Emigration and immigration

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


VII.—Emigration and Immigration. By C. F. Bastable, M.A.

[Read Tuesday, 26th June, 1888.]


Alike in old and new countries there has been, during the last few years, a remarkable revival of interest in the long debated and apparently exhausted problems of emigration and colonization. Many important European states have shown by their official enquiries and reports, as well as by public discussion, that the attention of statesmen and publicists has been directed to the effects, both social and economic, likely to follow from the recent movements of population. On the other hand, the United States and our Australian and American colonies, looking at the same set of facts from an opposite stand-point, have been engaged in an examination of the influence which various classes of immigrants must necessarily exercise on their earlier inhabitants, and have even in some degree proposed to deal in a practical manner with the problem. It may not, therefore, be out of place to consider some of the questions thus brought into notice, the more so as Ireland is surely as deeply interested in the policy pursued towards immigrants by foreign nations as any other country.

The first point which is evident on even the most cursory notice is the general extent of the movement. Almost every country in Europe is a region either of emigration or immigration. England, Germany, Italy, and the Scandinavian peninsula, each send out an annual stream, varying, it is true, in amount with the conditions of trade, but never wholly ceasing. France, on the contrary, receives an increasing number of foreigners, and in this way has the decline, or at all events the very slow growth, of its native population somewhat disguised. Switzerland, again, is at once a land of emigration and immigration, the amounts of each being very nearly the same. New countries are all, more or less, the recipients of the surplus population of older lands, and find that their unoccupied territory is being rapidly taken up by the new arrivals, and that their city populations are in many cases mainly composed of persons born abroad. There is, too, a process which may be called transmigration operating on an extensive scale. Large numbers pass from Canada to the United States, or from one Australasian colony to another; and within these larger areas there is a great tendency towards shiftings of population—in the United States, from the eastern towards the western States, and in Australia, towards the larger colonies. The entry of oriental countries into the field is a further evidence of the diffusion of the spirit of movement, though its chief importance lies rather in its indications of what may happen in the future, rather than the actual magnitude of the emigration.

To enable a somewhat less inadequate idea to be formed of the series of facts thus briefly indicated, the accompanying tables may prove of service.

These changes in distribution of population do not thus end. They produce economic, social, and political effects of several kinds which need some fuller notice.

Both emigration and immigration, economically considered, have a very definite object. They aim at producing a better distribution of labour, just as interchange of commodities tends to bring about a better circulation of wealth. The emigrant generally seeks to improve his condition; he is attracted by the prospect of higher wages and a better standard of living. Older countries by the process get rid of their spare population, and are saved from the fall of wages which almost inevitably results when the labour market is unrelieved. New lands by the same agency receive that additional labour force which is essential for a full development of their resources. It is true that under the influence of mercantilist ideas it was once universally held that emigration exhausted a population; but it need hardly be said that theory and experience alike show that where social conditions are even moderately well adjusted, the number of inhabitants will rapidly grow up to the limits of comfortable subsistence, or even beyond them, and that so long as a livelihood is easily obtained there need be no fear as to a decline of population. Immigration, on the other hand, has generally been welcomed. New countries, more especially, have kept an open door for all arrivals. The increase of population has been taken as the great test of advance, and every immigrant was looked on as additional evidence of progress. This process of development is not, however, unlimited. In the advance of a community a point is sooner or later reached at which any further addition to population does not increase the proportional amount of wealth, and then immigration may justly take the place which emigration used to occupy in the minds of the statesmen of older countries, viz., as a danger to the welfare of society. This point of view will not at once be adopted. Men do not easily change their favourite doctrines, even under the most pressing circumstances. It is more likely that some particular kind of immigration, presenting peculiarly objectionable features, will first be assailed; but there can be little doubt that the habit of criticising immigration, once formed, will act with increasing force. The attainment of this stage marks a turning point in national history, and the fact that the United States and the English colonies appear to be now approaching it, makes the study of the subject at present more interesting.

