Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-cnmwb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T02:28:50.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The City of London and the Controversy over Immigration, 1660–1722*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Daniel Statt
Daniel Statt
Affiliation:
Auburn University at Montgomery
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

From the Restoration of Charles II in 1660 to the middle of the eighteenth century a protracted controversy took place over whether foreigners ought to be encouraged to come to settle in England. The debate was usually couched in terms of whether aliens should be offered naturalization in England. The word naturalize was sometimes used not in a technical legal sense, but in the first sense given in Johnson's Dictionary: ‘to adopt into a community’. In its stricter sense, the question was whether a cheap and convenient way should be offered to immigrants to acquire the rights of native-born English subjects. It was thought by both its advocates and its enemies that such an offer, by means of an act of general naturalization, would encourage a large influx of foreign protestants. The issue was debated repeatedly in parliament. Over a dozen attempts were made to pass an act for a general naturalization between the Restoration and the final passage of such an act in 1709. The act of 1709 was repealed only three years after its passage, but several more bills for a similar statute were introduced towards the middle of the century. The naturalization controversy is more easily followed, however, in the pages of the tracts, pamphlets, treatises, and broadsides, both in favour of and in opposition to a general naturalization, that tumbled from the presses throughout the period, and most profusely in the 1680s, 1690s, and 1700s. The debate aroused the interest especially of the growing ranks of those who, after the Restoration, interested themselves in trade matters.

Type
Articles
Information
The Historical Journal , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , March 1990 , pp. 45 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The journals of the two houses are strewn with references of the proposed bills: Journal of the House of Commons [C.J.] VIII, 555 (1664)Google Scholar; IX, 22 (1667); Journal of the House of Lords [L.J.] XII, 274 (1670)Google Scholar; C.J. IX, 175 (1670); L.J. XII, 521–2 (1673); C.J. IX, 250 (1673); L.J. XIII, 47 (1677); C.J. IX, 416–17 (1677); L.J. XIII, 258 (1678); XIII, 719 (1680); C.J. IX, 696 (1680); IX, 730 (1685); X, 86 (1689); X, 373 (1690); XI, 21 (1693); XI, 408 (1696); XI, 697 (1697); XII, 61 (1698); XVI, 93 (1709). See also Robbins, C., ‘A Note on general naturalization under the later Stuarts’, Journal of Modern History, XXIV (1962), 168–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 7 Anne c. 5. (1709 act).

2 Act of 1709 was repealed by 10 Anne c. 9; C.J. XXV, 195, 269–70, 319–20, 334, 449, 469; XXVI, 29, 53, 72, 80, 84, 123, 133, 137, 139–40, 170, 171.

3 Of such publications dating from the century after the Restoration over 500 are extant that treat either exclusively or in part the issue of naturalization.

4 Parry, C., Nationality and citizenship laws of the Commonwealth and of the Republic of Ireland (London, 1957), pp. 40–3Google Scholar; Holdsworth, W., A history of English law (7th edn, London, 1956), IX, 79, 73, 98–9Google Scholar; Blackstone, W., Commentaries on the laws of England (4 vols., 15th edn, London, 1809), I, 259Google Scholar; Cockburn, A. K., Nationality; or, the law relating to subjects and aliens (London, 1869), p. 149Google Scholar.

5 Naturalization and denization were distinct procedures that conferred different rights. Denization was obtained by a petition to the crown, which if successful led to the preparation by one of the secretaries of state of a warrant for a royal grant. The grant was enrolled on the Patent Rolls. The conditions attached to denization grants varied. Naturalization was by a private act in parliament, after a petition to either house for a bill. Unlike the denization grant, it conferred full nationality without condition. Shaw, W. A. (ed.), Letters of denization and acts of naturalization for aliens in England and Ireland, 1603–1700. Huguenot Society Quarto Series, XVII (Lymington, 1911), p. xxxiiiGoogle Scholar; Lambert, S., Bills and acts (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 32, 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Williams, O. C., The historical development of private bill procedure (London, 1948), pp. 27Google Scholar ff.

6 Shaw, , Letters and acts, 1603–1700, p. xxxiiiGoogle Scholar; Lambert, , Bills and acts, pp. 62, 32, 38, 86Google Scholar; Burckhardt, J. G., Kirchen Geschichte der Deutschen Gemeinden in London (London, 1798), p. 21Google Scholar; Report of the select committee of the House of Commons on fees and salaries of the servants of the House. 22 February 1732, reprinted in O. C. Williams, The clerical organization of the House of Commons, 1661–1850 (Oxford, 1954), PP. 305–12, 286–94; Seasonable remarks on the Act (London, 1753), p. 13Google Scholar.

