACT OF 1919.—It will be remembered that the year following the close of the War was marked by much nervousness in governing circles, and accordingly the war-time Aliens Restriction Act was amended and extended in the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919. But this Act also was regarded to some extent as in the nature of an emergency measure, for the operation of its first section was limited to a year. The purpose of that first section was to extend the provisions of the 1914 Act beyond the periods of war, imminent national danger and great emergency to which that Act was confined, and so the first section of the new Act extended the powers of the old Act, with the limiting words omitted.
      There is a paragraph in this section of which students of constitutionalism should take notice, though they do not appear to have done so. It provides {244} that an Order made under the new Act may (not must) be annulled by His Majesty in Council, if either House of Parliament petitions to that effect within 21 days of the making of the Order; but even this power of petitioning by Parliament is denied if a state of war, imminent national danger or great national emergency exists. This provision is an abdication by Parliament of its supremacy in favour of the Executive government.
      Sections 3 to 8 of the 1919 Act impose further restrictions upon Aliens.
      Section 3 enacts that any act, or attempt, by an Alien “calculated or likely to cause sedition or disaffection” shall be punishable by ten years’ penal servitude; and if any Alien attempts to promote industrial unrest in any industry in the United Kingdom in which he has not been bona fide engaged for the previous two years he shall be subject to three months’ imprisonment.
      Section 4 prohibits the holding of a pilotage certificate by an Alien, and section 5 prohibits an Alien from acting as master, chief officer or chief engineer of a British merchant ship, or as skipper or second hand of a British fishing boat. This section also forbids the employment of an Alien on board a British ship at less than the current rates of pay, and of an Alien at all unless he produces satisfactory proof of his nationality.
      Section 6 prohibits the appointment of an Alien to any post in the Civil Service.
      Section 7 prohibits an Alien from assuming or continuing to use any name other than that by which he was ordinarily known on 4 August, 1914. The Home Secretary may remit this prohibition in particular cases (on payment of a fee of 10 guineas), and it is not applicable to those who have changed their name under royal licence or exemption by the Defence of the Realm regulations or the Aliens Restriction Order. Exemptions are to be published in the Gazette, and, unless dispensed by the Home Secretary, in a newspaper circulating in the area where the exempted person resides.
      Section 8 prohibits an Alien from sitting on a jury, if challenged by one of the parties.
      Sections 9 to 12 deal with the case of former enemy Aliens in the country, and provide for their deportation, unless they are given licence to remain. They also prohibit for three years the holding by former enemy Aliens of interests in land, key industries and British ships, and employment in the crews of British ships. Most of the provisions in these four sections, being of a temporary nature, have now expired; but one of them—the prohibition of employment of former enemy Aliens on a British ship— intended to be permanent, has been specifically repealed by the Former Enemy Aliens (Disability Removals) Act, 1925, in order to carry out a protocol between the British and German Governments.
      Section 13 imposes penalties for infractions of the Act, which include aiding and abetting others to break the Act’s provisions and harbouring such persons, the penalties ranging up to 12 months’ hard labour for a second conviction.
      CONTINUANCE OF THE 1919 ACT.—It has been noted that section 1 of the 1919 Act was to operate for a year only, but it has been extended each year since, for a year at a time, by the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. An attempt was made in 1927 by the Government of the day to make the section permanent, but the proposal met with formidable resistance and was abandoned. It has continued, however, its yearly lease of life under the Expiring Laws Continuance Acts.
      The only other piece of Aliens Restriction legislation to be noted is the provision in section 7 of the Poor Law Act, 1927, disqualifying Aliens from membership of Boards of Guardians.

Top of page ]
(The following draft Bill is a suggested preliminary instalment of necessary legislation.)