The political and social results of emigration, though not susceptible of precise treatment, yet reinforce the conclusion I have drawn from a consideration of economical conditions. Older and long settled countries have, in the course of time, less reason to regret parting with various classes of their inhabitants. Emigration is a safety-valve for any political system, more particularly as by a process of natural selection it takes off the more discontented members of a community. Germany can hardly have any reason to regret the action of an agency which relieved it of the Chicago anarchists. But the same fact naturally influences those countries which are the centres of immigration. In a rude and widely-scattered community the character of the population is of little moment. The convicts of Australia, or the gangs of outlaws who formed the early settlements in California, under the pressure of rigorous social conditions speedily settled down into law-abiding citizens. Nor, if we can trust their early historians, was the case different with the Pilgrim Fathers. An able American writer has put this point very clearly:—

"We are no longer in that vigorous early civilization, when we could digest almost anything sent to us, and when the very conditions of life here corrected and controlled the weaknesses of the immigrants. In a frontier life the new-comer not only has a chance to begin anew, but, in a sense, he is obliged to do so. He is thrown on himself, and obliged to look out for himself. On the other hand, he is controlled by the rough justice which is dealt out between man and man. The code of morality may be rude, but he is obliged to conform to it." [1]

The progress of society weakens this power of assimilation. A state of settled political type, and with deeply-rooted social and religious sentiments, cannot "digest almost anything sent" to it. When confidence is general, and when wealth is held in many shapes, the addition of a small lawless element may shake the whole social order, and in particular, profoundly influence the political system; and it thus becomes a natural aim of societies so placed to protect themselves against the dangers likely to result from an inferior class of immigrants; as the writer just quoted says:—

"We want good men, and we want to guard against a process of selection that seems likely to send us poor men."

The political effect of immigration is all the more marked in new countries, owing to the easy terms on which naturalisation is obtained. Thus, in the State of Massachusetts, according to its census of 1885, there were 98,199 Irish born males over twenty years of age, 62,599 of whom were naturalised—i.e., over 63 per cent. It is not hard to see that a decisive effect may be exercised at elections by a solid vote given by such a body; and though other countries do not equal Ireland in the percentage of citizens they give to the State, yet we may remark that there are 16,386 naturalised Englishmen in Massachusetts, out of a total of 30,323 English-born—i.e., over 54 per cent.

Bearing in mind the facts just mentioned, it is not very hard to account for the rising feeling against indiscriminate immigration; nor need there be any hesitation in predicting that it will in all likelihood extend to immigration in general. The causes which have united to produce the sentiment may, however, for the sake of completeness, be more definitely stated:—

(1) The great body of available public lands in the United States has now been taken up, and thus the field of settlement for farmers is practically limited to land purchased from companies or private holders. This element of the question will naturally become increasingly prominent.

(2) For many years it has been an article of faith with the strongest political party that the American working-man should be protected from the competition of pauper labour; an aim which was supposed to be accomplished by the imposition of heavy duties on almost all commodities imported from Europe. The American working-man unfortunately found to his cost that this "protection" implied an increased cost of living, while it utterly failed to secure him constancy of employment. We cannot, therefore, wonder that he should try to apply the doctrine of protection to labour in a more logical manner. If the exclusion of the products of pauper labour be so beneficial as is asserted, it is only natural to believe that the shutting out of pauper labour itself will prove a still greater good. The workingman may fairly say to the protectionist politician:—

"So long as I am exposed to the competition of labourers just landed from Europe I can never hope for increased wages through strikes or any other means. If, therefore, you are sincere in your advocacy or protection to American labour, you are bound to support an agitation which seeks to check immigration."