7 The totals can be derived from the lists in Shaw, Letters and acts, 1603–1700, and from those in Shaw, W. A. (ed.), Letters of denization and acts of naturalization for aliens in England and Ireland, 1701–1800, Huguenot Society Quarto Series, XXVII (Manchester, 1923)Google Scholar. Of the 3419 French refugees relieved by the French Church of London, Threadneedle Street, from 1681 to 1687, years during which an order in council allowed denization free of charge, only 546 obtained letters of denization: Scouloudi, I., and Hands, A. P., French refugees relieved through the Threadneedle Street Church, London, 1681–1687, Huguenot Society Quarto Series, IL (London, 1971)Google Scholar.

8 7 Anne c. 5.

9 Wrigley, E. A. and Schofield, R. S., The population history of England, 1541–1871: a reconstruction (London, 1981), pp. 208–9Google Scholar. The gross reproduction rate, a measure of fertility, fell to very low levels in the late seventeenth century; the rate of 18 in the five-year period centring on 1661 was the lowest of the entire period 1541–1871; ibid. p. 230.

10 Scott, W. R., The constitution and finance of English, Scottish, and Irish joint-stock companies to 1720 (2 vols., Cambridge, 1910–1912), I, 265, 278–9Google Scholar; Clay, C., ‘The price of freehold land in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., XXVII (1974), 173–89, 174–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Thirsk, J. and Cooper, J. P. (eds.), Seventeenth-century economic documents (Oxford, 1972), pp. 68–79Google Scholar.

11 Petty, , Treatise of taxes (London, 1662), p. 6Google Scholar; Child, , New discourse of trade (4th edn, London, n.d.), p. xiGoogle Scholar; Coventry, , An essay concerning the decay of rents and their remedies (London, 1670)Google Scholar, in Thirsk, and Cooper, , Documents, pp. 79–84Google Scholar; An humble address with some proposals for the future preventing of the decrease of the inhabitants of this realm (London, 1677), p. 2Google Scholar.

12 The grand concern (1673), in The Harleian miscellany (12 vols., London, 1808–1811), VIII, 13–61, 23–5Google Scholar.

13 Robbins, , ‘Naturalization’, pp. 171–2Google Scholar.

14 See, e.g.Child, Josiah, Brief observations (London, 1668), p. 6Google Scholar; Reynell, Carew, The true English interest (London, 1674), pp. 60–1Google Scholar.

15 Robbins, , ‘Naturalization’, p. 173Google Scholar; Thorp, M. R., ‘The English government and the Huguenot settlement, 1680–1702 (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1972), pp. 223–4Google Scholar (analysis of tellers, lists); see also, Julian, M. R., ‘English economic legislation, 1660–1714’ (unpublished M.Phil, thesis, University of London, 1979)Google Scholar.

16 Dickinson, H. T., ‘The Poor Palatines and the parties’, English Historical Review, LXXXII (1967), 464–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 It erupted dramatically at the passage of the Jewish Naturalization Act of 1753: Perry, T. W., Public opinion, propaganda, and politics in eighteenth century England: A study of the Jew Bill of 1753 (Cambridge, Mass., 1962)Google Scholar.

18 Some of these publications are treated in Dickinson, ‘Palatines’, passim.

19 To the right honourable the commons in parliament assembled: the humble petition of the native merchants of England (London, [1660])Google Scholar.

20 Reasons humbly offered to the parliament by the free-born merchants of England… (London, [1660])Google Scholar.

21 The terms ‘colouring’ and ‘covering’ were used interchangeably and referred to the entry of goods imported or exported by an alien in the name of a native or naturalized subject in order to circumvent the higher customs and duties imposed upon aliens.

22 Great evil, p. 2.

23 Great evil, p. 3.

24 Great evil, pp. 7–8.

25 12 Car. II, c. 4.

