Jewish Board of Guardians (United Kingdom)

The first meeting of the Jewish Board of Guardians was held at the Great Synagogue chambers on March 16, 1859.

[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".

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.

As Eugene C. Black states,"the board strove to avoid any form of aid that might pauperise the recipient or crease passive dependency".

[10] Unlike other Victorian charities the Board could not rely on the workhouse and had to create useful and novel practices to help their own community.

[14] This allowed the Board to advertise in continental papers against migration to England in hope of receiving aid.

[15] By 1896 the investigation of cases was assigned to an official committee, who brought legal action against those they deemed to be unworthy or misusing the Board's charity.

The 1905 Annual Report of the board shows that the highest group of people receiving temporary relief was those with illnesses and the lowest being those with husbands in prison.

"[20] Although, this is not the figures of applicants that have recently arrived in the country, as "earlier immigrants had become absorbed in the resident population and had become reliant on the Board for relief.

"[20] From 1889 to 1914, the Jewish Board of Guardians was the primary organization that dealt with the foreign poor in a narrow area of the East End which suffered from a great deal of overcrowding.

Bad living conditions and appalling sanitation resulted in the spread of illness and disease, meaning medical relief was limited.

The Board were concerned with the number of Jews potentially arriving to seek relief temporarily instead of aiming for long-term self-improvement.

The board initiated several methods to control immigration, as it became transparently impossible to limit it, such as transmigration, dispersion and repatriation.

The classification was as follows: "firstly, skilled artisans, who were vigorous, robust and healthy, secondly, those fit to transmigrate and thirdly, the poor and weak, the adventurer and mendicant.

"[22] Generally, those who were put into the first category, mainly being young, fit and healthy were offered help to transmigrate.

Laurie Magnus states that, "Following the loans of sewing machines the industrial committee used this money to accomplish 2 main purposes: In 1896 Helen Lucas became the president of the JBG workrooms where girls would be taught how to embroider and other types of needlework so that they would become employable.

Eugene C Black states,"those who could not adapt and were poor prospects for emigration, Board leaders argued, should not remain burdens on the community".

Laurie Magnus states that,"The Board believed that the central problem of relief lay in the homes of the poor".

The medical Board was given medical officers and £293 and 18s to solve this issue...The issues faced by the Board included insufficient food and clothing, a neglect of proper standards of cleanliness, bad ventilation, overcrowded dwellings and deficient light...The visiting committee, which was established in 1862, dealt with housing".

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.

However, the act "is generally believed to have been chiefly a response to heavy East European Jewish immigration into Britain after 1880.

"[44] 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.

"[45] 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.

"[47] 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 1905 Aliens Act similarly worked in the Board's favour by decreasing the number of immigrants allowed to enter Britain.

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.

"[53] 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.

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.

"[46] 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.

"[54] Additionally, old Board members such as Asher I Myers published "sustained criticism in the Jewish Chronicle.