It cannot be denied that the limitation of the number of labourers is a much more efficient mode of raising wages, than the taxation of imports. Trades unionism in the United States can never hope for much success, until it is able to dispose of a large proportion of the total body of labourers, a power of which it is necessarily deprived by the continuous influx of foreigners. The following passage so clearly illustrates the point, that I venture to quote it:—

"One of the most notable of the strikes of the year—that of the freight-handlers upon the piers and at the railroad termini of New York, is full of teachings of the utmost interest and importance. The question was put at the commencement of the difficulties, by the writer, to the foreman of a body of freight-handlers not participating in the strike—on one of the steamboat piers of New York:—'Is the strike likely, in your opinion, to be successful?' 'There is not the ghost of a chance for success,' was the prompt reply. 'Why not?' 'Simply for the reason that two men stand ready to do the work that offered for only one.' 'Have the labourers then no remedy for their grievances?' 'Yes; let us have a law prohibiting the coming in of all those labourers from Europe.' 'Do you think the enactment of such a law possible?' 'Yes, if the labourers all over the country were united in demanding it, the politicians would soon bring it about.' "[2]

On the whole then it is plain that the outcry against immigration is but a logical deduction from the popular political economy of Americans; but it at the same time has to contend against two forces, both of them of influence, viz. (a) the deeply-rooted feeling that America is a land of liberty, open to all comers; a sentiment well expressed by Emerson in the declaration that "The land is rich enough, the soil has bread for all." (b) Reinforcing this inherited doctrine of complete freedom of "opportunity" comes the strong capitalist interest which would be directly affected by anything that tended to raise the cost of labour. No one can doubt that the agencies which have established protection would be used to preserve the right of free immigration; but such methods would inevitably be conquered by any strong popular movement. A like feeling against a constant influx of labourers is to be found in the English colonies. Thus, we are told in the latest report of the Emigrants' Information Office, that—

"At the present time, when there is apparently a growing inclination in this country to promote emigration, it should be fully realised how strong a feeling exists in most of the colonies against the unrestricted and indiscriminate admission of immigrants. This feeling is due partly to the objection of tax-payers to pauper immigrants, partly to the objection of workmen on the spot to competition in the labour market, which may have the effect of reducing the rate of wages."[3]

Assisted immigration is particularly obnoxious, when assistance comes from the colony, as it appears rather hard that the resident artisan should be taxed in order to supply funds for the purpose of lowering his wages.

(3) Certain classes of immigrants have been specially objected to, on the grounds of some real or supposed inferiority. Everyone now has heard of the "Chinese difficulty," which is so perplexing to American and Australian statesmen; but in reality it is only one part of a larger problem, viz., the effect on a population with a high standard of comfort of a continuous influx of persons accustomed to a lower scale of living. Thus in the United States, Irishmen were at one time objected to by a large section, and at present there is some dislike felt to the immigration of French Canadians, who, in several New England districts, form the greater number of factory hands. Italians, Russians, and Hungarians, all now contribute to the immigration, and even two small bodies of Arabs have succeeded in making their way to the United States; but against immigrants from all these nations there lies the objection that they will lower the working-class standard of comfort. For example, speaking of the Hungarians, Professor Smith says, "that they seem to be but little superior to the Chinese civilization." Once it is admitted that immigration is a suitable subject for regulation, such cases will be speedily dealt with.

(4) Another element of the question which will assuredly occupy a prominent place in future discussions, is the asserted decline in the class of immigrants even from countries that have been the main sources of emigration to the United States. Thus it is pointed out that the percentage of emigration from the western counties of Ireland is increasing, and' that these counties are also the most backward.[4]

In like manner German emigration is more largely supplied from the north-eastern, that is, the poorer and most illiterate provinces, than it used to be.

"A similar movement may be discovered in the recent statistics of Italian emigration: the movement is steadily pushing from the better regions of the north, to the poorer regions of the south."[5]

(5) But whatever be the case with purely voluntary emigration, all attempts to artificially encourage it by state grants or private benevolence, will, we may be sure, be vigilantly watched by the anti-immigrationists in every new country. The legal powers at present possessed by the Commissioners of Immigration in the United States are very feeble, the only persons with whom they can interfere, under the act of 1882, being "convicts, lunatics, idiots, or persons unable to take care of themselves without becoming a public charge;" but should any reason be given, they will assuredly be widely extended. The truth is that the interests of the country sending, and of that receiving an immigrant, are almost necessarily in some degree opposed. The former naturally wishes to get rid of its feeblest and least valuable members. The idle, vicious, and criminal, are those who can most easily be spared. But then it is precisely these classes that are the least desirable addition to the members of a civilized community. The existence of a poor law system still further complicates the matter; for by the emigration of paupers, the local taxes of the sending country are relieved, and the inhabitants of the country of immigration may be compelled to contribute to the support of persons who have no real claim on them. At the same time it may be said that there is no proof that the class of emigrants ever reached a high standard. An analysis of the occupations of immigrants to the United States during the decade 1877-86, as given in Table XII., will clearly show that unskilled labourers formed the largest proportion of the immigrants. Still the belief in a deterioration of character in the later arrivals, may, even though it is quite unfounded, seriously affect future legislation.

