Front Cover
 Title Page
 Promotion agents and their...
 The restriction of emigration,...
 Back Cover

Group Title: attitude of European States toward emigration to the American colonies, and the United States, 1607-1820 :ba part of a dissertation ... /
Title: The Attitude of European States toward emigration to the American colonies, and the United States, 1607-1820 :ba part of a dissertation ... /
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00098516/00001
 Material Information
Title: The Attitude of European States toward emigration to the American colonies, and the United States, 1607-1820 :ba part of a dissertation ... /
Physical Description: ii, 127-159, 195-223 p. : ; 24 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Brite, John Duncan, 1901-
Publisher: University of Chicago Libraries
Place of Publication: Chicago
Publication Date: 1939
Subject: Emigration and immigration   ( lcsh )
Emigration and immigration -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre: non-fiction   ( marcgt )
Thesis: Part of thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, 1937.
Bibliography: Bibliographical footnotes.
General Note: "Private edition, distributed by the University of Chicago libraries, Chicago, Illinois."
Statement of Responsibility: by John Duncan Brite.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00098516
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 191279914


This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 3 MBs ) ( PDF )

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Title Page
        Page i
        Page i-a
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Promotion agents and their activities
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
    The restriction of emigration, 1607-1820
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
    Back Cover
        Page 224
        Page 225
Full Text






diiii I IMP

Ubc miiulvroitt of Cbicago








Private Edition, Distributed by

Prefatory Note

j The chapters reproduced herewith as the "essential

portion" of the doctoral dissertation of John Duncan Brite

contain footnote references to other parts which are to be

found in the complete dissertation, which is on file only

in the University of Chicago Libraries.



The actual enlistment of the emigrant and the making of
the arrangements for his journey to America were usually effected
by promotion agents of various kinds. Their authority came from
landed proprietors, colonization companies, governments, religious
groups, colonial legislatures, and other sources. An agent might
have been a proprietor hLself or the representative of another
agent. On the other hand, he might have been promoting emigra-
tion purely for personal profit, and without authority from any-
one else.
In many cases patrons and proprietors were their own pro-
moters. They obtained from governments or trading companies the
requisite authority to transport themselves and persons engaged
by them to the plantations. Jochem Pietersz Kuyter, Cornelis
iAelyn, and Jonas Bronck were of this type, transporting themselves
with permission of the Assembly of the Nineteen of the Dutch West
India Company to New Netherland in 1639.1 Bronck advanced funds
for certain Danes brought with him who were to work on his lands.2
Van Rensselaer sent colonists at different times to Rensselaers-
wyck. He contracted for some of them with agents in Norway, and
made individual agreements with his emigrants, though many broke

1The power of the Dutch West India Company was vested in
five chambers of managers, located in the different provinces of
Holland. These chambers sent delegates to the Assembly of the
XIX, in which the executive powers of the company were vested by
the States General under the charter of June 3, 1621. The Cham-
ber of Amsterdam, managing four ninth parts of the company, sent
eight of the nineteen delegates. See Article XI, XVIII, and XIX
of the charter in Edmund Bailey O'Callaghan, History of New
Netherland (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1848), I, 401, 402-03.

2E. B. O'Callaghan (ed.), Documents relative to the Colo-
nial History of the State of New York (Albany: Weed, Parsons and
Co. 1853-7, I, 250-51, XIII 5; John 0. Evjen, Scandinavian
Immigrants in New York. 1630-74 (Minneapolis: K. C. Holter
Publishing Co., 1916), pp. 237-45, 156, 171, 173. (The former is
hereafter cited as N. Y. Col. Docs.)

their promises upon arrival in America.1 He also asked his rer-
resentatives in the Netherlands to look for good farm laborers
for him, and employed Adriaen Van der Donck of Breda to contract
for several workers needed in his colony.2 Even ministers were
his agents, and persons emigrating were offered monopolies in
certain trades for a period of six years.3 Patroon Henrick van
der Capelle similarly sent about ninety persons, in addition to
soldiers, to his colony in New Amsterdam by 1655.4 Huguenot
refugee merchants settled plantations in Oxford, Massachusetts,
with emigrants and servants hired by them at their own expense.S
William Penn encouraged Quakers, Pietists, and others to
emigrate to Pennsylvania during his three trips into Germany and
by his many promotion pamphlets. Among his agents were Benjamin
Furly at Rotterdam, who sold his lands in Europe and negotiated
the passage of thirteen pioneer families to Pennsylvania in 1683.0
Two Anabaptists conducted emigrants by way of Rotterdam to
London;7 and Jacob Telner, Amsterdam merchant, personally superin-
tended the emigration of the Crefelders who were going to German-
town.8 James Claypoole advanced the passage money and financed a

1A. J. F. Van Laer, Van Rensselaer Bowler Manuscripts
(Albany: University of the State of New York, 1908), pp. 486,
483, 545, 546, 612, 614, 615; Knut Gjerset, Norwegian Sailors
in American Waters (Northfield, Minresota: Norwegian-American
Historical Association, 1933), p. 56.

2Among his agents were Van der Donck, Jacob Albertsz
Planck, and Rev. Johannes Megapolensis. Van Laer, pp. 467, 524,
547, 575, 543, 824.

3Ibid., pp. 604-08. 41. Y. Col. Docs., I, 638.

5Charles W. Baird, History of the Huguenot Emigration t.
America (New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1885), II, 168-69,
215-16, 259-69, 290.

6Julius F. Sachse, "Benjamin Furly, an English Merchant
in Rotterdam," Pennsylvania Magazine of History, XIX (October,
1895), pp. 277-306; J. F. Sachse, The German Pietists of Provii-
cial Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, 1895), pp. 433-59; Mennonite
Year Book (Berne, Indiana), 1915, pp. 32-33.
7Das verlangte. nicht erlangte Canaan (Francfurt und
Leipzig, 1711), pp. 94-99, quoted in Daniel Haberle Auswanderung
und Koloniegriindung der Pfalzer im 18. Jahrhundert (Kauserlautern:
H. Kayser, 1919), pp. 48-50.

BSamuel W. Pennypacker, "The Settlement of Germantown,"
Pennsylvania German Society, Proceedings, IX, 54-58, 177 (here-
after cited as PGSP).

voyage from London.1 John Jacob Zimmerman, pastor of the
Lutheran Church in the Duchy of WUrttemberg, asked Furly for per-
mission and assistance to remove sixteen or seventeen families
"from these Babilonish Coasts, to those American Plantations,
being led thereunto by the guidance of the Divine Spirit."2
Daniel Falckner, one of these emigrants, also represented Penn,
since he returned in 1698 to secure more enlistments.3 Philip
Ford and Robert Ness in London took applications and dispensed
instructions regarding the journey.4
Where the governments took an active interest in coloni-
zation and closely supervised their trading companies it was
natural for them to promote emigration to the colonies they were
establishing. Thus Sweden not only sent officials to Holland to
buy supplies and to hire sailors for her expeditions to New
Sweden but also instructed her provincial governors at home to
gather emigrants and to hire enlisters to persuade Swedish vagrants
to emigrate. It was under such instructions that Sven Skute,
Mans Kling, and Johan Printz collected persons in the mining and
forest districts of Sweden for the colony between 1640 and 1653.
Funds were given them to engage soldiers, laborers, and settlers.
Skilled workmen were secured, as well as artisans and farmers.5
Even the Swedish Cou-cil of State, and the Commercial College
which controlled trade and regulated Swedish trading companies,
may be looked upon as agents of the government in promoting emi-
gration. In a sense, all Swedish officials were promotion agents,

1"Extracts from the Letter-Book of James Claypoole,"
Pennsylvania Magazine of History, X, 272-76.

2Gerhard Croese, General History of the Quakers (London,
1696), II, 262. Quoted by S. V. Pennypacker in PGSP, IX, 264-66.

3Ibid., pp. 282-83.

4Some Proposals for a Second Settlement in the Province
of Pennsylvania (London, 1690), PGSP, XIV, 246-47.

5See chap. viii on the Undesirable Emigrant for the work
of such agents. For examples of the instructions given them con-
sult the Commission for Mans Kling, September 26, 1640, in
C. T. Odhner, "The Founding of New Sweden, 1637-1642," trans. by
Gregory B. Keen in Pennsylvania Magazine of History, III, 405;
instructions for Sven Skute, 1653, summarized in Amandus Johnson,
Swedish Settlements on the Delaware (New York: D. Appleton and
Do., 1911), II, 471-72. See also E. A. Louhi, The Delaware Finns
(i,wvi York: The Humanity Press, 1925), pp. 35-39.

as they were all ordered to asisat such ventures, 'rch 'were under
direct control of the General Director of the Co..mmerical college e
and the Chancellor.1
Jesse de Forest and tie Leyden French and aiUloo-rn Yuije-
nots enlisted Huguenot families In olland In i&C61-, v.lnt per-
mission of the States General and vitn consent a t the cities In
which they were gathered. Some thirty Lamilies here collected to
be sent to the lands of the Dutch :est India Compeny in lee
Netherland.2 Here again the control %as Sal-iar, re ,ilation ty
the government of enlistment of persons sent out ruder the super-
vision of a trading corporation.
The term "promotion agent" may also te used to refer to
a great number of people, wno ai though ttney did nor. mnaEe a cual-
ness of enlisting emigrants, .aer reapon icle for the departure
of others, directly or indirectly. T'nis one eitr'uitically
aiding others to escape at the r ime he nLmseif fled ay be in-
cluded.3 Even John Law nay be coialdered a prcmot!ion aCent if
the term be used more widely, for tr.e CciFpany of the Indies sl
reported to have sent about asl. tnousa d French, Itallar, German,
and Swiss to Louisiana within twenty-five years.4
Persons returning fror Akr.erica to visit relatives,' to
live, or to remove property w.re usually indirect a ent; of emi-
gration, as were soldiers, ministers, and rissionaries back from.

IParagraph based uprn Joranson, .v.ed. Jet:'.imnts, Ii,
469-89. See also chap.vill on i indesirables.

2Baird, I, 166 ff.

3Baird, II, 194, n. 1. Francis ]erneal,', wealt)i; riu;.i-
not merchant, ca. 1685.

4Alexander Franz, "Die er3re deutsche Linr.enarr ue, in des
Iississippital," in Deutsch-ALerl aniscne n escnictstlA.tter, .iI,
194-97, 253 (hereafter referred to as DAil). Ac.:crdrin to Fran:,
7,020 persons went from Europe to Louisirana between i1i aend
1722. He thinks that of tne f:ur mcnoaaund e?'ir.sna mentioned In
Law's agreement not more than 1,Z50-' reocned ports of *ietarl.stio.r
before his downfall in "720. here -s3 n.: masB ea;rat ion of
Germans to this colony before 171i .

5For examples, A. E. Faust. nd *. .. r. rumbtauGjn, i.sts of
Swiss Emigrants in the EL i.iteentn Ctntur, to the American lorieses
(Washington: national Genealoilcal L-ciet;, 1:0;,, i1, 0.1, '06,

the colonies. All were suspected by European governments as
possible promoters. Those who had never been in America but passed
orn the good news received from friends or relatives abroad often
had great influence on the departure of others,l whether they
profited fLnFnclally or not. It was because of the influence of
returned persons that Nassau-Dillenburg in 1773 decreed that upon
arrival they should ask for permission to enter, state their
business in the country, and be allowed only a limited time in
which to transact it.2
Ministers going from America to Europe to solicit funds
to obtain Bibles and other books, or to secure additional colonial
pastors were especially dangerous as they could not be punished
under the laws. Yet they encouraged emigration. It was custom-
ary to expedite their departure, and in the case of the Swiss at
least, to give them hotel and traveling expenses to the border to
to get rid of them.3 Michael Schlatter, who returned to Europe
in 1751 to seek aid for the Reformed Churches in Pennsylvania,
was sent into Germany and Switzerland by the Synod of North
Holland to secure aid and to seek ministers for Pennsylvania.
Whatever influence his writings and sermons may have had upon emi-
gration, he did secure six pastors for Pennsylvania churches,
persons who with their families must be considered as emigrants.4
Sometimes ministers returned definitely in the roll of emigration
agents.5 The influence of German Lutheran churchmen in London

1Niclaus Tschudi and an unknown baker at Rotterdam may
illustrate the point. Faust, Lists, II, 169; Mennonite Year Book
1913, p. 35.

