NATURALIZATION
IN'T11E
AMERICAN COLONIES,
WITH MORE PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO
MNASSACHUSETTS.
A PAPER READ BEFORE THE MASSACHIUSETTS HISTORICAL SOCIEITY, AT THE
JULY MEETING, 1859.
BY  JOSEPH  WILLARD.
BOSTON:
PRINTED BY JOHN WILSON AND SON,
22, SCHOOL STREET.
1859.








T RAC TATE.
THE hostility of ancient nations to aliens, connected more
or less closely with the sentiment of race and of patriotism,
and made more intense by diversity of language, continued
with few exceptions through the various periods of their history, and passed into modern Europe in its several centuries,
uninfluenced to any extent by the progress of civilization
and refinement, and the precepts of Christianity.
At the present day, though this hostility may be considered
as at an end, a distinctive feeling between citizens of the
same country and aliens continues, and will never be eradicated while men are separated into distinct communities.
In the following tractate, it is not proposed to discuss the
doctrines embraced in the change or transfer of allegiance,
or to consider any real or supposed modifications of what
have been regarded as the legitimate results of those doctrines, but, only as a matter pertaining to our own history, to
give a summary of the English statutes touching naturalization, followed by references to some of the Colonial charters
and laws, especially to the exercise of jurisdiction in the
Province of Massachusetts Bay, and in the Commonwealth
both before and after the adoption of the Constitution of the
United States.
In no country of Europe has the exclusion of foreigners
been more strictly enforced than in England; so that, until a
recent period, no one could become a British subject except




4
by a special Act of Parliament.? In addition to the reasons
given above, the pride of the Anglo-Saxon race, which hardly
permits an Englishman to look on his Continental neighbor as
an equal, would lead him to regard with dread any encroachment upon a population that had become homogeneous in the
progress of centuries,-a dread that would not be diminished
by the narrow channel that divides him from other races.
But, while she guarded the sea-girt isle with this extreme
jealousy, she was, as will be seen in the context, more liberal
towards her Colonies after they began to acquire assured
strength; that is to say, more liberal as regarded foreign
Protestants, while  wholly  excluding  the  Roman   Catholic
from every privilege of a subject.
The first relaxation of the ancient restriction took place
in 1708, under statute 7 Anne, chap. 5, entitled t AN  ACT FOR
NATURALIZING  FOREIGN  PROTESTANTS."   The  preamble  states
the  plain  proposition, that "the  increase  of a  people  is a
means of advancing  the wealth  and  strength  of a nation;"
and adds, that "many strangers of the Protestant or Reformed
religion, out of a due consideration of the happy constitution
of the government of this realm, would be induced to transport themselves and their estates into this kingdom, if they
might be made partakers of the  advantages and  privileges
which  the  natural-born  subjects  thereof  do  enjoy."    It is
then enacted, that all persons taking the oaths, and making
* By the statute of 7 and 8 Victoria, chap. 66, a resident alien subject of a friendly
State, or one who shall hereafter come to reside in any part of the United Kingdom
with intent to settle therein, desirous of being naturalized, is required to set forth, in a
memorial to one of the principal Secretaries of State, the facts concerning his age,
profession, or occupation, length of residence, &c. If the secretary, after examination,
is satisfied of the truth of the memorial, he may issue a certificate, granting to the
alien, on his taking the prescribed oaths, all the rights of a natural-born subject, except
that of being a member of Parliament or of the Privy Council, and any other exceptions especially named in the certificate; which certificate must be enrolled in the
Court of Chancery.
This statute did not extend to the Colonies.  See statute 10 and 11 Victoria,
chap. 83, enacted in 1847, cited post.




5
and subscribing the declaration appointed by statute 6 Anne,
chap. 23, and having received the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper in some Protestant congregation within three months,
shall be deemed natural-born subjects.
This law did not extend to the Colonies, and did not find
favor at home. Parliament soon relapsed into the old stringent doctrine of the common law, and in 1711, after an
experiment of three years, repealed the statute of 7 Anne,
because, according to the preamble, "divers mischiefs and
inconveniences have been found by experience to follow from
the same, to the discouragement of the natural-born subjects
of this kingdom, and to the detriment of the trade and wealth
thereof."  The "discouragement and detriment" may have
been more in seeming than in fact; but so it was, that this
exclusion of foreigners remained as of old in the mother
country until the present reign.
But there were other statutes designed for the benefit of
the Colonies, where it was supposed the " discouragement
and detriment" complained of at home would not exist. In
several of the Colonies, foreign Protestants had become
numerous, and their numbers were rapidly increasing; and
thus it had become a very desirable object to attach them to
their new homes, by giving them an interest in the soil, and
admitting them to'full civil and political privileges, so that
agriculture and trade and general wealth might be developed.
To this end, in 1740, the statute 13 George II., chap. 7, was
passed, with a preamble similar to that of 7 Anne: viz., that
"the increase of a people is a means of advancing the wealth
and strength of any nation or country; and that many foreigners and strangers, from the lenity of our government,
the purity of our religion, the benefit of our laws, the advantages of our trade, and the security of our property,
might be induced to come and settle in some of his majesty's
Colonies in America, if they were made partakers of the
advantages and privileges which the natural-born subjects of
this realm do enjoy."




6
This statute admitted all Protestant foreigners to the privileges of natural-born subjects, on a residence of seven years
in any one of the Colonies, without an absence exceeding
two months at any one time, taking the oaths of allegiance,
abjuration, &c., and receiving the sacrament, &c. The oaths
and declarations-with exceptions in favor of Quakers and
Jews-were required to be taken before a judge in open
court, between nine and twelve o'clock in the forenoon; and
to be entered in the same court, and also in the secretary's
office of the Colony. The judge was required to make a due
and proper entry of the oaths, &c., " in a book to be kept for
that purpose in said court; " and the secretary was required
to make the like entry in a like book to be kept for the same
purpose in his office, upon notification by the judge.
A certificate, under the Colonial seal, was full proof of
naturalization.
The secretary was directed to transmit to the office of the
Commissioners for Trade and Plantations, annually, the names
of all who had taken the benefit of the act.
Naturalized persons could not be of the Privy Council or of
Parliament; or hold any office or place of trust, civil or military, in Great Britain or Ireland; or hold real estate within
the same by grant from  the crown.*
In 1747, by statute 20 George II., chap. 44, the benefits of
the statute of 1740 were extended to the "Moravian Brethren, and other foreign Protestants, not Quakers, who conscientiously scruple the taking of an oath; many of whom
are settled in the Colonies."  They are described as a "sober,
quiet, and industrious people;" and it is added, that " many
others of the like persuasion are desirous to transport themselves thither."
* This clause in the statute was repealed by statute 13 George III., chap. 33, so far
as concerned holding office or taking crown grants of land, except within the kingdom
of Great Britain and Ireland. The repeal extends to the subsequent statutes recited
below.




