The British Hotel in the First World War
p. 171-182
Texte intégral
1In 1996, John K. Walton identified a gap in scholarship treating leisure and travel in times of conflict. Scholars of war and social change tended, he wrote, to regard leisure and tourism as « fringe and frivolous activities of little economic, social or political consequence », while tourism histories often framed wars merely as « irritating distractions from the unfolding of a story with very different priorities »1. Through a ground-breaking analysis of Blackpool and San Sebastián during the First World War, Walton showed that war was no mere interlude in the life of tourism, but a vital aspect of its history. From the late 1990s, historians have explored contexts of conflict as an integral dimension of tourism history2. In such contexts, the history of hotels illuminates relationships between a critical travel institution and the state. This chapter highlights the British hotel’s position within an expanding state apparatus designed to identify and track and trace the movement of peoples during the First World War – an apparatus that became institutionalized during, and endured beyond, the conflict.
2Though the history of British and Irish hotels in periods of conflict has received little focused academic attention until recently3, places of commercial accommodation offer remarkable windows onto the nuanced relationships between the hospitality sector, the state, the wider war economy, and mechanisms of surveillance. As a hybrid environment of public and private spaces with provision for supporting large numbers of people, the hotel lent – and lends – itself more than many forms of building to commandeering for combat purposes4. Its central location, and its consequent value to combatants, the media and others, often make the hotel a strategic citadel5. Lebanon’s « Battle of the Hotels » (1975-1976) is a striking example of this phenomenon6, as is the case of Sarajevo’s iconic Holiday Inn during the siege of that city in the 1990s7. The UK hotel sector was not spared from the effects of civil strife in the early twentieth century : in the 1916 Irish uprising, when insurgents declared an independent republic, and six years later, as the country plunged into civil war over a Treaty partitioning Ireland, landmark Dublin hotels commandeered by opposing forces were reduced to rubble. During the 1922-1923 civil war, places of accommodation throughout the island were repurposed as combat headquarters, barracks, billeting and refugee sites, and military hospitals8. In the First World War, hotels across Britain were impacted in small and large ways: in coastal centres such as Bournemouth, hotels were required to obscure once-bright lights at night9 ; state control of railways meant that many excursions from which hotels benefitted were curtailed; and the ethnic and sexual composition of the hotel labour force was dramatically transformed10. In London, many hotels were commandeered, including the Hotel Métropole, which became a branch of the Ministry of Munitions, resulting in the displacement of staff, the disposal of furniture, and the transformation of a 600-bedroom hotel into a nervecentre of the war effort11. In 1917 the Hotel Cecil was commandeered as the headquarters of the Air Board : it joined the Métropole, the Grand, the Victoria, De Keyser’s, St Ermin’s, the Salisbury, the Great Central Hotel, Carter’s Hotel and the Buckingham Palace Hotel, with over 5 000 rooms requisitioned in the capital12. When conflict ended, hotels were amongst the most prominent claimants on the public purse : they became implicated in processes of calculation, investigation, litigation, and arbitration as state bodies adjudicated the validity of their compensation claims.
