Jewish Board of Guardians (United Kingdom)

The Jewish Board of Guardians was a charity established in the East End of London by members of the Jewish community in 1859.[1] The situation of the Jewish poor in London was increasingly problematic by the late 19th century. Christian missionaries and conversionists targeted the Jewish poor, which became a concern for their co-religionists. Members of the Jewish community deemed existing methods of relief for the Jewish poor in London as insufficient.[2] The Board of Guardians was established to consolidate and effectively provide relief where other charities had failed. The Board of Guardians was established because of the introduction of the 1834 Poor Law amendments by secular authorities.[3] These laws applied a workhouse test to qualify for poor relief; the workhouse was unsuitable for the Jewish community because of their special religious constraints and requirements.[3] The three main Ashkenazi synagogues of London thus established the Board of Guardians. These were the Great Synagogue, the Hambro' Synagogue, and the New Synagogue. These establishments voted in 1958 to establish a conjoint committee to tackle the issue of the Jewish poor. The first meeting of the Jewish Board of Guardians was held at the Great Synagogue chambers on March 16, 1859. The Board was initially led by Ephraim Alex, overseer of the poor for the Great Synagogue, who secured a grant of less than £500 from the three synagogues to assess the Jewish poor in London.[4] The seventeen members who founded the Board were delegates of the Ashkenazi synagogues. They included financiers, businessmen and professionals. Lionel Louis Cohen was the honorary secretary of the Board until he succeeded Alex and became president of the Board in 1869.[5] Baron Ferdinand de Rothschild began terms as Treasurer in 1868 and 1875.[6] The headquarters were initially an extension on the Jewish Soup Kitchen, but later moved to Middlesex Street.[7] On its foundation the Board stated that,

“the teachings of religion, the impulses of humanity and the doctrines of social sciences alike concur in recommending and consecrating an enlarged and expansive charity, and in distinguishing it from mere alms-giving".[8]

The Board later became concerned with the poor from the Netherlands, Germany, and increasingly Eastern Europe.

In their 29th annual report, the Board stated that

"Organization such as possessed by the board is necessary from an economic point of view, so as to practically eradicate the great problem of relief in a manner which will do the largest amount of good with the means at disposal; and the fact must not be ignored that a larger expenditure is not a sure indication of an increase in pauperperism and nursing but may reflect a removal of poverty by a prompt wrestling with discovered suffering through the bestowal of an adequate and measured assistance."[9]

Although the Board had been providing relief to the Jewish poor since 1859, it was not used to dealing with the vast numbers of Jews that began to settle in London, resulting in a number of issues. These issues included problems of overcrowding which caused increases in rent and poor living conditions. Bad living conditions and appalling sanitation resulted in the spread of illness and disease, meaning medical relief was limited. There was also higher competition for jobs and widespread unemployment. The Board were concerned with the number of Jews potentially arriving to seek relief temporarily instead of aiming for long-term self-improvement.

Therefore a six-month rule was devised, which was primarily a probation period for the Jewish immigrants. Relief was not given unless Jews had been in the country for at least six months. This rule was proposed by Ephraim Alex, the first president of the Board (1859–69), in, A Scheme for a Board of Guardians, to be formed for the relief of the necessitious foreign poor.[22] However, relief was distributed to the new immigrants in cases of emergency. In the 1880s it became apparent that the elite would be faced with an influx on immigration as immigrants left Eastern Europe either to start a new life in England, or to use England as a temporary stopping point as they aspired to reach America. The Board initiated several methods to control immigration, as it became transparently impossible to limit it, such as transmigration, dispersion and repatriation.Jews were either emigrated on to countries such as America, Canada and Australia or repatriated back. From 1881-1914, the Board helped 17,087 people to settle in London, however, it managed to reduce overcrowding by emigrating 8,152 and repatriating 7,574 people. Nathan S. Joseph, chairman of the Executive of the Conjoint Committee of the Russo-Jewish Committee and Board of Guardians 1893-1909, to differentiate the ‘industrial fitness’ of the Jewish immigrants. The classification was as followed: "firstly, skilled artisans, who were vigorous, robust and healthy, secondly, those fit to transmigrate and thirdly, the poor and weak, the adventurer and mendicant."[23] Generally, those who were put into the first category, mainly being young, fit and healthy were offered help to transmigrate. More immigrants, however were repatriated as it was the most cost efficient option. Historian Vivian D. Lipman, argued that it is Jewish tradition "to give applicants enough to get them to get them on to the next town and the next overseer."

