Parallels and patterns in the Italian (1901) and Hungarian (1903) legislation on migration

Abstract

The second half of the nineteenth century was an era of mass labour migration in Europe, when the Atlantic route became of paramount importance alongside intra-continental mobility. From the last third of the century Italy and Hungary were among the most important emigrating countries. By this time changes in the regulation of migration had begun to take place with the development of stronger state control, which affected mobility and the relationship between emigrants and transporters. The question also arose as to whether and how the large emigrating states could ensure the loyalty of their emigrant citizens and control them en route and in the destination states. The regulatory process which began in the 1880s gradually moved from an administrative approach to the development of more comprehensive legal sources covering more and more aspects of emigration with the Hungarian government making use of foreign solutions, particularly the Italian Emigration Act of 1901.

Keywords:

• migration legislation
• Italy
• Austria-Hungary
• Hungary
• migration control

I. Introduction

The migration processes of the second half of the nineteenth century were characterised by mass labour migration. Hundreds of thousands of jobseekers flocked to regions with better economic prospects. This could be in a nearby city or a developing region of a country, but also in a more distant part of the continent. In addition to the migration channels that had always been in place, the Atlantic route or emigration to the Americas, became increasingly important during this period.

The Americas had long been a destination for European emigration, but in terms of sheer numbers the number of immigrants arriving there was relatively small until the first half of the nineteenth century. This changed in the second half of the century. The era of the so-called ‘new immigration’, also known as ‘proletarian migration’, began with central and southern European emigrants as the main protagonists.¹ However, the huge increase in emigration in the last third of the nineteenth century raised several unprecedented questions for the leadership of the countries concerned. The economic and broadly defined security dimensions of emigration led to a strong need for regulation in the countries concerned. By the end of the nineteenth century, it had become clear to the decision-makers and legislators of the period that independent effective management and regulation of emigration was hardly possible in view of the nature of the phenomenon, the regulations of the sending and receiving countries, and the impact on each other of the countries involved in the emigration routes. There are many signs of this recognition in contemporary public debates, in professional fora and in government documents and actions. Various aspects of the phenomenon of migration have long been the subject of academic study. There have been detailed analyses of personal life stories as well as major works exploring the general context. Many of the works with a legal-historical link deal with specific aspects of the legislation, such as border control, passports, transport companies or citizenship. Similarly, international treaties relating to the phenomenon of emigration and the political history of emigration and immigration are also dealt with.²

The Hungarian emigration laws have been the subject of academic comment. Although foreign examples are regularly mentioned in the debates of the period no comparative analysis has hitherto been undertaken and there is a lack of exploration of which countries’ legislation influenced Hungarian legal sources and to what extent.³ The question therefore arises as to which patterns Hungarian legislation followed and whether a direct link can be established with the legislation of the great emigrant states of the period. Are there any common patterns in the regulation of emigrant countries or what circumstances influenced them and what trends and what stages can be identified in the regulation?

The available Hungarian sources including documentation relating to the legislation, the statements made during the parliamentary debates on the Emigration Act and the contemporary analyses confirm the justification for making this comparison, especially the comparison between the Italian and the Hungarian emigration acts. It is also necessary to look at the broader context of emigration and its regulation, and the background of the specific features of each source of legislation. In addition to the relevant treatises Hungarian and Italian emigration law sources, the press of the period and archival sources are available for comparison.

II. External and general conditions for mass migration

The nineteenth century brought radical changes in transport options. The first steamships appeared at the beginning of the century and by the 1870s they were able to take over from sailing boats.⁴ Almost at the same time as the technical change large shipping companies appeared with the financial strength to build large fleets of steamships.⁵ In the second half of the nineteenth century transatlantic passenger transport was dominated by these major players, who were in close contact with the governments, engaged in strong lobbying activities as they were not indifferent to the evolution of the regulatory environment.⁶ Meanwhile, the revolution of the railways had also transformed land travel. Major European ports were now linked to the continent's interior by railways and journey times to the Americas were significantly shortened.

The United States’ economy boomed in the period after the end of the Civil War. The prosperity in industrial production created a huge demand for labour: it provided a living for large numbers of people and the technological characteristics of the time meant that unskilled labour was also in great demand. In the Americas, several countries pursued active policies to encourage immigration in the nineteenth century, notably Brazil and Argentina, which to varying degrees became the destination of both Hungarian and Italian emigration.⁷ The era was marked by the onset of globalisation processes that transformed both the flow of goods and the functioning of the labour market, giving a huge boost to the horizon of labour migration.⁸ It seems that the development of emigration laws to adapt to these changes was delayed by decades since the phenomena associated with early globalisation were already observable in the 1870s. However for this to take place fundamental debates were needed in the countries concerned to clarify the economic and national policy implications of migration processes.⁹ These changes also required the major immigrant countries to adapt which was not without conflict.

The phenomenon called ‘new immigration’ in the US discourse on immigration generated lively debates. As a result, the anti-contract labour law was passed in 1885, ending the legal immigration of foreigners with pre-contracted labour contracts to the United States.¹⁰ By the turn of the twentieth century, the question of further restrictions on immigration and the possibilities for doing so were still constantly on the agenda. The US immigration policy had already embarked on a path of further control and restriction of emigration following the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1881 and the great debates at the turn of the century, such as the possibility of introducing a literacy test, would eventually lead to tougher restrictions on immigration by the receiving country on an ethnic basis.¹¹

Notwithstanding this trend, the United States continued to be an attractive destination for immigration in the period before the First World War. The annual flow of people across the Atlantic prompted not only the US government to consider its policy on the phenomenon but also the emigrant countries. Of the major immigration destinations, the United States was clearly the one that attracted the most attention from emigrant governments with both Italy and Hungary being well informed through consular reports, the press and other informal channels.

III. The beginnings of mass emigration from Hungary and the background to the Hungarian Emigration Act of 1903

The Austro-Hungarian Empire came into being with the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Within the specific framework of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the Hungarian government was able to act independently in its internal affairs, but the monarch always considered the interests of the whole Empire in its legislative role. In this framework, Budapest was able to deal with emigration matters, for which the Minister of the Interior was made responsible, independently of the Austrian side but with respect to it.¹²

The country was essentially agricultural but some industrial centres had already been established. Overall however the period of dualism was a period of dynamic development that brought about fundamental social and economic changes. Although industrial development picked up after 1867, thanks to the European boom, there were not enough employment opportunities for the agricultural population. The country's population grew dynamically from the 1880s onwards. This period was a period of demographic transition in Hungary, characterised by a decline in the number of deaths and a high birth rate.¹³ The specificities of economic development, disproportionate land ownership and demographic development led to relative overpopulation in some regions which was a key factor in triggering emigration. Despite its modest economic development Hungary was a much more immigrant country until the second half of the nineteenth century. Most of the few emigration events were related to political rather than economic reasons. These events did not involve mass emigration, still less did they contribute to the development of emigration regulations.

From the first half of the nineteenth century, Romania was a relatively early emigration destination, offering seasonal work to the inhabitants of Szeklerland (Transylvania), who were experiencing economic difficulties.¹⁴ By the end of the 1870s, however, changing circumstances had opened the way for mass emigration from Hungary. Mobility trends followed general patterns: emigrants were drawn to the local and then to the national economic centres, to the more developed, western provinces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and then to the more dynamically developing regions of Europe, especially Germany. The Croatian-Slavonian regions bordering the country became emigration destinations and finally Bosnia–Herzegovina, occupied by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1878.¹⁵ These south-south-east migrations, however, were proportionally much less significant and often seem to have been used more as arguments or references in debates on emigration than in the development of specific sources of law on emigration.¹⁶

From the Compromise of 1867 onwards emigration from the country was free. In line with the liberal intellectual and political trends of the time previous restrictions were abolished in both parts of the empire. From then on emigration was conditional on military service and on not owing any taxes to the state. If these conditions were met, then the travel document issuing authority could not refuse to issue an emigrant passport.

In the late 1870s, the Hungarian government was confronted with the mass emigration that was starting and in many cases illegal emigration. The age group most affected comprised those obliged to serve in the army and whose members emigrated before entering military service, partly to avoid service. Articles describing the emigration process proliferated in the press and the growing emigration became a subject of debate in parliament, and it was clearly seen as a negative phenomenon by the political elite and public opinion.¹⁷ However as liberal principles could not be pushed aside the right to emigrate could not be explicitly denied, the government turned against agents who were considered to be inescapable actors by placing them under supervision and making their activities subject to licensing in the Emigration Agencies Act of 1881. The Act required a special permit for domestic agents to contact foreign agents, in effect requiring an additional permit to operate in the usual way of the agency system of the time. To maximise state control the agent had to inform the local authorities of the identity of the emigrants. A few ‘guarantee’ rules were included in the law for the benefit of emigrants but these mainly concerned minors or conscripts, those not entitled to an emigration permit or entitled to one only in special cases and ensured that the emigrant could withdraw from emigration at any time. Although the agencies were not formally banned, the Minister of the Interior did not issue a licence, so emigration agents could not legally operate in Hungary.¹⁸ The Act of 1881 did nothing to resolve the situation. Despite the police's efforts to track down emigration agents and the occasional press reports of agents being convicted, emigration continued to increase in the decades before the turn of the century.¹⁹

By the turn of the century, a few government programmes had already been launched that addressed the problem of emigration more broadly. These included very limited resettlement schemes to provide access to land and to help with the economic problems of underdeveloped areas.²⁰ The nationality issue was an unresolved and increasingly tense problem in Hungary. Towards the turn of the century, it seemed to the government that emigration and the nationality issue in the mother country were intertwined.