3While wartime financial straits faced by hotels could include a reduction in demand by leisure travellers, there was not a direct correspondence between conflict and financial loss. War could also present lucrative opportunities in the sector. During the First World War, the geography of the conflict’s impact was notably uneven. An organ of the hospitality trade in the UK noted in 1915 that with the exception of the east coast and Isle of Man (the former being bombarded and raided), seaside and inland resorts stretching from the Scottish Highlands through the Lake District to the south coast had enjoyed a prosperous season as tourists who would have ventured to the continent enjoyed the summer in the UK13. It is difficult to establish precise numbers of visitors, let alone account for their profile, though there is widespread evidence that the pattern of substitution of domestic tourists for foreign guests was uneven, and especially notable in districts of longstanding resort by the British traveller. In Bath, the inaccessibility of the continental spa spurred the growth of resort amenities. In London, which relied more heavily on now-diminished transatlantic traffic, the Savoy, Berkeley’s and Claridge’s hotels offered modest dividends in the year to January 1916 ; Gordon Hotels (the country’s largest hotel group at the time) faced similar straitened circumstances, as did the Hotel Cecil and Frederick Hotels, Ltd14. At the other end of the spectrum, however, smaller unlicensed and family hotels fared comparatively well : they did not compete directly for the same clientele or offer the same amenities, and their revenues were less dependent on the high-end restaurant trade, whose fortunes had plunged. Even a few larger hotels, such as the Piccadilly Hotel, were thriving. The impact of commandeering also meant that hotel occupancy rates in the metropolis’s large hotels reflected constrained supply rather than prosperous trading conditions : when the Hotel Cecil was commandeered, its 500 guests found difficulty in obtaining new accommodation due to the « congested state of hotel accommodation »15.
4A notable realignment in the legal relationship between the state and the hotel sector, impacted on longstanding legal, and by corollary, social and cultural practices. The implementation of compulsory guest registration transformed a legal culture that had long upheld the rights of guests to enjoy a high degree of anonymity – a point of pride amongst British commentators who critiqued impersonal, « Prussian » practices of accounting for guests and their movements on the continent. The result was a much stricter set of regulations governing the collection and preservation of personal data in the UK hospitality sector, as the state became ever more interested in the quantification of the resources of the nation, intervention in the economy, and accounting for the activities of its people. These initiatives generated confusion and criticism, evidenced by extensive correspondence between different agents of the state, hotel managers, and others who grappled to make sense of unfamiliar regulations and practices.
A new regime for new contexts : the outbreak of war
5A critical 1915 order-in-council initiated the practice of systematically recording the comings and goings of hotel guests. It imposed new obligations on guests, hotel-keepers, and local police authorities, and was an extension of restrictions on non-British subjects which had been in place from 1905, when an Aliens Act restricted immigration into the country and set a framework for much greater surveillance over the country’s borders in peacetime. It, in turn, had nineteenth-century precedents, enacted during conflict with France in 1803, which also aimed to account for the movement of aliens in wartime. Prior to the twentieth century, war had often occasioned a firm response from the state, usually aimed at ejecting enemy aliens (non-British subjects) resident in the United Kingdom. By the twentieth century, with its large population of economically active – indeed, in some sectors, crucial – foreign labour, such measures seemed both impracticable and, in many respects, undesirable. When hostilities broke out in August 1914, parliament swiftly passed the Aliens Restriction Act. An order-incouncil (an instrument enabled by the Act) followed. The act provided the government with authority to issue such orders that, over time, would set up a regime to monitor and curtail the movement of people throughout the kingdom16. Aliens would eventually be prohibited from entering the United Kingdom and from residing in specified areas. They would be required to register all of their movements – provisions enacted swiftly with the first order in August 1914 that, in sweeping terms, laid out approved and prohibited ports, restricted items in an alien’s possession, from firearms to carrier and homing pigeons, and limited the residence, and required the registration, of all aliens17.
6If war resulted in new calls for surveillance of aliens, surveillance of movement through commercial hostelries was not adopted with the onset of hostilities. A regime was elaborated, sometimes haltingly and with much confusion, over the course of the conflict. Initially, the focus on aliens was on their movement into and out of the country, and their places of residence within it. While a distinction was drawn between alien « friends » and « enemies » in various parts of the 1914 order, aliens were treated in many respects uniformly – both, for instance, could be subject to deportation. At the same time, masters of foreign and British vessels were expected to cooperate with a port’s « aliens officer » by supplying all information that would ensure compliance with this order.