The object of this Bill is to fill up gaps in the existing legislation, prescribing the rights and liabilities of Aliens and naturalised Aliens, in order the more effectively to ensure that Britain shall be British. It has always been accepted that certain offices and employments shall be held and exercised only by British subjects. The Bill, among other things, proposes to complete that principle by extending the list of such offices and employment and ensuring the adequate observance of the principle in practice by preventing its evasion through the process of naturalisation.
To extend and amend the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Acts 1914 to 1922 and the Aliens Restriction Acts 1914 and 1919.
BE IT ENACTED by the King’s Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—
Register of Aliens.(1) After the passing of this Act there shall be compiled and maintained a register containing the names of all Aliens and naturalised Aliens residing in Great Britain. Such register shall be available for public perusal without fee.
Members of Parliament and the Privy Council, Officers of State and Judges.(2) After the passing of this Act no naturalised Alien, and no person whose father or mother was an Alien, shall be eligible for a seat in either House of Parliament or any County Council, and no such person may be appointed to His Majesty’s Privy Council or to the office of Secretary or Under-Secretary of State, or hold office as President of the Board of Education, or President of the Board of Trade, or be appointed a Judge of the High Court of Justice or a Lord Justice of the Court of Appeal.
Educational appointments.(3) After the passing of this Act no person who is an Alien by birth, whether naturalised or not, shall be appointed to any office or place in any University or other educational institution.
Employment in broadcasting industry.(4) No person who is an Alien by birth, whether naturalised or not, shall be a Director or Governor of, or be employed in any capacity on its staff, by the British Broadcasting Corporation.   {246}
Change of name.(5) No person whether an Alien, a naturalised British subject or a natural-born British subject, shall assume or use or purport to assume or use or continue after the commencement of this Act the assumption or use of any name other than that by which he has been ordinarily known, save that a natural-born British subject may use a pseudonym for literary purposes or a professional name, if he be an actor or singer.
Offences and penalties.(6) The provisions of Section 13 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919 (relating to penalties for contravention of that Act), shall apply to offences against this Act.
Short title.(7) This Act may be cited as the Aliens Restriction and Status of Aliens Act, 1934.
Note.—In the above Bill might also be included sections heavily increasing the fee paid by an Alien on naturalisation, largely extending the period during which an Alien must hare resided in Great Britain before being eligible for naturalisation, and rendering naturalised Aliens ineligible to vote at a Parliamentary or County Council election.
[ Top of page ]