It therefore becomes a matter of great interest to consider what would be the effect of this threatened change of policy in new countries on the fortunes of older ones. So far as most, indeed all, European countries are concerned, it is evident that either a diminished birth-rate, or emigration, is essential for the maintenance of even the low standard of comfort that at present exists. No legislative or social changes can greatly alter the relation of subsistence to population. Peasant-proprietary, whatever be its social and economic advantages, cannot meet this fundamental difficulty, as the case of France, and, to take a nearer instance, the Channel Islands show. Nor can any extension of non-agricultural employments give more than a temporary relief. Nothing is to be gained by shutting our eyes to the facts that emigration is a vital need, and that the conditions on which it can be carried on are rapidly changing. The emigrants that new countries will care to get are not those that we want to leave us, while those we can best spare are not likely to be willingly received. Under such circumstances, the plans of state-aided emigration, put forward with too much persistency, seems to me to be sadly mistaken. The least objectionable form that such plans have ever taken is perhaps that put forward by the Earl of Meath, when he says:—

"All that the association desires is that the British government shall, in conjunction with the colonial authorities, draw up a well-considered scheme of emigration and colonisation, by means of which able-bodied and industrious men, who may not be possessed of the means necessary to enable them to emigrate, shall be provided with the means of colonising, or of emigrating with their families under the strictest possible guarantee that the money shall be repaid with easy interest within a certain number of years."[6]

It is only necessary to carefully examine this passage to see the difficulties of the proposal. In the first place it would require a costly and complicated machinery for its working. It is, I am aware, a preliminary assumption in all these plans that they are to work without flaws. Red-tape and officialism are to be laid aside, and perfect organisation is to take their place. But without being unduly sceptical in the powers of governmental departments, one may like to get something beyond the statements of advocates, as a ground for adopting this amiable belief. Again, it seems to be quite forgotten that an elaborate and carefully thought-out plan of emigration has once been tried. The most hopeful and reasonable system of colonisation I have ever heard of was that of Wakefield and Torrens, and when it broke down, there seems to be no further place for state action. Thirdly, wide-reaching plans of migration ignore the fact, that every movement of population is made up of the separate movements of so many units—e.g. the same cause which leads a man to move to America in 1870, may bring him to Australia in 1880, and back to Ireland in 1887. Nothing short of omniscience would be able to rightly adjust the actions of these million of units; no association or state department has sufficient knowledge or pliability to handle the countless questions which the correct guidance of emigration necessarily involves. Lastly, if there is anything well calculated to make immigration distasteful to the American and colonial working-man, it surely is the proposal to send out those who have neither sufficient providence nor energy to go of their own accord. Of course this difficulty can be covered by calling them "able-bodied and industrious," but there can hardly be a better test of the presence of those qualities than the capacity of getting together the trifling sum required for an emigrant's passage. We have seen the objection of English colonists to pauper immigrants, and it is highly pertinent to observe that:—

"There is constant evidence that the term pauper' can be given a very wide interpretation, and that the reasonable prejudice to bona fide paupers may be easily extended, so as to cover a much wider circle of cases."[7]

And Professor Smith's instructive article, already frequently quoted, in his contemptuous reference to "Mr. Tuke's committee or some charitable Lady Cathcart" is evidence of a similar sentiment in the United States. On the whole the conclusion is irresistibly forced on us, that any organised action in the matter of emigration is undesirable. Individual self-interest has been the main force in the enormous exodus of the last fifty years, and it is a power which is far more efficient than any that could possibly be employed instead of it. The real duty of all persons in positions of influence, is to see that the people of these islands are fitted for whatever task they may undertake; that those who stay at home have sufficient general and technical training to make them efficient producers of wealth, and that those who desire to leave us, have full information as to the best place for them to transfer their labour to. Our consuls and other officials ought to be able to throw much light on such matters, and they are more in earnest about them than they were. The following statements are examples of what may be done in this respect. Writing of the South African gold-fields, Mr. Williams says:—