The Russo-Jewish Committee was established in 1882 to oversee all matters of Jewish immigrants. The Conjoint Committee an amalgamation of the Russo-Jewish Committee and the Jewish Board of Guardians, aimed to tackle all matters of immigration. This committee collaborated with the Board (between 1893 and 1909) and became the primary source of aid to the Jewish poor. "The Conjoint Committee was the lineal descendent of the Mansion House Committee "[39] Despite the fact that the two organizations were a partnership, the Board of Guardians continued to dominate the majority of decisions. Sir Julian Goldsmid, chairman of the Russo-Jewish Committee, cooperated with Benjamin Cohen, who was the president of the Jewish Board of Guardians at this time. Any disagreements between the two leaders were settled by the interests of the elite as a whole. As a result of the six month rule, other charities developed in order to aid the immigrants."In the process of adjustment those immigrants were helped by relatives, kinsmen, landsleit, and alternative smaller and more flexible institutions, such as Hevras" [40] Hevras, a charity also established in the East End, offered help for immigrants to overcome the distress’ caused by the immigration process. This charity was less hierarchical and more democratic than the Board. For many, Hevras represented traditional Jewish morals within the charities policies. Many immigrants turned to Hevras because of the Board of Guardians restrictive policies, such as the six-month rule.

Public opinion of the Jewish Poor in London is hugely significant in understanding why the Board was created, and in part, what the Board sought to achieve. Bad public opinion regarding foreign poor was due to the massive influx of immigration effecting London’s resources and the commonly held myth of "the Dirty Jew being reinforced by the foreign poor."[41] Even Alfred Cohen a brother of Leonard Cohen, who was a Board member, regarded alien Jews as "dirty squalid and unpleasant."[5] "The foreign poor were accused of causing overcrowding, increases in rents and demands for premiums."[42]

The Aliens Act of 1905 can be seen as responding to this negative public opinion of immigrants, non-specifically Jewish. However, the act "is generally believed to have been chiefly a response to heavy East European Jewish immigration into Britain after 1880."[43] This therefore shows correlation with Jewish immigration. The act was also created in part because of negative public view of the migrant Jewish community; with "agitation to restrict Jewish immigration beginning in the 1880s and becoming more outspoken through the actions of a number of right-wing groups and activists."[44] The Aliens act was the "first piece of immigration legislation in 20th century Britain" and the first "to define some groups of migrants as undesirable."[45]

It is said that, "The Act ensured that leave to land could be withheld if the immigrant was judged to be undesirable by falling into one of four categories: a) if he cannot show that he has in his possession ... the means of decently supporting himself and his dependents ...; 'b) if he is a lunatic or an idiot or owing to any disease of infirmity liable to become a charge upon the public rates ...; c) 'if he has been sentenced in a foreign country for a crime, not being an offence of a political character ...; or d) if an expulsion order under this act has (already) been made."[46]

The above statement can be seen to relate to the Board’s own category of defining applicants as deserving or undeserving but also represents the stereotypes immigrants may receive from the outburst of negative public opinion. "The Board members were of a higher social stance than the Jewish immigrants and poor they were helping."[47] They used their upper-class status to gain funds from friends and colleagues which allowed the Board to function as well as it did. Rozin supported this by stating that the "Cohens were supported morally and financially by the wealthy class as a whole."[48] Furthermore, the work of the Board, therefore, may have been more for preservation of the existing Jewish community and identity in as far as it sought to help the poor altruistically.

The work of the Board of Guardians diminished in the 20th Century. The medical committee had been disbanded in favour of relief provided by the official state authorities, and later more committees reduced their work in favour of state funded welfare. The Board had been at the forefront of innovation, but a lack of change meant it began less prevalent. Eugene C Black argues that, "for its first thirty years the Board had been in the forefront of innovation in social work, for the next thirty, it fell further and further behind."[49]

"The Board slowly adapted its administrative attitudes, arrangements and commitments."[49]

"The liberal government increased social welfare legislation in 1905, and further increased it after the December 1910 election".[50] The introduction of old age pensions in 1908, national insurance in 1911 affected the Board's work. The 1905 Aliens Act similarly worked in the Board's favour by decreasing the number of immigrants allowed to enter Britain. "However, some of these reforms were not fully applicable, especially of many of the Board's recipients were not British citizens and therefore could not qualify."[50]

By 1920 a broader scope of unemployment laws meant that they began to help the Jewish community. "Much of the Board's work shifted to the public sphere, with most relief being provided by the state apparatus."[51]

In the 1990s the Jewish Board of Guardians merged with other Jewish charities to become Jewish Care, an organization that still exists today.