2Relation 190, Dillenburg, June 26, 1773. Preuss.
Staatsarchiv. Wiesbaden. Bestand VII. Nassau-Dillenburg Landes
Regierung. R. 206, Vol. II Pt. II, pp. 242-46 (hereafter referred
to as R. 206).

3A. B. Faust, Guide to the Materials for American History
in Swiss and Austrian Archives (Washington: Carnegie Institution,
1916), pp. 50, 119; A. B. Faust, "Swiss Emigration to the Ameri-
can Colonies in the Eighteenth Century," in Amer. Hist. Rev.,
XXII (October, 1916), p. 30 (hereafter referred to as AHR).

4Rev. Henry Harbaugh, The Life of Rev. Michael Schlatter
(Philadelphia, Lindsay and Blakiston, 1857), pp. 76-83.

5See, for example, Rev. Jacques Roullaud who returned to
France from New York to remove Protestant families, 1671. Victor
Hugo Paltsits (ed.), Minutes of the Executive Coui.cil of the Pro-
vince of Eew York (Albany, 1910), I, 116.

between 1708 and 1764 was also a vital factor in promoting emi-
gration to the English colonies, as these men were German Pierlsts
and interested in their persecuted brethren in the homeland.1
Ministers were often leaders of bands of colonists,2 while others
in Germany, through sermons which stressed the hope that God woiid
lead His people out of bondage into the promised land of America
did much to promote the emigration movement.3
The emigration of soldiers to America was promoted by
agents who enlisted them for colonial service. Some of these
soldiers eventually settled as colonists.4 By means of favorable
reports and by bribery Captain Merveilleux (or Wunderlich) of
Neuenberg in 1720 secured two hundred Swiss for service in Mi3-
sissippi. Entire families of poor consented to go. Even
forcible kidnapping was resorted to. Bern offered a reward of
thirty thaler for his capture and forbade his recruiting, but
without much success.5 Others also recruited troops in Bern can-
ton for Louisiana, in 1720, but the Swiss had little desire cor
service overseas. Though some individuals were forcibly pressed
into service for Mississippi in the following years the total *as
Persecuted religious groups also had their agents. After'
securing lands from the founder of Bohemia Manor the two
Labadists, Peter Sluyter and Jasper Dankers, established a num-

1For example, Rev. Anton Wilhelm B6hme, Rev. Johann
Irebecko; Rev. Gustav Wachsel, Rev. Friedrich fiichael ZiegenJeagen.
Julius F. Sachse, "The Lutheran Clergy of London, and How They
Aided German Emigration During the XVIII Century," Lutheran r hbrch
Review, XXII (1903), pp. 15-17, 314 ff.

2Rev. William J. .Hinke (ed.), Life and Letters of the fev.
John Philip Boehm, Founder of the Reformed Church in Pennsyiar.la
(Philadelphia: Publication and Sunday School Board of the Re-
formed Church in the United States, 1916), pp. 29, 45, 49, 51, 3:.

3Document dated July 12, 1709, Nassau-Dillenburg, in
Goebel, DAG, XII, 139.

40f the troops taking part in the Revolution, some 41 Fer
cent did not return to Europe, and of these some 17 per cent
are classified as deserters according to Edward J. Lowell,
The Hessians (New York: Harper ard Bros., 1884), pp. 299-30;'.

5Faust, Guide, pp. 33-34, 41-42, 53-54; Faust, Lists,
II, 17.

6raust, Lists, II, 14-17.

ter of their sects in Maryland in 1683.1 Marquis Olivier de la
Muce and Charles de Sailly conducted some seven hundred Waldensi-
ans and Vaudois to Manakintown, Virginia, in 1700. They had
originally planned to settle them on the lands of one of the
Carolina proprietors.2 Martin Kendig, Mennonite, wassent to
Europe from Conestoga in 1710 to induce a number of Swiss and
Germans to settle in Pennsylvania.3 Count Zinzendorf, who was
considering Georgia as a place of refuge for the Moravians, also
had that colony in mind for the Schwenckfelders of Saxony. He
did his best to get the Georgia Trustees and the English minister
at Copenhagen interested in helping the latter group to emigrate
to Georgia.4 The actual agent conducting the Salzburgers to
Georgia was von Reck.5 An American agent, Johann Matthias Kramer,
secured Palatines at Rotterdam for the Georgia Trustees through
the help of Messrs. Hope and Company.6
The best example of the emigration of religious groups
and the methods by which it was accomplished is that of the French
Huguenots. By their vast and effective "underground railroad,"
thousands found their way across the French frontiers after 1685.
Among the more famous emissaries was the guide Lespine who by
1686 was reported to have made fourteen trips conducting persons
from France to Amsterdam. His underground route included a bureau
of direction in a village near Paris and correspondents or guides

1Bartlett B. James, "The Labadists Colony in Maryland,"
American Society of Church History Papers, VIII (1897), pp. 155-
58; Charles P. Mallery, "Ancient Families of Bohemia Manor,"
Del. Hist. Soc., Historical and Biographical Papers, I, no. 7
(1888), 30-31, 34; James G. Wilson, "Augustine Herrman," 1ew
Jersey Hist. Soc., Proceedings, 2d ser., XI (1890), pp. 30-31.

2Baird, II, 176-77.

3E. K. Martin, "The Mennonites," in Yennonite Year Book,
1897, pp. 18-19.

4E. W. Kriebel, "The Schwenkfelders in Pennsylvania,"
POSP, XIII (1902), pp. 30-31.

5Letter from von Reck to the Right honourable James Vernon,
June 28 (July 9), 1737, Allen D. Candler Compp.), The Colonial
Records of the State of Georgia (Atlanta, Georgia, 1904--), XXI,
433-34 (hereafter cited as Ga. onl. Records).

6Letter of Kramer, dated Rotterdam, June 26, 1737. Ibid.,
XXI, 422. See also ibid., II, 8, where a petition of two hun-
dred Vaudois to emigrate from Bern to Georgia with the help of
Bern and the Trustees indicates that D. .olters was also an
agent at Rotterdam.

in various cities on the way. He knew various routes to E!oiland
which avoided the towns and conducted his emigrants at night from
one rendezvous to another, one guide preceding the party arid one
bringing up the rear.1 Descriptions have been left to us of many
of these agents, some of whom were able, intelligent, and kind.
Isaa Martin of Meaux conducted about one hundred Huguenots a year
to the Hague, changing his costume each trip. The village of
Bohain in Picardy was said to be "completely filled with
guides."2 It was expected that Louis XIV would do everything,
possible to break up this traffic so profitable to its conductors.
Such individuals were arrested, and where proof of guilt was
lacking, detained in places specified by the government.3 In
May of 1686 condemnations to the galleys was made the punishment
for conducting Huguenots beyond the frontiers. This was not
sufficient to check the movement so a declaration of October 12,
1687, specified that those aiding such emigration, either di-
rectly or indirectly, were to be punished with death.4 Such
legislation proved of little avail. We find Captain Philip
Dumares taking a considerable number of Huguenots from the
Channel islands to America in the latter part of the century and
himself settling in Boston in 1716.5
Aside from legislation against the Huguenots, there was
no general restriction or control of emigration agents until
mass departure began in the eighteenth century. The restrictive
legislation of Bern, Zurich, Basel, and other Swiss cantons was
caused by the work of many agents who in the 1730's were en-
listing emigrants for Carolina. New Bern, North Carolina, had
been founded in 1710 by Christoph von Graffenried and Purrysburg,

An interesting picture of this man's activities Is
given in a report made to the Lieutenant-General of Police, in
0. Douen, La Revocation de l'dit de Nantes A Paris (Paris:
Librairie Fischbacher, 1894), II, 455-58.

2Ibid., pp. 455, 438, 463-64, 475.

3G. B. Depping, Correspondance administrative sous le
rhgne de Louis XIV (Paris: Imprimerie Imperiale, 1855), IV, 30',
410; Douen, II, 460, 471, 472. These orders for arrests of
guides give interesting pictures of various agents.

42dits Dfclarations et Arrests concernans La R6ligion P.
Rgformbe 1662-1751 (Paris: Librairie Fischbacher, 1885),
pp. 300-61.
5Baird, II, 193.

South CarolLna, in 1732 by Jean Pierre Purry of Neuchftel. The
letter issuea pamphlets and posters which became very effective
about 1730.1 The gunmaker, Hans Georg Stryger (Striker) of
Steffisburg, had lists of those anxious to emigrate. He collected
advance payments from them, and was the leader of the 322 persons
to whom Bern gave permission to depart on March 2, 1735.2 The
goldsmith, Sulzer, and Pastor Heinrich Gdtschi, both of Zurich,3
and Captain Quinche, Maitre des Clefs in NeuchAtel, succeeded in
influencing various Bernese citizens to leave.4 We have no proof
that these and other agents then in the cantons were agents of
Purry, or were even working together. Their activities, however,
were concerned with emigration to the Carolinas, and they were
arrested and punished when evidence could be found against them.
They were also forced to return any sums paid to them by emigrants,
were deprived of promotion letters and other propaganda, and were
banished from Zurich and Bern cantons. Zurich went further and
forbade all emigration to Carolina.5 Such legislation against
these agents was unsuccessful, as the activities of minor agents
between the time of Purry and Peter Huber indicates.6

1For Purry's literature of emigration, see B. R. Carroll
Compp.), Historical Collections of South Carolina (New York:
Harper and Bros., 1836), II, 121-40. For Purry's activities, see
A. B. Faust, "Documents in Swiss Archives relating to Emigration
to the American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century," in AHR, XXII
(Oct. 1916), pp. 131-32; Faust, AHR, XXII, 25-26; Faust, Guide,
pp. 42-43, 57, 38, 169; Faust, Lists, II, 76.
2Faust, Guide, pp. 43-46; Faust, Lists, II, 18, 20, 89,
94. He was in Germantown in 1736.
3Faust, Guide, p. 31; Faust, Lists, I, 22, 23, 61.

4Faust, Guide, pp. 45, 54. For minor agents, ibid.,
p. 21.

5Zurich decrees of November 3, 1734, and January 29 1735,
are given in full in Faust, Guide, pp. 15-16. For Bern, ibid.,
p. 35.
6That is, between 1735 and 1742. Among them are Sebastian
Zuberbthler who enlisted fifty or more families at Zurich; Hans
Spring at Basel and Bern; Hans Riemensperger from Toggenburg;
Bersinger; Sterchi of ZollbrUck; Jacob Border; and the shoemaker,
Jacob Frauenfelder, of Zurich canton. Hans Riemensperger pledged
himself to transport a hundred families for Carolina and Georgia;
fifty thalers were offered for his arrest by Bern in 1741 and he
was finally banished from the canton. Frauenfelder induced
thirty-two persons to emigrate from Henkartt parish, Zurich canton,
in 1743. Faust, Guide, passim, but especially pp. 35, 38, 46, 55;
Faust, Lists, II, 109; Faust AHR, XXII, 106, 126.