"Emigrants who have a trade can make a living in this country, but it is not a country for the million. The climate, the distance from a market, and the great cost of living, are all unsuited to the poor man; and any attempt to develop the country by the introduction of funds devoted to philanthropic purposes, is to be deprecated."[8]

The Emigrants' Information Office also warns the emigrant:—

"That farm-work at home is one thing, and in the colonies quite another, and that the conditions of country life in Canada, Australasia, and South Africa, are as a rule far rougher and lonelier than in England. Men who have not been from their childhood engaged on the land, must remember that in new countries there is not the same strong line drawn between different trades, and different branches of the same trade as in our own; and that therefore the more specialised a man has become in his work and calling, the less fitted he is to emigrate, partly because he is unlikely in most cases to find an opening in his own speciality in the colonies, partly because he is not well suited to turn his hand to general labour."[9]

All information of this kind must prove valuable to intending emigrants, and will save them from much needless suffering; but the only useful function of the state is to give more light on the subject, and to trust to individual prudence and effort for the rest. Nor does there seem any reason to fear that the result will be to drain the older countries of the best and most active labourers. It is more likely that the highly specialised trades will have their chief seats in Europe for a long time to come, while the more general employments will tend to concentrate themselves in newer countries. The figures of Table XII., already referred to, strongly bear out this view, which is indeed only the statement in a particular case of the general law—that in spite of all hindrances, the tendency all the world over is towards greater complexity of relations and increasing specialisation of social functions.

Immigration in Older Countries.

One part of the subject has been as yet purposely left unnoticed—namely, the existence of immigration into European countries. The fact which we have heard so much of lately—that certain classes of foreigners find it to their advantage to settle in London, has possibly surprised many persons; but is capable of very simple explanation. It is evident that every city of any size will attract some special classes of foreigners, and there is no reason why London should prove an exception to the rule. All attainable evidence shows that special trades, as sugar-bakers and tailors, may be largely supplied by immigrants, but that British labour in general is not appreciably affected by foreign competition.[10] This conclusion will be strengthened by a reference to Table XIV. where the number of foreigners in different European countries is shown. If any country has reason to dread immigration it is France, where the percentage of foreign born persons is greater, and where the increase of the native population is so slight. There is nothing, however, which is less amenable to sober considerations of fact than popular feeling on such matters, and therefore the agitation with which Mr. Arnold White has identified himself may help to give us some idea of the effect which an annual immigration, counted by hundreds of thousands, may, under certain conditions, produce on public sentiment in the United States.


  1. Prof. R. M. Smith, Political Science Quarterly, March, 1888, p. 68.
  2. Wells' Practical Economics, pp. 68-69.
  3. Board of Trade Journal, May, 1888, p. 576.
  4. While the emigration for the whole of Ireland was in 1883 two and one-half times what it was in 1878, in Clare it was three times, in Kerry and Leitrim, four and one-half times, in Galway and Mayo seven times, and in Sligo, nine times, what it was in 1878.
  5. Political Science Quarterly, p. 72.
  6. Social Arrows, p. 151.
  7. Board of Trade Journal, May, 1888, p. 576.
  8. Ib. April, 1888, pp. 443-4.
  9. Board of Trade Journal, May, 1888, p. 577.
  10. The immigration of paupers is however a different matter. If foreigners become chargeable to the rates they ought to be deported to their native country, as it can hardly be contended that this process should be confined to natives of Ireland.



TABLE I.—Emigration from the Principal Countries of Europe, 1820-1882.