7
The statute 29 George II., chap. 5, enacted in 1756, recites
that many foreign Protestants have been induced by the
statute of 1740 to settle in some of the Colonies, "particularly
in the Provinces of Maryland and Pennsylvania; the naturalborn subjects of which last-mentioned Province do in great
part consist of the people called Quakers, whose backwardness in their own defence exposes themselves and that part
of America to imminent danger."  On this account, provision
is made for raising a regiment of four battalions, of one
thousand men each, into which. naturalized foreigners may
be enlisted; and a certain number of foreigners who have
served abroad as officers or engineers may be appointed to
serve in the regiment, on taking the oaths, &c., as prescribed
in the former statutes. The colonel of the regiment must
be "a natural-born subject, and not any person naturalized
or made a denizen."
In 1761, statute 2 George III., chap. 25, these officers
were duly remembered.  They had raised " a great number
of men, and trained them to discipline as soldiers." Several
of the officers had "purchased estates in the Colonies, and
had given the strongest assurances of their attachment and
fidelity to the British  Government."   On these grounds,
and to induce others, then or thereafter settled in America,
"to engage in his majesty's service," it provided "that all
such foreign Protestants, as well officers as soldiers, who
have served or shall hereafter serve in the Royal-American
regiment,* or as engineers in America, for the space of two
years, and shall take and subscribe the oaths, and make, repeat, and subscribe the declaration, &c.,... shall be deemed... his majesty's natural-born subjects of this kingdom."
* General Gates, a native of England, was a major in the Royal Americans. At
an earlier period in the French War, he was captain of a New-York Independent
Company which served in the campaign of Braddock. He was severely wounded in
the battle in which Braddock was defeated. In 1772, he emigrated to Virginia, and
purchased an estate in Berkeley County.




The foregoing enumeration embraces all the English  statute provisions in relation to naturalization in the Colonies
preceding  the Revolution.   They  are sufficiently  liberal in
term of residence required; and probably many foreign Protestants, in several of the Colonies, sought for the benefits
opened by these statutes. But in Massachusetts, where the
population was well-nigh homogeneous and Puritan, it was
otherwise.  In the Court of Common  Pleas for the County
of Suffolk, not one instance of naturalization is to be found
from  1740 to 1752.  Whether there were any between  1752
and  the  Revolution  cannot be ascertained, as the  records
for the  whole  of that period  are  and  have  been missing
from   the  office  ever  since  the  evacuation  of  Boston, in
March, 1776.*
The records of the Superior Court of the Province for
all the Counties are kept in the office of the Clerk of the
Supreme Court, in Boston; and it is remarkable, as the result
of a careful search which I directed to be made from 1740 up
to the Revolution, that only four persons were naturalized in
that court.t  No book, such as the judge  was required  to
keep, is to be found; and there is none in the office of the
Secretary of State. The only persons naturalized under these
laws were Nicholas Budd, Aaron Lopez, Emanuel Peraro, and
Theodore Dehon.
The following is an abstract of the record in each case: —
* At one time, it was thought that they were in Halifax, N.S.; and an early effort
was made to find them, but in vain. The late William C. Aylwin, Esq., when clerk,
met with no better success. Thinking, possibly, that they might have been taken to
England, I applied to my friend Rev. Joseph Hunter, of London, a learned antiquary,
and intimately acquainted with the public archives; but he had never seen or heard
of the missing volumes.
t The reason may have been, that the petitioner for naturalization must have
received the sacrament in a Protestant reformed congregation within three months
previous. This would have required him either to become a member of the Episcopal
Church, or else to join a Congregational, Presbyterian, or other dissenting church,all of which were hedged in with creeds.




9
Superior Court of Judicature, from 1741 to 1780.-Naturalizations.
Nicholas Budd... Nov. 17, 1741... Page 135
Aaron Lopez.... Oct.  15, 1762...,,  450
Emanuel Peraro...Sept.  8, 1766...,,  110
Theodore Dehon.. March 23, 1767...,,  212
Upon reading the petition of Nicholas Budd, a native of Norway,
in the kingdom of Denmark, but now resident in Boston, showing that
by evidences, and a certificate herewith presented, he, conceiving himself to be duly qualified for and entitled to naturalization, according
to an Act made in the thirteenth year of his present majesty's reign,
and thereupon praying that he may be naturalized according to said
Act of Parliament, -Ordered, That the prayer of the petition be
granted; it appearing to the court that the said Nicholas Budd has
been an inhabitant of his majesty's dominions for more than seven
years last past, and has within three months last past received the
sacrament in a Protestant reformed congregation in this town of
Boston.  The oaths appointed to be taken instead of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy were administered to him  by order of court,
and subscribed by him; and he made and subscribed the declaration
according to the direction of the said Act of Parliament.
Aaron Lopez, of Swansey, in the county of Bristol, merchant, a
Jew, formerly residing at Newport, in the Colony of Rhode Island,
&c.,-to wit, at said Newport from Oct. 13, 1752, to Sept. 10, 1762,
and at said Swansey since, -took and subscribed the oaths, &c., in
presence of the chief justice and other three justices, between the
hours of nine and twelve in the morning.*
Emanuel Peraro, a Portuguese, now of Boston, mariner, where he
has resided for more than seven years, and not been absent for more
than two months, proof made thereof, and of his having received the
sacrament according to the usage of the Church of England, was
admitted, and took and subscribed the oaths before the chief justice
and other justices, between the hours aforesaid.
* Lopez was a Jew. In 1777, with several other Jewish families, he removed to
Leicester, in the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and was there extensively engaged
in trade. He was a man of intelligence and industry, and became thrifty according
to the wont of his people.
See Washburn's History of Leicester for some further account of Lopez and other
Jewish residents in that town.
2