26 Great evil, pp. 5–6.

27 Gwynn, R. D., ‘The arrival of Huguenot refugees in England, 1680–1705’, Proceedings of the Huguenot Society of London (P.H.S.L.), XXI (1965–1970), 366–73Google Scholar; Gwynn, R. D., ‘The distribution of Huguenot refugees in England’, P.H.S.L. XXI (1965–1970), 404–36Google Scholar; Gwynn, R. D., ‘The distribution of Huguenot refugees in England II: London and its environs’, P.H.S.L. XXII (1970–1976), 509–68Google Scholar; Gwynn, R. D., ‘The number of Huguenot immigrants in England in the late seventeenth century’, Journal of Historical Geography, IX (1983), 384–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 The Wing Short-title catalogue dates the broadsides to the 1660s, as does the British Library General catalogue, but internal evidence places one in the year 1685 and another in 1690, and they are so nearly duplicates of one another that they must all date from the mid-1680s and later. The largest collection of them is held by the Corporation of London Record Office (C.L.R.O.), Alchin Box Q/XCVII, no. 5.

29 Birch, W. DeGray (ed.), The Historical charters and constitutional documents of the City of London (London, 1887), pp. 201–03Google Scholar.

30 Stern, W. M., The porters of London (London, 1960), pp. 28–9Google Scholar; C.L.R.O., Journal of Common Council (Jor.) 41/151 (appointment of Dawson, 3 Mar. 1657); Glyn, mayor, at a court of aldermen (London, 1759), pp. 63, 7Google Scholar (testimony before committee, 22 February 1759); C.L.R.O., Repertory of the Court of Aldermen (Rep.) 89/179–180 (27 Oct. 1684); Public Record Office (P.R.O.), SP 44/7/181 (petition of 22 December 1684); The case of Richard Pierce, citizen and grocer of London, farmer of the package, scavage, portage, and balliage: C.L.R.O., Lands Committee Journal, no. 9, fos. 87–8; C.L.R.O., Alchin Box I/IV, fo. 5 (Report of Chamberlain to Lands Committee, 16 May 1723).

31 C.L.R.O., Jor. 41, fo. 154b to parliament, 27 March 1657); C.L.R.O., Jor. 41, fo. 156b (petition of 3 June 1657); C.L.R.O., Rep. 67/9 (attendance at Committee of Safety, 15 November 1659); C.L.R.O., Rep. 84/29 (acknowledgement of satisfaction of judgement, 10 December 1678); C.L.R.O., Rep. 91/110; Alchin Box Q/XCVI, fo. 2 (Nov. 1685 committee report regarding Attorney-General).

32 Freedom by redemption meant becoming a citizen of London by payment of a fee; C.L.R.O., Rep. 94/60 (resolution regarding freedom by redemption, 4 Nov. 1688); C.L.R.O., Rep. 95/6–7 (Pierce petition to Aldermen, 16 Apr. 1689); C.L.R.O., Rep. 98/119–20 (petition regarding freedom by redemption, 1 February 1694); C.J. X, 373 (petition of Pierce against a private bill, 10 Apr. 1698); L.J. XV, 421 (petition of Pierce to Lords, 19 Apr. 1694).

33 The City Lands Committee administered the land owned by the Corporation, and since Pierce held his office by a lease from the City, the committee administered his lease of the farm of the alien duties as well.

34 C.L.R.O., Lands Committee Journal, no. 9, fo. 88 (The case of Richard Pierce [1700]); The case of the City of London (London, 1708)Google Scholar, (list of cases in Queen's Bench).

35 The frequent complaints of the covering or colouring of alien goods in order to evade alien customs duties (referred to above) seem to have had a basis in fact, though it was by no means only naturalized aliens who were guilty of such frauds. A 1705 report of the Commissioners of the Customs to the Lord Treasurer concluded that both native and naturalized subjects coloured aliens' goods for import duties and for the ‘drawback’ on good exported ‘out of time’ (English importers had twelve months and alien importers only nine months to drawback the duties paid on goods re-exported). The Commissioners condemned the practice as detrimental to the City, to the queen's customs revenues, and as a discouragement to English merchants who traded fairly: C.L.R.O., Alchin Box Q/XCVII, no. 5.

36 See, e.g. Reasons humbly offered against passing the bill, entitled, an act for naturalization of foreigners (London, [c. 1685])Google Scholar.

37 Historical Manuscripts Commission, 14th Report, App., Pt viii, MSS of Corporation of Lincoln, p. 109 (Sir Thomas Meres, M.P. for Lincoln, to Mayor, 14 Dec. 1681); P.R.O., SP 29/417/142 (mayor of Bristol to privy council, 10 Dec. 1681).