In 1742 Peter Huber, thirty-six year old shoemaker of Oberhasli,
returned to Switzerland from Carolina to take his wife and chil-
dren to America. Suspected by the canton of Bern of enticing
some twenty families of the Oberland, or mountain districts, to
emigrate, he was arrested and examined at Basel and turned over
to Bern, where he was subjected to two examinations. He admitted
that there were persons in the cantons who wished to leave, but
denied putting the idea into their heads. He said nothing of
Carolina unless asked and then had presented both favorable and
unfavorable view but said that he advised nobody to go on account
of the l-ng and difficult voyage. In speaking of good wages and
cheap living in Carolina he insisted he had told only the truth.
He denied having influenced people to go or having accepted money
from them, save in the case of Barbara Horger whose relatives hsi
already emigrated and whom he thought could emigrate under the old
law of the canton.1 Attempts to get emigrants to testify against
him failed; those firmly resolved to leave were careful to exon-
erate him of blame; one deciding to remain threw the blame for
enticement upon him, but the motives far emigration were complex
enough to allow the stressing of any one cause of departure with-
out departing very far from the truth. The trial indicates
clearly that the final factor in the emigration of these people
was Huber himself, though it was not until shortly before his
second examination, when he threw from his prison window a paper
on which he urged those desiring to go with him to meet him in
Neuenburg some time later, that evidence was at hand to induce
him to confess. He was subsequently banished from the canton.
However, the testimony two years later of Inabnit,another famous
Swiss agent, indicated that he succeeded in reaching Carolina
with a number of emigrants.2
Peter Inabnit was twice examined by Bern in 1744 for en-
ticing people to Carolina. He claimed that he had returned to
Switzerland to live and denied that he was influencing people t.
depart. Later he stated he had written a letter to the English
ambassador, at the request of several people, asking for aid in
the transport of two hundred persons to Carolina,--a letter whicn
he had not intended to send as he knew the English would be

1Faust, AHR, XXII, 103. What this law was is not stated.

2Ibid., 98-106, 34, 36; Faust, Guide, pp. 35-39, 46-47,

unwilling to violate Swiss laws. He admitted carrying eight
letters, but denied knowledge of their contents. He asserted
that he had answered questions about America, but neither praised
nor blamed the country, and in no case had influenced anyone to
emigrate. Subjecting him to the rack did not change his testi-
mony, and he was banished from Bern. He was later rearrested at
Basel upon information contained in a confiscated letter written
by agent Philipp Friedrich Wild, Rotterdam innkeeper and American
ship-owner, and accused of enticing about seventy families to
emigrate. Inibnit finally admitted that he had written certain
persons on how to prepare for a journey to Carolina, believing he
was doing no wrong since he was banished from Bern canton anyway.
He had written to various people for travel money for them; had
invited a cousin to go to England with him to visit a relative;
and also had asked Fhilipp Wild about costs of the voyage to
America for a subject of Untersee. His guilt was clearly proven,
and only his death from a fall in an attempt to escape from
prison prevented further penalties being placed on him by Bern.1
Sometimes agents were active in their home communities for
several years before they and others emigrated. To check these
minor agents as well as to banish the major ones Bern and Basel
ordered that agents be arrested as soon as suspected. They
offered rewards for their discovery, and warned would-be emigrants
not to give passage money to such promoters.2 The law of Schaff-
hausen of January 25, 1751, against the sheltering of returned
colonists was probably aimed as much at emigrants who were dis-
satisfied with America.3 In the same year Bern forbade all emi-
gration to New Scotland and offered a reward of one hundred
thalers for the seizure of seducers and enticers.

1Staatsarchiv, Bern. Klein Thurn-Buch, 1743-44, pp. 132-
49, 153-60, 206-15. This record of examination of prisoners con-
fined in the tower, or Thurn, is given for In Aebnit ( Im Xbnit,
Imfbnit, In Aebnit, etc.) in Faust, AHR, XXII 108-14, part of
which is translated into English by HET in ibid., pp. 36-39. See
also Faust, Guide, pp. 47-48, 56, 57.

2Among such people were Hans Jacob Walter (or Walder) of
Knonau; Heinrich Keller, young schoolmaster of Hiintwangen; the
shop-keeper Bersinger of Weyach; and Jacob Dirrenberger of Lup-
singer. Basel decrees of Earch 12 and August 13, 1749; the latter
decree against agents was renewed on March 25, 1771. Faust, Guide,
pp. 22, 39, 48, 105, 109, 111; Faust, Lists, I, 99; II, 60.

3Faust, Guide, p. 123. 41bid., p. 36.

Probably the most famous Swiss agent of the century vwas
Jacob Joner, a short, little man with dark eyes, dark curly hair;
a large broad nose, and a big upturned mouth. Sporting a silk
neckcloth, Hamburg stockings, city shoes, a cane, and a "coutesu"
he was the picture of the typical newlander or werber.1 As ooth
a property and an emigration agent2 we find him in Switzerland for
four successive years beginning in 1749. The agents Heinrich
Spenhauer, Werner Stohler, and Hans Adam Riggenbacher, were also
securing emigrants and withdrawing property for American claim-
ants.3 In 1749, Spenhauer and Joner were ordered to leave Easel
within forty-eight hours and the expulsion of Stohler was simi-
larly ordered.4 Because of suspicion against him, RiggenbEcher,
who is portrayed as a harmless and timid young man, was force to
stay in Holland and Germany in 1749 and again upon his second
visit a year later.5 On March 22, 1749, Basel decided to let a11
those emigrate who had applied for permission up to that time,--
382 persons with their families,--"in order that they might see
how foolishly they had acted."6 They were to lose their lari.d-
right and inheritance, pay their taxes, and never return to the
canton. When Basel on March 29 discontinued the granting of per-
mission to depart, some still wanted to go. Following the suo-
sequent attempts of Joner and Spanhauer to enlist people in iern
in May, for which Bern ordered their arrest, four ships went downi
the Rhine under Joner's care to the port of embarkation.

Faust, Lists II, 101-02. See also the interesting de-
scription of the newlander, Johannes Tschudi of Frenkendorf,
ibid., p. 162.

2Property agents were individuals sent to Europe tc with-
draw inheritances and other property for American claimants. See
chap. ix.

3Albert B. Faust, "Unpublished Documents on Emigration
from the Archives of Switzerland" in DAG, XVIII, 21 ff. See also
chap. ix.

4Faust, Lists, II, 130, 121, 135; Faust, Guide, p. I-o.

5Faust, Lists, II, 127.

6Quotation from Basel archive records by Faust. Itid., p.

7Ibid., p. 136; Faust, Guide, p. 48. Joner admitted In
his trial in 1750 that about three hundred left with him on the
four ships. See Faust, DAG, XVIII, 22 f.

In 1750 Joner was in Switzerland for the second time to
remove inheritances, merchandise, and other wares to Pennsylvania.
As he had been ordered not to return, his enlistments were secret.
Arrested again by Basel and tried before the Seven Lords, or
police court, he was ordered to leave the country within twenty-
four hours.1 In 1751 his activities caused Basel to offer a re-
ward of four new thalers for his arrest. Bern, rejecting his
power of attorney to withdraw property, banished him as a sus-
pected werber. In June, she expelled Johgnnes Tschudi and
Bratteler as well.2
The refusal of Bern and Basel to release further inheri-
tances to Joner, plus the loss by robbery of the vessel on which
be was conducting emigrants to Holland, destroyed his usefulness
as an agent.3 Johannes Tschudi continued his activities without
either Basel or Bern being able to bring about his punishment.
Not until 1767 was Basel able to arrest Tschudi, exclude him from
inheritance claims, and banish him from the canton. Despite all
this he was able to secure his inheritance and to transact busi-
ness through the intercession of the British ambassador in Bern.4
By the middle of the eighteenth century the enlisting of
emigrants had taken on its characteristic form with all its evils.
The so-called "men-thieves," "soul-sellers," "newlanders," and
"werbers," were active throughout the Rhinelands. There is rea-
son for suspecting that in 1734 some of those befriending the
Schwenkfelders ana aiding them on their journey from Berthelsdorf
to Rotterdam were soul-sellers, for passage money was given those
who could have paid their own. Moreover, the captain of the ves-
sell on which they sailed was a notorious newlander. A guard was
stationed outside their lodgings at Haarlem supposedly to keep

1Faust, DAG. XVIII, 22-26; Faust, Lists, II, 158-62;
Faust, Guide pp. 112, 106. Tschudi acted as a go-between for
Joner and various emigrants in 1750.

2Faust, Guide, 106, 49. Basel order of March 10, 1751;
Bern action of March 27, May 24, and June 26, 1751.

3Faust, Lists, II, 101-02.

Ibid., passim Faust, Guide, pp. 106, 112, 113. Various
relatives were induced by him to emigrate. Eight Tschudis left
in 1749, three in 1750, five in addition to Johannes in 1751, ana
some fifteen in 1767.

others out, but more likely to keep them in.1 This latter prac-
tice was a typical newlander custom to prevent the escape of
freights,2 and hence of profits. Such agents frequently clasime
to have powers of attorney to withdraw inheritances, which maae
it difficult to tell whether the soul-seller was a property
agent, promotion agent, or both. Sometimes they influenced :i1
people to emigrate first, in the hope that their relatives vwula
follow.3 Promotion agents were often: (1) business men returned
from America who proposed to take merchandise back with then;
(2) persons going back home to visit; or (3) persons going ae-
liberately to enlist others. The best agent was always one vho
had been in America.
The system of private agents and enlisters in Germarl
in the early 1750's was rather widespread. It centered aro-u-r
several American agents who were either deputized by the Lord
Commissioners of Trade and Plantations as was ir. John Dick i:i
Nova Scotia, or by provincial governments as was Joseph Creilliu
for Massachusetts Bay between 1749 and 1752, or by individual
proprietors as were Joseph Crellius and Sebastian ZouberbU{hier
for Brigadier-General Waldo's Maine venture. Such urdertak;r g
involved the hiring of printers to advertise the colonies, the
employment of enlisters and agents, the securing of shippers ana
transports both on rivers a:.d on the ocean, and the hiring :f"
guides and conductors to supervise transports ana convoys. A3
the system grew it was neither completely centralized nor ljri-
cally arranged. Thus, vhile Hans Luther was the chief Gernir.
agent for i assachusetts Bay between 1750 and 1754, and for .jal.:
in the sa.e period, he dealt either through Crellius, or directrl
with Waldo or with Lassach.usetts officials. Deputized agents

1H. W. Yrietel, "The Schwenkfelders in Pennsylvania" ir
PGSP, XIII (1902), pp. 32-33. See also chap. vii on emigrarr

2In 1774 a "freight" was an adult over sixteen year- 14
age, or three young persons under sixteen. Children were ir pr r-
portion. Robert Adam- to George Washington, February 14, 17'1, ir
'.orthington C. Ford (ed.), 'Vashington as an r-ployer and Imnj .rer
of Labor (Brooklyn, N. Y.: Frivately printed, 189), p. 50.