10
Theodore Dehon, now of Boston, born out of the legiance of his
majesty the King of Great Britain, resided in said Boston more
than seven years, and not been absent, &c.; that he is a Protestant,
and of the communion of the Church of England.  And said Theodore, on certificate of his having received the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper according to the usage of the church aforesaid, was admitted, and took and subscribed the oaths before the chief justice and
two other justices, between the hours, &c.
Turning from the English statutes, it is next to be ascertained whether the Colonial charters clothed the local government with  authority  to  create  British  subjects within
their respective Colonies.
By the Massachusetts-Colony Charter, the governor, assistants, and freemen had power to choose others to be free of
the  company, and  to  transport "so many  of our loving
subjects, or any other strangers that will become our loving subjects and live under our allegiance, as shall willingly
accompany  them  in  the same voyages and'plantation.'"
Under this provision of the charter, there would seem to be
no difficulty in supposing that they did or might admit foreign
Protestants to become freemen.  If any such strayed this
way, men of orthodox lives and conversation, according to
the standard, and were admitted to the church, as they might
be, what prevented their being made free, on petition to that
end?  By joining the church, the door was open which gave
a view of civil and political privileges in the near distance.
No one could be admitted to freedom, unless he was a member of one of the churches; and, being a member, admission
was almost of course, if applied for.* The colonists were
still a " company," an incorporated company, with power to
* None could be compelled to become freemen; and, after a while, it came to be a
sore evil that many church members refrained from applying for admission. They
did so that they might not be called to public service as constables, jurors, selectmen,
&c. In order to meet their case, a fine was imposed on all such who refused service. -
Colonial Laws, 1647.




11
admit or refuse admission as they pleased; in other words,
to select associates according to their pleasure and their
sympathies, within the prescribed limits. These would then,
in the language of the charter, "become our loving subjects,
and live under our allegiance." Of course, they would only
be subjects within the Colony, with no power to exercise
civil and political functions in England. It may be that the
case never occurred; but, if it did occur, it is not seen how
any other result could have been reached.
In the Province Charter, there was no express provision
authorizing the naturalization of foreigners; and none can be
gathered by implication.
In New Hampshire, there is nothing on the subject, either
in the commission of Charles II. to President Cutts, or in
the commission of 6 George III. to Governor Wentworth.
In Rhode Island, the charter of 15 Charles II. authorized
the Assembly to choose persons to be free of the company
and body politic, and to admit them  into the same. The
charter made no distinction between English subjects and
others.
So, in Connecticut, the charter of Charles II. allowed the
General Assembly to choose, &c., persons to be free of the
body politic, and to admit them into the same.
In New York, by the letters-patent of 16 Charles II. to
the Duke of York, the duke was allowed to bring into the
Colony not only subjects of the realm, "but any other
strangers who would become subjects."   And, when the
Province was surrendered to the crown, it was stipulated
that "all people should continue free denizens" within the
Colony; and " that any people might come from the Netherlands, and plant " in the Province.
In New Jersey, in 1664, under the government of Lord
Berkeley and Sir George Carteret, all who wished were admitted to become freemen, and so subjects, on taking the oaths
of allegiance, &c.  Being absolute lords-proprietors, they




12
were not limited in their authority, as were the charter
governments.
In Pennsylvania, by the "laws agreed upon in England"
in  1683, "every  inhabitant purchasing  a hundred  acres;
every person who has paid his passage, and taken a hundred
acres; every person that hath been a servant or bondman,
and' is free by his service,' and has taken fifty acres;'and
every inhabitant, artificer, or other resident in the Province,
that pays scot or lot * to the governor,'-  shall be deemed a
freeman, and capable of electing or being elected representative or councillor." -
In Maryland, Lord Baltimore, by the charter of 8 Charles I.,
was constituted " the true and absolute lord and proprietary,"
and of course, as such, had the power to authorize his Assembly
to grant process of naturalization; which power, as will be
seen in the sequel, was exercised.
In North Carolina, no  such  power was reserved  in the
charter of Charles II.
The next inquiry is, Did any of the Colonies, in their local
Legislatures, establish laws on the subject, or lay claim of
right so to do?  Mr. Dane, the learned and generally very
accurate commentator on American law, states that "there
were no naturalizations in the Colonies, before the Revolution,
but such as took place under the Acts of the British Parliament.":  The remarks before made on the charters show
that he is in error; and this will appear beyond question by
* Scot and lot is defined to be " parish payments."
t Colonial Records, vols. i., xxix., xxx.
$ Abridgment of American Law, vol. iv. p. 708. Mr. Dane also states, p. 709,
that "the Germans who came from Germany, and settled at Waldoborough about
A.D. 1750, were and remained aliens." Perhaps this was so: but then it must have
been of their own choice; for, so far as they were Protestants, -and most if not all of
them were of that faith, - they might have been naturalized under the statute of 13
George II., chap. 7, passed in 1740.




13
the  following reference  to  the  laws of several of the
Colonies.
In 1683, "to quiet the minds of his majesty's subjects of
foreign birth," the Legislature of New York passed an Act,
allowing all persons professing Christianity, now or hereafter
becoming inhabitants, to be naturalized on taking the oath
of allegiance. This phrase, " all persons professing Christianity," is found in no other Colonial law, and doubtless was
introduced because the Duke of York was a Roman Catholic;
and the king was well known to be in full sympathy with his
brother, though outwardly conforming to the Church of
England.  Again: by a law of 1715, 1 George I., foreigners
who had become inhabitants after 1683, who had purchased
estates and conveyed them  away, or who had died seized
thereof, were deemed to be naturalized; and all Protestant
foreigners, inhabitants in 1715, were to be deemed natural
subjects on taking the prescribed oaths within nine months
from the passage of the Act.*
In New Jersey, as has been seen, Lord Berkeley and Sir
George Carteret, in 1664, among their " Grants and Concessions," allowed all who would become subjects to be admitted
to become freemen on taking the oaths of allegiance; and
authorized the Assembly to pass an Act "to give to all
strangers... a naturalization,...and all such freedoms
and privileges within the Province as to his majesty's subjects of right belong." t
And in Pennsylvania, as has been seen, by the laws agreed
upon in England in 1683, the most ample power was given
in the premises.
So also in Maryland, under the successors of Sir George
Calvert, - Lord Baltimore: " The true and absolute lords
* Laws of New York, Livingston and Smith's edition, 1762. 2 vols. folio.
t "Grants and Concessions," pp. 13, 14, 17. Folio.