7Aliens within the UK were required to register immediately on the promulgation of the order, to provide new information as required when moving residences, and to avoid all designated prohibited areas. In cases where aliens were lodging with a household, the order imposed obligations on the household with whom they lodged, or the aliens themselves, to supply personal details. This information was to be recorded in a « register of aliens », maintained by the district’s chief police officer. The provisions of the 1914 order, however, contained no specific stipulations on how aliens, enemy or friendly, were to be treated if they were staying in commercial hostelries on a temporary (or indeed more extended) basis18. The following year, however, the state turned its attention to the matter. After all, hotels had long been regarded as sites of intrigue, where, especially in large urban hostelries, anonymity was believed to breed all manner of social and legal transgression. In wartime, fears of espionage were nourished by the hotel guests’s apparent licence for illicit assignations, furtive communication, and subterfuge.
Adopting a new instrument : the 1915 order
8Britons cherished their historic, if often more rhetorical than real, right to travel and lodge in anonymity. It would be wrong, however, to suggest that they passed without notice within the walls of any hostelry : the eyes of staff, of fellow guests and of the law, were trained on them, often in informal, and surreptitious, ways, from their arrival to their departure. It was in the hostelry’s interest to track guests by a variety of means, conspicuous and covert : they were often seen as centres of potential crime against property. Guests had their own incentives for being seen and indeed monitored at hotels, including conspicuous efforts to obtain divorce through documented adultery. The new regime was therefore received within a hotel culture with nuanced and ambivalent stances towards anonymity.
9War produced a regime of surveillance in which the duties of guests and hotel-keepers were elaborated through more formal measures. Hotels were places where a mobile population could be captured on forms and in registers, the profiles and movements of guests documented : hotel-keepers could serve as agents of the state, the hotel’s front desk being an appendage of an extensive system of documentation. The 1914 order’s requirements for householders to document aliens in lodgings were extended to hotel-keepers in April 1915. An order-in-council stipulated that names were to be supplied to local police on government forms – but only those of non-British subjects, thereby conferring special liberties upon British subjects. They were merely required to satisfy the inn-keeper as to their nationality, and were then exempted from the exigencies of registration. In addition to specifying passports for aliens entering and leaving the UK, the order required after 25 April that :
« it shall be the duty of the keeper of every hotel, inn, boarding-house, and lodging-house, to ascertain and enter in a register kept for the purpose the names and nationality of all persons over the age of fourteen years staying at the hotel, inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house, who are aliens, together with the dates of their arrival and departure, their destinations on departure, and such other particulars as may be prescribed by a Secretary of State, and if the keeper […] fails to do so, or if he makes any entry in any such register which he knows or could by the exercise of reasonable diligence have ascertained to be false, he shall be deemed to be guilty of a contravention of the principal Order. »
10The keeper […] shall also, if directions - for the purpose are issued by a Secretary of State, make to the registration officer of the registration district in which the hotel, inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house, is situate, such returns as to the particulars aforesaid, at such times or intervals, and in such form as may be specified in such directions, and if he fails to do so, or makes any false return, he shall be deemed to be guilty of a contravention of the principal Order. »19
11Hotel guests were required to furnish the particulars required for the compilation of this aliens register, which would be available « at all reasonable hours » for police inspection. While the order aimed to extend and strengthen previous orders, it failed to resolve some key questions that, over time, vexed Whitehall, local police constabularies, and hotel-keepers themselves. It specified that in the cases of hostelries under direction of a manager, he or she would be understood to be the « keeper », and also stipulated that « keeper of a lodging-house » encompassed those who received « reward » for the supply of lodging. Nonetheless, there were many intermediate and indeterminate establishments, statuses, and practices that presented confusion as the sector navigated a new culture of surveillance. Central to the confusion were three questions : (1) how was the collection of information on the nationality of the guest to preserve the privileges of British subjects ? ; (2) which establishments qualified as the kinds of hostelries subject to the terms of the order ? ; and (3) who was to be responsible for soliciting such details, superintending the process or registration, and preserving the records ? These questions were discussed and debated in extensive correspondence between police authorities, the managers of establishments, and the Home Office. Extant files reveal confusion and hesitant adaptation not only on successive orders and circulars, but also on an unfamiliar and expansive regime of documentation.