OWING to the events which have occurred since May, 1929, when, under the leadership of Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, a gang of International Socialists took over the government of our unhappy country, I have decided to publish a fourth and much enlarged edition of my Alien Menace. In the Foreword to the second edition I wrote:
The difficulties through which our country has been and is passing are due not to one cause but to many causes. . . And one of the greatest of these is the Alien trouble . . . which not only seriously retards our moral and material progress, but even threatens our very existence.
After the crash of the £ in 1931; after the formation of a so-called National Government and after the General Election which resulted in the return of an overwhelming Conservative majority, patriotic Conservatives hoped that foreigners and Aliens would cease to orient our Cabinet’s policy and that the innumerable evils produced by undesirable and enemy Aliens in our midst would be removed.
      What has happened in the months following the General Election convinces me that, if I was right in calling the public’s attention to the Alien Problem in 1928, I have still greater justification in doing so to-day. Apart from its Tariff Reform legislation and some belated anti-subversive {vi} measures in India, little has been done by the “National” Government which a truly National Government would have done.
      To begin with: Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, whose private secretary since 1924 has been Miss Rosa Rosenberg, and who in Forward of 14 October, 1922, said
“we can now take the Moscow Soviet Communist Revolutionary Government under our wing, and clothe it in the furs of apology to shield it from the blasts of criticism,"
has not expelled the Bolsheviks from their “embassy” at Harington House or closed down Arcos. So far from that, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir John Simon, has been recently accepting hospitality from the Bolsheviks lurking there. Nor has The Daily Worker, a Bolshevik organ printed in this country, been suppressed. Nor has the Communist Party of Great Britain been judicially declared—as the Communist Party of Canada has lately been by a Court of Justice—to be an illegal association. Mr. MacDonald, Mr. Baldwin, Sir Herbert Samuel, Sir John Simon and their colleagues, despite the Bolshevik-incited mutiny in the fleet at Invergordon and the Bolshevik-engineered outbreak at Dartmoor, have decided still to tolerate the presence in London of emissaries, with diplomatic privileges, from the Moscow Soviet Communist Revolutionary Government!
      From things which the “National” Government has not done I turn to things which it has, and ought not to have done. With a haste which can be mildly qualified as indecent, it has passed the Statute of Westminster Bill, a measure conceding to the Irish Free State, Newfoundland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa the right of declaring themselves virtually independent States. Further, instead of rejecting once and for all the insane idea of creating a democratic federation for the caste-ridden provinces and principalities of India (325,000,000 of whose 350,000,000 inhabitants are wholly illiterate), our “National” Government continued for a time to negotiate {vii} with openly declared enemies, like the political impostor Gandhi, and it has proceeded to make preparations for bringing into existence paper constitutions for India and Burma calculated to produce civil war and chaos and, incidentally, to ruin our trade with both Indians and Burmese.
      Lastly, our “National” Government has forced through Parliament the Socialist London Passenger Transport Bill, a Bill, on the face of it, bound to lead to the nationalisation of our railways and all other means of transporting goods and passengers, but more probably, like the Electricity Act, designed to put greater power into the hands of financial magnates.
      In these circumstances, I make no apology for issuing a fourth edition of my Alien Menace. The facts to which I have referred demonstrate that, notwithstanding the presence in both Houses of Parliament of huge Conservative majorities, the policy of our Government is being dictated or inspired by foreigners bent on wrecking the British Empire and working in conjunction with Aliens and traitors living in it. Among those foreigners are not only our avowed enemies the International bandits who, having enslaved the Russians, are working to expel the British from Asia and to stir up revolutions in every part of our Empire, but, also, Communists at all points of the globe; Germans thirsting to revenge the defeats inflicted by us and our allies on the Vaterland; certain International financiers; and the Brahmans. All of them are working for the subjugation and even the destruction of the British Empire. To defeat the machinations of these persons and their agents in the British Empire, we need, in my humble opinion, a real National Government, immune from all Alien influence.
      That for decades we have not possessed one has been apparent to every observant patriot. Personally, I first became aware that hidden hands were steering—or endeavouring to steer—the British Empire to its destruction, a year or so before the second South African War. Serving {viii} in that and the Great War, I could not fail to notice that many of the politicians and other individuals forming public opinion regarded Germany as their “spiritual home,” and that the efforts of our armed forces were being largely rendered nugatory by men and women who were agents of Wilhelm II.
      The German-directed and German-financed “Russian” revolutions of 1917; the reception by Mr. Lloyd George of a Bolshevik Trade Delegation in 1921, and the Midnight Treaty with the murder-gang in Southern Ireland at the end of that year, naturally strengthened my conviction that Aliens and traitors in league with hostile foreigners were deliberately fomenting revolutionary movements in our islands, demoralising our war-weary people, and removing, as it were, the bolts holding together the framework of the British Empire. Subsequent events—e.g., the establishment in 1924, when Mr. MacDonald was Premier, of a Soviet Embassy in London, the Moscow-financed General Strike of 1926, the abject surrender by Lord Irwin to Gandhi, the surrender of Egypt and the forced resignation of Lord Lloyd, the recent attack on sterling leading to withdrawals of gold from England—amply confirmed the view I had previously formed.