14
and  proprietaries."   The same power was vested  in the
Assembly.*
In Virginia, there was a law of 1671, under which "any
strangers "- as the expression was -might be naturalized;
and, by virtue of this law, many were naturalized by special
Acts of the Assembly.  This continued  until 1680, when
Lord Culpepper brought over, " under the great seal of England," a naturalization law, which was introduced, "and passed
the Assembly unanimously."
In October, 1705, another naturalization law was passed.
The latter law at least, if not the previous ones, was confined
to foreign Protestants; they taking the usual oaths, and the
oath of abjuration of " the pretended Prince of Wales."
In 1738, chap. 12, the General Assembly authorized the
Governor to grant letters of naturalization to any aliens who
should settle on the Roanoke, —the southern boundary of
the Colony; they taking the oaths, &c.
In Massachusetts, as before stated, there was neither express nor implied authority in the General Court to pass laws
on the subject, nor by special Acts to admit foreigners to the
privileges of British subjects.
The statute of Anne, 1708, repealed in 1711, had no reference to the Colonies; and there was no subsequent English
statute, until that of 13 George II. in 1740, by which foreigners residing in Massachusetts could become British subjects. Indeed, it was so from the revocation of the Colony
Charter until 1740. Meanwhile, many foreign Protestants had
settled in Massachusetts,- Huguenots driven from France on
the revocation of the edict of Nantes, with Germans and others
who had emigrated to this country for the " enlargement of
their outward estates."  These persons were subjected to the
* The law itself has not been found on the old Statute-book. It may have been
overlooked. But that the power was freely exercised, appears from statute 1704,
chap. 4, regulating for the future the fees which the Clerk of the Assembly should
receive from persons naturalized by Acts of the Assembly.




15
payment of taxes, and  sometimes were called to exercise
municipal office; but, in all other respects, they were debarred from the rights and privileges of natural-born subjects.
They were not numerous in the Puritan Commonwealth, compared with some of the other Colonies; but numerous enough
to be considered on that ground, as well as for their general
good character and quiet demeanor.
Possibly Massachusetts thought, that if Maryland, Virginia, and other sister Colonies, permitted resident foreigners
to become British subjects within their own borders, she
might do the same.
Thus circumstanced, several French Protestants, and one
from Germany, presented the following petition to the General Court, at the February Session, 1731, N.S.:To His Excellency Jonathan Belcher, Esq., Governor and Commanderin-chief in and over his Majesty's Province of Massachusetts Bay;
to the Honorable the Council and the House of Representatives in
General Court assembled.
"The petition of the persons hereto subscribed showeth that the
petitioners, for the most part, were forced to leave their native country
of France on account of the Protestant religion, in which they had
been bred up and professed, and for which some of the petitioners
have been greatly persecuted and distressed.
"And, farther, the petitioners most humbly remonstrate to your
Excellency and to this Great and General Assembly, that the most part
of them have, for almost the space of forty years or upwards (during
which time they have chiefly resided in this country), behaved themselves justly to their neighbours, and, in their respective callings, with
unshaken fidelity towards the gouvernment here, and the crown of
Great Britain; and have been allways subjected as well as to pay
rates and taxes, as also to bear offices of constable, &c., which several
of them have sustained and executed with great faithfulness in their
respective dutys: so that they hope, by the favour of this Great and
General Court (which is well known at all times to act with great
equity, and to relieve, where they can, the distressed), that as they
have been always subject to do dutys, so they may be intituled to all
the privileges of a denisen, or natural-born subject, of his majesty's,




16
so far as is consistent with the power and justice of this (reat and
General Court; it being what hath been generally practiced by most
nations of Europe in favour of the French Protestant refugees, but
more particularly by the crown of Great Britain and the dependent Colonys, as the petitioners can prove by many instances.  Therefore,
upon the whole, the petitioners do humbly pray an order of this Great
and General Court to confer upon them the rights and privileges of
denisens, or fiee-born subjects, of the King of Great Britain; or be
otherwise relieved, notwithstanding any law, usage, or custom, to
the contrary; or that they may be farther heard by the Council in the
premises. They say relieved as this Great and General Court shall
judge meet; and, as in duty bound, your petitioners shall ever
pray, &c.
6?                           -z  -         -'"P"'4f    a^) L^




17
"In Council, Feb. 25, 1730.- Read, and ordered that the prayer
of the petition be so far granted as that the petitioners, together with
all other foreign Protestant inhabitants of this Province, shall,
within this Province, hold and enjoy all the privileges and immunities
of his majesty's natural-born subjects; and that they have leave to
bring in a bill accordingly.
"Sent down for concurrence,
"J. WILLARD, Secretary.
"In the House of Representatives, Feb. 26, 1730. - Read and
concurred.
"J. QUINCY, Speaker."
In pursuance of this leave, a bill was introduced into the
House of Representatives, which passed to be enacted on
the 16th of March, and was approved by Governor Belcher
on the 2d of April following. It is in the following terms;
viz: -
"Passed by the Great and General Court, or Assembly, of his
majesty's Province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England, begun
and held at Boston upon Wednesday, the tenth day of February,
1730.
"Chapter XIV. *- An Act for Naturalizing Protestants of Foreign
Nations inhabiting within this Province.
"Whereas divers Protestants of the French and other foreign nations have removed themselves and their families into this Province,
who are well affected to his majesty's government, and useful members of the Commonwealth, but, being born out of the king's legiance,
have not, by law, a right to the privileges and immunities of his
majesty's natural-born subjects, but are under divers disabilities, and
subjected to many inconveniences and difficulties in their persons
and estates: 
"To the intent, therefore, that such persons, and all other welldisposed Protestants of foreign nations, may have due encouragement
to settle themselves and their families within this Province, —
"Be it enacted by his Excellency the Governor, Council, and
Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of
the same,3