Navigating the new regime : places to which it applied
12The broad scope of the order, which applied to an « hotel, inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house » led to inquiries as to whether a broad range of establishments would be subject to its provisions, as managers and chief constables queried the Home Office about whether a range of different places fell under its provisions. A query from Queen Anne Mansions as to whether they fell under such a categorisation received a response in the negative20, whereas Passme Edwards Settlement House, which lodged some men who paid for their rooms and assisted in social work, was advised that it fell under the provisions of the new order21. So too did Roberts Marine Mansions at Bexhill-on-Sea, which received paying guests in the textile trade who were ailing and tired, and who required restoration to good health22. Successive correspondence to the Home Office refined these definitions : colleges of universities were exempt, despite the representations of the Chief Constable of Oxford23 ; so too were Boarding Schools24, and the Girls’ Holiday Home in Southport, which had been advised that it would remain exempt unless the Chief Constable required them to furnish such particulars25. The requirements of the order that pertained to hotels did not apply to wherries and yachts – a determination made in reply to a letter from the Chief Constable of Norwich26. The American Consul in Birmingham, who resided in the Grand Hotel there, was not required to complete a form after he returned each weekend27. The application of the orders resulted in on-going evaluations of what constituted a hotel or similar institution, and generally favoured an expansive application of the classification.
Navigating the new regime : distinguishing subjects and aliens
13Within the first weeks of the 1915 order being promulgated, authorities in the Home Office received a flood of inquiries from hotels and local police departments that persistently centred on how to establish the identity of an alien, as opposed to a British subject. A key frustration for the constabularies centred on the apparent contradiction that only aliens complete the full details of the register. How, many local police authorities queried, could a hotel-keeper determine which guests were British subjects, in the absence of a requirement that they also complete the form and state their nationality unequivocally ? Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that local constabularies were charged with implementing the provisions of the order, they led the effort to obtain greater clarification on how the alien in wartime was to be detected and traced. If British subject status conferred freedom from registration, but could not itself be conclusively ascertained, many chief constables and others preferred to see the universal application of the principles of registration – or at least to have all guests furnish the same details, and in the same way.
14Hotel managements were involved in these discussions, too. In response to a letter from a representative of the Ritz Hotel, for instance, the Home Office contended that once a British subject « became known as such », he or she was not required to sign the new register282⁸. But what did it mean for a British subject to become « known as such » ? Did this not imply their implication in the new system of documentation and surveillance ? For its part, the Home Office was reluctant to offer specific counsel – and consistently resisted efforts to apply universal procedures and requirements on all guests. Despite the example provided by the Chief Constable of the East Riding of Yorkshire of an enumeration of all guests on the preliminary form (A. R.-E.) which the aliens register was compiled, an act that he believed achieved the necessary identification of nationalities, the Home Office insisted that such practices would be entirely voluntary for British subjects29. In a similar vein, despite concerns expressed on the part of the Chief Constable of Hull that the new working arrangements were impracticable and required more direct instructions from the Home Office, noting that he required British subjects to return information on the forms, the Home Office declined to direct that the enumeration of all nationals take place30. Sir Henry Earle (DSO), writing with the support of the Chief Constable of Essex, was advised that their suggestion that people of all nationalities be recorded in prohibited areas would be considered, but also that the original order had been devised on the suggestion of the Defence Committee, and not the Home Department31. The press also reported on confusion that arose in the course of prosecutions. A summons against a Boston, Lincolnshire landlady, Isabella Jary, who had not registered the details of eight Sheffield guests, was dismissed, for instance, despite magistrates on other benches convicting in similar circumstances. The clerk had corresponded with the Home Office and learned that only aliens were required to register. Therefore, the innkeeper had acted lawfully. However even E. Waite, representing Jary at the adjudication, admitted that the order appeared poorly drafted. He advised his client to henceforth enumerate all guests, while the Nottingham Evening Post reported that the superintendent in attendance opined that the Home Office’s advice was « contrary to the general instructions issued to the police, and was also contrary to the instructions given to hotel keepers and licence holders »32.