3Gottlieb :..ittelberger's Journey to Pennsylvania in the
year 1750, trsns. Carl aheo. Eben (hiladelphia: Jolhn Jos.
YcVey, 1698), pp. 38-39.

were in a sense supervised by both Luther and Crellius, making
their reports to either or to both, or through one to the other.
Minor agents also reported to both of them.1
Joseph Crellius was Massachusetts agent in Europe between
1749 and 1753. In the latter year he was replaced by his former
enlister, Philip Ulrich.2 Reports had it that in 1747 he had
tricked fellow enlisters at Bayonne and that he had enlisted
people in 1751 under the name of Burckard of Franconia.3 Although
he came highly recommended by Massachusetts to H. E. Luther,
Aulic Counsellor of the Empire at Frarkfort, and was highly re-
garded for the first two years by the latter, he failed to
settle the necessary 480 families and his contract was voided in
June, 1753.4 As agent for Massachusetts and Waldo he engaged
various printers in Germany to print his advertisements and pam-
phlets. We read of Maschenbauer of Augsburg, Goetsel of Speyer,
Rigelein of Herborn, Gros of Erlangen, and John Christian Leucht
of Heilbron, all of whom did work for him and some of whose news-
paper offices served as places of enlistment.5 Leucht, who was
also alderman in Heilbron, was one of his more important agents,
though we find him also printing advertisements for Crellius'
competitor, Mr. Dick.6 Among the enlisters hired by Crellius
were John Christian Leucht and John Lewis Martin of Heilbron,

1Based upon Massachusetts Archives, Emigrants, passim,
(hereafter cited as MA). Many of these documents have been re-
printed in H. A. Rattermann, "Geschichte des deutschen Elements
im Staate Maine," in Der Deutsche Pionier, XIV-XVI (1882-1884),

2Ibid., pp. 245-46. 3Ibid., pp. 173, 190.

4Ibid., pp. 44-45, 59-61, 222, 223; Rattermann, Der
Deutsche Pionier, XIV, 179-87. Crellius conducted a shipload of
German Protestants to Philadelphia in 1748.

5MA, pp. 127-28, 192, 189, 121, 146-48, 115-17. Waldo's
places of enlistment included Luther's type foundry in Frankfort,
Eiohenberg's newspaper office there, Leucht and Allerger's
printing office in Augsburg, Goethel's [or Goetsel's] printing
office in Speyer, and the place of business of merchant John Lewis
Martin in Heilbron. See Waldo's advertisement in the Imperial
Post newspaper no. 47, March 23, 1753, given in Maine Historical
Society, Collections, VI, 325-27. See also chap. iii on litera-

6Abstract of a letter of Mr. Leucht, February 16, 1752.
MA, p. 115.

Professor Hobbhohn and son of Kitzingen, Philip Ulrich, Bayer of
Mannheim, Peter Wild, and perhaps the unknown carpenter of
Walspach. Some of these were guides and conductors as well as
enlisters, as were Philip Ulrich and John Lewis Martin who con-
ducted parties from Heilbron to Bingen.2 Even Luther and Crellius
enlisted emigrants. Harling, waterman of Bingen, was also in
the pay of Crellius, receiving at that place emigrants enlisted
by Leucht and Martin and conducting them by Rhine transport to
Rotterdam.3 John Horst of Mannheim acted in a similar manner,4
and other agents were employed for ocean transportation. Some
persons were simply conductors; Curtius, a boatmeker of Rotterdam,
in the transport business conducted the first vessel to New
England in 1751.5 However, Steadman of Rotterdam was the shipping
house through which the affair was transacted. His ship "Pris-
cilla" carried the emigrants to New Englard.6 The second trans-
port the following year was handled through the house of John
Harvard of the same port.7 When friction developed between
Crellius and Rotterdam shippers the former sought the services
of Knevels and Company of Amsterdam; the latter were friends of
Luther's and employed his son in the banking and merchant es-
tablishment.8 Though they were anxious for the trade the deal

1Letters of May 9, and June 24, 1752. Ibid., pp. 118,

2Letter of Martin to Luther, Heilbron, June 5, 1752.
Ibid., p. 139.

3Luther's letter, Francfort, September 14, 1752. Ibid.,
pp. 181-82.

4Crellius' advertisement, April 6, 1752, Nannheim.
Ibid., pp. 127-28.

5Letter from Luther to Lieutenant-Covernor Spencer Phips
of Massachusetts Bay, Frankfort, May 30, 1751 (in French), ibid.,
pp. 73-75. Given also in German in Der Dputsche Picnier, XIV,

6Remarks upon Luther's letter written from Frankfort,
September 12, 1751, in MA, p. 94. Ratterman in Der Deutsche
Pionier, XIV, 230, attributes them to Phips of LDassachusetts Bay
colony. They seem, however, to be by Joseph Crellius.

Advertisement published in Germany, May 18, 1752. Ibid.,
p. 134.

pA, pp. 143-44, 174-76, 64-66. Luther's letter of Sep-
tember 14, 1752, is also in Der Deutsche Pionier, XIV, 179-87.

fell through, as Philip Ulrich and not Crellius was the agent for
.6assec36huetts in 1753.1
Transportation for the Maine colony was handled through
the London house of Sedwick and Kilby. With this house all of the
New England agents had connections. Mr. Kilby seems to have been
a good friend of Waldo's and in a sense watched over the acti-
vities of Crellius, Zouberbihler, and Dick; as a prominent English
agent for the Nova Scotia Commissioners he, with Luther, tried to
keep the Nova Scotia and the New England commissions working in
harmony and to keep the avarice of the Rotterdam merchants in
Sebastian Zouberbiihler, Waldo's English agent, had been
an enlster and agent in Germany and England in 1742. He also
served as a conductor from Holland transporting emigrants through
the English firm of Sedwick and Kilby.3 Crellius was replaced by
William Knichel as Waldo's agent in Europe in 1753.4
John Dick was the commissary for Nova Scotia, holding his
commission from the English Lords of Trade and Plantations. His
deputy, G. T. Kohler, was located at Frankfort and persuaded
Rotterdam merchants to enlist emigrants in the Heilbron region
where they had not been before.5 He did a great deal of adver-
tising in the Frankfort area, turning many emigrants whom Luther
and Crellius had enlisted in Montbeliard towards Nova Scotia.6
Dick and Kihler had agents in Heidelberg and Mannheim; among their
many agents elsewhere were Wallrab of Worms, Captain Heerbrand
at Heilbron, Husher in Franconia, and perhaps Schmidt, trader in
flax and hemp at Mutterstadt near Spiers, who was working against

1Letter of Luther, Frankfort, June 23, 1754, in MA, pp.

Letter from Luther to Lieut. Gov. Phips of Massachusetts,
September 5, 1751. Ibid., p. 85. Also in Der Deutsche Pionier,
XIV, 226-28.

3Letter from Zouberbuhler to Waldo, London, July 5, 1742.
MA, pp. 33-35.

4Letter of Luther to Massachusetts, Frankfort, June 23,
1754. Ibid., p. 244.

5Ibid., pp. 94, 129-129a, 115-16. The ship "Mardock"
under Capt.Robert Hamilton and the "Pearl" under Capt. Thomas
Francis transported emigrants for him to Nova Scotia in 1751.

6Ibid., pp. 184, 185-86, 117.

Crellius.1 Probably the most famous of these was Jacob Frederic
Heerbrand who in January, 1752, was working for the Nova Scotia
Commission through the Rotterdam house of Dunlop and Censor, and
who had gotten an exclusive grant from the Regency at Stuttgart
to enlist Palatines in the Heilbron region for Nova Scotia.2
However, in an advertisement on February 1 he claimed to repre-
sent a company of four honest English merchants of Rotterdam and
to be assembling emigrants at Heilbron for New England.3
Heerbrand is reported to have had about twenty werbers
working for him, and to have assembled six hundred to one thousand
emigrants, enlisting as many as twenty in one day and transporting
them from Heilbron to Heidelberg by land. His ability as an en-
lister seems to have rested upon his extravagant promises and
able organization. Among his enlisters were relatives, penniless
soldiers, retired bailiffs, traveling journeymen, and even sentries
at town gates. By bribing the latter with two florins for every
emigrant secured, and by taking all without distinction and
treating them well he built up a flourishing business.4 Beggars,
women, and little children found their way into his transports,
with all passage money advanced from Heilbron to whatever place
they desired to go in New England. Each group going to Heidelberg
was preceded and followed by a guide.5

lIbid., pp. 119-22.

2Letter of Mr. Gros, Anspach, April 30, 1752; abstract of
a letter from Mr. Bayer, Mannheim, January 6, 1752. Ibid.,
pp. 121-22, 119.

3Advertisement dated Heilbron, in ibid., pp. 125-26. A
letter of Mr. Gros, Crellius' printer at Erlangen, states that
Captain Heerbrand was the deputy of Dunlop and Censor of Rotter-
dam, and the articles of agreement signed by those engaging with
him stated that Dunlop and Censor were his exclusive shipping
agents to New England. See ibid., pp. 122-24.

4Ibid., p. 117. Leucht, Crellius' agent, hoped that he
would be able to secure fifty emigrants in this region where re-
ports credited Heerbrand with six hundreds See Leucht's letter
of April 17, 1752. Dr. Ernest Otto Hopp in his book on German in-
dentures in the United States says that Heerbrand had a number of
me, in his pay "who were continually procurring victims, kidnap-
ping beggars and vagrants who had no connections, paying two
florins for every one delivered to him. He was also a ship cap-
tain and is said to have alone brought six hundred of these people
to America." (Frank R. Diffenderffer, German Immigration into
Pennsylvania [Lancaster, Pennsylvania: The Author, 1900], p. 195.)

5Abstracts of two letters of Mr. Leucht, Heilbron,
March 31, April 17, 1752, in MA, pp. 116-17.

Among Heerbrand's agents was John Martin Rominger, who,
under power of attorney granted by the former, assembled emigrants
at Heilbron for transportation to Rotterdam. NUrnberg was also
a meeting place for many of his emigrants until he was compelled
to flee the city in May of 1752.1
One explanation of Heerbrand's success lies in the fact
that his brother was Secretary in Stuttgard and defended him be-
fore the Privy Council, saying that he was only transporting
beggars and worthless people, while the newlanders were drawing
away whole families in good circumstances. It was this influence
which prevented Crellius from continuing advertisements in news-
papers at Heilbron and Stuttgard.2
Various Rotterdam merchant firms were enlisting people in
Germany in 1752. We read of Kumich and Kurtz, Dunlop and Kbnig,
and Isaac and Zachary Hope who had agents at Heilbron in the fall
of 1752. The names of Heerbrand, Muller, I. C. Sprung, Roolen,
and Scheedel are mentioned as commissaries, but with the excep-
tion of Sprung (or Spring) who worked for Messrs. Hope, we are
not certain of their employers. Isaac and Zachary Hope had been
in the transport business over twenty years, and Philip Ulrich is
said to have secured a transport in 1752 for either Curtius of
Rotterdam or de Deuling while working for the New England commis-
sion.3 De Deuling, who was a new commissary in Heidelberg and
Mannheim that year, was working against Crellius and Luther,
while Curtius had been In charge of Crellius' transport to New
England in 1751. As son of the burgomaster at Rotterdam,
De Deuling had considerable influence and money; he was said to
have four ships of his own at sea and to take both sick and poor.
With seafaring people circulating stories about him, his influence

10r Reminger. Ibid., pp. 122-24. His power of attorney,
dated Heilbron, March 22, 1752, is given on p. 123.

2Copy of a letter from John Christian Leucht and John Lewis
Martin to Luther, Heilbron, September 2, 1752, in ibid.. pp. 146-
48. K6nig, a Rotterdam commissary, and evidently of the house of
Dunlop and Kinig, enticed over twenty families from Leucht at
Heilbron in 1752 and gathered many emigrants, paying the workers
one-half a doubloon and expenses of the journey, and offering the
headman of each borough twelve ducats to secure people for him.
See ibid., pp. 115-16.