18
"That, from and after the publication of this Act, all Protestants,
of foreign nations, that have inhabited or resided within this Province
for the space of one year, are hereby declared to be naturalized to all
intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever, within this Province;
and from henceforth, and at all times hereafter, shall be entitled to
have and enjoy all the rights, liberties, and privileges within this
Province, and no otherwise, which his majesty's natural-born subjects
in the said Province ought to have and enjoy, as fully to all intents
and purposes whatsoever as if they had been born within the said
Province.
"Provided always, and it is hereby enacted, That all foreign Protestants that shall have the benefit of this Act shall take the oaths by
law appointed to be taken, instead of the oaths of allegiance and
supremacy; subscribe the test, or declaration; and take, repeat,
and subscribe the abjuration-oath, -in presence of the Governor and
Council of this Province; which shall be made of record in the
Council-books, and for which each person so swearing and subscribing
shall pay to the Secretary of the Province five shillings; and he shall
demand no more.
"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That if any
foreign Protestant, having so sworn and subscribed as aforesaid, shall
and do demand a certificate of his being entered upon record in
manner aforesaid, the Secretary of this Province, for the time being,
is hereby directed and required to grant the same under his hand, for
which he may demand two shillings and sixpence, and no more; which
certificate shall at all times be a sufficient proof that such person is
naturalized by this Act, and as effectual as if the record aforesaid
were actually produced by them or any of them."
The foregoing Act was passed to be enacted March 16,
and was approved by Governor Belcher, April 2, 1731.  The
session began Feb. 10, and ended April 24, 1731.
It will be observed that this statute gives to those who
are naturalized the same rights as natural-born subjects within the Province. Of course, no wider power could be exercised. No Colonial government, as before remarked, could
confer rights and privileges to be exercised outside of the
local jurisdiction, much less in the mother country. Parlia



19
ment alone could give authority to widen a Colonial naturalization, so that the subject of it should be a denizen of the
empire.?
Under this law, all the petitioners, except Duchezeau,viz., Le  Mercier,t  Johonnot,t Sigourney,~ Petel,ll and  Brimmer,~ -- appeared before the Governor and Council on the
12th of the same April, and were naturalized. They were
followed, on the 7th of December then next, by Philip Bongarden,"   John Brown (nomen generalissimnum), John  Saciller,
John  Groward, and  Philip  Palier.   John  Arnault, of Boston,
furrier, closed the list on the 18th of August, 1732.
These are all the persons whose names appear on the
* In the statute of 7 and 8 Victoria, chap. 6, which freely opened the door for the
admission of foreigners, a question is raised, whether the Colonial laws on the subject
of naturalization were of any validity. In consequence of this doubt, the statute of
10 and 11 Victoria, chap. 83, was enacted in 1847; confirming all such laws already
made, and allowing future laws touching local naturalization, subject to confirmation
or disallowance by her majesty. No law of the kind could have any validity beyond
the limits of the Colony in which it was made. It was further declared, that the
statute of 7 and 8 Victoria, chap. 66, did not extend to the Colonies.
t In his will, dated at Dorchester, Nov. 7, 1761, with a codicil, February, 1764,
proved June 15, 1764, he names children, - Andrew, Margaret, Jane, and Bartholomew,
"if living."  His son Peter Le Mercier, born Aug. 7, 1723, is not named. No examination has been made to ascertain the time of his death. His daughter Jane (unmarried),
living in Dorchester, in 1769 conveyed to William Dennie, of Boston, part of an estate,
No. 18, Long Wharf, which she inherited from her father. The deed was not recorded
till 1793.
t "Daniel Johonnot, of Boston, distiller," in his will, May, 1748, proved July 1,
1748, names sons,-Zachary, Andrew, and Francis; and the children of his daughter,
Mary Ann (Johonnot) Boyer, deceased.
~ " Andrew Sigourney, sen., of Boston, distiller, aged and infirm," made his will
in May, 1736. It was proved July 5, 1748. His children were Andrew (mariner), Susanna, Mary, Charles, Anthony, Daniel, Hannah. His wife Mary survived him.
I "John Peta, of Boston, mariner, made his will, June 30, 1735. It was proved
May 9, 1749. He was a married man, but left no children.
~ "Martin Brimmer, of Boston, staymaker," in his will, April 3, 1755, proved June
24, 1760, mentions wife Susanna, and four sons -viz., Herman, Martin, Andrew, and
John Baker —and four daughters.
** "Philip Bongarden, of Boston, shopkeeper," made his will, June 24, 1748. It
was proved April 20, 1753. He names his wife; his daughter Elizabeth, wife of Enneas
Mackay; and his grandson, Philip Cutler. In 1748, he became the owner of some real
estate on the northerly side of State Street.




20
Council-records.  Why so few sought the benefit of this law,
is not known.  The number of foreign Protestants, at least
French Protestants, may have been more numerous for a
few years after 1687 than they were in 1731; but there were
others- respectable men, who might be named- here in the
latter year who do not seem to have become subjects of Massachusetts Bay. Perhaps they were naturalized in Great Britain,
or in some other of" the dependent colonys" (ante, p. 16).
At the present day, descendants of Sigourney, Johonnot,
and Brimmer, bear up the respectable character of their
earliest American ancestors; while of Groward and Palier no
vestiges have been discovered.  In May, 1748, Brown and
Arnault, two of the proprietors of the French Church in
School Street, in connection with the remaining proprietors,
— viz., "Stephen Botineau (the only surviving elder of the
church), Andrew Le Mercier (clerk, minister of said church),
Zechariah  Johonnot, Andrew  Johonnot, James Packenet,
William  Bowdoin, and Andrew  Sigourney, -  conveyed the
church-property to the trustees of the new Congregational
Church, of which the Rev. Andrew Croswell was pastor.;
Rev. Mr. Le Mercier was successor to Rev. Peter Daill6,
who died in May, 1715. The former, surviving the diminution
and dissolution of his society, went to his rest, in Boston, in
March, 1764.  He was held in esteem, in the place of his
adoption, for his Christian virtues and graces.f
It only remains to speak of Bongarden and Saciller, and
that in connection with the Palatines. Beyond this connection, nothing has been ascertained in relation to Saciller.
In March, 1732, Philip Bongarden and John, Saciller, as
* Drake's History of Boston; Suffolk Registry of Deeds.
t The late Rev. Dr. Holmes published a very interesting "Memoir of the French
Protestants, who settled at Oxford, Mass., A.D. 1686; with a Sketch of the entire
History of the Protestants of France." See Collections of the Massachusetts Historical
Society, vol. ii. 3d series, pp. 1-83.