15On 23 June 1915, the Home Office received a letter from Waterlow and Sons, stationers in London, advising them that the Birmingham Chief Constable had insisted that the official form now required British subjects to supply their residence and business addresses and requesting permission to add such instructions to the footnote in new forms : the Stationery Office would raise no objection, but also accept no responsibility for it33. The Secretary of State for the Home Office later issued instructions specifying amendments when the A. R.-E. was due to be reprinted, though only in 1916 were the requirements for British subjects to furnish such were made details explicit. Finally, the Chief Constable of Ayr brought the debate over the different treatment of aliens and subjects to a head when he sought unsuccessfully to have penalties imposed on a Chinese national and his wife. At the time of their registration at an Ayrshire hotel, the couple was not married, and they supplied false names34. While the wife was British, the Chief Constable disagreed sharply with the decision of the Recorder’s Court that the law was not designed to pry into the private lives of British subjects. It had allowed their appeal with costs. The Chief Constable lodged his protest with the Home Office. It, in reply, specified that « the Secretary of State is advised that hotel-keepers should ascertain by proper means, e.g. by a signed statement on form A. R.-E., the names and nationality of all people staying at the hotel » as a means of identifying those who were aliens. That form was to be used to distinguish the two classes of guest : once a British subject’s name and nationality were known, no more information was required of him or her. Lingering reluctance in the Home Office to order the uniform enumeration of British subjects amplified tensions with other actors within the regime until it was explicitly addressed in 1916.
Navigating the new regime : the roles of the hotel-keeper and the constabulary
16In addition to questions as to which establishments the order applied, and which requirements distinguished subject from alien, the correspondence reveals a third, central question that went unresolved until the Order was amended and reissued in consolidated form the following year. There had been general confusion amongst police authorities in terms of their exact role within the system of reporting, and specific concern that it imposed an undue burden on them – especially in major urban centres, which boasted many commercial places of accommodation. These concerns amplified confusion over the basic mechanics of registration. The Orkney Constabulary had distributed a number of its own registration forms, which were deemed insufficiently detailed – indeed little more than « visitors’ books » by the Home Office. Despite their circulation, they were required to be superseded by the new registers35. As for the reporting system, the Chief Constable of Leeds was reminded that the police were responsible for the compilation of this information, not the aliens officer – though he favoured the latter process36. However, recognising the burden that the system imposed on the police, whose resources were already stretched, on the recommendation of the Under-Secretary of the Home Office, the responsibility for ensuring registration now fell to the hotel-keeper to supply such details directly to the nearest police station, and also to advise police of the destination of the alien no later than 24 hours after departure. These instructions were relayed to a number of other chief constables who expressed concern about the practicability of deploying their staff to attend hotels personally37. In 1916, the system of reporting was modified so that hotel-keepers were explicitly required to sign statements regarding the details of every guest, and maintain them for inspection by constabulary, rather than forward the records to them. Through extensive correspondence, the Home Office and local police constabularies sought to address concerns about the practicality of the 1915 order’s enactment. The correspondence reveals on-going debates over the role of the local constabularies as intermediaries between the Home Office, their staffs, and hotel management.
Consolidating the regime in 1916
17One result of these extensive communications was a consolidated order issued in February 1916. It sought to tighten restrictions on borders, and to resolve confusion which had existed over the subject of hotel-keeper’s duties in record keeping, and the requirements for the different classes of guests to supply details. The apparent systemic weaknesses in the processes of enumeration were directly addressed in new language, more explicit directions that laid out the terms of enumeration, and new forms. The footnote that had previously required the full names and nationalities of British subjects on the signed A. R.-E. was superseded by one that required more information (in particular permanent addresses)38. Even so, the universal documentation of guests, aliens and non-aliens alike, was institutionalised in ways that still, in procedural and textual detail, reflected the different status of aliens and British subjects in the hotel :
« 20A. (1) It shall be the duty of the keeper of every hotel, inn, boarding-house, and lodging-house, to keep a register of all persons over the age of fourteen years staying at the hotel, inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house, who are aliens.