The government led by Kálmán Széll wanted to take a new approach to the issue of emigration. It has been shown that restrictive measures aimed primarily at emigration agents and measures to prevent the unauthorised emigration of conscripts did not work. In the meantime the American community of emigrants from Hungary continued to grow and their plight and the money they brought or sent home become increasingly important to the public and the government. As national politics became more and more important a campaign was launched at the turn of the century, some details of which were not made public to preserve the identity of Hungarian emigrants and to ensure the loyalty of emigrants belonging to national minorities.²¹ However, it was clear that such actions were not sufficient to effectively deal with the emigration issue and the situation at the turn of the century called for a comprehensive new emigration law. By this time the need for such a new law was recognised and advocated not only by government representatives but also by experts and public figures concerned with the phenomenon of emigration. The drafting of the new law and even the clarification of its principles raised several questions. It seemed necessary to clarify the extent to which the state could regulate emigration, whether it was possible to limit it and if so what means were available to control emigration and how that could be done. Finally, consideration had to be given to how this could be done within the framework of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and whether there was a model which the legislator could use as a precedent.

IV. Patterns

In the period before the Compromise emigration in the Habsburg Empire was subject to the same rules which were subject to permission.²² After the Compromise the principle of freedom of emigration was accepted in both parts of the empire. The Austrian Staatsgrundgesetz stipulated that emigration was only possible upon fulfilment of military obligations.²³ As the common matters defined in the Compromise included war and military issues Hungarian legislation had to take this into account and we find it in the Hungarian legislation on emigration. In the last third of the nineteenth century, the increasing emigration affected Austria as much as Hungary, so the question of its regulation and possible ways of regulating it were as much the subject of public debate in Vienna as in Budapest and it was also evident that the rules on emigration that were included in various sources of law and the new situation required the drafting of an emigration law with a new approach. However as the Austrian side did not have a drafted proposal at the time when the independent Emigration Act was included in the legislative programme of the Hungarian government, Budapest was unable to find a model in Austrian legislation.²⁴

1. Germany

The development of the German emigration rules merited the attention of Hungarian legislators for several reasons.²⁵ The German legal framework has traditionally had a great influence on Hungarian jurisprudence, legal education and legal life. Further Germany was the destination of many emigrants from Hungary due to the German ports, especially Bremen and Hamburg. Emigration from the German territories essentially preceded Hungarian emigration since it had already started at the beginning of the nineteenth century reaching its peak in increasing waves in the second half of the nineteenth century. The creation of a unified Germany meant not only significant political changes but also major socio-economic changes. The country was becoming increasingly industrialised, offering an even more attractive alternative for those wishing to move away from agriculture. This led to a rapid decline in emigration and an increase in internal migration by the early 1890s.²⁶ For a long time, German legislation was very liberal with restrictions on military service being among the most important issues relating to emigration which were common at the time. The Emigration Act was passed in 1897, this being rather late, following the peak of the great German emigration wave.²⁷ The German Emigration Act was mainly intended to regulate the activities of the actors involved in the emigration process and to define the elements of the relationship between the service provider and the emigrant. The approach of the German Emigration Act was in line with earlier Hungarian and Italian laws that sought to influence emigration processes through the regulation of the activities of agents and transporters. The German law made emigration business activity subject to a licence that could be obtained by German nationals or by companies with a German seat. Entrepreneurs had to recognise the jurisdiction of the German courts over their activities in Germany (§§ 1–4). The law excluded persons under criminal prosecution or those who were to be emigrated by colonial companies or foreign states and made the emigration of conscripts subject to a permit (§ 23). The law contained specific rules and restrictions on overseas emigration. The aspect of protection of emigrants appeared mainly in the elements fixed against the transport entrepreneur. Active policy elements especially of a national policy nature, other than those related to transport activities aimed at emigrants, did not appear in the Act. It provided for the establishment of authorities and forums in charge of emigration matters such as the Government Advisory Body, the Emigration Council and the Emigration Act and the appointment of emigration inspectors in charge of monitoring the related provisions (§§ 38–41). Finally, the law contained provisions for cases of women-trafficking, when the sentence for emigration was linked to the purpose of prostitution. Among the penal provisions, the law used the instrument of fines or imprisonment (§§ 43–48).

2. Italy

The second half of the nineteenth century saw a change in European emigration patterns. After the great wave of Irish and then German emigration Italian emigration began with incredible intensity both to European destinations and to North and South American destinations and in this respect it differed from the emigration to far fewer destinations in Hungary.²⁸ A large Italian diaspora was established not only in the United States but also in Argentina and France. The migration strategy of Italian emigrants was as much about traditional, permanent emigration as it was about temporary settlement and circular migration that characterised the ‘new immigrants’.²⁹ The second third of the nineteenth century saw the liberalisation of the period of European migration with the abolition of visas in several states but more importantly, emigration became a right in several states with the previous restrictive regime giving way to a fundamentally liberal system and the main restrictive element being the military obligation. The evolution of the Italian regulatory environment seems to have trodden a similar path as the Hungarian one. In fact, at the turn of the 1860s and 1870s, several legal sources appeared which sought to curb the undoubted abuses associated with emigration processes by essentially administrative means and attempted to establish a form of control. Moreover, the provisions adopted in this period, like the Hungarian legislation, were essentially intended to provide a rapid response to the immediate questions raised by the phenomenon of emigration. The first attempt of this kind was the circular issued by Prime Minister Luigi Federico Menabrea to the prefects on 18 January 1868 that provided for the prevention of emigration to Algeria and the United States if they could not prove that they had work or a livelihood in the country of destination.³⁰ In this and in subsequent circulars to the administrative authorities the government sought to treat emigration as a law enforcement issue. Questions relating to the issuing of passports and the problems of dealing with emigration agents were the major issues of Italian emigration policy in the 1870s.³¹ Meanwhile, the positions of government circles, political elites and various interest groups converged and the view that accepted the phenomenon of emigration and its necessity in a given social situation became the dominant one. It was accepted that emigration could alleviate the tensions arising from relative overpopulation and that it could also be useful for Italian foreign policy.³² The next milestone in the Italian regulation of emigration was the law on emigration drafted by the Crispi government in 1887.³³ The law in accordance with liberal principles stated that emigration was free, subject to the fulfilment of legal obligations. The Emigration Act of 1888 dealt extensively with the activities of emigration agents and shipping companies and introduced the issue of protection of emigrants by including provisions on both the content and form of contracts between emigrants and agents or shipping companies. It sought to protect emigrants from entering into unfavourable contracts and from making the payment of the price of the boat ticket conditional on the future employment contract.³⁴ The Italian Emigration Act of 1888, like the Hungarian Act of 1881, focused mainly on emigration agents and tried to curb their activities and emigration mainly by administrative means. The protection of the emigrant's person during the journey had not received attention. The logic of the legislation made the Crispi Emigration Act and the Hungarian Emigration Agencies Act of 1881 fit the pattern of the transitional period. The administrative approach to the problem and the protection of the personal interests of emigrants was implicitly and minimally present in both laws. The Crispi Emigration Act has been criticised for this very unilateralism and for not providing a sufficient solution to the causes of emigration.³⁵

It seems that the implementation of the short law was the main problem and that it was incomplete in several respects. The most important shortcoming was that the 1888 Act, despite its undoubted protection of the emigrants’ interests compared to the earlier legislation, did not contain provisions on the emigrants’ post-landing relations. In particular, the rules on agents and agencies, which played such a significant role in the emigration process, did not live up to expectations.³⁶ Emigration continued to grow creating a large Italian community in the destination countries particularly in the United States while more and more of the increasingly lucrative emigration business went to chains of agents and recruitment agencies.³⁷ To the US government, like other actors in the new immigration, the myriad phenomena linked to Italian immigration were unacceptable. Among the most objectionable elements were organised recruitment, the sending of immigrants with a work contract, the (forced) placement of minors in jobs, which were elements of the padrone phenomenon and not least the involvement of the Italian state in the emigration process which was objectionable from the US point of view.³⁸ Problems related to Italian immigration in particular the padrone system led the two governments to enter into negotiations that resulted in the establishment of an Italian office next to the immigration station on Ellis Island. The office was intended by the US side to provide information to Italian workers arriving in the country; primarily to discourage the padrone system, a system of job placement unacceptable to the US side. However as Washington considered that the office was not performing this task effectively enough, its licence to operate was revoked in 1900. Nevertheless, the creation of the information bureau marks a process of increasing state control of emigration and of moves, sometimes not without conflict, by emigrating and immigrating states.³⁹

It was clear that the system of the Emigration Act of 1888 could not provide a solution to the problems that had arisen in the meantime. It had fundamental shortcomings such as the definition of the emigrant and it finally became clear that the management of emigration was not only a purely administrative matter of law and order, but a complex problem that could be a problem beyond the level of national policy and also at the level of international relations as the relationship with the United States showed.

By the turn of the century, it was time for a comprehensive reform of emigration undertaken by the government led by Giuseppe Saracco. The Emigration Act of 1901 renewed before the war brought about the dawn of a new era in the legal environment of emigration not only in Italy but also set a very strong example for Hungarian legislation.⁴⁰ The new Emigration Act was much stronger than the previous legislation in protecting the interests of emigrants at large and of specific groups of emigrants, such as minors. In essence, the legislator wanted to ensure a form of supervision and control over the entire emigration process which included those involved in the emigration business, agents and shipping companies as well as the emigrants themselves. The new Emigration Act set up new institutions to ensure state control, control of emigrants and those involved in the emigration business. Further, it provided details of the emigration process and regulated the content of contracts between emigrants and travel agents.

The law reiterated the freedom of emigration as well as the restrictions linked to military service such as the requirement for conscripts to obtain permission from the military authorities to emigrate.⁴¹ It also defined the concept of emigrant which given the wide powers of the public authorities was essential to ensure the smooth flow of other persons. The legislation essentially classified emigrants according to geographical criteria and criteria related to the mode of travel and the number of persons. Geographical criteria included travel beyond the Suez Canal and the Strait of Gibraltar excluding the European coast and mode of travel was third class and in steamships.⁴² According to the number criterion groups of less than 50 persons were not counted as emigrants (Art 6).