21
" agents for the Palatines," made complaint to the Governor
and Council of " the cruel and inhuman treatment" the
Palatines received " from Captain Jacob Lobb, in their passage from Holland, by reason of which the greatest part of
their company died at sea; and of his barbarous usage of the
survivors after their arrival at Martha's Vineyard, which had
occasioned the death of divers others; and prayed that
exemplary justice might be done on the said Lobb." The
Council referred the complainants, with their papers, to
the Superior Court.
Two indictments were found against Lobb at the April
Term  of the Superior Court in Barnstable. Lobb was a
Cornwall man from Penzance, and was on a voyage from
Rotterdam to Philadelphia; having in his vessel more than a
hundred Palatines, who went on board at Rotterdam in June,
1731. The vessel was obliged to put into the Vineyard in
November, while on the voyage to Philadelphia. Lobb was
charged with occasioning the death of Johannes Youngman,
about two years of age, son of John Didrick Youngman; and
Jacob Comes, jun., about the age of nine years, a Palatine,
son of Jacob Comes, - by detaining them on board the vessel
after she reached Holmes's Hole; that the child Youngman
was infirm and sickly, and languished and died by reason of
not being furnished by Lobb with sufficient food to sustain
life; and that Comes also died of hunger. According to the
allegations in the indictment, Lobb was under contract to
supply the passengers with provisions for the voyage. The
jury returned verdicts in favor of the captain.
In the latter part of the same month, Bongarden and
Saciller made complaint to the Governor and Council of
other troubles suffered by the Palatines at Edgartown, inasmuch as Lobb refused to save the town harmless for their
support, and the authorities threatened to imprison and sell
them to satisfy charges. The Council acted promptly on this
complaint.




22
In July following, Bongarden alone preferred a third petition, by which it appeared that the poor Palatines-now
more than a year from  home, and still distant from their
destination -were in Duke's-County Jail at the suit of Lobb,
pending in the Court of Common Pleas; and that Payne and
Zaccheus Mayhew, two of the justices, had so far engaged
in " the controversy as to be liable to a bias " in Lobb's favor.
The Council, on investigation, being satisfied that the Mayhews had taken sides with Lobb, set them aside in all causes
between him and the Palatines, and appointed Joseph Lathrop
and John Thacher special justices in their place.
In May, 1736, the Council recognized the humanity and
fidelity of Philip Bongarden, and allowed him for his " charge,
time, and trouble," on account of the Palatines, the sum of
~173. 16s.
The law of the Province of Massachusetts, which has been
under notice, is not found in any edition of the general laws;
so that its existence seems to be unknown at the present day.
The Province Charter required that all laws should be transmitted to the king, " under the public seal,... for approbation or disallowance." If disallowed and rejected by the
king in Privy Council, within three years after being presented, and so signified under the king's "sign-manual and
signet," or " by the Privy Council to the Governor," they became thenceforth "void, and of none effect;"  but, if not
returned within three years, they remained in force.
There is nothing to be found in the office of the Secretary
of State to show that this law was returned to the Governor,
except the fact that the law appears nowhere, save in a little
pamphlet of temporary enactments. This, however, may be
considered full proof; and, as there was no naturalization
after that of Arnault in August, 1732, it is a fair inference
that the law soon afterwards came to an untimely death.
It is a matter of history that Provincial laws were disallowed by the king; and how then can it be accounted for




23
that no veto or disallowance thereof, " under the king's signmanual or signet," or "by the Privy Council to the Governor,"
is to be found on file, or in any way alluded to, in the records
at the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth? 
It only remains to consider the subject of naturalization in
Massachusetts, from the date of the Declaration of Independence until near the close of the last century, - six years
after the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.
By the Declaration of Independence, the Colonies assumed
the position of independent States; and, under the Confederation, several of them  passed naturalization laws, while others
naturalized foreigners by special Acts.  There was no uniform system.
"The dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization," says Mr.
Madison, "has long been remarked as a fault in our system,
and as laying a foundation for intricate and delicate questions."  In  referring  to  the  confusion  of language  in  the
fourth article of the Confederation, he adds, "In  one State,
residence for a short time confers all the rights of citizenship; in  another, qualifications  of greater importance  are
required.  An alien, therefore, legally incapacitated for certain rights in the latter, may, by previous residence only in
the former, elude his incapacity, and thus the laws of one
State  be preposterously rendered  paramount to the law  of
another within the jurisdiction of the other." t
This dissimilarity in the rules " gave rise, under the Confederation, to some intricate and delicate questions.":
* I have found no reason assigned for the disallowance of this law. Was it from
any known or supposed difference between the charter governments and the proprietary and royal governments in this respect? We have seen that other Colonies exercised the jurisdiction; and the Huguenots themselves say in their petition (ante, p. 16),
that many of their brethren have been naturalized by "the dependent Colonys" of
Great Britain, "as the petitioners can prove by many instances."
t The Federalist, No. xlii.
t Duer's Lectures on Constitutional Jurisprudence, p. 296.