The keeper […] shall, as soon as may be after any such person comes to stay […] ascertain, and enter in the register kept for the purpose, his name and nationality, together with the date of his arrival; and on the departure of any such person, he shall, as soon as may be, enter the date of departure and destination on departure of that person in the register, and he shall also ascertain and enter in the register from time to time such other particulars as may be prescribed by a Secretary of State, and if the keeper […] fails to comply with any of the foregoing provisions of this Article, or if he makes any entry in any such register which he knows or could by the exercise of reasonable diligence have ascertained to be false, he shall be deemed to be guilty of a contravention of this Order.
(2) The keeper […] shall also, if directions for the purpose are issued by a Secretary of State, make to the registration officer of the registration district in which the hotel, inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house is situate, such returns as to the persons staying at the hotel, inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house, at such times or intervals and in such form as may be specified in such directions, and if he fails to do so, or makes any false return, he shall be deemed to be guilty of a contravention of this Order.
(3) It shall be the duty :
(a) of the keeper […] with a view to ascertaining whether any person staying at the hotel, inn, boarding-house, or lodging-house is or is not an alien, to require every person (whether an alien or not) who stays […] to furnish to him, in such form as may be prescribed by a Secretary of State, a signed statement as to the particulars contained in that form; and
(b) of every person (whether an alien or not) to furnish the said particulars and such a signed statement as aforesaid when so required. »39
18Months of correspondence that preceded this 1916 consolidated order reflected confusion over how the movement of guests in and out of hotels would be systematically recorded throughout the United Kingdom at an unprecedented scale, in a country with a substantial population of people who were not subjects of the Crown. The result was a system of tracking and tracing the movement of peoples to and from hotels that departed decisively from tradition. The initial attempt, through a 1915 order-in-council, to incorporate the commercial accommodation sector within the expanding system of documenting aliens’ movements resulted in confusion, partly because it violated a customary culture whose precepts extolled the absence of formal surveillance. It also raised questions about the liberties enjoyed by British subjects – traces of which endured even as the regime was tightened. After the war, questions no longer turned on how the system of hotel registration would operate, but whether it was required to continue at all : would the introduction of the register herald the continuing Prussification of the UK commercial accommodation sector – a process that critics saw accelerating after the war, as the country abandoned the whimsies of the visitors’ book and the precepts of traditional hospitality for the strictures, scale, and systems of the grand hotel, and accepted that practices once associated with the continent were now embedded on Albion’s shores40 ?
19At war’s end, then, the questions many chief constables and hotel-keepers posed to the Home Office centered on what kind of regime would befit a recovering tourist industry which expected to welcome an influx of Americans, continental Europeans, and other leisure travellers who had been cut off from the UK during the conflict. The government retained the principle of alien registration and the role of the hotel and the constabulary in implementing it, even as it modified the system of information gathering – a subject beyond the scope of the chapter, but part of a wider story to which the wartime experience is a critical prelude. Registration had, by the conflict’s end, become firmly entrenched within systems of population regulation and surveillance which defined the intensified relationship between the state and the population – aliens, both friendly and enemy, and British subjects – since 1914. Indeed, it was no longer an extraordinary wartime intervention, but integral to the operations of the hospitality sector. The hotel in peacetime was to be a lynchpin of a new, if less expansive, legal and social order in which regimes of superintendence and surveillance that fell to hotel management extended to reporting the nationality of guests and tracing alien movements in and out of their hostelries. This change may be seen as a dramatic departure from the customary relations of host and guest under common law, but it must also be understood as a formalisation of discrete systems of surveillance that had long characterised the regimes of the commercial hostelry, as well as systems of information-gathering that had prevailed at points in the nineteenth century, notwithstanding the robust discourse of the historic liberties of anonymous travel. Now, in the twentieth century, those functions were allied to new imperatives as the state claimed a wider remit over social policy and national security in the post-war era, with a keener interest in calculating, tracing, and accounting than ever before.