38 Kellett, J. R., ‘The Breakdown of gild and corporation control over the handicraft and retail trade in London’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., X (1958), 381–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lipson, E., The Economic history of England (4th edn, 3 vols., London, 1947), III, 343–51Google Scholar; cf. Walker, M. J., ‘The extent of the guild control of trades in England, c. 1660–1820; a study based on a sample of provincial towns and London companies’ (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cambridge, 1985), pp. 80–3, 183–8, 191, 207, 216, 388Google Scholar.

39 C.L.R.O., Jor. 48/235 (45s 8d. paid in 1676); C.L.R.O., Rep. 88/70 (46s 7d. paid in 1682); Pulling, A., A practical treatise on the laws, customs, and regulations of the City and Port of London (London, 1842), p. 64Google Scholar; C.L.R.O., Rep. 94/60 (resolution of 4 Nov. 1688).

40 C.L.R.O., Misc. MSS 42.2: ‘An Account of Naturalization from Anno domini 1684’, (n.d.). This account was probably compiled by Pierce himself, and is therefore unlikely to underestimate the numbers of naturalizations.

41 C.L.R.O., Jor. 58/41/44, 56 (repeal of act of Court of October, 16th Eliz.); Jor. 59/349–50 (admission of Henry Fournier, 24 Sept. 1751).

42 Dickson, P. G. M., The financial revolution in England: A study in the development of public credit, 1688–1736 (London, 1967)Google Scholar; Wilson, C., introduction to Cunningham, W., Alien immigrants to England (2nd edn, London, 1969), p. xviiGoogle Scholar.

43 An impression of the importance of immigrants in the government of the City can be gained from the many foreign names that appear in Woodhead, J. R., The rulers of London, 1660–1689 (Bristol, 1965)Google Scholar.

44 Carlton, C., The court of orphans (Leicester, 1974), pp. 93, 97–101Google Scholar; 5 & 6 Wm. & Mary c. 10; Kellett, J. R., ‘The Financial crisis of the Corporation of London and the Orphans' Act, 1694’, Guildhall miscellany, II (1963), 220–7Google Scholar; Doolittle, I. G., ‘The City of London's Debt to its Orphans, 1694–1767’, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, LVI (1983), 46–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 DeKrey, G. S., A fractured society: the politics of London in the first age of party, 1688–1715 (Oxford, 1985)Google Scholar.

46 Ibid. pp. 215, 218.

47 DeKrey himself notes that the bankruptcy of the City Chamber and the Orphans Act of 1694 had little partisan significance; cf. Doolittle, , ‘London's Debts’, p. 50Google Scholar.

48 C.L.R.O., Misc. MSS 42.2 (Colonel Pierce his candour and fairness with the City [c. 1705]); C.L.R.O., Jor. 52/360 (order to abate rent, 24 July 1700); C.L.R.O., Jor. 52/312 (petition of Pierce, 1 Mar. 1700); C.L.R.O., Lands Committee Journal, no. 9, fo. 88 (The case of Richard Pierce); C.L.R.O., Rep. 109/40 (petition of Thomas Kilner, 23 Nov. 1704); C.L.R.O., Misc. MSS 42.2 (Colonel Pierce his candour).

49 C.L.R.O., Misc. MSS 42.2.

50 C.L.R.O., Misc. MSS 42.2 (28 Nov. 1722); C.L.R.O., Alchin Box I/IV, fo. 5 (Report of Chamberlain to Lands Committee, 16 May 1723); C.L.R.O., Rep. 127/27–29, 37, (Report of 14 November 1722); C.L.R.O., Alchin Box G/81, fo. 53 (petition of sublessees of portage duty); C.L.R.O., Cases and Counsel Opinions Relating to the City, case 60, fo. 52 (opinion of Thomas Sutwyche, 2 July 1723); C.L.R.O., Misc. MSS 166.4 (account of duties received from 1 Oct. 1741 to 1 Jan. following); Glyn, mayor, at a court of aldermen (London, 1759), p. 63Google Scholar; C.L.R.O., ‘An Account of Scavage collected for the City of London from 1 June 1737 to the 7th May 1739’ Unfortunately, the rent paid for the subleases is given only for the portage duty: £60.

51 C.J. XXV, 195, 269–70, 319–20, 334, 469; XXVI, 29, 53, 72; C.L.R.O., Jor. 59/105–06 (19 Nov. 1747); Jor. 59/330–31 (19 Feb. 1751); Jor. 60/99–100 21 May 1753).