'The story of the Jewish community of Sheffield provides a
curious example of the tendency of nineteenth century Anglo-Jewry to
confuse its origins.'1.
Cecil Roth's assessment of the difficulties
of establishing exactly the date of the founding of a community in
the town was illustrated very clearly by the varying dates which were
attributed to the establishment of the first synagogue. They varied
from 1790 (Jewish Year Book) to 1850
(Jewish Directory, 1874)2. If
we take the establishment of a synagogue, or at least the hiring of
a room for this purpose, as the mark of community activity, then
there are certain problems in dating exactly the birth of the
Sheffield congregation. In Roth's History of the Jews in England
(1941), he accepted the earlier date of 1790 (see p.228), but in
Provincial Jewry it was made clear that this marks the first
recorded incidence of a Jew making his home in the town. This is
a reference to the Bright family, the 'first Jewish family of any
note to settle in Sheffield'.3.
There were other traders who, it
is claimed, settled in the 18th century; Gershon Abrahams, spectacle
maker, who was established in the town before 1797, and Benjamin
Polack, a silversmith, whose mark was registered in Sheffield Assay
Office in 1807, are two examples of these
pioneers.4.
However, these isolated references are not indicative of a local community.
According to Roth, the first mention of an established
congregation was in 1838. This is the date mentioned by A.A. Levy
in 1842 in his series of local studies in The Jewish Chronicle.
'It appears that a few of our brethren have been residing there for
many years, but they did not form a congregation till the year
1838.5.
Since other sources, such as Margoliouth's History of the Jews in
Great Britain (1851), simply followed Levy's account, this date came
to be generally accepted. Roth did note the tradition of the
Sheffield synagogue's annual appeal on behalf of local hospitals
being instituted in 1828, but put this down to faulty
arithmetic.6.
There is, however, some justification for believing that
the foundation of a congregation predates 1838. The research done
by Eric Lipson and by the Jewish community in Sheffield for the
tercentenary celebrations in 1956 suggest that a room was hired
as a synagogue in the 1820s. As early as 1817, Solomon Myer kept
his own Shochet and encouraged a 'growing band of Jews' to attend
Minyan in his
house.7.
When Myer moved to Hull, it appears that
'band' hired the room and, with the Chief Rabbi's help, engaged
a Shochet, Lazarus Brown, Eliezer Lezer ben
Mordecai.8. The evidence
for this claim comes from an account of the development of the Jewish
congregation, written in 1872, in conjunction with the report on the
laying of a foundation stone for a new synagogue. 'In or about the
year 5589 - 1828, the number of families having increased, they hired
a room to be used as a place of worship and applied to the Chief Rabbi
of the time for their first Shochet, and Mr. Brown, father of Mrs.
Brown of Leeds, received the
appointment.'9.
This evidence seems rather at odds with the claim of John
Jacobs, son of Samuel Jacobs, who settled in Sheffield probably in
1827. Roth stated that the Jacobs family was the centre of the
Jewish community in the
1820s,10.
but John Jacobs maintained that in
these early years, they were the only Jewish family in the
town.11.
The family had its own Shool, and a Shochet, Abraham Neugass. In
fact, the family supplied the only two Jewish families in Leeds at
that time with kosher meat. Jacobs did record that the family was
never without a Minyan, because on Fridays, his mother told the
children to look out for Jewish travellers and bring them
home.12.
But the bulk of the evidence suggests that the Jacobs were not, in
fact, the only Jewish family in Sheffield at this
time.13.
It is clear that, by 1830-1, there was an established community, carrying
out organised activity.
At this point, it is important to define 'community activity'.
Roth pointed out the unsatisfactory nature of events such as the
settlement of the first Jew, public worship or the establishment
of a synagogue as evidence of an organised community. 'A better
criterion is the date of the acquisition of a burial ground, which
unlike the other manifestations of Jewish religious life requires
corporate action and thereby a certain degree of
organisation.'14.