Rules for specific groups of emigrants were included in the provisions of the Act. In no small part due to the padrone phenomenon in the United States and to protect minors the law provided for greater control over the placement of minors under the age of 15 for work abroad. The restrictive provisions included on the one hand the provisions introduced in connection with jobs that were harmful to health and on the other hand the provisions relating to employment and recruitment, specifically the case of the emigration of minor women for the purpose of prostitution (Art 2–3).

Among vulnerable groups, the situation of minors and women had already been discussed in international forums by the turn of the century. The problems of prostitution and their international dimensions were not addressed by individual states such as Germany and Italy during this period but it was during this period that the first steps were taken to develop international cooperation.⁴³ The brokering of women into prostitution in foreign states had naturally been raised in connection with the phenomenon of emigration and generated considerable social debate in both large immigrant and emigrant states. At the domestic political level charitable associations and the press all addressed the issue in abundance. By the turn of the century, these initiatives had found concrete institutional forums for discussing the key issues and the organisations and committees that had set themselves the task of curbing women-trafficking held a conference in London from 21 to 23 June 1899. At this event delegates from mostly European countries and from the United States made their proposals.⁴⁴ From this point on international cooperation accelerated and in 1902 an international conference was held in Paris where the necessary measures against women-trafficking were dealt with. The first international convention was adopted by 1904.⁴⁵ The provisions of the Italian Emigration Act of 1901 were thus in line with international trends and in line with the restrictive immigration laws of the United States. The law prohibited the directing of emigrants to non-Italian ports and provided for citizenship issues allowing the acquisition of Italian citizenship for children whose fathers lost their Italian citizenship before birth in connection with emigration.

A major change in the 1901 Act concerned emigration agencies and the relationship between the emigrant, the emigration contractor and the shipping companies. The much-debated emigration agencies which were linked to labour brokering were radically transformed. With the entry into force of the new legislation only specially licensed agents were allowed to operate. This was also a form of state support and was subject to strict state control. In view of the US regulation prohibiting immigration of people with a prearranged work contract this form of immigration was not included in the law primarily in response to the need to emigrate to the United States.⁴⁶ The other form concerned non-subsidised emigration in which the legal source excluded intermediaries, so that the emigrants concluded a contract directly with the representative of the respective shipping company.⁴⁷ The Act regulated in detail the content of the service, clarified liability issues and provided for forums to settle any disputes.

The 1901 settlement also brought a fundamental change in the means of state control. It retained the passport system so that the first time an emigrant encountered state control was when applying for a passport. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was put in charge of emigration and an extensive administrative structure was set up. The Commissariato generale dell’emigrazione (Commissariat for Emigration (CGE)) was created with broad powers under the Ministry of Foreign Affairs but with a certain degree of autonomy. The creation of the CGE made it possible to have a single body take over the tasks of emigration that had previously been divided between several other ministries and other authorities, mainly those relating to control.⁴⁸ In addition to the CGE that had more operational tasks the Emigration Act of 1901 also established the Emigration Council (Art 7).⁴⁹ This system of control included the deployment of emigration inspectors in the main ports of emigration, such as Naples, Genoa and Palermo and the government's plan to set up emigrant houses to provide adequate accommodation for emigrants.⁵⁰

The responsibilities of the shipping companies that from then on contracted with emigrants through their agents were considerably extended. For third-class passengers, these companies had to provide boarding and medical supervision between the time of departure and arrival and were responsible for transporting only emigrants who were legally entitled to emigrate and to enter the country of destination and were not allowed to make any charges other than for the predetermined fare (Art 11, 19). The Act's further innovation was the inclusion of the protection of the interests of emigrants in the territory of the host country within the scope of state action. It was not entirely without precedent, as the Italian branch at Ellis Island had in fact operated on similar principles. Nevertheless, the very fact that a foreign state was carrying out such activities on US territory raised several questions, particularly for Washington.

Finally, the law created the Emigration Fund (Fondo dell'emigrazione) whose revenue was made up of the tax paid by shipping companies on each emigrant and other revenue from the provisions of the Emigration Act, such as licence fees and fines. The money accumulated in the Fund could be used only for emigration-related expenditure. It was therefore a specific financial source of Italian public policy on emigration (Art 28).⁵¹

The Italian Emigration Act of 1901 although similar in many respects to the German Act of 1897 was driven by a completely different approach. While it is true that the relationship between transporters and emigrants was regulated in detail and that the whole source of legislation was permeated by the idea of protecting emigrants, the law was more strongly geared to the characteristics of Italian emigration. This meant that the Italian government had developed its policies in light of the fact that Italian emigration in this period was primarily labour migration (a migration characterised by a high proportion of returnees). Italian emigration policy therefore recognised (at least tacitly) the need for emigration, particularly the usefulness of temporary emigration, and sought to take account of the cultural needs of Italians living abroad. This was confirmed by the legislation that followed the Emigration Act of 1901.⁵²

V. The Hungarian Emigration Act of 1903

Emigration was widely debated in Hungary at the turn of the century. In the columns of newspapers, there were short and long reports that in addition to describing current cases of interest to the public also reported on changes in the rules governing emigration and on the development of government policy. At the same time, professional journals and interest group publications also offered more in-depth analyses. Domestic politicians and even more so professionals concerned with emigration issues were also alerted to the most important changes in foreign emigration laws and government measures as well as to international emigration trends.

Articles describing the Italian law of 1901 were also published in Hungarian newspapers. One of the first was an unusually long article in the newspaper Hazánk (edited by Barna Buday) written by the correspondent in Venice about the new Italian emigration law and more broadly about the development of Italian emigration policy since the 1888 law.⁵³ Analysing the role of emigration agents the author drew parallels between the Hungarian and the Italian situations and listed the many evils of the emigration business. He concluded his brief description of the most important measures of the law by saying that it would be useful for domestic codifiers to become familiar with it. Barna Buday was active in public affairs and journalism. At the general meeting of the National Association of Economic Associations about emigration Buday called for the creation of a new Hungarian emigration law and in this connection, he described foreign examples, including the German and Italian laws.⁵⁴ Amadé Rudan analysed the Italian source of law in the 1902 edition of the Economic Review.⁵⁵ In essence, the author summarised the provisions of the law and only in the introductory lines did he refer to the development of Italian emigration and the situation before the Emigration Act was enacted. He also described the mandate given to the Banco di Napoli in 1901 also in relation to the sending of emigrants’ money. The journal of the Hungarian Farmers' Association (Magyar Gazdák Szemléje) published between 1896 and 1944 published a review of the Italian Emigration Act of 1901 in 1902.⁵⁶ The date of publication allowed the author of the article to move away from an approach based on a description of Italian emigration processes and a brief summary of the provisions of the law to review the experience of one year of the application of the law, drawing on information published in the Bollettino dell’emigrazione. He reported on the placement of emigrants in Genoa, the information provided by the Italian authorities on emigration destinations, the work of emigration agents sent to South America and the activities of the Banco di Napoli in sending money to Italian emigrants. The author also referred to the use of this summary in the development of Hungarian legislation. The principles of the new Emigration Act were presented by Prime Minister Kálmán Széll in a reply to a remark made by opposition MP Ödön Barta during the session of Parliament on 17 June 1902.⁵⁷ The details of the reform of the Italian emigration system became known to the professional circles and the wider public in Hungary when the Széll government submitted a package of bills to the Hungarian Parliament on 5 November 1902 relating to the emigration issue. These concerned the border police, the residence of foreigners in the territory of the Hungarian Crown, the establishment of three new gendarmerie districts, the passport issue and the regulation of emigration.⁵⁸ The explanatory note that was attached to the emigration bill analysed in detail the characteristics and changes in emigration in Hungary since the coming into force of the Act on Emigration Agents (1881). It pointed to the failure of the previous policy of curbing emigration by prohibiting the activities of agents through administrative means and to the need for a new approach to the phenomenon of emigration in the light of its changes. Barta referred to foreign examples notably the Swiss law of 1888, the German law of 1897 and the Italian law of 1901. The explanatory note further provided an overview of the principles of the Western examples which he wished to incorporate into Hungarian legislation. The basis was the maintenance of the freedom of emigration that could be restricted only in certain cases. The new logic of emigration regulation was based on the need for greater protection of the interests of emigrants on the one hand and the need to promote wider state interests on the other hand. Protecting the interests of emigrants meant mainly the operation of shipping companies or transport companies transporting emigrants, the issuing of permits for them, the provision of services and finally the acquisition of information on emigration destinations and the provision of information to those intending to emigrate. However, the primary area of state interest was in the fulfilment of military obligations and wider measures linked to national policy, such as contact with emigrants, facilitating return migration and not least settling citizenship issues.

The explanatory note of the law stated that, although emigration was harmful to the country, it could not be prohibited because of the principle of free movement and self-determination but was justified in restricting it based on certain public and private interests. Accordingly, it was acceptable to restrict emigration to countries of destination whose economic and geographical conditions were risky, where there was a risk that the emigrant would have to be repatriated at public expense and as in the past where there was a need to fulfil military obligations.

Criticisms of the emigration bill during the parliamentary debate focused mainly on the government's economic policy and the new institutions it intended to introduce. Lóránt Hegedüs presented a comprehensive analysis of the bill in the Budapesti Hírlap. In a lengthy two-volume article the author who was well versed in emigration issues examined the proposal in detail, not only by providing a summary of its content – as is usually the case with speakers on the subject – but also highlighting the main points of the proposal and the pitfalls of managing emigration. He cited examples from abroad that he compared with the Hungarian proposal, pointing out the elements in which he identified German and Italian models.⁵⁹

The difference between the final text of the emigration law and the text that was taken up for discussion is negligible. The final text unlike the text of the proposal does not include agents and the numbering of the articles in the final text reflects minor editorial differences. The Hungarian Emigration Act of 1903 drew on the solutions of the Italian law in many points but it adopted many of them only partially and in some points there is no trace of the effect. The Hungarian law unlike the Italian law did not prohibit freedom of emigration. Nevertheless, in Hungarian public opinion, there was no general ban or restriction on emigration. Although in the debates surrounding the phenomenon of emigration speakers typically emphasised its harmfulness, they repeatedly stressed that it was not possible to ban emigration because of generally accepted liberal principles. The legislator did not see the need to declare emigration free.