3Ibid., pp. 146-48, 197-99, 138.

soon spread.1
Another agent active at Heilbron in 1752 was Odinger, sn
innkeeper, who painted black pictures of Crelius and his agent
John Henry Martin. Odinger sent his emigrants to the ship master
Bartholome for transportation to America, and notonly influenced
people to change their destination from Massachusetts, but also
caused others to refuse to enlist with either faction, not knowing
in whom to trust.2
There seems to have been little or no attempt to checi
the activity of such agents in Germany before the early 1750's.
In fact, as indicated above, many officials cooperated in the en-
listment of emigrants. Nevertheless, the growing emigration to
Pennsylvania, New Scotland, and other places was causing concern,
--a concern which lead Nassau-Dillenburg in 1750 to instruct Its
officials to warn emissaries and to report all enticing of sub-
jects.3 Stephen Franck, who was enlisting with the aid of letters
from New York, was especially to be watched.4 The next year the
activity of Ebersbach citizens who had returned from New Scotland
and were enlisting in Nassau, Hesse-Cassel, and Darmstatt for
Pennsylvania and New Scotland caused serious uneasiness. There
was no objection to impoverished and worthless subjects leaving,
but it was desirous to retain persons with property.5
The year 1753 was one of great activity on the part ol
agents in the Rhinelands and offers good illustrations of how the
problem was handled by European states. In 1748 Hesse had re-
newed her decree of April 12, 1723, against emigration without
permission, and in November, 1752, she issued another prohibition.
Nevertheless, the emissary George LGbke, who was sent out by two
merchants of Hamburg and Bremen, was enlisting Hessian subjects
in 1753 for South Carolina by illusive representations and false

10r Doiling. Abstract of a letter of Mr. Leucht, Heilbron,
March 26, 1752, in ibid., pp. 115-16.

2Letters of Mr. Martin, Heilbron, May 4, 9, 1752. Ibid.,
p. 118.

30rder dated Dillenburg, April 14, 1750, in R. 206, Vol.
I, Pt. I, pp. 25-27.

40rders dated Dillenburg, May 21, 1750. Ibid., pp. E3,

5Report of Amtman Bausch, February 15, and reply from
Dillenburg, February 23, 1751, in ibid., pp. 57-62.

promises. The object of the merchant Reissner of Bremen was to
turn the emigrant trade from Rotterdam to Hamburg for his own
profit. When instructions furnished the emigrant by Libke, his
agent, did not correspond with his printed advertisements, Hesse
forbade further enlistments under heavy penalty. Those emigrants
without permission were also to be brought to justice.1 The
Grafschaft Mansfeld also took action in 1753 against agents ac-
bepting Germans for America by ordering closer inspection of inns,
taverns, and public houses by the police. At the same time the
slightest negligence in the examination of passengers was to be
strictly punished.2
Some persons returning to Europe from America on business
became agents without a full conception of the laws and their
severe penalties. Johann Christian Schmitt returned in 1753 to
hassau-Dillenburg at the age of twenty-two to remove to Pennsyl-
vania his sister's family and to buy guns and other wares at the
Frankfort fair. Harvard of Rotterdam promised him free freight
if he would enlist emigrants. Only the intervention of friends
and relatives saved him from punishment in Nassau-Dillenburg. He
was finally released upon condition that he swear to speak to no
one in the future regarding Pennsylvania, seek to enlist no one
to go with him, leave the country within three days, and never
return.3 Whatever his intentions had been, the damage was done,
for a number of people were secured by his activity for the
Rotterdam agent.4
Because of the misrepresentations of enlisters, Nassau-
Dillenburg thought it best in 1753 to give a monopoly to a single
agent who would promise to take only those with permission to

1Printed decree of the Hessian government, February 27,
1753. R. 206, Vol. I, Pt. II, pp. 192-93.

2Marion D. Learned, Guide to the Manuscript Materials re-
lating to American History in the German State Archives (Wash-
ington: Carnegie Institution, 1912), p. 109.

3R. 206, Vol. I, Pt. I, pp. 132-46. The oath of April 3,
1753, is given on p. 146. Oswald Siegfried was offered a free
voyage to Pennsylvania similarly in 1728 by an English merchant
at Amsterdam if he would write friends in the Palatinate urging
their emigration as servants. See Smith, PGSP XXXV, 187-88.

4Gerber, Die Nassau-Dillenburger Auswanderung, p. 22.
Many of the people arriving in Philadelphia, September 29, 1753,
were secured through him.

leave and under such conditions that the emigration would not be
harmful. Samuel Waldo, who had argued that a monopoly would be
the safest means of preventing the intrigues of false enlisters,
was appointed and all persons leaving were referred to him and
his agent, the book publisher Regelein at Herborn.1 Hans Luther,
agent for the elder Waldo in Wurttemberg, wanted notary Bredenbeck,
also employed at Dillenburg, as an agent, so that persons emi-
grating from Nassau lands would not have to go to Herborn to en-
roll. He and Secretary Knichel desired that Waldo's concession
be widened to include as large a region as possible. However,
the commission was transferred from Regelein to Bredenbeck, to
whom all persons desiring to go to America were thereafter re-
ferred.2 This action was in accordance with the example of the
Burgraviate of Kirchenberg-Sayn, which a few weeks earlier had
established a similar monopoly in Waldo's hands to prevent mis-
fortune coming to its people through enticements of Dutch mer-
Behind the action of both states was the activity of menr
like Gondermann of Neiinkirchen and Philip Ulrich of Rotterdam,
who had enlistment headquarters at Herborn. Ulrich still was
getting the majority of the business shortly after the monopoly
was established. Bredenbeck complained in the first few weeks
following his appointment that he was able to secure only a few
emigrants. Dillenburg issued orders for the arrest of both these
agents, and in the same period issued another decree against
roving emissaries.4

1R. 206, Vol. I, Pt. II, pp. 149-52, 162-63. The petition
of Waldo was accompanied by a copy of his passport or authority;
from the Duke of Newcastle, March 2, 1753, and by advertisements
from the Kayserlichen Reichs-Post-Zeitung of March 23, 1753, given
in ibid., pp. 158, 161. These latter documents are also in
Hessisches Staatsarchiv, Darmstadt, XI, 1. Konv.l, pp. 10, 13, and
in English translations in Samuel Waldo, "General Waldo's Circt-
lar," in the Maine Historical Society, Collections. VI, 331-32,
2R. 206, Vol. I, Pt. II, pp. 164-66, 172-76, 168-69, 194-
98. The Dillenburg order is dated May 2, 1953.

3Achenburg, April 25, 1753. Ibid., pp. 184-86.

41bid.. pp. 178-83, 200-03. Bredenbeck charged that
Ulrich had neither an English passport nor an authorized qommia-
sion from either the Empire or from Captain Waldo.


Orn Iay 1, 1753, Hanover warned against agents who had
authorizatlonr from colonies and proprietors but had neither the
authority of the English government nor that of the region in
which they were enlisting.1 Three months later Nassau-Dillenburg
issued a decree, warning against people who claimed to be com-
missaries for the English colonies but in reality were enticers
and stealers of men.2
It would be useless to mention the many minor agents of
this period whose names are found in documents and of actions
taken against them by police. Christopher Saur's Philadelphia
newspaper reports that many werethrown into prison by German
lords, put to hauling dirt on the streets, or given other menial
tasks.3 That such action was often justified is shown by the
case of Colonel Johann Heinrich Christian von Stumpel. After
raising a regiment of volunteers and deserters for service in the
Prussian Wars, he obtained in 1764 a tract of land in Nova
Scotia.4 Through the strength of the grant and generous promises
made to some young gentlemen in Germany who hoped to make large
profits from the venture he was able to enlist around eight
hundred5 in Wirttemberg and the Palatinate for the founding of

1The Hanover decree is printed in the Hannoverische An-
zeigen of May 7, 1753. Given in ibid., pp. 188-89.

2Decree of August 3, 1753. Ibid., pp. 265-66 in print
and pp. 223-30 in handwriting. See also pp. 267-79 ordering
the decree published throughout the Amts, and Relatio 60, which
refers to this decree, pp. 231-34.

3Pennsylvania Berichte, December 1, 1754, followed by
Diffenderffer, p. 190 n.

4Sachse, Lutheran Church Review, XX, 316-17, n. The
Stuttgardische privilegierte Zeitung for September 13, 1764,
p. 438, incorrectly says 120,000 acres instead of 20,000.

5The letter of Rev. Wachsel, pastor of the German Lutheran
St. George's Church, quoted by Sachse, pp. 318-19, speaks of
eight hundred emigrants, as does the Stuttgardische privilegierte
Zeitung for November 27, 1764. Sachse, p. 317, says one thou-
sand; the committee for the aid of German Protestants in London
speaks of about four hundred in its petition of September 14, 1764,
inActs of Privy Council, Colinial, IV, 689-90. The Zeitunp says
there were some three hundred people or seventy-two families,
mostly from the Palatinate, Nassau, and Hanau, in England in
August and early September. See the issues of September 13, 18,
29, 1764.

his commercial city of Stumpelstadt. His extravagant promises
and claims helped in creating such an influx of poor immigrants
to England that his patent was revoked. He fled, leaving his colo-
nists upon the generosity of the English, who finally established
them in manufacturing in Carolina.1 In this same year Frantr.
Caspar Hasenclever was secretly enlisting at Rotterdam where ne
had been established three years. He desired iron and steel maiu-
facturers, as well as carpenters who knew how to build forges, for
the New York colony.2
Agents were also active in France during these years.
In 1764 occurred what has been called the last important Frencn
emigration to America in the colonial period, the emigration of
138 persons to Carolina under the leadership of the Huguenot pas-
tor Gibertof Saintonge.4 English leaders were favorable to this
settling of persecuted Protestants in North America, provided
they became Anglican and engaged in the manufacture of coarse
cloth and the production of silk. Though this last group emi-
gration from France was small,5 it caused the French authorities
uneasiness. The Duke of Choiseul wrote the intendant at Rouen:
"Sir, we have learned from England that a number cf Prench
Protestant families from C6vennes, PArigord and Normandy having
removed to England from the ports of Marseilles and Bordeaux, and
those from the coasts of Normandy in English merchant vessels
have been embarked there for the English possessions with two

1Sachae, Lutheran Church Review, XX, p. 317; Stuttgaralscree
priv. Zeitung, October 9, 30, Nov. 27, 1764; Feb. 23, Apr. -.,
July 6, 1765; Learned, Guide, pp. 214-15; Daniel Hhberle Ajussan-
derung und Koloniegrundind der Pfalzer im 18. Jahrhundert (T. sr:
lautern: H. Kayser, 1919), p. 19 n.

2Learned, Guide, pp. 93-94. 3Faust, Guide, p. 171.

4nProjet d'Emigration du Pasteur Gibert pour les Irotes-
tants de la Saintonge et des Provinces Voisines d'apres des docu-
ments in6dits," in Societ6 de l'histoire du Protestantisme
Franqais, Bulletin, VI (1857-58), pp. 370-81; Daniel Benolt, eas
Freres Gibert. Deux Pasteurs du Desert et du Refuge, 1731-l117
(Toulouse: Soci6t6 des livres religieux, 1889) followed yj
Gilbert Chinard, Les Refugies Huguenots en Am6rique (Paris: Socl-
6te D'Edition "Les Belles-Lettres," 1925), pp. 209-10; iuC.iernot
Society of South Carolina, Transactions, no. 17 (1910), pp. 22-J-.

5Soc. de l'hist. du Prot. Fr., Bulletin, VI, 377. G31ert,
who hoped six'or ten thousand would emigrate, took only some tU*.
hundred to England, and he states 138 actually sailed with nim.

.... ..