Using this criterion, we can point to an organised group in 1831
who negotiated the lease of a piece of land for a cemetery. This
confirms community organisation, as opposed to individual action,
for there are examples of both in this year. The Bright family
leased a plot from the Duke of Norfolk for a family cemetery at
Rodmoor, just outside the town boundary, but it is clear that the
Brights took little, if any, part in Jewish communal life. It was
the lease of land for a cemetery in Bowden Street, signed on 3
August 1831, which marked the first real record of group
activity.15.
The five signatures on the lease were Samuel Jacobs, Reuben Levy,
Lazarus Cohen, Levi Emmanuel and Isaac Moss. Jacobs and Emmanuel
were mentioned in Levy's Jewish Chronicle account as being responsible
for the establishment of the congregation in 1838, but this lease
suggests that organised activity goes back to 1831 and probably
earlier. A further piece of evidence would seem to confirm this.
In 1830, it was recorded that 'the residents of this town, of the
Jewish persuasion, have got up a petition to Parliament praying for
a removal of civil disabilities. A few individuals of their body
waited on the householders, and a great number of signatures were
obtained.'16.
Obviously, by 1830, there was an organised Jewish
community in Sheffield.
The size of this community in the early years is difficult
to establish. Levy, in 1842, claimed 'There are at present about
ten Jewish families in the town, who are principally engaged in
trade'.17.
In the 'Statistical Summary of the Hebrew Congregations
in the British Empire' (Jewish Chronicle, 23 July
1847)18.
the Jewish population of Sheffield was put at 56. The only other concrete
evidence for the middle of the
century19.
is a letter to The Jewish Chronicle from 'A Yorkshireman', which says the
community did not number more than twelve
families.20.
Information on the occupations of the early settlers is also
scarce. The Bright family were engaged in the jewellery
trade,21.
as was Isaac Moss, one of the signatories to the 1931
lease.22.
Another of the signatories, Reuben Levy, later ran a tailoring firm
which was a rival of the Sheffield branch of E. Moses and
Son.23.
As A.A. Levy pointed out, the Jewish community at this time appears
to have been composed of fairly well established traders and their
families.24.
Certain individuals, like the Brights, had become well
integrated into the social structure of non-Jewish society, despite
the legal restrictions. Maurice Bright, the 'pioneer' of 1790, was
extremely active in local affairs. In 1827, he was appointed as
a Police Commissioner, and in 1845, was elected as a town councillor
- the first year that it was possible for a Jew to assume the
office.25.
Later, Henry Levy, son of Reuben, contested a seat on the council in
1858 and 1859, but was
unsuccessful.26.
At this time, relations with
the non-Jewish community seem to have been fairly harmonious. The
Town Council agreed to petition Parliament for the removal of civil
disabilities in 1845 and again in
1857.27.
However, a sour note was
struck in 1851, when The Sheffield Times censured spectators 'for
rudeness and disrespect at the funeral of a
Chazan'.28.
After renting a room in Holly Street as a synagogue, the
congregation then moved in 1848 to premises in Figtree Lane, which
were to serve as a base for over twenty years. By now, the community
was beginning to find its feet, as 'A Yorkshireman' tells us.
This little congregation has for many years struggled for
mere existence; during the last few years, however, a
favourable change has come over our congregational position,
so much so that last week we wore enabled to purchase the
whole of the freehold property, combining the present -
and, up to now, hired - synagogue, with residence for the
reader of the congregation, for £350, towards which we have
actually raised within our own little community, not
numbering above twelve families, a sum of coming close
to £200.29.
This apparent unity, however, was not very deep-seated;
indeed Lipson suggested, in his notes in the Sheffield Jewish Journal
that it was 'achieved by autocracy'. Newcomers were content to
have decisions imposed upon them by a powerful few, the Privileged
members, until they became discontented with the apparent lack of
democracy. In 1859, a meeting of the congregation ended in uproar.