The new law defined the concept of an emigrant. This was not included in the previous Hungarian legislation, in the 1881 Act on Emigration Agents and the decrees issued in the meantime. The link with the Italian law is because the definition of the term was included in the law itself. Whereas the Italian legislation defined emigrants based on the emigration destination the Hungarian definition was based on three criteria: the purpose of the emigration for purpose of employment, the travel abroad and the indefinite period of absence (§ 1). The impact of the Italian solution is more strongly reflected in the implementing instructions of the law. It retained emigration for permanent income as an essential element of emigration. It provided that departure abroad for the purpose of earning a livelihood could be presumed if the person travelled to a country outside Europe in Class III, if he or she travelled to a European state as a contracted industrial worker or domestic or agricultural servant or for any other purpose of earning a livelihood.⁶⁰ Here therefore both the geographical criterion, as in the Italian law, and the employment objective as a motivation for emigration are present. Following the same logic the instruction also clarified who could not be considered emigrants: travellers, business travellers and seasonal workers.

The emigration law was based on the protection of the emigrants and the interests of the state, so that restrictions or in other words emigration conditions are necessarily to be found in the Hungarian law as well (§ 2). The first steps of the Hungarian government's emigration policy were taken following reports from lower administrative authorities and the experience of military conscription. The issue of military obligations appeared in the legislation of all major emigration countries. Compared with the specific provisions of the Italian law on military service the Hungarian provisions were much more concise, requiring only the possession of a compulsory permit and did not contain provisions specifically regulating the performance of military service by emigrants. The next group of restrictions which also appeared in the Italian legislation concerned provisions relating to minors which were intended to prevent minors from leaving the country with the consent of their father or guardian and with a reliable escort and to ensure that children under 15 years of age who remained in the country were not left without care. In contrast to the Hungarian provisions, the Italian law provided for more differentiated rules as regards the emigration of children under 15 recruited for work which also included penal provisions. Such rules were not included in the Hungarian law.

The Hungarian law specifically mentioned the issue of emigration of underage women. By this time there were already serious debates in Hungarian public life about the issue of women-trafficking and the press also dealt with it in detail, especially in the south-east where the situation of Hungarian girls were being sent to Romania as domestic servants and the women transported to Istanbul. This issue was much less discussed in connection with the mass emigration to the West, mostly overseas. Nor did the issue feature prominently in the regulations. In 1903, before the Bill was debated, a terse Home Office Order called on the authorities to issue passports to minors especially women only if accompanied by a trustworthy adult.⁶¹ Although the issue of women-trafficking was already being discussed in international forums and bilateral agreements had been reached by the time the Hungarian Emigration Act was drafted, the problem was largely left to the previous Criminal Code and a previous decree on pandering. The Act of 1903 did not go beyond this level, essentially repeating the provisions of the decree of the Minister of the Interior issued that year which sought to curb the practice of women-trafficking by means of issuing passports. Therefore even though the Italian law on emigration contained very similar provisions in that it explicitly mentioned emigration for the purpose of prostitution the Hungarian legislation could not be considered to be a complete transposition of the Italian law.

The Hungarian law also required the possession of a passport for emigration (§ 3). However in contrast to the Italian provisions the law only required the possession of a passport for the emigration destination country and did not contain any rules on the issue of passports which was regulated by the Széll government's emigration reform package by way of a separate law.⁶² Compared to the Italian regulation the Hungarian one was definitely more disadvantageous for the emigrant since on the one hand there was no time limit for the passport issuing authorities to issue the document and on the other hand the Hungarian passport was subject to a fee. It was also sharply contrasted in contemporary criticism with the provision in the Italian law that the passport applied for had to be issued within 24 hours. Finally, the fact that a fee was charged for the issue of a passport under the Hungarian system was difficult to reconcile with the spirit of the law, as expressed in the explanatory note and in the parliamentary debates which was to protect emigrants and in a sense to take account of social considerations.

The new emigration policy focused on the care of emigrants or at least on the management and even more so the control of emigrants. But apart from the passport as an obvious means of control, the law also contained other elements. From the very beginning of the mass emigration, the Austro-Hungarian diplomatic missions monitored the conditions in the destination countries. It was quite natural that the consulates' reports should include information on the economic conditions and labour market characteristics of the country concerned, just as the joint foreign ministry informed the Hungarian government from time to time of changes affecting the most popular destinations.⁶³ Summaries of economic conditions in the United States were a regular feature in Budapest but news reports on South American countries were not rare either especially when they came within the purview of Hungarian emigrants. For the protection of citizens but even more for the sake of foreign aid and the need to avoid repatriation at state expense the ban on issuing passports to certain destinations was already part of the management of emigration.⁶⁴ There are many examples in past practice of government efforts to inform prospective emigrants and to prevent emigration to potential destinations that were considered risky, either geographically or economically. The Minister of the Interior who was responsible for emigration had previously restricted emigration to certain destinations by means of regulations, so the very fact that this was included in the Emigration Act was more a case of it becoming a systematic part of the regulation of emigration. It was therefore a parallel with the Italian Act of 1901 rather than a transposition. The last element of restriction concerned routes. The new law empowered the Minister of the Interior to direct emigration along specific routes based on state supervision and the protection of the emigrants’ interests (§ 6). Most emigrants embarked in Hamburg and Bremen and the German companies HAPAG and Lloyd were the most interested in emigration to Hungary. However, the internal conditions of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy made it difficult to control emigration along the northern route. Within the Monarchy, there were no border controls which meant that emigrants – with or without passports – could reach the ports almost without any checks. This intractable situation was one of the fundamental reasons for the failure of the Emigration Agents Act of 1881. Budapest was aware that it could only control emigrants if they emigrated from a port that it could control with its own authorities which was Rijeka. This is how this provision was introduced into the Emigration Act with a parallel in the Italian Act where the priority ports were Palermo, Naples and Genoa. However, unlike the large Italian ports which were already handling considerable traffic at that time, Rijeka would not have been able to receive hundreds of thousands of emigrants in the years following the turn of the century. Although Budapest invested huge sums in the development of the port's capacity, Rijeka would not have been able to cope with the entire domestic emigration despite the improvements.

Among the major innovations of the 1903 Emigration Act the provisions relating to transport contractors, essentially shipping companies and agents, stand out. The rules applicable to them and to the relationship between contractors and their agents and emigrants represent a complete change of approach. From 1881 onwards agents could not legally operate in Hungary as the activity of an agent became subject to a licence, but the Minister of the Interior did not issue such a licence. The 1903 Act while maintaining the licensing requirement regulated in detail who could become an agent and under what conditions. Two important points can be drawn in parallel with the Italian legislation. The first is the question of jurisdiction: both the Hungarian and the Italian law stipulated that a licence could be granted only if the entrepreneur accepted the jurisdiction of the country (§ 8) and agreed to the system of bail (§ 9).

The new Hungarian Emigration Act provided for the establishment of an emigration fund (§ 35). The aim of this institution that also existed in other foreign legislation but was clearly modelled on the Italian law was to create a financial basis for the care of citizens who had already emigrated. The financing of emigrants did not start at this time, as the consular authorities had already been providing support to Austrian and Hungarian citizens in difficulty and was common practice during the period of increasing mass emigration. The presence of Austrian-Hungarian consuls or consulate staff on arrival and the fact that several Austrian-Hungarian consulates had started operating in the United States made it easier for the larger Hungarian emigrant communities to access assistance. By the time of the Széll government's emigration package, however, it was clear that the consular authorities were running out of capacity. This was due to the need to meet the demand from the huge numbers of emigrants which could no longer be met through traditional channels and the expected costs of the government's overall emigration policy which were well beyond what could be reasonably expected. To address the situation in the long term the Emigration Act therefore allocated not only the travel expenses of returnees without assets but also other forms of support for emigrants to the Emigration Fund. Some of them explicitly assumed an activity to be carried out in the country of destination. These included the provision of information abroad on local conditions, especially job opportunities, and even job placement as well as the development of services such as accommodation or shelters to facilitate the life of emigrants abroad. Those in difficulty could not only benefit from free repatriation but also from various charity-based support and assistance. The emigration fund was clearly a copy of the Italian scheme of 1901. The main difference was in the system of resources of the fund. While the largest part of the Italian fund's resources was made up of payments from transport companies based on the number of emigrants, and to a lesser extent of fines and licence fees imposed in connection with emigration with no direct charges on the emigrants themselves, the Hungarian emigration fund's resources came from the central budget and passport fees, in addition to the fees paid by transport companies. In this way, the financing of the emigration policy was directly linked to the fees paid by emigrants. This difference was also pointed out in contemporary comments that sharply criticised the fact that those who travelled for essentially economic reasons, namely those who were likely to have had a heavy financial burden, were forced to bear additional costs.⁶⁵ Finally, the annual commission to be paid by the financial institution established by law to manage emigrants’ remittances was also part of the Hungarian emigration fund. However, this was not yet in operation in 1903 when the Act came into force. After lengthy negotiations it was not set up until the years preceding the First World War, the overall result of which fell short of expectations. Both the Italian and the Hungarian emigration laws provided for the organisation of state care for emigrants and this was the idea behind the establishment of the activity in the country of destination.