24
There was no general naturalization law in Massachusetts
under the Constitution of 1780; but individuals were admitted to citizenship by special Acts, the earliest of which
was June 27, 1782.  It appeared in this case that Michael
Cunningham  and John Prescott, late of Halifax, in Nova
Scotia, " had exerted themselves for the relief of American
prisoners at Halifax, and, in many instances, opposed British
tyranny; espousing the cause of America, and fleeing to
this country to pay obedience to, and receive protection
from, its laws." As a reward, and " to encourage such welldisposed foreigners to join themselves to us,"-" on taking
and subscribing the oaths of allegiance, abjuration, and other
oaths required by the laws of the Commonwealth, before any
two  Justices of the Peace," — Cunningham  and Prescott
"were to be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural subjects of the Commonwealth, to all intents, &c., as if they had
been born in the Commonwealth."
The Justices were required to make return to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, " who shall record the same in a
book, to be kept among the public records of the Commonwealth for the purpose of recording the names of such foreigners as shall be hereafter naturalized by Acts of the
Commonwealth."
The following persons were allowed to be naturalized; but
whether they all took the oaths, and actually became subjects
or citizens, it is not easy to ascertain, as the book kept by the
secretary cannot now be found.*   No particular length of
residence was required  before naturalization.  Several of
these individuals and families, residents in Boston, will be
recognized by those familiar with the society of the place in
the earlier part of the present century.t
* The title of this book is found in the catalogue kept at the office of the Secretary
of State; but the book itself has not been seen for some years.
t Many notes might be made in addition to those which follow, were it worth
while to pursue the investigation.




25
Among those naturalized, there were several persons who
had left the State during the Revolution, and adhered to the
crown, or, in the words of the statute, had "joined the enemies of the State."  In the heat of the war, —September,
1778,- an Act was passed forbidding their return to the
State, and providing for their removal in case of return.
Should they voluntarily come into the State a second time,
"without leave from  the General Court," they were, "on
conviction before the Superior Court, to suffer the pains of
death, without benefit of clergy."
All those persons who left the Province after the 5th of
October, 1774, and before the "making" of the Constitution
of the Commonwealth, and had taken English protection,
were held to be aliens. By a law of 1784, these persons, if
not named in the Confiscation Act of 1779, and not having
borne arms against their country, might return to the State,
under license from the Governor and Council. This license
remained in force until the end of the next session of the
General Court; at which time, unless the General Court had
approved the license, or an Act of naturalization had been
passed in favor of the individual, he was required " to depart
the State."
1782, June 27. Michael Cunningham, John Prescott.
1784, Feb. 13. John  Gardiner, barrister-at-law.  John  Silvester
John* and William Gardiner, his children. [His
wife, Ann Gardiner, is mentioned in the title of
the Act, but was omitted in the enacting clause.
The omission was supplied Oct. 25, 1787.]
Mar. 23. Thomas Hopkins, of Falmouth, Cumberland County,
late of Devonshire, Great Britain.
June 30. Thomas Robison, of Falmouth, Cumberland County,
late of Quebec.
1785, Feb. 28. Nicholas Rousselet, Boston, auctioneer.
George Smith, Andover, laborer.
* The late Rev. Dr. Gardiner, of Trinity Church, Boston.
4




26
1785, Nov. 22. Paul Beltremieux, Newburyport, late of Rochelle,
France.,,  23. William  Bond, Falmouth, Cumberland County, goldsmith, late of Devonshire, in Great Britain.
1786, Feb. 7. Michael Walsh, Salisbury.,,   8. William Erving, Esq., Boston.
John Duballet,* Boston.,, 17. James Wakefield, born in Massachusetts, but for fifteen
years past residing in Nova Scotia. Ann Wakefield, his wife. Their children, - Benjamin, Ann,
Terence,t Mary.
June 5. Robert Morris, Shrewsbury.
James Alexander, Shrewsbury.
July  7. Jonathan Curson, Northampton, late of Exeter, England.
William  Oliver, Northampton, late of Bridport, England.
1787, Mar. 2. William Martin and Elizabeth Martin, Boston.
William Moch,+ Boston.
John Amory,~ Boston.
David Smith, and Elizabeth his wife, Portland. Their
children, —Moses, Ruth, Mercy, Lendall, David,
Elizabeth, Hannah, Dorothy, Godfrey.
William Molton, Portland.
William Haggett,,,
John Nicholas Rudberg, and Anne his wife, Portland.
Thomas Craigie, Billerica.
May  1. Edward Wyer,l  and Alice his wife.'His" children, -  Edward and William.
David Greene, and Rebecca his wife.  "His" children, - John Rose Greene, David Ireland Greene,~
Charles Winston Greene,** Rebecca Greene.
* Merchant, Distil-house Square. - Boston Directory, 1789.
t For many years a druggist and apothecary in Boston,
j Hairdresser, 28, Newbury Street.-Boston Directory, 1789.  By statute 1807,
chap. 122, his son William was allowed to take the name of Andrew Jeremiah Alien.
~ Storekeeper, 41, Marlborough Street.- Boston Directory, 1789.
He was a physician in Boston, held in great esteem. There are many living who
remember his son Edward.
~ Harvard College. 1800.                    i Harvard College, 1802,




27
1787, May   1. Thomas English.*
Oct. 29. Bartholomy  de  Gregoire,t  and  Maria Theresa  his
wife.  Their children,-Pierre de Gregoire, Nicholas de Gregoire, Maria de Gregoire.
Nov. 16. Alexander Moore, Boston, merchant.
Isaac Smith,,,    clerk.
John Deverell,,,    silversmith.
John Gregory,,,    merchant.
David Poignand,,,    merchant, and Delicia his
wife.
Abraham  Bazin,,,    merchant.
Henry Smith,,,    merchant, and  Elizabeth,
his wife.  Henry Lloyd  Smith, Elizabeth, Catherina, Rebecca, and Anna Smith.
Benjamin Pickman, Esq., Salem.
William  Pratt,+ Boston, merchant, from  London.
Kirk Boot,+,,,, 
Mary, his wife; Frances, their daughter.
1788, June 19. William  Menzies Douglass, late of Great Britain.
Paul Crocker, and Lydia his wife. Their grand-children, -  Joanna  Crocker  Chute,  Paul  Crocker
Chute,  George  Washington  Chute,  Lunenburg,
late of Annapolis, in Nova Scotia.
* A merchant, No. 11, Long Wharf. -Boston Directory, 1789. He was the father
of James L. English, Esq., of Boston.
t Madame Gregoire came to America with a letter of introduction from Lafayette
to General Knox, dated Paris, Aug. 1, 1786. "I thought," says the marquis, "my
best way was to introduce her to you, who can, better than any one else, advise her
how to act, and give her accounts of the frontier, where she says she has some
property."
This lady was a grand-daughter of Mons. La Motte Cadillac, to whom the King of
France granted a patent of the Island of Mount Desert in 1691. Under this patent,
Madam Gregoire claimed the island. "It would seem," says Williamson (History of
Maine, vol. ii. p. 515), " to have, been a claim too antiquated and obsolete to be regarded: but the government was so highly disposed at this time'to cultivate mutual
confidence and union between the subjects of his most Christian majesty and the
citizens of this State,' that the General Court were induced first to naturalize the petitioners and their family, and then quit-claim to them all the interest the Commonwealth
had to the island; reserving only, to actual settlers, lots of one hundred acres."
The whole island had been confiscated, in the Revolution, as the property of Governor Bernard; but, as his son John had been a consistent Whig throughout the war,
the Commonwealth restored to him one-half of it. - Ibid.
l Messrs. Pratt and Boot, from moderate beginnings, became extensively engaged
in mercantile business.