Notes de bas de page
1 WALTON, John K., « Leisure towns in wartime : the impact of the First World War in Blackpool and San Sebastián », Journal of Contemporary History, vol. 31-4, 1996, p. 603-618, at p. 604.
2 The focus of inquiry has extended beyond commemorative tourism, especially at battlefields and other sites, and thanatourism, with their focus on contemporary tourism in places of historic conflict, to tourism during times of conflict too. See WALTON, John K., « War and tourism : the nineteenth and twentieth centuries » in BUTLER, Richard, and WANTANEE, Sutikul (eds), Tourism and War, London, Routledge, 2013, p. 64-74.
3 JAMES, Kevin, « ‘[A] British social institution’ : the visitors’ book and hotel culture in Victorian Britain and Ireland », Journeys: The International Journal of Travel Writing, vol. 13-1, 2012, p. 42-69.
4 SANDOVAL-STRAUSZ, A.K., Hotel : An American History, New Haven, Yale UP, 2007, p. 17-18.
5 DAVIDSON, Robert A., « A Periphery with a View : Hotel Space and the Catalan Modern Experience », Romance Quarterly, vol. 53-3, 2006, p. 169-183.
6 O’BALLANCE, Edgar, Civil War in Lebanon, 1975-92, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 1998, ch. 2.
7 MORRISON, Kenneth, Sarajevo’s Holiday Inn on the Frontline of Politics and War, Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
8 The Irish Independent, 7 July 1922. FERRITER, Diarmaid, Transformation of Ireland, 1900-2000, London, Profile Books Ltd., 2004, p. 258 ; KISSANE, Bill, The Politics of the Irish Civil War, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 78, 101 ; GILLIS, Liz, The Fall of Dublin, Cork, Mercier Press, 2011, p. 24-25, 40-41, 44, 48, 53, 57-60, 65-66, 68-69, 104, chs. 10-14 ; ÓG Ó RUAIRC, Pádraig, The Battle for Limerick City, Cork, Mercier Press, 2010, p. 38-39, 99-100, 113 ; SHARE, Bernard, In Time of Civil War: The Conflict on the Irish Railways, 1922-23, Cork, Collins Press, 2006, p. 31, 45, 56, 80 ; DOYLE, Tom, The Civil War in Kerry, Cork, Mercier Press, 2008, p. 90, 106, 130, 140-141, 144-145, 165, 270.
9 The Caterer, Hotel Keeper and Restaurateurs’ Gazette [hereafter ‘The Caterer’], 15 February 1915.
10 The Caterer 15 August 1915.
11 The Caterer, 15 February 1916.
12 The Caterer, 15 January 1917.
13 The Caterer, 15 September 1915.
14 The Caterer, 15 January 1916.
15 The Caterer, 15 January 1917.
16 Aliens Restriction Act, 1914, 4&5 Geo. 5., c. 12. See also PANAYI, Panikos, « An Intolerant Act by an Intolerant Society: The internment of Germans in Britain during the First World War », in CESARANI, David, and KUSHNER, Tony (eds.), The Internment of Aliens in Twentieth Century Britain, London, Frank Cass and Co Ltd., 1993, p. 53-75. See also BIRD, J.C., Control of Enemy Alien Civilians in Great Britain, 1914-1918, New York & London, Garland Publishing Inc., 1986.