Like the Emigration Fund, the Hungarian Act of 1903 established the Emigration Council based on an Italian model (§ 38–40). The Council was chaired by the Minister of the Interior (the person in charge of emigration affairs) and it consisted partly of members of the government, partly of representatives of professional chambers and associations and partly of people engaged in agriculture, industry or trade. According to the wording of the legislation, the rules of procedure and the organisation of the Council were laid down by the Minister of the Interior. The decree implementing the law specified the powers and functions of the Council, including the right of all members of the Council to submit proposals on their own initiative on emigration issues which they were obliged to discuss (§ 56).⁶⁶ To monitor the implementation of the Emigration Act the Minister appointed an Immigration Commissioner and staff to assist the Commissioner. The first emigration commissioner was Baron Lajos Lévay, an expert in the field and formerly a member of parliament for the Libertarian Party, who had spoken on emigration matters and was then head of the emigration department of the Ministry of the Interior and who was one of the authors of the decree implementing the Emigration Act. Lévay's work was not limited to control, but he was among other things the person who negotiated with shipping companies including Cunard Line that was becoming a major partner of Budapest.⁶⁷ The main difference between the Italian solution and the model was its size. While the emigration commission set up under the Italian law of 1901 had a much larger apparatus, the Hungarian one was limited to a single person. In fact it acted as an agent of the minister, reporting directly to him and could call on the work of other authorities or inform local authorities during its proceedings.

VI. Conclusion

The Hungarian Emigration Act of 1903 took a completely different approach to emigration than the previous legislation that focused more on agents and emigrants who were obliged to serve in the army, as it appeared in the 1881 Act on Emigration Agents and in various decrees. The need for the fullest possible development of state control, the protection of emigrants and the aim of enforcing national policy aspects were all reflected in the law proposed by the Széll government. It was part of a more comprehensive legislation together with the Passport Act and the Border Police Act. The new emigration policy solutions were based on Italian and German examples. As Austria had no emigration law that was of use to Hungarian legislators, the new emigration law was drafted based on the Italian and to a lesser extent the German examples.

It is no coincidence that the Italian law of 1901 had the strongest influence on Hungarian legislation. The Swiss and German sources of law cited by Prime Minister Kálmán Széll during the discussion of the Act were earlier, while the Italian Act was only two years behind the Hungarian one. Overseas emigration from Switzerland and Germany had already surpassed the peak with German emigration that had previously been huge, falling sharply from the late 1880s and early 1890s. It is fair to say that by the time the German Emigration Act was drafted it was no longer as important in terms of managing German emigration. Although the northern German ports remained inescapable in the emigration flows from central and eastern Europe, most emigrants from Hamburg and Bremen were no longer Germans. German migration processes were then characterised more by internal migration, the typical internal migration of an industrialising society, than by Atlantic migration. In the traditional German emigration destination countries structures were already in place which enabled the members of the German community to preserve their linguistic and cultural identity. In essence, this situation is reflected in the German Emigration Act that did not go beyond the relationship between the transport companies and the emigrants or the restriction of emigration for military, public security and health reasons and the establishment of the necessary institutional system.

By contrast, Italian emigration did not slow down at all at the turn of the century. The tensions arising from the country's great internal disparities in economic development and population growth sustained emigration and made it a necessity for the government. This may also explain why the Italian law of 1901 went beyond the solutions offered by the German example and sought to provide a framework for government action aimed at those who had already emigrated. The phenomenon of circular migration, the birds of passage which was the defining feature of the ‘new migration’ period and the experience of the return of a large number of emigrants, led the governments of the countries of origin concerned to develop a migration policy that was new in several respects and this was a feature that fully characterised Italian emigration at the turn of the century.⁶⁸ In the evolution of Italian emigration policy, the nation-centred current of Italian public thinking cannot be neglected. This may explain several elements of the law including the definition of emigration that seems somewhat artificial, but above all the fact that the law through its provisions on citizenship, the Italian consular authorities and other institutions had made it possible for the issuing country to keep emigrants of Italian nationality or citizenship under control in the territory of the host country, offering them the opportunity to live out their national identity.⁶⁹ Economic considerations also entered into Italian emigration policy. Although not in the Emigration Act of 1901, it was during this period that a system was established to facilitate the transfer of remittances by emigrants allowing them to send money safely. These elements could also serve as a model for Budapest.

Hungarian efforts can be compared with those in Italy. Hungarian emigration had not yet reached its peak and although there were occasional small falls in the number of emigrants, it was impossible to predict when emigration would peak. Return emigration was also a feature as was the practice of sending remittances. In other words, emigration also had a significant economic impact of which Budapest was aware. Finally, the national policy dimension of the phenomenon was also inescapable for the Hungarian emigration policy. In contrast to Italy, Hungary was a multi-ethnic state of the heterogeneous Austro-Hungarian Empire in which the ethnic minorities’ issue became an increasingly sensitive problem as the turn of the century approached. Budapest could not help but try to control the emigrants because of the tense domestic political situation and the growing political movements among the emigrating ethnic minorities. The solutions provided by the Italian law also provided a useful model to meet these needs.

It seems that from the mid-nineteenth century until the outbreak of the First World War there were fundamental changes in the regulation of emigrating countries. A period of essentially liberal regulation was followed by a period of increasing control, a greater emphasis on national policy and a more caring and supportive approach to the territory of the immigrant countries. Following the removal of previous restrictions emigrating countries typically wished to maintain only a few filters, mainly for military purposes that they wanted to manage in a largely administrative way. This was followed by the regulation of the relationship between shipping companies and emigrants and the regulation of services. This logic was reflected both in the Italian legislation of 1888 and in the Hungarian legislation of 1881 and in the German emigration law of 1897 that was passed immediately before the turn of the century. The next step was the development of the above-mentioned caring and supportive approach, including a more intensive presence in the host countries. Examples of this endeavour can be seen in the legal sources examined. The Hungarian regulation of emigration accurately reflects this process with a similar pace of regulatory change to that in Italy where in 1909 a new law on emigration was enacted to address the shortcomings of the 1903 law.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Walter F Willcox, International Migrations Volume I: Statistics (National Bureau of Economic Research 1929) 82.

2 Hans Chmelar, Höhepunkt der Österreichischen Auswanderung (Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1974); Edward P Hutchinson, Legislative History of American Immigration Policy, 1798–1965 (University of Philadelphia Press 1981); Walter Nugent, ‘Frontiers and Empires in the Late Nineteenth Century’ (Nov 1989) 20(4) Western Historical Quarterly 393; Gerald L Neuman, ‘The Lost Century of American Immigration Law (1776–1875)’ (Dec 1993) 93(8) Columbia Law Review 1833; Charles Tilly, ‘The Emergence of Citizenship in France and Elsewhere’ (1995) 40(3) International Review of Social History 223; John Torpey, ‘Coming and Going: On the State Monopolization of the Legitimate “Means of Movement”’ (Nov 1998) 16(3) Sociological Theory 239; Andreas Fahrmeir, ‘Nineteenth-Century German Citizenship: A Reconsideration’ (Sept 1997) 40(3) The Historical Journal 721; Piero Bevilacqua, Andreina De Clementi and Emilio Franzina (eds), Storia dell’Emigrazione Italiana (Donzelli 2001); Daniel J Tichenor, Dividing Lines: The Politics of Immigration Control in America (Princeton University Press 2002); Klaus J Bade, Migration in European History (Blackwell 2003); Adam McKeown, ‘Global Migration, 1846–1940’ (June 2004) 15(2) Journal of World History 155; Dirk Hoerder and Audrey Macklin, ‘Separation or Permeability: Bordered States, Transnational Relations, Transcultural Lives’ (2006) 1 International Journal 793; Irene Bloemraad, ‘Citizenship Lessons from the Past: The Contours of Immigrant Naturalization in the early 20th Century’ (Dec 2006) 87(5) Social Science Quarterly 927; Aristide R Zolberg, A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America (Harvard UP 2006); Annemarie Steidl, Engelbert Stockhammer and Hermann Zeitlhofer, ‘Relations among Internal, Continental, and Transatlantic Migration in Late Imperial Austria’ (2007) 31(1) Social Science History 61; Andreas Fahrmeir, ‘Klassen-Grenzen: Migrationskontrolle im 19 Jahrhundert’ (2008) 12 Rechtsgeschichte 125; Jochen Oltmer,‘Einführung: europäische migrationsverhältnisse und migrationsregime in der neuzeit’ (Aug 2009) 35(1) Geschichte und Gesellschaft 5; Ulrike von Hirschhausen, ‘From Imperial Inclusion to National Exclusion: Citizenship in the Habsburg Monarchy and in Austria, 1867–1923’ (2009) 16(4) European Review of History: Revue Européenne d'Histoire 551; Rogers Brubaker, ‘Migration, Membership, and the Modern Nation-state: Internal and External Dimensions of the Politics of Belonging’ (Summer 2010) 43 Journal of Interdisciplinary History 61; Martin Anderson, ‘Tourism and the Development of the Modern British Passport, 1814–1858’ (April 2010) 49(2) Journal of British Studies 258; Ganczer Mónika, ‘Az állampolgárság fogalmának történeti formái az ókortól a modern korig’ (2011) 1 Jog-Állam-Politika 61; Varga Norbert, A Magyar Állampolgársági Jog a 19 Században (Akadémiai 2012); Michele Pifferi, ‘Paure dello straniero e controllo dei confini: una prospettiva storico-giuridica’ (2019) 1 Quaderno di Storia del Penale e della Giustizia 179; Giulia Di Giacomo, ‘Dalla tutela alla disciplina dei migranti: la libertà di emigrazione alla prova della grande guerra’ (2020) 6 Italian Review of Legal History 111; Alessia Maria Di Stefano, Non Potete Impedirla, Dovete Regolarla: Giustizia ed Emigrazione in Italia: l’Esperienza delle Commissioni Arbitrali Provinciali per l’Emigrazione (1901–1913) (Historia et Ius 2020).

3 Rácz István, A Paraszti Migráció és Politikai Megítélése Magyarországon, 1849–1914 (Akadémiai 1980); Puskás Julianna, Kivándorló Magyarok az Egyesült Államokban, 1880–1940 (Akadémiai 1980).

4 Raymond L Cohn, ‘The Transition from Sail to Steam in Immigration to the United States’ (June 2005) 65(2) The Journal of Economic History 469.