000 omitted.
Nationalities. United States. British Colonies. South America.   Total. 
English, 5,377  3,116  77  8,570 
Germans, 4,384  162  68  4,614 
Italians, 114  13  581  708 
Spanish and Portuguese,  32  3  406  441 
Scandinavian, 632  17  70  719 
French, 274  31  79  384 
Swiss, 110  14  48  172 
Other countries, 815  768  298  1,381 


TABLE II.—Emigration from the United Kingdom—Number and Proportion of English, Irish, & Scotch-born Emigrants respectively.
Years.  English   %   Scotch.   %   Irish   %  Total
3 yrs. 1853-5 211,013  30 62,514   9 421,672  61 695,199 
5 yrs. „ 56-60  243,409  39 59,016  10 315,059  51 617,484 
 „  1861-65 236,838  33 62,461   9 418,497  58 717,796 
 „  1866-70 368,327  43 85,621  10 400,085  47 854,033 
 „  1871-75 545,015  56 95,055  10 329,467  34 969,537 
   1876 73,396  67 10,097   9 25,976  24 109,469 
   1877 63,711  67 8,653   9 22,831  24 95,195 
   1878 72,323  64 11,087   9 29,492  26 112,902 
   1879 104,275  64 18,703  11 41,296  25 164,274 
   1880 111,845  49 22,056  10 93,641  41 227,542 
   1881 139,976  58 26,826  11 76,200  31 243,002 
   1882 162,992  58 32,242  12 84,132  30 279,366 
   1883 183,286  57 31,139  10 105,743  33 320,118 
   1884 147,660  61 21,953   9 72,566  30 242,179 
   1885 126,260  61 23,367  10 60,017  29 207,644 
   1886 146,301  63 25,323  11 61,276  26 232,900 
   1887 168,221  60 34,365  12 78,901  28 281,487 
Total,
1853-1887,
 3,104,798  49  628,478  10  2,636,851  41  6,370,127 


TABLE III.—Total Emigration from the United Kingdom, during the Years 1873-1887, distinguishing the Destination of the Emigrants.

  Years.    United States.    Canada.    Australasia. 
1873 233,073  37,208  26,428 
1874 148,161  25,450  53,958 
1875 105,046  17,378  35,525 
1876 75,533  12,327  33,l91 
1877 64,027  9,289  31,071 
1878 81,557  13,836  37,214 
1879 134,590  22,509  42,178 
1880 257,274  29,340  25,438 
1881 307,973  34,561  24,093 
1882 295,539  53,475  38,604 
1883 252,226  53,596  73,017 
1884 203,539  37,065  45,944 
1885 184,470  22,928  40,689 
1886 238,386  30,121  44,055 
1887 296,901  44,406  35,198 


TABLE IV.—Irish Emigration.
Period.  Number of Emigrants. 
10 years ending March 31st, 1871, 768,859 
10 years ending March 31st, 1881, 618,650 
1st May, 1851-31st December, 1879,  2,541,670 
1880 95,517 
1881 78,417 
1882 89,136 
1883 108,724 
1884 75,863 
1885 62,034 
1886 63,135 
1887 82,923 


TABLE V.—Emigration from Germany, 1871-1886.
  Year.   Number of
Emigrants.
  Year.   Number of
Emigrants.
1871 75,912  1879 33,327 
1872  125,650  1880 106,190 
1873 103,638  1881  210,547 
1874 45,112  1882 193,869 
1875 30,773  1883 166,119 
1876 28,368  1884 143,586 
1877 21,964  1885 103,642 
1878 24,217  1886 76,687 


TABLE VI.—Number of Emigrants from Ten European Countries during the Years 1880-86.
 Years.  United
Kingdom.
France. Germany. Italy. Austria. Switzerland. Sweden. Norway. Denmark. Portugal.
1880 227,542  4,607  106,190  35,677  10,145   7,255 36,398  20,212   5,658  12,597 
1881 243,002  4,456  210,547  43,725  13,341  10,935 40,762  25,976   7,985  14,637 
1882 279,366  4,858  193,869  67,632   7,759  10,896 44,585  28,804  11,614  18,272 
1883 320,118  4,011  166,119  70,436   7,366  12,758 25,911  22,167   8,375  19,257 
1884 242,179  6,100  143,586  59,459   7,215   8,975 17,895  14,776   6,307  17,518 
1885 207,644  103,642  78,961  18,466   6,928 18,466  13,981   4,346 
1886 232,900   76,687  87,423  15,158   6,264 

TABLE VII.—Number of Emigrants per One Hundred Thousand Inhabitants in the above Countries, during the Years 1880-86.