      Trusting that the facts and figures which I have collected and which are presented in the following pages may be of some service to all sane Imperialists, I invite the reader to study the Alien Problem from the point of view of a British patriot. As is well known, the Alien Problem has for a long time been studied intensively by patriots in the U.S.A. where, also, the Alien is a very real peril.
      I may add that I have approached the subject from a non-sectarian standpoint. Whether an Alien be a Christian, Jew, Moslem or Buddhist, seems to me to be immaterial. The crucial question is this: Is he or she a person whom it is desirable for us to harbour in our midst? The Great War, when there was much most justifiable talk of “The Hidden Hand,” which “Hidden Hand” since the {ix} Armistice has, far from relaxing, tightened its grip on us, proved that numerous Aliens here were a curse to our country. This book is a call to patriotic Britons to force the “National” Government to deport all undesirable Aliens and to resist any further immigration of foreigners, whatever be their nationality, into our over-populated land.
      How dangerous undesirable Aliens may be to us two examples will show. From 1849 till his death in 1883, the Prussian Jew, Karl Marx, brother-in-law of the Prussian Minister of State, Von Westphalen, was permitted to reside in London, where, in the interests of the Hohenzollerns, he was hatching out plots against us, the French, and the Russians. In 1906 a large number of his and the letters of his nominal paymaster, Friedrich Engels,and of similar subversives to the German Communist, F. A. Sorge, and others were published in a book, Briefe und Auszüge aus Briefen von . . . Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, u.A. an F. A. Sorge und Andere, at Stuttgart. The editor of the letters was Sorge himself, then residing in the U.S.A. Later the originals of those and other letters, nearly all of them in German, written by Marx, Engels and their fellow-conspirators, were acquired by the New York Public Library. I have had all of the documents in question, amounting to some 850 pages, photostated, and I have employed an Englishman, who is thoroughly familiar with German and German handwritings and was for several years in the service of our Government, to examine the letters published by Sorge in 1906 and to compare them with the photostats in my possession, which, I may mention, I shall be happy to exhibit to any patriot desiring to see them. I will also supply, to patriots, at a small charge, copies of the portions of the letters of Marx and Engels reproduced in this volume.
      The expert employed by me reports:—
“Several of the letters which you have had photostated are not to be found in the work, Briefe und Auszüge aus Briefen von . . . Friedrich Engels, Karl {x} Marx, u.A. an F. A. Sorge und Andere, published at Stuttgart in 1906. In the letters actually published by Sorge, lacunae, not indicated in the printed text, occur. Letters and passages omitted by Sorge throw considerable light on the maleficent activities of Marx and Engels. When editing the letters, Sorge occasionally tampered with the text.
      “What is particularly noticeable in the letters of Engels and Marx is the contempt of those Communists for the mentality and characters of British ‘Labour’ Leaders, and most of our so-called statesmen. Their plan for causing a bloody revolution in our islands appears to have been based on a belief that British working men and working women were fools.”
      It will be seen that the Briefe und Auszüge . . . von Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx, etc., like Der Briefwechsen zwischen Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx (“The Correspondence between Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx”), published in 1913 by the Socialists, Bebel and Bernstein, is an untrustworthy book. It contains, however, striking evidence that both Marx and Engels ought to have been deported. Opposite is a photographic reproduction of sentences, in the spidery handwriting of Marx, occurring in a letter of his to Sorge dated 5 November, 1880, one of the letters photostated for me. Among those sentences are, as will be perceived, these:—
      “Quand on veut agir pour Messieurs les Français, il faut le faire anonymement, pour ne pas choquer le sentiment ‘national.’ As it is, the anarchists denounce our co-operators already as Prussian agents, under the dictatorship of the ‘notorious’ Prussian agent—Karl Marx.” (Briefe und Auszüge, etc., pp. 171-2.)
The anarchists had the best of reasons [Footnote: See Appendix II of the documented pamphlet Our Perilous Position (Boswell, 6d.).] for believing that Marx was a “Prussian Agent,” but, even if they had not, the words in French I have quoted indicate sufficiently the {xi} low cunning of the author of Das Kapital, a work which is now being used as a text-book at the University of Oxford.
      In low cunning, intelligence, and hatred towards us, Marx was easily surpassed by Friedrich Engels, whom Mrs. Marx called his “evil genius.”
      This miscreant, who was our “guest” between 1842 and 1845 and, later, between 1849 and 1895 (the year of his death), among other things, planned, as Mrs. Nesta Webster has pointed out, the Independent Labour Party which did its utmost to help the Germans defeat us in the Great War. On 4 May, 1887, nearly six years before the creation of the I.L.P., he wrote to Sorge:—
Aveling macht ein famose Agitation im East End von London . . . er und Tussy sind tüchtig an der Arbeit. Es handelt sich direkt um Stiftung einer englischen Arbeiterpartei mit unabhängigem Klassenprogramm. Dies, wenn’s gut geht, wird sowohl Soc. Dem. Federation wie Soc. League in den Hintergrund drängen . . . [Footnote: Briefe und Auszüge aus Briefen von Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx und Andere, pp. 262-3]
which Mrs. Webster has translated:
“Aveling is making a famous agitation in the East End of London ... he and Tussy (Eleanor Marx) are hard at work. It is a matter of founding an English Labour Party with an independent class programme. This, if it goes well, will then force the Social Democratic Federation and the Socialist League into the background . . . ” [Footnote: The Socialist Network (Boswell, 5/-) by Nesta H. Webster, p. 19. This invaluable work should be read by all patriots.]