Two people were expelled from the congregation and one was only
allowed back after a number of years, 'provided that a police officer
was in attendance with powers to evict him and others should their
conduct warrant it'.30.
A growing rift developed between the powerful few and the newcomers. Early in 1860, a Chazan, Bertholde Albu,
left Sheffield at the request of the minority in authority, although
a majority of the community were against his
transfer.31. Following
this, there was a complete split within the community, with the
breaking away of the dissidents. They formed a Chevra, which
became known as the Central Hebrew or New Congregation. The date
of this breakaway is given as 1864 (Jewish Year Book, 1895). This
probably refers to the formal establishment; there is mention of
the 'other congregation' in the minutes of the Old Congregation
meetings as early as 6 July 1862, and Lipson dates the split from
April-May 1860. It seems that both sides claimed rights to the
synagogue and the trustees, representing the old members, sold the
building, leaving only a sum of money over which arguments could be
conducted. New trustees were appointed, again representing the old
members, and the synagogue was repurchased, leaving the dissidents
with no alternative but to set up their own
community.32.
This new congregation had numerical strength, but scant
financial resources. Their leaving, however, seriously weakened
the Old Congregation, and dashed their plans for a new synagogue.
Subscriptions for this venture had been collected since 1858 but
finances now became a serious problem. Eventually, in 1871, a
Special General Meeting deemed it essential to erect a new synagogue
and school, and, in the following year, the foundation stone for a
new building was laid. The congregation now was numerically small,
and not particularly wealthy, and the minutes of meetings show that
there was continual bickering and resignation amongst the members.
The community as a whole suffered from these squabbles. When the
Chief Rabbi visited the school run in connection with the new
synagogue, in 1875, he found it 'utterly disorganised'. The obvious
remedy, a reconciliation with the Chevra, was placed out of the
question by the Chief Rabbi the same year, in a letter instructing
the Old Congregation to have nothing to do with the breakaway movement,
which by the 1870s, was relatively flourishing. This does
not mean that it was homogeneous, for it is apparent that doctrinal
and personal differences occurred even within this group. Indeed,
Adler's letter refers to the two Chevras, as
does a congregational meeting a month earlier in October 1875. Clearly, in this
period, the Jewish community was still in the process of development, which
suggests that the Jewish population was increasing throughout these
years.
In complete contrast to the Chevra, the Old Congregation came
into increasing difficulties, largely financial. A meeting had to
be held on 6 February 1881 to discuss how the closure of the synagogue
could be prevented. A joint meeting with the Chevra was held two
weeks later, to attempt a reconciliation, but it is recorded that
members of the Chevra were 'unbending' and no agreement could be
reached. The decline continued; congregational meetings were
characterised by arguments and threats of legal proceedings. By
1888, for the visit of the Chief Rabbi, only six children were in
attendance at the school, and now even the Chief Rabbi attempted to
bring the communities together, albeit unsuccessfully. It was not
until the immigration of the 1890s that the fortunes of the Old
Congregation were
restored.33.
It is clear from the account of these forty years or so that
the Jewish community in Sheffield was being steadily increased by
immigration, arriving at the east coast ports, and, in particular,
Hull, 'which has been the springboard for Sheffield Jewish
families'.34.
This was certainly true of the immigration in the
1880s. Edwin Grocock, an examining officer in the Custom House
at Hull, noted that five or six per cent of passengers arriving at port remained in the country, travelling to Leeds, Wakefield,
Manchester and 'great manufacturing towns in the
North'.35. The
majority of passengers were on through tickets to the United States,
travelling overland from Hull to Liverpool. It is possible that
Sheffield attracted some of these migrants, since it was on the
railway route to Liverpool. Another important route would be Hull-Manchester, with Sheffield again acting as an intermediate and
perhaps permanent stopping-off point. This new immigration created
problems of welfare, which were catered for by the Sheffield Jewish
Board of Guardians, set up in 1887. Its forerunner, the Hebrew
Benevolent Society, had been in operation since
1873.36. Again this
is evidence of the continual growth of the community prior to the
'flood' of the 1880s immigration.