1880 657 12 235 125 47 256 795 1,061 287 277
1881 695 12 465 154 61 384 893 1,357 401 311
1882 792 13 425 238 35 379 976 1,504 578 388
1883 899 11 362 248 34 441 566 1,160 413 409
1884 674 16 310 209 53 309 389  772 311 372
1885 572 222 269 243 398  724 210
1886 634 164 294 303


TABLE VIII.—Immigration to the United States, 1828-87.

  Year.    Immigrants.    Year.   Immigrants. 
1820  8,324 1854 427,833
1821  9,127 1855 200,877
1822  6,911 1856 195,857
1823  6,354 1857 246,945
1824  7,912 1858 119,501
1825  10,199 1859 118,616
1826  10,837 1860 150,237
1827  18,875 1861  89,724
1828  27,382 1862  89,005
1829  22,520 1863 174,524
1830  23,322 1864 193,195
1831  22,633 1865 247,453
1832  60,482 1866 165,757
1833  58,640 1867 298,967
1834  65,365 1868 282,189
1835  45,374 1869 352,768
1836  76,242 1870 387,203
1837  79,340 1871 321,350
1838  38,914 1872 404,806
1839  68,069 1873 459,803
1840  84,066 1874 313,339
1841  80,289 1875 227,498
1842 104,565 1876 169,986
1843  52,496 1877 141,857
1844  78,615 1878 138,469
1845 114,371 1879 177,826
1846 154.416 1880 457,257
1847 234,968 1881 669,431
1848 226,527 1882 788,992
1849 297,024 1883 603,322
1850 369,980 1884 518,592
1851 379,466 1885 395,346
1852 371,603 1886 334,203
1853 368,645 1887 484,116

N.B.—Estimated immigration during 1789-1820—250,000.


TABLE IX.—Immigration to the United States, classified by countries of Emigration, during the years, 1874-1887.
 Years.  United
Kingdom.
Germany. Scandinavia. Italy. Russia. France. America.
1874 115,728   87,291   19,178   7,666   5,867  9,643   35,339 
1875  85,861   47,769   14,322   3,631   8,981  8,321   26,642 
1876  48,866   31,937   12,323   3,015   5,699  8,002   24,686 
1877  38,150   29,298   11,274   3,195   7,132  5,856   24,065 
1878  38,082   29,313   12,254   4,344   3,595  4,159   27,204 
1879  49,967   34,602   21,820   5,791   4,942  4,655   33,025 
1880 144,876   84,638   65,657  12,354   7,191  4,313  101,681 
1881 153,7l8  210,485   81,582  15,401  10,655  5,227  127,535 
1882 179,423  250,630  105,326  32,084  21,590  6,003  100,063 
1883 158,092  194,786   71,994  31,792   9,809  4,821   71,699 
1884 129,294  179,676   52,728  16,510  17,226  3,608   63,310 
1885 109,508  124,443   40,704  13,599  20,243  3,493   41,159 
1886 112,548   84,403   46,735  21,315  21,739  3,318
1887 161,748  106,865   67,629  47,622  36,894  5,034


TABLE X.—Immigration to (A) British North America; (B) The Argentine Republic; Years 1873-1886.
 Years.  Brit. America
(permanent).
Argentine
Republic.
 Years.  Brit. America
(permanent).
Argentine
Republic.
1873 50,050 76,332 1880  38,505  41,651 
1874 39,373 68,277 1881  47,999  47,484 
1875 27,382 42,066 1882 112,458  51,503 
1876 25,633 30,965 1883 133,624  63,243 
1877 27,082 36,225 1884 103,824  77,805 
1878 29,807 42,958 1885  79,169 108,722 
1879 40,402 55,155 1886  69,152  93,116 