Despite the Board being a charity, they did receive criticisms from ex-members and the general public. Some of the main criticisms of the Jewish Board of Guardians come from those within the Jewish community itself. The general organization of the Board was criticized, with some claiming "the private donor was uninformed and misdirected, so often gave to the wrong people, the wrong amount and in the wrong way."[52] Lipman went as far as to state that, "there was no attempt at budgetary control."[53]

However, despite the need to be critical of how the Board could have improved efficiency, it cannot be ignored that the reasons for these mistakes were the Board trying to deal with an increasing number of cases. This meant that "the time staff could spend on one case and money they had to give was decreased."[54]

The process of checking if an applicant was worthy for relief was also analyzed. People "criticized the Board for a lack of sympathy in the administration of relief, claiming the applicants were interviewed standing up behind a brass rail."[54] The Board was also accused of losing sight of the applicant’s real needs and failing to provide constructive help in the early 20th century.

However, the main criticism the Board faced was regarding emigration and repatriation. Many felt that the Board’s great work encouraged people who were not suffering persecution to come to England purely for a better standard of living, giving the impression that the Board were encouraging immigration. However, the Board’s way of dealing with this has also been highly criticized. They created the six-month rule to refuse relief to those that had been in the country less than six months. But this rule "meant the new immigrants in the greatest distress were denied relief...However this was counteracted by the fact that discretionary power relieved those in need despite the amount of time they were in the country for... Repatriation as a whole was criticized. As many believed it was "endangering the lives of the repatriates as took them back into discrimination and awful conditions."[47] However, in 1905 after the Pogrom the Board stopped repatriation completely but was persuaded to bring it back due to a mass of requests from applicants. "The Board was also generally under scrutiny from other organizations. The "American-Jewish establishment suggested that the Board were not making as much effort as they could."[55]

Additionally, old Board members such as Asher I Myers published "sustained criticism in the Jewish Chronicle."[20] Nevertheless, this was an organization experiencing increasing pressure on their resources and relying almost entirely on donations. The Board was also "always hampered by the fact that if they developed their services too far they might be encouraging immigrants."[56]

• Black, Eugene. C The Social Politics Of Anglo-Jewry, 1880-1920 (Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell, 1988)
• Jbooks.com, 'Jbooks.Com - Interviews And Profiles: A Literary History Of The Dirty Jew', 2015, accessed 6 May 2015.
• Jewishvirtuallibrary.org, 'Aliens Act | Jewish Virtual Library', 2015, Jewish virtual Library [accessed 6 May 2015].
• Englander, David, A Documentary History of Jewish Immigrants in Britain, 1840-1920, Leicester: Leicester University Press (1994)
• Herinst.org, 'Business-Managed Culture - Work And Welfare - Deserving Vs Undeserving Poor', 2015, accessed 6 May 2015.
• Hartley Library, University of Southampton, MS 173/3/11/2 Archives of Jewish Care, 1894-1901, 39th Annual Report of the Board of Guardians for the Relief of the Jewish Poor 1890-1901
• Lipman, Vivian D., A Century of Social Service, 1859-1959: The Jewish Board of Guardians, Routledge and K. Paul, 1959, p. 54
• Magnus, Laurie,The Jewish Board of Guardians and the Men who Made it, 1859-1909, London: The Jewish Board of Guardians (1909)
• Rozin, Mordechai, The Rich and the Poor, Jewish Philanthropy and Social Control in Nineteenth-Century London, Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 1999
• 20thcenturylondon.org.uk, 'Aliens Acts 1905 And 1919, Explore 20Th Century London', 2015, 20th-century London [accessed 6 May 2015].
• Hartley Library, University of Southampton, MS 173/2/12/4 Archives of Jewish Care, 1757-1889, 29th Annual Report of the Board of Guardians for the Relief of the Jewish Poor 1887-1893