0 .

ministers named Gibert and Boutition who conduct them; as it is
ir.portsnt to stop the course of this emigration, I wrote to the
Duke of Harcourt that since the intention of the king was that
all precautions that prudence and knowledge could suggest be
taken on the matter, he should concert with you on this subject
and as a result give orders which are judged adequate in the exe-
cution of which you will permit me to have a share."l
At the close of the Seven Years' War there was renewed
activity of agents and further action against them. In 1763 the
Upper Rhenish Circle, one of the administrative divisions of the
Holy Roman Empire, issued orders against enlisters.2 In February,
1766, the government of the Palatinate issued a decree condemning
emissaries who were depopulating and injuring the country, and in
August followed it with another measure forbidding the enlistment
of young boys as soldiers.3 On February 17 Lord Johann Philipp,
Archbishop of Trier, issued an order re-emphasizing the prohibi-
tion of emigration4 and prosecuting all foreign emissaries with-
out passes, though the decree was aimed specifically at Russian
enlisters.5 By 1766 foreign emissaries were enticing so many sub-
jects from the Rhinelands under the delusion that they might better
their luck elsewhere that the Electoral Rhenish Circle, under the
leadership of its director, the Electoral Prince of Mainz, co-
operated in a joint decree which, among other things, ordered the
arrest and punishment of all enlisters.6

1Versailles, January 31, 1764. Ibid., p. 381.

2Frankfort, March 9, 1763. Cited in Learned, Guide,
p. 235. For administrative purposes the Holy Roman Empire was
divided into "Circles," which, like the states, could act together
or independently.

3Decrees issued at Mannheim, February 7, August 20, 1766.
Badisohes General Landesarchiv, Pfalz-Generalia, 6478, pp. 8-13.

4The earlier decrees of April 28, 1763, January 28 and
February 21, 1764.

5Dated Ehrenbreitstein, February 17, 1766. R. 206, Vol. I,
Pt. IV, pp. 398-90.

Decree of the Electoral Rhenish Princes,--Mainz, May 12;
Ehrenbreitstein, May 20; Bonn, July 12; Mannheim, July 22, 1766.
R. 206, Vol. II, Pt. I, pp. 99-100 and 55-57. This measure was
accepted by Nassau-Dillenburg and approved by the Prince of Orange
for that state in June; one thousand copies of it were distri-
buted throughout Nassau-Dillenburg in July and August. Ibid., pp.
53-55, 58-59, 85, 90, 98. See chap. vi on restriction of ir- gra-

In 1768 there followed Emperor Joseph's decree of July 7
which forbade all emigration from the empire and which ordered the
arrest and punishment of all agents, seducers, debauchers, and
commission agents. This measure grew out of enlistments for
Spanish service in northern Germany, but it was aimed at all
withdrawal of Germans into foreign lands.2 The Frankfort and
Rhenish Circle proclaimed it in the Rhinelands and the little
state of Nassau-Dillenburg consequently published it within her
borders with the consent of Prince Whilhelm of Orange.3
If laws of individual states were unable to cope with the
emigration agent it was useless to expect decrees and proclama-
tions of a decrepit empire to be effective. Between 1768 and
1775 emigration agents seem to be as numerous as ever in the
Rhinelands. Foreigners going into the Empire were watched very
carefully and sometimes could obtain passes only through the
intercession of the English ambassador if he thought them not
likely to be enlistment agents.4 Other individuals, like Johann
Jacob Diehl, who, when arrested, had sixteen letters on his per-
son for delivery in Nassau lands, and who desired to secure his
inheritance and take back two ministers for American churches,
faced many difficulties and obstacles because of suspicion di-
rected against them, but were freed if found innocent of persuading
people to emigrate.5 In all states officials watched closely for
enlisters, and in Basel foreigners had to present petitions of
their purposes within two days and depart the moment their busi-

1R. 206, Vol. II, Pt. II, pp. 201-04; also given in
Friedrich Kapp, Geschichte der Deutschen im Staate hew York (New
York: F. Steiger, 1869), pp. 392-93. See also chaps vi, ix, and
xii for other provisions of this decree.

2R. 206, Vol. II, Pt. II, pp. 182-83.

3Ibid., pp. 186-87, 190-94, 200-04. It was issued in
Nassau-Dillenburg, July 20, 1769.

4Case of the suspected agent, Sebastian MUller. Ibid.,
pp. 214-17.

5He does not seem to have enticed emigrants though he was
arrested on that suspicion in 1768. Ibid., Vol. II, Pt. I,
pp. 114-18, 140-42, 153-58; Gerber, 'assau-Dill. Ausw., pp. 37-
38. It was also four.d impossible ii-17l to prove the school-
master Johann Franz of Fellerdilln to be an emigration agent.
See R. 206, Vol. II, Pt. II, pp. 253-57.

ness aes termlinted.1 Often rumors of enlistments by agents
either were unfounded or they had covered their tracks well
enough to avoid detection. Attempts to find ten young boys held
at an irnn in Frankfort for transportation to America were un-
availing on the part of the Landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt in
1773.1 In the same year an investigation of the activities of
the merchant Eodo Wilhelm Stbckin of Frankfort disclosed that in
the four weeks ne had held his commission from English merchants
to transport emigrants to Carolina he had neither accepted a
single person nor registered one, much less transported any. He
was a man sixty-four years of age who had been unable to secure
any otner work to support his family, and did not know, according
to his claim, that emigration to America was contrary to the
imperial decree of 1768. By action of the Deputies at Hamburg
his fine was cut in half under the condition that he suffer the
loss of citizenship if he enlisted anyone thereafter, while the
Frankfort Senate ordered that any further enlistments by him
would lead to a fine of one hundred reichsthaler and re-arrest.5
The examination at Frankfort in this same year revealed
that two Philadelphians had possibly come in contact with emi-
grants going down the Rhine, but no evidence could be produced
that they had induced anyone to emigrate to Pennsylvania.4 How-
ever, due to such facts, and the fact that at least eight fami-
lies were turned back to Wertheim from Frankfort when the Wertheim
shipper asked their passage down the river,5 Frankfort ordered
the republication of the imperial decree of 1768 within her

1See, for example, the investigations of Nassau-Dillenburg
in 1769 and 1773 and those in Easel in the latter year. R. 206,
Vol. II, Pt. II, pp. 212-13, 237-40; Faust, Lists, II, 198, 216.
The Basel decree of January 30, 1773 is given in Faust AHR,
XXII, 130-31. Various decrees were issued in the Palatinate a
against promotion agents and against enlistments for foreign
armies between 1766 and 1809. Learned, Guide, p. 234.
2Stadtarchi .-rankfurt am Main, Ugb. D. 42. Nr. 46,
pp. 4-6. Orders dated Frankfurt, May 7, 10, 1773.
l3bid., Ugb. A. 9, No. 3, pp. 4-6, 11-27.
4Andreas Glanschett and Jacob Schaffner had returned to
buy iron, schythesA sickles, and books, but denied influencing
Darmstadters and Wurttemburgers to emigrate. Ibid., No. 4, pp.

5Ibid., pp. 20-25.

61bid., p. 13.

The restrictions of European states by 1774 seems to have
made the emigrant business a secret one. Emigrants were non
taken to America by stealth and without their property. ?y this
time the trade had become more definitely organized in the thnds
of the Rotterdam merchants. John David Wilpert complained to
George Washington in that year that the newlanders controlled the
trade from Germany to Holland so definitely that Washington would
either have to pay their prices if he wanted servants or 3crnd
someone with a commission to Germany to sign agreements with the
Palatines so that they might not be persuaded away by other aencts
or Dutch merchants.1 Nevertheless, in the opinion of Robert
Morris, the securing of laborers for a plantation in this fashion
would involve the advance of money to charter a ship, there would
be considerable loss from death and disease on the voyage, ard the
parents of such servants would be left dependent on the inr.lrter
in Philadelphia. As other advice indicated that the expense -i
importing Palatines made the trade almost prohibitive for one un-
acquainted with the business, Washington's unwillingness to ad-
vance money on an uncertain proposition caused them to abandon
the venture.2
How well organized the newlarders' business was is shown
by Johann Carl Buettner, who reported that at Amsterdam emigrants
were taken in bands of ten to thirty to houses where about one
hundred apprentices would be locked up, given hammocks for teds,
and fed buttermilk, soup and vegetables. During the day they
were led by twos under the supervision of guards outside tie city
to a place where they could play boall, and were led back tc the
dormitories at night. Emigrants, looking forward to making their
fortunes in America, in his opinion had no hatred in their neerts
toward those who made their voyage possible.3

1Letter of J. D. Woelpper to Gee. Washington, Philadelphia,
March 23, 1774, in Ford, Washington as an employer and Im-orter
of Labor, pp. 65-70.

2Letters to and from Gen. Washington, 1774. Ibid., pp.

3Narrative of Johann Carl Buettner in the American R, v:-
lution (New York: Printed for Chas. Fred. Heartman, n. d.),
pp. 16-22; Ralph Beaver Strassburgher, Pennsylvania German PFlc-
neers, ed. William J. Hinke (!orristown, Pa.: Pennsylvania
German Society, 1934), I, 748.

INewlanaers at Hamburg in 1792 had such an indirect way of
wor:ini rhat it was vsry difficult for the government to track
them dao1. ana find the person chiefly responsible for enlistments.
Onempicyed men end deserters meeting by chance certain agents on
the ;reets or in the inns, would be referred to others. These in
turn .ouio refer them to American ship captains, but in such a
way that if they were examined by officials it would be impossible
lor the emlrarnts either to identify the enticers by name or ad-
mit they were going to America otherwise than of their own free
wIll. Furthermore, agents like William Berczy, though enlisting
contrary to imperial decree, were armed with such an array of
letters, pamphlets, credentials, and contracts that it was not
difficult t: convince an apprentice or journey man looking for
w.orr anid more or less anxious to emigrate already that he ought
to ,- to America.1
The wars, the lack of the necessities of life, and the
influence of foreign emissaries were causing such emigration in
the Rhinelands in 1801 that both Baden and the Palatinate issued
decrees against pernicious werbers. Baden even stated that
subjects lacking a livelihood would receive every support for
settlement in the upper Palatinate lands that they could in any
way expect in distant countries, but if anything was done to
help them we do not know.2 In 1804 George Rapp and eight hundred
persons left Amsterdam to settle in Pennsylvania; and later
many fabric workers and handworkers followed from Wiirttemberg
and neighboring states.3 The activity of Baron Carol von RSder,
who was enlisting Germans as American colonists in 1604 for
Hamburg and Bremen merchants, caused his banishment from the
lands of the Elector of Hesse and the city of Wetzlar. Berlin
also issued warnings against him. His description and that of

1Examination of Johann Gottl. Fromberger and Joh. Gottl.
Schultze at Hamburg concerning their departure to Philadelphia
by ship, May 1, 1792, in Preuss. Staatsarchiv, Berlin-Dahlem,
Rep. 81, Gesandschaft Hamburg, No. 149, pp. 59-65, 95-96. The
shipping agents for William Berczy, New York promoter, and his
agent J. J. Lemmen at hamburg, were Kleinworth and Koeller 6f
Hamburg. See the contract of February 7, 1792, pp. 41-43.

2Dispatches dated Munich, June 8, 1801, and Mannheim,
June 16, 1801. Badische Gen Landesarchiv, Pfalz-Generalia 6487,
pp. 22, 23.

31c- Furstenwvrther's Bericht Uber aeutsche Auswanderung
nach Amerika (l 18), in DAG, XVII, 449-50.

his wife were sent to Frankfort by Hesse with the result that
the Frankfort government also forbade his activities. According
to his own confession he raised over three hundred colonists 1.
1304. The next year Hesse renewed action, and denied him free
passage through her lands.1
All laws to the contrary, emissaries and newlanders con-
tinued their work of enlistment throughout the first part of the
nineteenth century. In 1817 Von FUrstenwarther thought that the
governments should be more alert and carefully examine them for
passes. In his opinion, the best houses in Amsterdam did not
take part in the emigration business.2 The inherent weaknesses
in all attempts to control the emigration agent seem to be:
first, that those whom such laws were designed to protect--the
emigrants themselves--usually were in cooperation with the en-
lister, and without their evidence such agents could not be
punished; secondly, that banishment either led to secret activity
or caused the enlister to turn to other countries. Imprisonmer.t
or detention for a short time could not cure the evil.
The promotion agent was the most potent force of all Ir.
the emigration movement from Europe. Whether it was possible
to control him or not is questionable, yet failure to do so
meant the failure of restriction. Some of Luther's suggestions
to Massachusetts Bay province would have helped,3 but it may be
argued that they would have involved not only cooperation be-
tween hundreds of little feudal states in Europe but also coop-
eration between the American colonies and European states. Bctii
were impossible.
It is doubtful whether payment of fixed salaries to
agents and the creation of an European bureau of emigration witr.
expenses paid by the colonists would have solved the problem.
Virtually all agents worked on a commission basis.4 Newlanders

1Stadtarchiv Frankfurt am Main, Ugb..A. 9. 1o. 8,
pp. 4-14.