17 Aliens Restriction Order, 1914.
18 David Saunders notes that the distinctions between these two classes of alien were the subject of much ambiguity and debate : see his « Aliens in Britain and the Empire during the First World War », Immigrants & Minorities : Historical Studies in Ethnicity, Migration and Diaspora, vol. 4-1, 1985, p. 5-27.
19 Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Order, 1915.
20 TNA, London, correspondence between the Manager, Queen Anne’s Mansions, London, and the Home Office, 29 April & 17 May 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/29.
21 TNA, London, correspondence between the Warden, Passmore Edwards Settlement House, London, and the Home Office, 29 April &12 May 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/34.
22 TNA, London, correspondence between Roberts Marine Mansions, and the Home Office, London, 26 & 29 May 1914, HO 45/10780/277601/98.
23 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable, City of Oxford, and the Home Office, 7 May 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/63.
24 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable, Lewes, and the Home Office, 3 & 22 May 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/56.
25 TNA, London, correspondence between the Girls Holiday Home, Southport, and the Home Office, 22 June & 10 July 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/130.
26 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable of the County of Norfolk and the Home Office, 26 May & 3 June 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/100.
27 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable Birmingham and the Home Office, 14 June 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/125.
28 TNA, London, correspondence between the Account, the Ritz Hotel (London), Ltd., and the Home Office, 24 April & 15 May 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/5.
29 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable, East Riding of Yorkshire, and the Home Office, 29 & 30 April 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/25a.
30 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable, Hull, and the Home Office, 27 April & 11 May 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/12.
31 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable, Essex, and the Home Office, 8 May 1915 ; correspondence between Lt. Col. Sir Henry Earle, Bart, DSO and the Home Office, & 11 & 19 May, HO 45/10780/277601/66.
32 Nottingham Evening Post, 26 August 1915.
33 TNA, London, correspondence between Waterlow and Sons Ltd. and the Home Office, 23 June, 26 June, 26 August 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/136.
34 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable, Burgh of Ayr Police, and the Home Office, 23 June, 9 July, 30 September 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/148.
35 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable, Orkney, and the Home Office, 29 April & 11 May 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/42.
36 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable, Leeds, and the Home Office, 4 & 25 May & 3 June 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/58.
37 TNA, London, correspondence between the Chief Constable, Borough Police, Southend-on-Sea, 21 May & 17 June 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/93, and correspondence between the Chief Constable of the County of Glamorgan and the Home Office, 20 May & 4 June 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/90 ; Correspondence between the Chief Constable of the County of Kent, and the Home Office, 27 April, 8 May & 24 May 1915, HO 45/10780/277601/20.
38 Yorkshire Telegraph and Star, 4 March 1916.
39 Aliens Restriction (Consolidation) Order, 1916.
40 WRAY, Fitzwater (‘Kuklos’), The Visitor’s Book, London, J.M. Dent and Sons Ltd., 1937, p. XII.
Auteur
-
Kevin James
Professeur d’histoire à l’Université de Guelph. Fondateur du Tourism History Working Group, ses recherches portent actuellement sur l’histoire du livre d’or des hôtels en tant que récit de voyage, et sur l’hôtellerie des zones de conflits durant le premier XXe siècle. Il a récemment publié Histories, Meanings and Representations of the Modern Hotel (Channel View Publications, 2018).
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Combattre et informer
L’armée française et les médias pendant la Première Guerre mondiale
Jean-Louis Maurin
2009
Comprendre le monument aux morts
Lieu du souvenir, lieu de mémoire, lieu d’histoire
Franck David
2013
Une entrée en guerre
Le 47e régiment d’infanterie de Saint-Malo au combat (août 1914-juillet 1915)
Erwan Le Gall
2014
Tourisme et Grande Guerre
Voyage(s) sur un front historique méconnu (1914-2019)
Yves-Marie Evanno et Johan Vincent (dir.)
2019
Des sources pour une Plus Grande Guerre
Damien Accoulon, Julia Ribeiro Thomaz et Aude-Marie Lalanne Berdouticq (dir.)
2021