      That Aveling and his “wife,” Eleanor Marx, were tools of Engels is notorious!
      The German sentences quoted by me from Engels’ letter of 4 May, 1887 to Sorge will be found on the photographic reproductions facing pp. vi and viii made from the photostat of it in my possession. {xii}

      Dietzgen—a Chicago Anarchist—writing to Sorge, on the 9th of June, 1886, informs him, inter alia, that he “believes in anarchy as a transitional stage.” He continues:—
“If the Chicago people will take this view of their matter, I can be helpful to them. The anarchists would then join us in rank and file, and together with the best Socialists of all countries would form a self-contained troop, ready for immediate action. For this purpose, it is my opinion that the names “ANARCHIST,” “SOCIALIST,” and “COMMUNIST” should be so interchanged and mixed up that the Devil himself would not understand which was which.”
      That Marx and Engels agreed with this is shown by a letter, dated the 27th of January, 1887, from Engels to the translator of “Das Kapital.” He writes, in English:—
      “When Marx founded the International, he drew up the rules in such a way that all working-class Socialists of that period could join it. Proudhonists, Pierre Lerouxists, and even the most advanced sections of the English Trades Unions were all eligible, and it was only by this latitude that the International became what it did, namely, a means of gradually absorbing all these minor sects.”
      This points to the fact that the word “Socialist,” as applied to the Communist Party, is a complete misnomer, that has probably done more harm to this country than any other word in the language. Events have since justified the calculation—International Labour became Socialism. This is now indistinguishable from Communism, and Communism is a dependent of Bolshevism, which is plain world revolution.

      In conclusion, I wish to acknowledge my thanks to numerous patriots—and, above all, to the late Lord Sydenham of Combe—for the great assistance which they have given me in producing this book.

LORD SYDENHAM OF COMBE, G.C.S.I., G.C.M.G., F.R.S, etc., etc.
[ Top of page ]