2Von FUrstenwarther's Bericht, in DAG, XVII, 456, 423.

3See Luther's proposals of Kay 30, 1751, and June 8,
1752, in MA, pp. 64-66, 67-80, 110-14; also in Der Deutsche
Pionier, XIV, 179-87, 105-08.

4Dick, the Nova Scotia commissary, was reported to be on
a fixed salary in 1751, and Crellius hoped for a similar posit lou
relative to Massachusetts. MA, pp. 64-66.

received from one to three florins or gulden for every person
over ten years of age transported to Dutch seaports, and such a
person was sold in Philadelphia for between sixty and eighty.1
FRhine newlanders, receiving seven dollars per head for every emi-
grant enlisted, in addition to their own passage, made consider-
acle profit if they secured several hundred persons.2 Their
profit came from the passage money paid Rhenish shipmasters for
transportation to Rotterdam, which be 1752 had increased to one
ducat per freight.3 Rotterdam merchants advanced their agents
traveling expenses and other funds through bills of exchange
drawn upon German banks,4 but an enlistment was an expensive
business, the latter were often compelled to borrow from whom
they could. Such loans often went unpaid, as did emigrant agents'
commissions, causing disputes and friction between enlister.5
It was greed which cost the merchant John Steadman of
R.:tterdam the loss of his shipping monopoly, as he packed emi-
grants into his vessels like herring to increase his profits.6

1Mittelberger says three florins or a ducat while Learned
says three gulden. John Lewis Martin states that Crellius
promised him one Rixdollar per freight, but paid him nothing,
while he could have made a ducat per freight working for some-
one else. Luther also indicates Crellius had promised Martin
two florins per head, but paid him only a fourth of the sum
agreed upon. Gottlieb Mittelberger's Journey, p. 38; MA, pp.
115, 139, 187, 137, 140-42; Learned Guide, p. 304. The gulden
or florin was worth ca. forty-fuve to fifty cents; the Reichs-
thaler, or rix dollar ca. seventy-one cents. On money consult
Faust, Lists, II, 27 n. 1; Sachse, PGSP, XIV (1903), p. 255, n. 80.
2Diffenderffer, Cr. Immig. into Pa., pp. 189-90.

3Abstract of letter of Mr. Leucht, Heilbron, February
16, 1752. MA, p. 115.

4Some agents were advanced one hundred ducats for ex-
penses, and Peter Wild, working for Stedmann of Rotterdam, hoped
to receive about 150 pistoles commission for every vessel se-
cured. Letter of Leucht and Martin to Luther, September 2, 1752,
in MA, PP. 146-48. Leerbrand had four bills of exchange totalling
1,400 fl-rins, drawn unon Heilbron merchants, and was reported to
have'hs much Money as he desires." See letter of April 17, 1752,
in ibid., p. 117.
5John Lewis Martin was not paid by Crellius, and someof
Luther's expenses were unpaid by Massachusetts Bay fifteen years
afterwards. See letters in MA, pp. 139, 187, 140-42, 244, 268-76.
6Christopher Sauer's letter to Gov.. Morris of Pa.,
March 15, 1755. Quoted in Diffenderffer, (.--. Immig. into Pa.,
p. 242. See chap. xii for a similar monopoly on transportation
through Holland held by Zachary Hope.

At the price of five pistoles per head for transportation to
America there was more profit in transporting people than in
transporting goods. Often shippers like Isaac and Zachary Hope
made additional sums by demanding nine pistoles freight upon
arrival in Philadelphia where seven and one-half had been agreed
upon in Europe.1 While the cost of the ocean passage, food, and
other things for an emigrant in 1774 was between twelve and
thirteen pounds in Virginia currency, other charges and loans ad-
vanced by agents often ran the freights up to twenty-five or
thirty-six pounds per person.2 These additional expenses, which
were also additional sources of profit for newlanders, include
the making out of entries, the taking charge of luggage, and
getting one through the customs, sometimes by false oaths.3
Indentured servants in Philadelphia in 1773 brought be-
tween 150 and $300, depending on age, condition, and sex.4 One
family of seven people, totalling six fights, agreed in 1772 at
Rotterdam to pay nine pounds per freight for transportation; the
ship captain, upon the father's death, indentured the rest of the
family upon arrival in Philadelphia for a total some of L122 to
pay for their passage money.5
Bribery, graft, and thefts further swelled profits, es-
pecially the theft of emigrant property and cash.6 It is claimed
that some Huguenot families paid as much as six or eight thou-
sand livres to escape from France, so it is not surprising that
many officials of Louis XIV, whose purpose was to obstruct the
flight of subjects or guard the roads to the coast, often actu-

lIbid., p. 245. Between two and three thousand pounds was
thus lost yearly at Philadelphia, according to Sauer.
2Letter of J. D. Woelpper to Geo. Washington, Philadelphia,
March 23, 1774. Given in Ford, Washington as an Employer and Im-
porter of Labor, pp. 66-67.
3Extract from "A Report of a Committee of the American
Chamber of Commerce in Liverpool, 1822," reprinted in Appendix to
Report from Select Committee on Emigration from the United
Kingdom, (1826), pp. 296-97. Given in Edith Abbott, Imigration:
Select Documents and Case Records (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1924), pp. 15-16.
4Narrative of Johann C. Buettner, p. 27.

5Kapp, Die Deutschen im Staate New York, p. 335.
6For an example, see Rev. James Fontaine, Memoirs of a
Huguenot Family (New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1872), p. 126.

ally assisted emigration and sometimes even acted as guards and
guices for fleeing Huguenots.1 Even if we allow for exaggeration,
tna profits of the Huguenot guide Lespine were quite high.2 It
is difficult to determine with any precision what some agents
mace. When the famous Swiss agent, Jacob Joner, was charged
with receiving one doubloon from each of over three hundred emi-
grants enlisted by him in 1749, he denied receiving even as much
as half a doubloon, though his statement could not be believed.3
It is this fact of large profits in the emigrant trade
that made ineffective all proposals to control the business.
Those attempts which were made were efforts, for the most part,
of individual states, spasmodically made to meet local and
Imneoiate crises, without any view either of the significance of
the agent in the whole movement or of cooperation with other
st tes.

1Elie Benoist, Histoire de l'Edit de Nantes, tome troisi-
nem, second parties, pp. 948-54, trans. in Baird, I, pp. 251-53.

2Douen, II, 455-58. "Great gain" was possible in re-
moving Huguenots to America, according to a letter from La Ro-
chelle to Boston, October 1, 1685, quoted in Baird, II, 314.

3Faust, DAG, XVIII, pp. 22-26. A doubloon equalled about
twenty-one marks.



A number of factors contributed to the restriction of
emigration from Europe between 1607 and 1820. The major one was
economic. Paradoxically, the poverty of the emigrant, which was
usually the motivating force for his departure to the new world,
often prevented emigration.1 There was also a psychological
cause, an uncertainty as to whether or not one might survive the
long and dangerous voyage, and if he did, what his future would
be in an unknown and savage wilderness. Social factors also con-
tributed to restriction, for sometimes friends or relatives pre-
vented the emigration of those who desired to leave.2
The tradition of the times was also against departure.
To emigrate was equivalent to desertion and meant forfeiture of
all political and economic rights, with the penalty of imprison-
ment in case of return. The Bible was used to justify this po-
sition, and governments, fearing the loss of soldiers, farmers,
and industrial workers stressed the view that a person should
remain in the land of his fathers. To depart was sinful, and
the wage of sin was death.3 It was probably no accident that
pastors of churches were, next to other governmental agents, the

1This topic is discussed in chaps. ii, ix, and x.

2Thus Docenius, the Danish resident at Cologne, who
followed William Penn to the Hague to have another interview with
him, desired to emigrate to Pennsylvania in 1683. His wife ob-
jected, saying: "Now I can ride in a carriage from one house to
another. In America, who knows but I would have to look after
cattle, and milk the cows." Pastorius' MS notebook. Quoted by
Oswald Seidensticker, "William Penn's Travels in Holland and
Germany in 1677," in Pa. Mag. of Hist., II, 273.

3Ps. 37: 3 in the Lutheran version reads: "Bleibe im
Lande und nKhre dich redlich." See A. B. Faust, "Swiss Emigra-
tion to the American Colonies in the Eighteenth Century in
American Historical Review, XXII (October, 1916), pp. 24-25
(hereafter cited as AHK).

most active opponents of emigration.1 From the religious view-
point the possible loss by emigration of church members,2 and
from the political viewpoint the unrest created by the loss of
subjects both contributed to this attitude.
Nevertheless, the major restrictive forces, aside from
the economic factor of poverty of the emigrants themselves, were
the governments of the time. Very few societies or private
agencies tried to restrict emigration. Where they did other
causes were responsible. Thus the Amsterdam Committee on For-
eign Needs of the Mennonite Church, made various efforts to re-
strict emigration from the Palatinate between 1727 and 1733. It
feared exhaustion of its funds which were intended, not to aid
emigrants, which was an expensive business, but to assist Pala-
tine refugees in settling in Holland and neighboring regions.3
It pointed out the dangers of the voyage, the heavier burdens
which the Mennonites remaining at home would have to bear, and
even wrote the colonists in Pennsylvania, asking them to use
their influence to prevent the emigration of others.4 However,
the attempt of the Committee to deter such emigration, though
annually repeated, proved useless. The year 1738 provided the
largest emigration from the region up to that time.5
Since governments suffered from emigration their officers

1For examples of their activities see the cases of
Mr. Certani Catholic cure at Royan; M. De Bourdieu, pastor of
the French church in London; and Conrad Suicer, Swiss pastor in
Zurich canton. In Rev. James Fontaine, Memoirs of a huguenot
Family (New York: G. P. Putnam and Sons, 1872), p. 103;
Charles w. Baird Huguenot Emigration to America (New York: Dodd,
Mead and Co., 1885), II, 167-168; A. B. Faust and G. M. Brumbaugh,
Lists of Swiss Emigrants in the Eighteenth Century to the American
Colonies (Washington: National Genealogical Society, 1920), I,

2Emigration was prohibited from Bern on July 8, 1717, for
this reason. See A. B. Faust, Guide to the Materials for Ameri-
can History in Swiss and Austrian Archives (Washingtoni Carnegie
Institution, 1916), p. 33. See pp. 41, 54 for other examples.

3For the work of this committee see chap. vii on aid.