5 Francis E Hyde, Cunard and the North Atlantic, 1840–1973: A History of Shipping and Financial Management (Macmillan 1975); Drew Keeling, ‘Transatlantic Shipping Cartels and Migration between Europe and America, 1880–1914’ (1999) 17 Essays in Economic and Business History: The Journal of the Economic and Business Historical Society 195; George Deltas, Richard Sicotte and Peter Tomczak, ‘Passenger Shipping Cartels and their Effect on Trans-Atlantic Migration’ (Feb 2008) 90(1) The Review of Economics and Statistics 119; Torsten Feys, ‘Prepaid Tickets to the New World: The New York Continental Conference and Transatlantic Steerage Fares, 1885–1895’ (Otoño 2008) 26(2) Revista de Historia Económica: Journal of Iberian and Latin American Economic History 173.

6 Torsten Feys, ‘Between the Public and the State: The Shipping Lobby's Strategies against US Immigration Restrictions, 1882–1917’ (Summer 2017) 51(2) International Migration Review 344−74: 350−54.

7 Carl Solberg, ‘Immigration and Urban Social Problems in Argentina and Chile, 1890–1914’ (May 1969) 49(2) The Hispanic American Historical Review 215; Carl E Solberg, ‘Peopling the Prairies and the Pampas: The Impact of Immigration on Argentine and Canadian Agrarian Development, 1870–1930’ (May 1982) 24(2) Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 131; Samuel L Baily, ‘The Adjustment of Italian Immigrants in Buenos Aires and New York, 1870–1914’ (April 1983) 88(2) The American Historical Review 281; Torbágyi Péter, Magyar Kivándorlás Latin-Amerikába az Első Világháború Előtt (Szegedi Tudományegyetem 2009); J Ulyses Balderas and Michael J Greenwood, ‘From Europe to the Americas: A Comparative Panel-data Analysis of Migration to Argentina, Brazil and the United States, 1870–1910’ (Oct 2010) 23(4) Journal of Population Economics 113−130: 118; Blanca Sánchez-Alonso, ‘Making Sense of Immigration Policy: Argentina, 1870–1930’ (May 2013) 66(2) The Economic History Review 601; Blanca Sánchez-Alonso, ‘The Age of Mass Migration in Latin America’ (Feb 2019) 72(1) The Economic History Review 3; Francesco Rotondo, ‘Italiani d’Argentina dall’accoglienza alla “difesa sociale” (1853–1910)’ (2017) 12 Historia et Ius paper 13.

8 These processes made possible the creation of a world market for cereals, which had a direct impact on the economic development of European cereal-producing regions and consequently on migration processes: Kiss Zsuzsanna, ‘Gabonaválság a 19. század végén (Társadalomtörténeti nézőpontok)’ (2014) 4 Aetas 31; Richard Bräuer and Felix Kersting ‘Trade Shocks, Labour Markets and Migration in the First Globalisation’ (Jan 2024) 134(657) The Economic Journal 135−64: 146−47.

9 Rui Esteves and David Khoudour-Castéras, ‘Remittances, Capital Flows and Financial Development during the Mass Migration Period, 1870–1913’ (2011) 15 European Review of Economic History 443−74: 446; Ulf Brunnbauer, Globalizing Southeastern Europe: Emigrants, America, and the State since the Late Nineteenth Century (Lexington Books 2016) 18; Sebastian Conrad, Globalisation and the Nation in Imperial Germany (CUP 2010); Jeffrey G Williamson, ‘The Evolution of Global Labor Markets since 1830: Background Evidence and Hypotheses’ (1995) 32 Explorations in Economic History 141−96: 148−49.

10 Bina Kalola, ‘Immigration Laws and the Immigrant Woman, 1885–1924’ (Spring 1997) 11(3) Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 553−600: 557−58.

11 John Higham, ‘Origins of Immigration Restriction, 1882–1897: A Social Analysis’ (June 1952) 39(1) The Mississippi Valley Historical Review 77; Kalola (n 10) 564; Jeanne Petit, ‘Breeders, Workers and Mothers: Gender and the Congressional Literacy Test Debate, 1896–1897’ (Jan 2004) 3(1) The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 35.

12 In many respects the management of emigration issues could not be separated from the specific conditions of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. One of these was the issue of border control. There were no border controls at the Monarchy's internal borders which made it possible for many abuses to take place and facilitated emigration for those who could not legally do so. Military matters were another sensitive area. The armed forces of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy consisted of the common army on the one hand and the Hungarian Honvédség and the Austrian Landwehr on the other. However the rules of conscription, including the age of military service, differed between the two halves of the empire, a recurring problem for the authorities seeking to prevent unauthorised emigration. Although the two governments repeatedly entered into negotiations to resolve the problem and took steps to harmonise controls, this was essentially not resolved until the fall of the Monarchy: MNL OL K150-3609-1913-V-20-59277-191337(22 Nov 1913); OeStA AVA Inneres MdI Allgemein Teil 2 A 301 (29 Nov 1913); Sarlós Béla, ‘A kiegyezés magyarországi jogpolitikája’ (1968) (5–6) Századok 965−90: 981; Szente Zoltán, Kormányzás a Dualizmus Korában (Atlantisz 2011).

13 Thirring Lajos, ‘Magyarország népessége 1869–1949 között’ in Kovacsics József (ed), Magyarország Történeti Demográfiája. Magyarország Népessége a Honfoglalástól 1949-ig (Közgazdasági és Jogi 1963); Katus László, ‘A demográfiai átmenet kérdései Magyarországon a 19. században’ (1980) 23(2) Történelmi Szemle 270−88: 272; Kamarás Ferenc, ‘A születési mozgalom és a termékenység jellegzetességei az elmúlt 125 évben’ in Kovacsics József (ed), Magyarország Történeti Demográfiája (896-1995): Millecentenáriumi Előadások (Központi Statisztikai Hivatal 1997) 317.

14 Hegedüs Lóránt, ‘A székelyek kivándorlása Romániába: Első közlemény’ (1902) 110(306) Budapesti Szemle 394; Hegedüs Lóránt, ‘A székelyek kivándorlása Romániába: Második közlemény’ (1902) 111(307) Budapesti Szemle 317; Hegedüs Lóránt, ‘A székelyek kivándorlása Romániába: Harmadik közlemény’ (1902) 111(308) Budapesti Szemle 215; Thirring Gusztáv, A Magyarországi Kivándorlás és a Külföldi Magyarság (Kilián 1904).

15 Szili Ferenc, ‘Kivándorlás Somogyból Horvátországba és Szlavóniába (1880–1914)’ (1992) 23 Somogy Megye Múltjából 231; Foki Ibolya, ‘Magyar katolikusok Moldva-Oláhországban a 19. század közepén’ (1996) 130 Századok 1287.

16 Királyfi Árpád, Bosznia Szerepe Kivándorlási Politikánkban (Franklin 1908); Makkai Béla, ‘A magyar kormányzat: “Bosniai actio”-ja (1909–1919)’ (1996) 130 Századok 341; Makkai Béla, ‘Önvédelem vagy expanzió? Magyar “nemzetgondozási” program a délszláv régióban a 20 század elején’ (2003) 137 Századok 101.

17 ‘Kivándorlás Amerikába’ A Hon (16 Apr 1875) 2; Képviselőházi napló (KN) 1878 XI k 224 ülésnap 88−89 (13 March 1880).

18 Pálvölgyi Balázs, ‘A magyar kivándorlási politika kezdetei (1881–1903): Kivándorlási törvények és az amerikai kivándorlás’ (2010) 4 Jogtörténeti Szemle 27.

19 MNL OL K150-2486-1894-VII-14-5568 (2 April 1884); MNL OL K150-2486-1894-VII-14-35156 (12 Jan 1893).

20 Kazy József, Az Északkárpátmenti Hegyvidéki Nép Gazdasági Helyzetének Javítására Irányuló Állami Segítő Akczió Hat Évi Működésének Ismertetése (Pallas 1904); Balaton Petra and Reiszt T Csaba, ‘A székelyföldi ipari akció’ (2006) 4 Levéltári Közlemények 55; Balaton Petra, ‘A Székely Akció Története, 1902–1914 Állami szerepvállalás Székelyföld Felzárkóztatására’ (DPhil thesis, Debreceni Egyetem BTK 2006); Braun László, ‘A Hegyvidéki Akció Története 1897–1910 között’ (DPhil thesis, Debreceni Egyetem BTK 2017).

21 AT-OeStA HHStA PA XXXIII 63−87; Monika Glettler, Pittsburg-Wien-Budapest Programm und Praxis der Nationalitätenpolitik bei der Auswanderung der Ungarischen Slowaken nach Amerika um 1900 (Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1980) 104; Polányi Imre, A Szlovák Társadalom és Polgári Nemzeti Mozgalom a Századfordulón (1895–1905) (Akadémiai 1987) 92; Szarka László, ‘A szlovák kérdés a magyar kormány nemzetiségi politikájában 1906–1918’ (1993) 1–2 Történelmi Szemle 59; Albert Tezla (ed), ‘Egy Szívvel Két Hazában’ Az Amerikás Magyarok, 1895–1920 (Corvina 2005).

22 The Emigration Patent issued by Francis I in 1832 became the applicable source of law with the introduction of the Austrian Civil Code in Hungary. It brought the loss of citizenship by emigration and the question of the citizenship of a woman married to a foreign national within the scope of the Emigration Act of the 1832 Patent ‘Gesetz über die Auswanderung und unbefugte Abwesenheit den 24 März 1832’; ‘Adalék a kivándorlási törvényhez’ (1866) 3 Jogtudományi Közlöny 33.