THE attitude of our country towards Alien immigrants supplies material for an interesting study. There have been prohibitions and even expulsions, subsequently mitigated or rescinded in accordance with the views of individual monarchs, or the requirements of Cromwell. With the dawning of democracy there were signs of a certain pride in conferring rights of asylum against the persecutions which other Powers, enemies of freedom, were wont to indulge. From this new policy we may have derived some advantages. Protagonists of Alien immigration never cease to refer to the case of the Huguenots and some other communities, who introduced or assisted new industries that proved a national gain. In the last century, ardent free-traders who elevated a policy—which for a time benefited their pockets exceedingly—into a religious dogma, naturally inclined towards the free import of foreigners, and traces of this tendency still remain.
      From these and other circumstances arose a curious tenderness towards the Alien, more especially if he claimed to be the political victim of a tyrannous government which desired to get rid of him on the ground that his activities were dangerous. Believing ourselves to be happily immune from revolutionary movements, we could feel a grateful sense of superiority to other nations less fortunate.
      The general and inevitable result was that our islands during the last two centuries have admitted a variegated menagerie of Aliens belonging to many distinctive nationalities. Accurate statistics of this large influx would be most instructive if available. The majority of these persons were doubtless immigrants seeking to better themselves and harmful only in the sense that they brought an infusion of foreign blood and ideas detrimental to our national life. So long as our land was under-populated, {xv} the foreign accretions had little economic effect. There was, however, a tainted stream of Aliens from the underworld of European capitals who found here an Alsatia in which they could and did plot in security. When the bellicose “Colonels” besought Napoleon III to permit them to extirpate the nests of conspirators across the Channel, there was a substratum of fact in their grievance.
      There is one outstanding example of an appalling injury to our country and Empire arising directly from the policy of the open door. The Prussian Friedrich Engels was allowed to establish himself and to build up a fortune as a hard capitalist. When Marx found his native Germany and France too hot to hold him he accepted our confiding hospitality in 1849, and enjoyed it for thirty-three years. Financed by Engels and assisted by the British Museum Library, this dangerous conspirator set himself to weave the threads spun by earlier revolutionaries into a pseudo-scientific system which was destined to capture the “Labour” organisations. Following Weishaupt, world revolution was his aim, and he directed his attack mainly against the country which sheltered him and explained how it could be destroyed. The fate of the greatest Empire the world has seen has come to depend upon whether Marxism, of which the great majority of present electors have never heard, can prevail at the polls, or whether British character still retains sufficient force to reject the exploded theories of this falsest of prophets and bitterest enemy of the British people.
      The facts and figures which Colonel Lane presents in this book will convince every reader that the Alien penetration of our country is a sinister menace to the economic, social and moral life of the nation. Official statistics are surprisingly meagre; but the author is able to adduce facts which point to a far greater spread of evils than can be subjected to arithmetical test. Naturalisation, on which statistics rely, is no safeguard. It does not change the habits, morals and outlook upon life of the individual, who remains an Alien. His descendants, unless and until they have become racially absorbed, continue to be Aliens, and the United States have tardily discovered that absorption is a slow and uncertain process. {xvi}
      Colonel Lane shows that overcrowding and the lack of house accommodation, in London especially, are largely due to the Alien immigration carelessly permitted. Hordes of Aliens take work of which our own people are in sore need and deprive them of house room, while making heavy demands upon rates and taxes. Emigration has practically stopped in spite of efforts formerly unnecessary, and our population grows by fully 250,000 a year.
      The relatively high criminality of Aliens has been established, and it is a monstrous thing that our defective statistics should lay to the charge of British people crimes which they have not perpetrated.
      British working men and women have no love for the Aliens, who in many districts make life harder for them; but, as Colonel Lane points out, the “Labour” Party, affiliated to the Second and intimately associated with the Third International, removed “even our present ineffective restrictions” and supplied the Alien with the dole, which, as he shows, may even be drawn by deportees.
      In “The Alien Menace,” for the first time, a mass of most ominous facts have been carefully collated and made available for every patriot to whom the honour of the nation is a cherished ideal. Colonel Lane has enabled us to understand the sources of growing danger; but who can set limits to the influences now being exerted openly and secretly by Alien forces? All whose memory goes back for even sixty years must be conscious of subtle changes in the national character, even in some aspects of public policy. Here will be found clues which the discerning patriot can follow. As the author insists, “Our deliverance rests with us alone. . . . Let us, therefore, commence the work of cleansing!” He has rendered a great public service by fearlessly unveiling the seamy side of our national life, and giving a plain warning which it is madness to disregard. The immunity of this old country from the world revolutionary movement, to which our forefathers may have trusted, has obviously vanished. We have even become specially vulnerable, and if the so-called “Labour” Party, entangled with its Alien affiliations, can attain power, the despairing epitaph may be written upon our glorious past:—

“Occidit, occidit, spes omnis et fortuna nostri nominis.”


[ Top of page ]

SIR E. CORNWALL asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made by an ex-Member of the House [Trebich Lincoln] to the effect that he had been acting as a German spy in this country; and whether . . . he will introduce legislation making it impossible in future for a person of such alien antecedents to become a candidate for Parliament?
THE PRIME MINISTER [Mr. Asquith]: This is a matter which must be left to the discrimination of the electors.
MR. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of preventing recently naturalised aliens, especially alien enemies, from becoming Members of this House?
MR. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why this gentleman was allowed to escape after the Government had been warned that he was a spy?
THE PRIME MINISTER: How can I answer that?
(Hansard: House of Commons, 1915, Vol. LXXII, col. 784.)

“I want to examine the laws and regulations as to the entry of Aliens into this country, for in these days no Alien should be substituted for one of our own people when we have not enough work at home to go round.”
Mr. Baldwin in Election Speech broadcast on 16 October, 1924.

RW: This linked HTML version of Lane's The Alien Menace, rebuilt from's PDF file, is, I hope more easily computer-readable than other versions. I've reviewed Lane's book in my review section, trying to be as helpful as possible in my comments. (My reviews are now banned from Amazon).
      Sometime I may insert chapter headings, in red, to enable readers to locate topics more easily than in these monolithic blocks of text. The facsimile handwritten letters, from Marx and others, have been dropped; and I omitted the index, which seems unnecessary. The photos have been inserted where they seem to have some reasonable place. The design layout is my copyright, but not of course any content.
      First uploaded 10-September-2017. Decided to include my review 11-Sept-2017   [ Top of this page | My website ]