Immigration and Racial Tensions (AQA A-Level History): Revision Notes

Immigration and Racial Tensions

Background to post-war immigration

At the conclusion of the Second World War, Britain's non-white population remained extremely small. Estimates suggested between 20,000 and 30,000 non-white residents lived in Britain, concentrated primarily in port cities such as Liverpool and Cardiff's Tiger Bay. These communities had developed through maritime connections and wartime service, but represented a tiny fraction of the overall population. The Labour government's British Nationality Act 1948, which granted citizenship rights to Commonwealth subjects, was never designed to encourage large-scale migration. However, the legislation inadvertently created the legal framework through which substantial numbers of people from the newly independent nations of the New Commonwealth could exercise their right to settle permanently in the United Kingdom.

This gap became apparent shortly after the Act's passage when the former German troop carrier Empire Windrush docked at Tilbury in June 1948, carrying just under 500 passengers from Jamaica. The ship's arrival caused dismay among ministers and officials in the Ministry of Labour, who had not anticipated such a direct and immediate response to the new legislation.

Patterns of post-war immigration

Statistical evidence reveals the changing composition of Britain's immigrant population during the 1950s.

• In 1951, foreign-born residents constituted 4.3% of the total population of 43.7 million.
• The largest immigrant group came from Ireland, followed by Poland, India, Germany, Russia, and Jamaica.
• By 1961, the proportion of foreign-born residents had increased to 5% of a population of 46 million.
• Ireland remained the largest source country (683,000).

These figures demonstrate that whilst immigration from the New Commonwealth was increasing, European migration continued to represent a large proportion of new arrivals. The anxiety expressed about immigration was therefore disproportionate to the actual scale of the influx, but largely ignored ongoing arrivals from Europe. This disparity in concern revealed underlying racial prejudice within British society.

Government responses under Labour (1945-1951)

Following the Windrush arrival, a group of Labour MPs expressed blunt concerns. They warned that "an influx of coloured people... is likely to impair the harmony, strength and cohesion of our public and social life and to cause discord and unhappiness among all concerned". Despite a characteristically measured response from Prime Minister Clement Attlee, the Labour government did seriously consider introducing restrictive legislation to limit migration from the Commonwealth. After careful deliberation, the cabinet decided in February 1951 against immediate legislation, but agreed to maintain close surveillance of the situation. Future legislation remained a possibility rather than being definitively ruled out.

Conservative governments and the migration increase (1951-1961)

When the Conservative Party took office in October 1951, approximately 5,000 migrants had arrived from the New Commonwealth, predominantly from the West Indies. Over the subsequent decade, this figure increased substantially, driven partly by the improving British economy and labour market. Around 2,000 people arrived from the Caribbean in 1953, rising to 11,000 in 1954 and 27,000 in 1955.

The Churchill and Eden governments held back from introducing legislation, largely because of the practical difficulty of differentiating between migration from the Old Commonwealth and the New Commonwealth. Arguments about 'kith and kin' carried weight, whilst all Commonwealth citizens remained technically British subjects regardless of origin. Churchill himself was inherently hostile to this 'new' immigration. Harold Macmillan noted that the Prime Minister thought "'Keep England White' a good slogan", though this was not an issue to which Churchill gave priority.

Within the cabinet, Lord Salisbury became convinced that only new restrictions could prevent future racial conflict. His arguments anticipated debates that would resurface decades later regarding European freedom of movement. Salisbury attributed what he characterised as the "sudden influx of blacks" to the attractions of the Welfare State, continuing: "So long as the antiquated rule obtains that any British subject can come into the country without any limitation at all, these people will pour in to take advantage of our social services and other amenities, and we shall have no protection at all".

Some historians, including Richard Lamb, have suggested that the mid-1950s represented a missed opportunity to introduce restrictive legislation before the issue became more contentious. A 1957 report by Lord Hailsham, the Lord President of the Council, expressed renewed concern about social problems emerging in certain towns and cities. However, the cabinet once again decided against immediate legislation, noting that public opinion remained insufficiently exercised to justify government action.

The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1961-1962

The situation changed decisively in 1961. Home Secretary R.A. Butler introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill to limit the number of 'new' immigrants entering Britain. Immigration had peaked at over 100,000 in both 1961 and 1962, representing the highest levels yet recorded. Butler's legislation required most immigrants to possess either a work permit or employment voucher before entering Britain, effectively ending the 'open door' policy that had existed since 1948.

By 1961, the Labour Party vehemently opposed such restrictions, despite the party's own earlier examination of similar measures when in government. This represented a notable shift in Labour's position, reflecting changing political calculations about what had previously been considered a much smaller problem.

Racial prejudice in British society

By the time Butler introduced his bill, the government possessed substantial evidence about the extent of racial prejudice and its capacity to inflame social tensions. Whilst prejudice and discrimination appeared less obvious than in the southern United States (a comparison opponents of immigration frequently made to illustrate what Britain might face), the country harboured a considerable measure of colour-based prejudice.

In June 1952, Bishop Barnes of Birmingham suggested that in districts with substantial foreign populations, "neither moral standards nor social behaviour are satisfactory". A television documentary broadcast in January 1955 provided considerable evidence of a British colour bar. Robert Reid, who introduced the documentary, was told by one disgruntled viewer: "you and your black friends ought to be put up against a wall and shot". Such extreme reactions were not isolated incidents.

For many people, sexual relationships and particularly marriage between members of different races proved especially unacceptable. This attitude was frequently justified by the widespread conviction that such practices were 'unnatural' or 'against the Bible'. Others employed the self-perpetuating argument that children of mixed-race relationships would face hostility through no fault of their own, therefore such relationships should be discouraged to protect potential children from suffering they had done nothing to deserve.

Racial violence and the 1958 riots

Whilst eliminating prejudice through legislation presented obvious difficulties, ministers could not ignore outbreaks of racially motivated violence. The late summer of 1958 witnessed Britain's first substantial examples of such activity in Nottingham and Notting Hill, West London. Ugly scenes unfolded, labelled 'nigger-hunts' in the language of the period. These disturbances were prompted primarily by competition for housing in inner city areas where immigrant populations had concentrated.

Butler informed the cabinet that it would be necessary to give further consideration to the circumstances that had produced interracial violence. However, the government initially preferred to attempt controlling the rate of immigration without immediate recourse to legislation. Before long, Butler became convinced that only pre-emptive action could head off a future escalation in racial tension. The Commonwealth Immigrants Bill represented his response to this conviction, marking a decisive shift from monitoring immigration to actively restricting it.

Summary