23 Staatsgrundgesetz vom 21 December 1867 über die allgemeinen Rechte der Staatsbürger für die im Reichsrathe vertretenen Königreiche und Länder Art 4, RGBl Nr 142/1867; Karl Jaeger, ‘Über die Freiheit der Auswanderung’ (18 June 1868) (1) 25 Österreichische Zeitschrift für Verwaltung 1; Brunnbauer (n 9) 151; Annemarie Steidl, On Many Routes: Internal, European and Transatlantic Migration in the Late Habsburg Empire (Purdue UP 2021).

24 The Austrian emigration bill was only submitted after lengthy negotiations in 1904, but it did not become law. However, the debates on the settlement of emigration did not die down with all parties agreeing on the need for a comprehensive emigration law. Finally in 1908 a government proposal was made followed by further debates on the proposal, but still no law was passed. The last attempt to pass a new emigration law was made in 1913 but even then it was not successful. Thus although the Austrian attempt at regulation was known in Hungarian professional circles and in the government, it could not serve as a model for the Hungarian Emigration Act of 1909: 2097 der Beilagen zu den Stenographische Protokollen des Abggeordnetenhauses XVII Session 1904 Regiergungsvorlage XVII Band (Enthaltend die Beilagen 1979 bis 2043) (Aus der kaiserlich-königlichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei 1904); K Ritter von Frey, ‘Der neue Gesetzentwurf über den Auswandererschutz’ Die Zeit (14 Oct 1908) 10; Leopold Caro, Auswanderung und Auswanderungspolitik in Österreich (Duncker & Humblot 1909); AT-OeStA AVA Inneres MdI Allgemein Teil 2 A 296; Otto Neurath, ‘Zum österreichischen Auswanderungsgesetzentwurf’ (1914) 23 Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft, Sozialpolitik und Verwaltung 297; Tara Zahra, ‘Travel Agents on Trial: Policing Mobility in East Central Europe, 1889–1989’ (2014) 223 Past & Present 161; Ulf Brunnbauer, ‘Der staat und die emigranten: auswanderungspolitik und nationsbildung im südöstlichen Europa vor dem ersten weltkrieg’ (2015) Themenportal Europäische Geschichte <http://www.europa.clio-online.de/2015/Article=722> accessed 6 Jan 2023; Brunnbauer (n 9) 155; Cristina Florea, ‘Frontiers of Civilization in the Age of Mass Migration from Eastern Europe’ (Feb 2023) 258(1) Past and Present 115−50: 122−25; Pálvölgyi Balázs, ‘Divergencia vagy aszinkronitás? A kivándorlás osztrák és magyar szabályozásának útjai, 1867–1914’ in Mezey Barna (ed), Kölcsönhatások: Európa és Magyarország a Jogtörténelem Sodrásában (Gondolat 2021).

25 Mention should also be made of the 1888 Act on Emigration Agents as it has been referred to several times in Hungarian legislation and debates as well as in the explanatory note of the Hungarian Emigration Act: Bundesgesetz betreffend den Geschäftsbetrieb von Auswanderungsagenturen (vom 22 März 1888).

26 Bericht über die Thätigkeit des Reichskommissars für das Auswanderungswesen während des Jahres 1890 no 301 Reichstag, 8 Legislatur-periode I Session 1890/91 – MNL OL K150-2091-1891-VII-14-5265; Klaus J Bade, ‘German Emigration to the United States and Continental immigration to Germany in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries’ (Dec 1980) 13(4) Central European History 348−77: 362; Günter Moltmann, ‘American-German Return Migration in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries’ (Dec 1980) 13(4) Central European History 378.

27 (Nr 2393) Gesetz über das Auswanderungswesen Vom 9 Juni 1897; Conrad (n 9) 277.

28 Anna Maria Ratti, ‘Italian Migration Movements, 1876 to 1926’ in Walter F Wilcox (ed), International Migrations Vol II: Interpretations (NBER 1931) 440; Donna R Gabaccia, ‘Worker Internationalism and Italian Labor Migration, 1870–1914’ (Spring 1994) 45 International Labor and Working-Class History 63−79: 64; Enrico Moretti, ‘Social Networks and Migrations: Italy 1876–1913’ (Autumn 1999) 33(3) The International Migration Review 640.

29 Herbert S Klein, ‘The Integration of Italian Immigrants into the United States and Argentina: A Comparative Analysis’ (April 1983) 88(2) The American Historical Review 306; Thierry Rinaldetti, ‘Italian Migrants in the Atlantic Economies: From the Circular Migrations of the Birds of Passage to the Rise of a Dispersed Community’ (Fall 2014) 34(1) Journal of American Ethnic History 5.

30 Prefect (prefetto) the representative of the government in the province.

31 Emigration agents were common in the period so they played a significant role in the emigration process not only in the Austro-Hungarian Empire but also in Italy. They provided a complex service to emigrants since they could not only sell boat tickets but also help with many other matters related to the organisation of the journey. These services were of great help to emigrants who were not used to long journeys, who came mainly from an agricultural background and who in many cases could barely read and write. There were also many abuses linked to the agents’ activities: Antonio Cortese and Maria Carmela Miccoli, ‘The Role of Emigration Agencies and Shipping Companies in Outbound Flows of Italian Migrants until World War I’ (2016) 70(2) Rivista Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica 177−87: 179−80; Caroline Douki, ‘Les maires de l’Italie libérale à l’épreuve de l’émigration: le cas des campagnes lucquoises’ (1994) 106(1) Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome: Italie et Méditerranée 333−65: 346−48; Maria Rosaria Ostuni, ‘Leggi e politiche di governo nell’Italia liberale e fascista’ in Piero Bevilacqua, Andreina De Clementi and Emilio Franzina (eds), Storia dell’Emigrazione Italiana: Partenze (Donzelli Editore 2001) 309−13: 309−10; Mark I Choate, ‘Sending States: Transnational Interventions in Politics, Culture and Economics: The Historical Example of Italy’ (Fall 2007) 41(3) The International Migration Review 728; Dolores Freda, Governare i Migranti la Legge sull’Emigrazione del 1901 e la Giurisprudenza del Tribunale di Napoli (G Giappichelli 2018) 20.

32 The development of emigration legislation presupposes a thorough study of the phenomenon and the availability of sufficient information for the legislative process. In Italy the scientific study of emigration is associated with the work of Leone Carpi who began collecting data in 1869 and then from the early 1870s examined the phenomenon in a series of works. After that a series of experts worked on emigration using scientific methods. From 1876 to 1921 the General Direction of Statistics was responsible for collecting data on emigration and for a few years the General Commission of Emigration continued the work: Elizabeth Cometti, ‘Trends in Italian Emigration’ (Dec 1958) 11(4) The Western Political Quarterly 820−34: 821; Emilio Franzina, ‘Il “biometro delle nazioni”: primi rilevamenti sull’emigrazione’ (1980) 15(3) Quaderni storici 966; Daniel J Grange, ‘Émigration et colonies: un grand débat de l’Italie libérale’ (July–Sept 1983) 30(3) Revue d’Histoire Moderne et Contemporaine 337−65: 338; Jean-Guy Prévost, ‘Genèse particulière d’une science des nombres: l’autonomisation de la statistique en Italie entre 1900 et 1914’ (2002) 141–42 Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 98; Freda (n 31) 24−25.

33 Legge 30 dicembre 1888, n 5866 (Sull’emigrazione); Ostuni (n 31) 53; Freda (n 31) 42−43; Gabriele Scotti, ‘Dimensioni delle migrazione italiana tra il 1880 e il 1930’ (2017) 3 Italian Review of Legal History paper 17, 18; Di Giacomo (n 2) 114; Di Stefano (n 2) 32.

34 The source of the law recognised the activities of agents and sub-agents who could only carry out their activities with a licence issued by the Ministry of the Interior and who could not be public officials or clergymen. For the protection of emigrants the payment of travel expenses was not made conditional on subsequent employment: Ercole Sori, ‘La politica emigratoria italiana, 1860–1973’ (2003) 4(1) Popolazione e Storia 139−71: 163; Patrizia Famà Stahle, ‘The Italian Emigration of Modern Times: Relations between Italy and the United States Concerning Emigration Policy, Diplomacy, and Anti-Immigrant Sentiment, 1870-1927’ (PhD thesis, University of Southern Mississippi 2010) 45−48; Caroline Douki, ‘Protection sociale et mobilité transatlantique: les migrants italiens au début du XXe siècle’ (Juin 2011) 66(2) Annales Histoire, Sciences Sociales 375−410: 383−84.

35 Dolores Freda, ‘“Trafficanti di carne umana” gli agenti di emigrazione all'alba del XX secolo’ (2015) 8 Historia et Ius paper 17, 9−10.

36 Dolores Freda, ‘La regolamentazione dell'emigrazione in Italia tra Otto e Novecento: una ricerca in corso’ (2014) 6 Historia et Ius paper 9, 6−7.

37 John Koren, ‘The Padrone System and Padrone Banks’ (March 1897) 9 Bulletin of the Department of Labor 113; John E Bodnar, ‘The Procurement of Immigrant Labor: Selected Documents’ (1974) 41(2) Pennsylvania History Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 188; Gunther Peck, ‘Padrones and Protest: “Old” Radicals and “New” Immigrants in Bingham Utah, 1905–1912’ (May 1993) 24(2) Western Historical Quarterly 157; Gunther Peck, ‘Reinventing Free Labor: Immigrant Padrones and Contract Laborers in North America, 1885–1925’ (Dec 1996) 83(3) The Journal of American History 848−71: 851−54; Gunther Peck, ‘Divided Loyalties: Immigrant Padrones and the Evolution of Industrial Paternalism in North America’ (Spring 1998) 53 International Labor and Working-Class History 49; Lorenzo Prencipe and Matteo Sanfilippo, ‘Per una storia dell’emigrazione italiana ai tempi di Giovanni Battista Scalabrini’ (2019) 56(215) Studi Emigrazione 359.