28
1788, June 19. Francois Bertodi, of the kingdom of Prussia.*
Nov. 21. Elisha Bourn, Sandwich, late subject of Great Britain.
Seth Perry,,,,,,,,,,, 
Edward Bourn,,,,,,,,,, 
Richard Devereux, Parsonfield, late of Ireland.
William Jolly, Portland, late of St. Pierre, Martinico.
Jeremiah Joakim Khaler, Boston, late subject of Denmark.
Phillip Theobald, Pownalborough, from Hesse Hannau.
John de Polerisky,,,      late of Molsheim,
in Alsatia, France.
1789, Feb. 14. James Huyman,t Boston, late of Rotterdam.
James Henry Laugier de Tassy, Boston, late of the
Seven United Provinces.
Samuel Weston, Boston, late of the Island of Madeira.
John Hicks, and Fanny Hicks his daughter, Boston.
Frederick William Geyer, Boston.
Charles Vaughan, Hallowell.
William  Davis, Windsor, Berkshire, late of Great
Britain.
James Scobie, Marblehead, late of Scotland.
Daniel Wright, and Katy his wife, Salem, late of
Great Britain.
Nathaniel Chandler, Petersham.
June 22. Nathaniel Skinner,+ Boston, late of London.
James Scott,~ Boston, native of Great Britain.
James Scott, jun.,,,,,,,,,
George Shinnits,,,,,,, Prussia.
Martin Coning,,,  late of Amsterdam.
Akurs Sisson, Dartmouth.
1790, Mar. 1. John Jarvis.
Lewis Leprilete.[{
John Fowler.
* In the Act of naturalization, Dr. Bertodi is called of "Persia;" a typographical
error for "Prussia." He left a son, who, I believe, is the sole representative of the
name in this country.
t Merchant, Foster's Wharf. -Boston Directory, 1789.
i He was a merchant.        ~ The second husband of Madam Hancock.
II Dr. Leprilete resided at Jamaica Plain.




29
1790, Mar. 1. Alexander McDonald.
William Welch.*
Peter Le Mercier, and his children,  Polly Eugenia,
Sophia Cecile, and Peter Oliver Le Mercier.t
Thomas Lane.
William Cleland.John Pennell.
John Bond.
Mar.  6. John Montgomery.
James Green.
Nathan Kelley.
Stephen Jones.
Thomas Ramsden.
John Sockman.
1791, Mar. 11. John White.
Roger Dickinson.
John Atkinson, and Elizabeth his wife.  "His" children, - John Atkinson, jun., Charles Atkinson,
Eliza Storer Atkinson, George Hodgson Atkinson,
Mary Ann Atkinson, Caroline Frances Atkinson,
and William Atkinson.
1793, Mar. 9. George William Erving.~
Sept. 28. Pierre Briamant, Boston.
1794, Feb. 27. Henry Huetson Pentland.
June 24. Thomas Neil.l1
Robert Getty.l[
Robert Holt.
* Father of the late John Welch, Esq.
t Thus the names stand in the Act of naturalization. But their names, I suppose,
are more correctly given in the record of their guardianship, in Suffolk, in March, 1802;
viz., "Eugene Sophia, Cecile Charlotte, and Peter Olivier Lemercier."  They were
then placed under the guardianship of Earl Sturtevant. Eugene and Cecile were over
fourteen years of age, and Peter Olivier under fourteen. The father, perhaps a grandson of the minister, is entitled " Peter Lemercier, late of France, deceased."
In March, 1828, Eugene Sophia, "widow of George C. Flynn;" Cecile Charlotte,
"wife of Henry Williams, of Boston;" and Peter Olivier Lemercier, -discharged the
bond of guardianship. Williams was well known as a portrait painter.
I A broker in Boston.
~ He was educated at Oxford.  He was consul at London, and afterwards was
appointed ambassador to Spain by Mr. Jefferson.
II Traders in Boston.




30
The Legislature passed a law, June 9, 1792, allowing all
persons, proscribed under any of the laws of the State, to be
naturalized in the same manner and on the same conditions
as provided for other aliens by the Act of Congress " establishing an uniform rule of naturalization," 1790, chap. 3.
It will be observed by the foregoing list that the Legislature
of Massachusetts continued to naturalize " aliens" as late as the
June Session in the year 1794, —more than four years after
Congress had made provision for naturalization, pursuant to
the power contained in the Constitution of the United States.
This may have been because the Legislature did not consider
the power to be exclusive in Congress;   or because there
may have been a question, whether the statute of 1790 was
prospective, - the provision being, " that any alien, being a
free white person, who 8hal have resided within the limits and
under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of
two years," &c.  The next statute, 1795, chap. 20, was prospective as well as retrospective; and, after its passage, Massachusetts ceased from all further exercise of jurisdiction.
* Indeed, so late as 1817, in the Supreme Court of the United States, counsel, in
arguing a question in relation to the Maryland law of naturalization, 1780, intimated
"that the respective States still preserve the right of making naturalization, giving
certain civil rights to foreigners, without conferring political citizenship." Chirac vs.
Chirac. - Wheaton's Reports, vol. ii. p. 264. The court, however, held that the exclusive power of Congress was incontrovertible.