TABLE XI.—Alien Population in the United States, according to the Census Returns, 1880.
Country of Origin. Number of Natives in the U.S
England, 662,676
Ireland, 1,854,571
Scotland, 170,136
Wales, 82,202
2,769,585
Germany, 1,966,742
British North America, 717,084
Sweden, 194,337
Norway, 181,729
Denmark, 64,176
440,242
France, 106,971
Switzerland, 88,621
Bohemia, 85,361
Austria, 38,663
Hungary, 11,526
135,550
Holland, 57,090
Poland, 48,557
Russia, 35,772
84,329
Italy, 44,230
Spain and Portugal, 13,259
Mexico, 68,399
China, 104,451
Total, 6,679,943


TABLE XII.—Occupation of Immigrants to the United States, 1877-86.
Percentage of total.
Total Immigrants, 4,255,295
Occupation stated, 2,120,582 100      
Labourers, 963,938 5.3
Farmers and farm labourers, 372,339 17.4
Servants, 178,460 8.4
Miners, 38,570 1.8
Total, 1,552,297 73.2
Carpenters, 61,967 2.9
Blacksmiths, 21,318 1.0
Masons, 21,580 1.0
Tailors, 22,995 1.0
Shoemakers, 22,723 1.0
Bakers, 14,667 0.6
Butchers, 13,991 0.6
Engineers and machinists, 13,668 0.6
Total, 192,919 9.1
Mariners, 14,929 9.6
Dressmakers, 8,633 0.4
Mechanics and artisans, 23,735 1.1
Stonecutters, plasterers, plumbers, painters,
locksmiths, printers, coopers and hatters,
40,157 1.8
Merchants and traders, 64,540 3.1
Tobacconists, etc. 9,105 0.4
Clerks, 27,123 1.3
Total, 100,828 4.8
Textile industries, 23,816 1.1
Workers in metals, 8,633 0.3
Potters, papermakers, glassblowers, hosiers,
tanners and curriers,
3,632 0.1


TABLE XIII.—Movements of Population in the Australasian Colonies,
Years 1880-6.
 Years.  New South Wales. Victoria. West Australia. South Australia.
Immigrants. Emigrants. Immigrants. Emigrants. Immigrants. Emigrants. Immigrants. Emigrants.
1880 56,955 45,294
1881 59,066 51,744
1882 59,404 48,528  932  838 14,870 14,136
1883 31,248 25,110 66,592 55,562 1,507 1,071 19,830 15,562
1884 72,486 40,254 72,202 58,061 2,434 1,563 17,290 16,082
1885 78,138 38,455 76,976 61,994 3,747 1,419 14,500 20,596
1886 79,388 41,896 93,404 68,102 5,615 1,877 17,623 25,231
Years. Queensland. Tasmania. New Zealand.
Immigrants. Emigrants. Immigrants. Emigrants. Immigrants. Emigrants.
1880 13,396 10,349 10,411 10,025 15,154  7,923
1881 16,223  9,209 12,579 11,163  9,688  8,072
1882 27,000  9,957 12,822 11,403 10,945  7,456
1883 46,330 11,959 14,240 12,636 19,215  9,186
1884 36,883 18,365 14,257 12,524 20,021 10,700
1885 34,334 22,768 14,822 14,173 16,119 11,695
1886 34,101 20,911 16,399 14,630 16,101 15,037



TABLE XIV.—Number and Proportion to Total Population of Aliens
in some European Countries according to latest Census Returns.

000 omitted.

Countries. Total Population.  Aliens.   Proportion. 
England, 1881 25,974  118  0.45 
Scotland,  „ 3,735  6  0.16 
Ireland,  „ 5,174  11  0.21 
United Kingdom,  „ 34,884  135  0.38 
France, 1886 39,334  1,115  2.83 
Austria, 1880 22,144  165  0.74 
Prussia,  „ 27,279  212  0.77 
Belgium,  „ 5,520  143  2.59 
Switzerland,  „ 2,846  211  7.53 
Italy, 1881 28,459  59  0.20 


This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1924.


The author died in 1945, so this work is also in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or less. This work may also be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.