38 The padrone essentially acted as a labour broker. Many of them abused the vulnerable position of jobseekers, often by placing minors in jobs or forcing people from their network to work. The result of the reaction to the phenomenon was the Padrone Act of 1874 that specifically addressed elements of human trafficking: An Act to Protect Persons of Foreign Birth against Forcible Constraint or Involuntary Servitude 18 Stat 251 (c 464); Rebecca E Zietlow, ‘Free at Last! Anti-subordination and the Thirteenth Amendment’ 90 Boston University Law Review 255; Rebecca E Zietlow, ‘A Positive Right to Free Labor’ 39 Seattle University Law Review 881; John M Cook, ‘Involuntary Servitude: Modern Conditions Addressed in United States v Mussry’ (Fall 1984) 34(1) Catholic University Law Review 153; Brian Gratton and Jon Moen, ‘Immigration Culture and Child Labor in the United States, 1880–1920’ (2004) 34(3) The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 355.

39 E H D, ‘Italian Immigration’ (1900) 7(51) Publications of the American Statistical Association 41; Teresa Fava Thomas, ‘Arresting the Padroni Problem and Rescuing the White Slaves in America: Italian Diplomats, Immigration Restrictionists & the Italian Bureau, 1881–1901’ (2010) 40 Altreitalie 57−79; Dolores Freda, ‘“Tratta dei fanciulli” e onor di patria: la regolamentazione dell’emigrazione minorile tra l’unità e la legge del 1901’ (2019) 5(9) Italian Review of Legal History 285.

40 Sull’emigrazione Legge n 23. del 1901; Marco Soresina, ‘Italian Emigration Policy during the Great Migration Age, 1888–1919: The Interaction of Emigration and Foreign Policy’ (2016) 21(5) Journal of Modern Italian Studies 723; Dolores Freda, ‘La legislazione sulle migrazioni italiane fino al 1901’ (2019) 56(215) Studi Emigrazione 379−91: 385−89.

41 The issue of emigration of conscripts, the related citizenship issues and the issue of sanctions for non-compliance with military service have been major problems for almost all European emigrating governments. As migration processes changed from the mid-nineteenth century onwards and more and more people returned to their countries of origin, a series of very difficult cases became a regular occurrence. This issue was crucial for the development of Hungarian emigration policy and regulation. On the question of freedom of emigration: Michele Pifferi, ‘Ius peregrinandi e contraddizioni dell’età liberale: Qualche riflessione sulla “falsa” libertà di migrare in Italia e negli USA’ in Massimo Meccarelli, Paolo Palchetti and Carlo Sotis (eds), Ius Peregrinandi Il Fenomeno Migratorio tra Diritti Fondamentali, Esercizio della Sovranità e Dinamiche di Esclusione (Edizioni Università di Macerata 2012) 253−74: 259−61.

42 By 1901 steamships had completely replaced the sailing vessels of the earlier period in the transatlantic trade. Mass migration was almost entirely by steamship.

43 Italian public opinion, government officials and the press had already addressed the phenomenon, both in relation to the trafficking of daughters to certain European countries and to the Middle East: Kalola (n 10) 565; Carl Ipsen, Italy in the Age of Pinocchio: Children and Danger in the Liberal Era (Palgrave 2006) 70; Nichole Keusch, ‘Migration and Prostitution’ in Magaly Rodríguez García, Lex Heerma van Voss and Elise van Nederveen Meerkerk (eds), Selling Sex in the City: A Global History of Prostitution, 1600s–2000s (Brill 2017).

44 The White Slave Trade: Transactions of the International Congress on the White Slave Trade held in London on the 21st, 22nd and 23rd of June 1899 at the Invitation of the National Vigilance Association (Office of the National Vigilance Association 1899).

45 Jean Allain, ‘White Slave Traffic in International Law’ (2017) 1 Journal of Trafficking and Human Exploitation 40.

46 James Davenport Whelpley, The Problem of the Immigrant: A Brief Discussion with a Summary of Conditions, Laws and Regulations Governing the Movement of Population to and from the British Empire, United States, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Denmark, Scandinavia and Russia (Chapman & Hall 1905).

47 The issue of emigration agents has generated considerable debate during the drafting of the law. In addition to the abuses mentioned above the interests of the shipping companies were behind the action taken against emigration agents who were perceived as trying to sell tickets regardless of the quality of the service because of the commission system: Cortese-Miccoli (n 30) 181−82.

48 The first head of the CGE was Luigi Bodio, an eminent expert on emigration and statistician who held the post for three years and who had already analysed Italian emigration trends in several works since the 1880s: Frederick H Gilman, ‘Luigi Bodio’ (Sept 1910) 12(91) Publications of the American Statistical Association 283−85; Caroline Douki, ‘The Liberal Italian State and Mass Emigration, 1860–1914’ in Nancy L Green and François Weil (eds) Citizenship and Those Who Leave: The Politics of Emigration and Expatriation (University of Illinois Press 2007) 91−113: 94−95, 103; Stefano Vinci, ‘La tutela giurisdizionale degli emigranti nelle sentenze della Commissione Centrale Arbitrale per l’Emigrazione’ (2022) 3 Iurisdictio: Storia e Prospettive della Giustizia 127.

49 The Emigration Council included government officials (representatives of the ministries involved in the emigration issue), members appointed by the monarch, representatives of certain academic disciplines, economists and representatives of interest groups.

50 The Emigrant House system was already in place in the major German emigrant ports: Dirk Hoerder, ‘The Traffic of Emigration via Bremen/Bremerhaven: Merchants’ Interests, Protective Legislation and Migrants’ Experiences’ (Fall 1993) 13(1) Journal of American Ethnic History 68−101: 93.

51 Dolores Freda, ‘La regolamentazione dell'emigrazione in Italia tra Otto e Novecento: una ricerca in corso’ (2014) 6 Historia et Ius Rivista di Storia Giuridica dell’Età Medievale e Moderna paper 9, 12.

52 Barbara Schmitter, ‘Sending States and Immigrant Minorities: The Case of Italy’ (Apr 1984) 26(2) Comparative Studies in Society and History 325.

53 Wp, ‘Az uj olasz kivándorlási törvény’ Hazánk (3 Aug 1901) 1. Barna Buday was an expert on Hungarian emigration, mainly interested in agricultural issues. He began his career in the National Hungarian Economic Association that was an organisation of large landowner-agricultural interest groups. From 1901 to 1905 he worked as editor of the newspaper Hazánk at the request of Count Sándor Károlyi who was active as a leader of the Hungarian agrarian movement.

54 ‘A kivándorlásról’ Hazánk (19 Dec 1901) 2.

55 Rudan Amadé, ‘Az olasz kivándorlási törvény’ (1902) Közgazdasági Szemle 632.

56 H-k S-u, ‘A kivándorlási ügy rendezése Olaszországban’ Magyar Gazdák Szemléje (25 Sept 1902) 499.

57 Opposition MP Ödön Barta (Independence and 48 Party) addressed a lengthy interpellation to the Prime Minister in the introduction of which he drew attention to the need to regulate the issue of emigration. He asked whether the government intended to table a bill to this effect. In reply to the interpellation the Prime Minister informed Members that the proposal had been drafted and outlined its principles in detail: KN 1901 VIIk 124 ülésnap 284.

58 KI 1901-07-194sz; KI 1901-07-196sz; KI 1901-07-197; KI 1901-07-198sz; KI 1901-07-195sz; Schwarczwölder Ádám, ‘A Széll-kormány és a törvényhozás’ in ifj Bertényi Iván (ed), Törvény, Jog, Igazság Széll Kálmán Életműve (Tihanyi Alapítvány 2015) 233−59: 250−51.

59 Hegedüs Lóránt, ‘A kivándorlási törvényjavaslat’ Budapesti Hírlap (12 Nov 1902) 1−2.

60 BM 40000/1904 § 1.

61 BM, 17031/1903 (14 Feb 1903).

62 At the beginning of the mass emigration to Hungary passports were not a reliable means of proving identity. Identification based on a personal description left a lot of room for abuse that was reported by the authorities in several cases from the 1880s onwards. To resolve the contradictions and to standardise the practice of issuing passports the Széll government linked the settlement of the passport issue to the settlement of the emigration issue (Act VI of 1903): Bencsik Péter, ‘Az Útlevélkérdés Története Magyarországon a Törvényi Szabályozástól a Második Világháborúig’ (DPhil thesis, Pécs 1999) 4; Bencsik Péter, ‘Határforgalom Magyarország és a Balkán között (1903–1941) 1 rész (1903–1914)’ (2000) 1 Limes 63−78: 64.

63 Rudolf Agstner, ‘From Apalachicola to Wilkes-Barre: Austria(-Hungary) and its Consulates in the United States of America, 1820–1917’ (2006) 37 Austrian History Yearbook 163−80: 171−72.

64 In 1885 for example the joint Foreign Ministry informed Budapest about the labour market in the United States and the high unemployment rate: MNL OL K150-1359-1885-VII-14-14894. On several occasions the Minister of Interior restricted emigration to Brazil: BM 86032/96 (13 Nov 1896) (1896) 15 Belügyi Közlöny 352.

65 Hegedüs Lóránt, ‘A kivándorlási törvényjavaslat II’ Budapesti Hírlap (13 Nov 1902) 1.

66 BM 1904/40000.

67 ‘Kivándorlási ügyek’ Magyar Nemzet (12 Feb 1904) 10.

68 Rinaldetti (n 29) 7.

69 Caroline Douki, ‘The “Return Politics” of a Sending Country: The Italian case, 1880s–1914’ in Nancy L Green and Roger Waldinger (eds) A Century of Transnationalism: Immigrants and Their Homeland Connections (University of Illinois Press 2016) 35−55: 38−40; Tara Zahra, ‘The Great Departure Mass Migration from Eastern Europe and the Making of the Free World’ (WW Norton & Company 2016) 84; Luca Busotti, ‘A History of Italian Citizenship Laws during the Era of the Monarchy (1861–1946)’ (2016) 5 Advances in Historical Studies 143−67: 150−54.