By 1903, the Jewish population in Sheffield, according to the
Jewish Year Book, was 800, and most of these were recent immigrants;
the original Anglo-Jewish community never having been strong numerically. Indeed, it might be said that the survival of Sheffield
Jewry was due to immigration. Maurice Wigram, President of the
Sheffield Hebrew Congregation, in his evidence to the Royal Commission
on Alien Immigration in 1903, noted a gradual influx of foreign Jews
over the last ten years. Most of these came from other English
towns, he claimed, although this meant simply that they had remained
in the ports for a short time before coming to Sheffield. They were
employed in various occupations - 'tailors, machinists, cabinetmakers, plumbers, painters, paper-hangers, glaziers and
watchmakers'.37.
Wigram claimed that most of the immigrants came to Sheffield specifically, either because they had relatives living there, or because
they knew of jobs that were available. He was at pains to point
out that there was no destitution amongst foreigners, no overcrowding,
that they had no adverse effect upon wages and hours and that they
did not deprive the native population of work. In fact, he claimed,
since most of the immigrants were in the employing class, particularly
in tailoring, they provided employment rather than taking it
away.38.
On the question of destitution, Wigram pointed out that in
the previous year only two Jews had been in the workhouse and that
this was demonstrated by the figures for Poor Law Relief in 1902:
21 aliens given relief, 18 outdoor, 2 indoor and 1 committed to
a lunatic asylum.39.
Clearly, however, these figures do not provide
an accurate overall picture of distress at this time, since the
local Jewish Board of Guardians provided relief for many others.
The following figures were given to the Royal
Commission.40.
|
Year
|
No. of aliens relieved
|
Resident
|
Casual
|
|
1896-7 |
254 |
68 |
186 |
|
1897-8 |
299 |
94 |
205 |
|
1898-9 |
319 |
71 |
248 |
|
1899-1900 |
261 |
69 |
192 |
|
1901-02 |
288 |
77 |
151 |
|
Comments: |
Many of the casuals only receive relief
to enable them to reach their work elsewhere. |
This data shows that something like ten per cent of the
resident Jewish population at this time was in need of relief,
despite Wigram's claim that many were in the employing class.
This illustrates the rather precarious nature of employer status
in this era. The numbers receiving casual relief payments is
further evidence of the position of Sheffield on the east-west
migration route. It is necessary, however, to put the figures
in perspective. This immigration of foreign Jews was only a very
tiny fraction of the total immigration into Sheffield in the period
1891-1901, which approached 10,000. In addition, poverty and
distress affected a large number of the non-Jewish population in
the 1880s and 90s. The average expenditure of the Sheffield and
Ecclesall Poor Law Union in the 1880s was £45,000 a year, and the
city set up distress funds for the relief of the poor and unemployed
in 1895, 1902 and 1903. Unemployment was increasing in these years,
particularly in the area of light trades, where men were being
replaced by
machinery.41.
This was particularly true of the
tailoring industry, where skilled workmen were being forced to
compete with increasing division of labour and with mechanisation.
The effects of this new challenge were reflected in some hostility
towards the foreign immigrant entering the trade in these years.
The reaction in Sheffield was shown by the 1903 Royal Commission.
Joe Marfin, Secretary of the Sheffield branch of the Amalgamated Society of Tailors, complained that Jewish workmen were
taking away certain jobs from the native labour force. 'We speak
of Sheffield as we find it, and we find that alien labour is taking
the place of British labour in the second class tailoring trade of
Sheffield.'42.
He also alleged that the Corporation was giving
contracts to firms employing a greater sub-division of labour, and
using foreign immigrants in their workforce, thus throwing native
workers out of employment.43.
This charge was refuted by Alfred
Richards, manager of the West End Clothiers Company of London,
whose Sheffield branch had recently been given the Corporation
contracts referred to by Marfin. Richards said that, out of
a hundred employees in the branch, only thirteen were foreign Jews.
He spoke very highly of their work and attendances, deeming them more
dependable than the English tailors they
employed.44. From this it
would seem that increasing mechanisation and sub-division of work
was producing distress in Sheffield tailoring, rather than the use
of foreign labour. The House of Lords investigation into 'sweating'
in 1888-9 found little evidence of competition from foreign labour
in the trade in Sheffield, unlike other towns. William Leggatt,
Secretary of the National Federation of Foreman Tailors and Master
Tailors said that there was hardly any foreign labour used in
tailoring at that particular
time.45. The numbers revealed by the
1903 Royal Commission do not appear to justify Marfin's complaint.
The immigration of the 1880s and 90s led to a more organised
structure of Jewish societies and self-help groups within the
community. Naturally, many of the newcomers needed some help in
settling into the society, and the growth of organised activity
reflected this need, In the 1890s, Zionist meetings were being
held in Sheffield, and the Sheffield Zionist Association came into
being in 1899, with an inaugural meeting of some eighty people.
Later that year, it was decided to take up 125 shares in the Jewish
Colonial Trust.46.
In 1902, a share club was established to help
the 'greeners' to purchase £1 shares in the Trust.47.
A Naturalization Society existed, with payments
of one shilling a week by each member. When a sum of £25 had been
raised, lots were drawn to determine who should have the money, which was the necessary naturalization fee, and it was not until 1913 that all the members had
received British
citizenship.48.
There was also a Jewish Working
Men's Club, at a subscription of two pence per
week.49. In 1901
at the first dance of the season, there were over 250 members and
friends, and the planned programme of meetings included lectures,
concerts and dances.50.
Other developments to help the new immigrant
included the Jewish Ladies Benevolent Society, founded in 1900, and
the Dorcas, or Sewing Guild, established about the same
time.51. In
terms of schooling, the Hebrew Education Board was formed in 1902;
the first Talmud Torah being in a room above a butcher's shop at
West Bar, transferring to more pleasant surroundings in Paradise
Square in 1904.52.
Leisure and recreation were also catered for
by this time; there are records of a Jewish Literary and Philharmonic Society and a Jewish Cycling
Club.53.
By the end of Queen
Victoria's reign, the Sheffield Jewish community had become established and organised.
How can we explain the particular development of the Jewish
community in Sheffield in the nineteenth century? It is clear that
the most important factor was the immigration into the area in the
second half of the century, since the small, established Anglo-Jewish
population of the 1840s was almost totally eclipsed by 1900. The
evidence as presented in this paper suggests that population growth
was steady and consistent throughout the second half of the century,
not just in the 1880s and 90s. Indeed, this might explain why
immigrants were attracted to the city in this later period, since,
as Wigram claimed, they would have relatives who had recently established themselves in Sheffield. Why there should be this steady
growth is harder to assess. Sheffield's increasing ease of accessibility with the development of the railways, particularly the link
with the east coast ports, was one reason. The Hull-Sheffield link,
pointed out by several writers, may be vital in the history of the
Sheffield community; and is deserving of more research.
Another factcr which may have proved attractive to the
immigrant anxious to establish himself was the structure of labour
relations. The cutlery trade, Sheffield's most famous industry,
was less rigidly divided between management and labour than other
occupations. 'There were few wealthy manufacturers, and the transition from workman to master was a common
occurrence.'54. Although
few Jews entered the cutlery trade, the general principle may well
have applied to the many small industrial concerns which emerged
from the general population growth of the city in the nineteenth
century, and have attracted the immigrant with the possibility of
self-advancement.
However, the essential 'survival factor' was the immigration
from 1880 onwards, and those who had settled before this time
provided the necessary social structure into which the newcomers
could fit, thus ensuring the continuance of Sheffield Jewry.
Although the size of the community was relatively small, compared
with, say, Leeds, it had become remarkably self-contained by 1900,
and therefore able to maintain its independence in later years.