4J. D. de Hoop Scheffer, "Mennonite Emigration to Penn-
sylvania," in Pa. Mag. of Hist., II, 130-32; C. Henry Smith,
Mennonite Immigration to Pennsylvania," in Pennsylvania German
Society, Proceedings. XXXV, pp. 125, 135-37, 179-80, 182, 186-88,
193-203 (hereafter referred to as PGSP).


were important restrictive agents. Not only did they try to
slow up or stop the movement by preventing the spread of promo-
tion literature but they issued anti-emigration pamphlets. Thus
the Swiss cantons in 1734 distributed without charge the lieue
Nachricht alter und neuer Merkwiirdigkeiten to counter the effect
of Purry's Carolina propaganda.1 There is no question but that
Mittelberger's Journey to Pennsylvania in the Year 1750 was
similarly used to retard emigration.2 The activities of promo-
tion agents were strictly prohibited by law3 and attempts were
made to act upon the emigrant directly as, for example, through
the regulation of the emigration process or by a complete pro-
hibition of departure. Through control, prohibition of the
sale, or even the confiscation of the property of those leaving,
as well as by a regulation of emigrant taxes, the movement might
possibly be checked.4 Similarly, by cutting off sources of fi-
nancial help to the emigrant the movement might conceivably be
regulated.5 During a long journey to the port of embarkation
further restriction could be exercised by the states through
which emigrants passed and upon the shippers transporting them.6
Finally, measure might be taken to induce the return of those
who had already left.7 These methods, accompanied by warnings
of officials and pastors against emigration to an unknown and
distant land, were expected to be sufficient. In the last analy-
sis, it was felt that few would emigrate if they knew they would
lose all rights as citizens and would be banished forever from
their fatherland.8 Though investigations were frequently made
to learn the reasons for the departure of subjects, it is sig-

IA. B. Faust, German Element in the United States (New
York: The Steuben Society of America, 1927), I, 64. See also
chap. iii for other examples.
2Faust Guide pp. 20, 61. See also chap. iii.

38ee chaps. iii and iv.

40n the matters of property and taxes, see chap. ix.

5When emigration was prohibited by a state it was
usually customary to forbid anyone aiding emigrants to depart.

6See chap. xii. 7See chap. x.

8Faust, Guide p. 44.

nificant that few attempts were made to remove the causes of emi-
gration.1 it was this attempt to dam the stream without paying
attention to the heEsaaters that in the long run made all re-
strictive efforts a failure.
With the exception of the Huguenots there was no mass
emigration from European states to the English colonies in
America during the seventeenth century. As there was little emi-
gration following tne Thirty Years' War there were few efforts
at restriction. P'here there were, they took the forms previously
mentioned. Before 1700, for example, Swiss cantons prohibited
the emigration of suojecta without permission. Those leaving
forfeltea their possessicus and their citizenship and were not to
be reaamittea to the cantons.2 In 1701 Bern emigrants were to
pay a 10 per cent property tax, and some form of emigration con-
trol was esta.lishea.' Bavarian edicts against emigration in
1644 ano 1661 state that emigrants should be well instructed in
the traditional religious faith; the latter declaration specified
that an emigrant must be at least sixteen years old.4 Unaor the
order of Frederick 'iiheim of Brandenburg-Prussia in 1686, and
the edict of the Crafsc.aft Sayn Altenkirchen in 1698, emigra-
tion without governmental consent was prohibited.5 If a govern-
ment allowed emtlration It was to further its own colonies and
not to populate those of other states. Sweden made various
futile efforts Ir. 1664 to prevent the emigration of Finnish colo-
nists to New aweden, as the latter colony had fallen into Dutch
haanos in 1655 arena Sweaen was not anxious for emigration to

13ee the mention of aid for restrictive purposes, infra,
pp. 220-22.

2[ern decrees of i.arch 12, 1641, February 28, 1643, Janu-
ary 13, 1660, in Fbaut, 'Guide, p. 33; Solothurn decrees of 1491,
1537, 1.77, 15.i6, 1647, In ibid., p. 98; Basel decree of June 2,
1649, Irc., p. ]r'; Ziilch decree of August 2, 1652, ibid.,
F. 15.

3-Iold., p. 40.

4Ldicta 1f L-ecer.ter 20, 1644, and December 5, 1681.
C1teo in M. L. Learrea, G;iide to the Manuscript Materials re-
lating to American history in the German State Archives (Wash-
ington: Carnerie irs:itucion, 1912), p. 192.

51t.1d., pp. li1?, 84. The Elector of Brandenburg issued
another Edict, uctoter 11, 1700, regulating emigration and mi-
,rat ion.

continue unless she could regain the colony.2
On August 13, 1669, Louis XIV issued a royal edict the
purpose of which was to retain navigators, shiFbuilders, pilots,
sailors, and fishermen within Fraice. It ordered their return
if they had emigrated.2 A similar declaration of 1682 forbid-
ding the emigration of Huguenot seamen and artiaans5 was followed
by orders to the admiralty to watch carefully for Huguenots
disguised as domestic servants.4 In October, 168Z, Protestant
ministers were expelled, but their children over seven years of
age had to remain.5 Huguenots leaving with their families and
property were to be arrested, the men to be sent to the galleys
for life, and the women to suffer imprisonment and confiscation
of their goods.6 The following year the same penalty was place
upon recent converts to Catholicism who were arrested hlile emi-
grating without permission, and upon anyone helping Huguenots to

1Amandus Johnson, Swedish Settlements on the relasare
(New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1911), II, 65u-5'. lorwegian
and Lanish writers deplored emigration from those regions to
Holland between 1600 and 1806 because of the loss of youths for
the army, and because it was considered to be a chief hindrance
to the development of agriculture, but the writer, Ludwig Daae,
thought that commercial developments and trade with Holland more
than compensated for these losses. See Knut Gjerset History of
the horwegian People (New York: Macmillan Co., 1915), pp. 241-

2Waldo G. Leland Guide to Materials for American His-
tory in the Libraries and Archives of Paris (Washington:
Carnegie Institution, 1932), I, 10; Learned, Guide, pp. 224-25.

3Declaration of May 18, 1682, in fdits Declarations,
et Arrests concernans La RBligion P. RBformBe (Paris: Librarie
Fischbacher, 1885), pp. 112-13.

4Marquis de Seignelay to the officers of the admirality
at Calais, Dunkirk, Saint Valery, La Rochelle and other ports,
Versailles, June 30, 1685. Given in G. B. Depping, Corepon-
dance administrative sous le regne de Louis XIV (Paris:Im-
primerie Impbriale, 1855), IV, 376.

Marquis de Seignelay to de Menars, intendant Fontain-
bleau, October 21, 1685. Given in Depping IV, 377-78. This
same letter was also addressed to other intendants.

6Given in Edits, D4clarations et Arrests, pp. 239-45;
also in English trans. in M. Charles Weiss, History of the
French Protestant Refugees, trans. Fenry William Herbert (New
York: Stringer and Townsend, 1854), II, 378-81.

escape.l In 1698 it became necessary to forbid pilots to depart
from French ports without permission, as they conducted Hugue-
nots from France contrary to law.2 These measures, taking no ac-
count of the causes driving Huguenots from France, neither reme-
died the trouble nor lessened the migrations.
French colonial policy was equally short-sighted. French
colonies from the very beginning were closed to heretics.
Francis I, in ordering Cartier to take fifty criminals with him
to Canada in 1540, made the exception "'hors d'herxsie, et de
lse-majest6 divine et humanee.'3 Similarly, the Company of
New France in 1627 was given exclusive commercial and proprie-
tory control by Richelieu under the condition that every emi-
grant should be a Roman Catholic.4 However before the Revo-
cation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 many Huguenots emigrated
to Canada and the West Indies and were prominent in French
colonies.5 In 1686 it was ordered that Huguenots be expelled
from Canada and that dragoons be quartered in the homes of those
refusing to be instructed in the Catholic faith.6 Similar
closing of the West Indies after 1683 and the persecution of
huguenots there7 caused such an exodus to the mainland English
colonies that in 1688 France moderated her policy.8 But it was
too late, and French colonization never recovered. That the

1Declaration of May 7, 1686. Given in tdits, D6clara-
tions et Arrests, pp. 286-87.

2Count de Pontchartrain to de Gasse, November 17, 1698,
in Depping, IV, 410-11, n. 1.

3E. Gosselin, Nouvelles Glanes historiques Normandes,
p. 4, quoted in Baird, I, 89, n. 3.
4Ibid., pp. 108-09. 5Ibid., pp. 201-09 and nn.

6Mhmoire du Roy A M. de Denonville, Versailles, May 31,
1686. Massachusetts Archives, French Collections, III, 183, in
French in Baird, I, pp. 126-27, n. 1.

7M. Adrien Dessalles, Histoire Gne6rale des Antilles,
III, 213, quoted in Baird, I, 216-17.
80rder of the king concerning Protestants and recently
converted sent to the Islands, September 1, 1688. Given in
Baird, I, 234, n. 1. Over one thousand Huguenots were sent to
the West Indies as engages between 1686 and 1688. However, as
they were to be used as servants and slaves this does not seem
inconsistent with the above statements. See Baird, I, 217-22
for this transportation of persons condemned to penal servitude.

moderation was only half-hearted is shown by the decision of
1715 against admitting Protestants to Santo Domingo.1
The mass emigration of 1709 provides illustrations of the
restrictive policies of the Rhineland states. On April 25 the
Elector Palatine forbade emigration without permission to "the
so-called island of Pennsylvania."2 When the Landgrave of Hesse-
Darmstadt had his attention called a few days later to similar
secret emigration of subjects from Oberon Graffschafft Katzeneln-
bogen, he ordered that it occur only with governmental permission
under penalty of punishment both in property and person.3
Landgrave Ernst Ludwig denied that the newly-established excise
was a cause of departure, but ordered an investigation into such
burdens of which his subjects complained.4
The Elector Palatine by another order on May 12 tried to
check the emigration to Pennsylvania,5 ana on the 22nd pointed
out the dangers of the long voyage and the fact that one thou-
sand poor emigrants were stranded and in great misery on the
dikes at Rotterdam.6 At the same time a local Nassau-Saar-
bricken official asked advice as to what to do with poor fami-
lies who lacked sufficient funds to buy food and pay their debts,
but who wanted to go to Pennsylvania. He inquired if they should
be allowed to sell their goods, and if action should be taken

1Nov. 26, 1715. Leland, Guide, I, 10.

2Learned, Guide p. 319. Luttrell's Diary under the
date of April 28 records that the Elector Palatine made emigra-
tion subject to the penalties of death and the confiscation of
goods. The death penalty appears improbable, but see Narcissus
Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs (Oxford:
University Press, 1857), VI, 434.

3Order of Ernst Ludwig, April 29, 1709. Given in Julius
Goebel, "Neue Dokumente zur Geschichte der Massenauswanderung im
Jahr 1709," in Deutsche-Amerikanische Geschichtsblltter, XIII
(1915), pp. 196-97 (hereafter referred to as DAG). This docu-
ment is also referred to in Learned, Guide, p. 172.
4Order of Ernst Ludwig, Darmstadt, May 1, 1709. Given
in Goebel, PAG. XIII, 196.

5Learned, Guide, p. 234.

6Decree of May 22, 1709. The beginning of this decree is
quoted in ibid., p. 319.

against the buyers of their property.1 The Hesse-Darmstadt gov-
errment ordered its officials energetically to set forth the
rangers of the voyage and the uncertainties in Carolina.2 Prince
silhelm of Nassau-Dillenburg considered the emigration movement
dangerous and silly, but at first allowed subjects to emigrate
if they obtained permission and paid the required taxes.3 Citi-
zens in certain districts of Nassau were warned on June 12, 1709,
of che danger of being misled into emigration to Pennsylvania
ana were forbidden the right to leave.4
At the direction of the Elector Palatine the Consistory
of the Reformed Church of the Palatinate in June, 1709, threw
Its influence against the movement to Pennsylvania in a warning
which denied that religious persecution was a cause for emigra-
tion.5 On the 25th Duke Eberhard Ludwig of WUrttemberg forbade
emigrants to sell their property or to depart to America.6 On
July 11 the Hesse-Darmstadt government took action against secret
emigration from the Graffschafft Sponheim by again ordering that
persons without passports be stopped and reports be made re-
garding them.7

1Report of Amtman heybach of N. Scheueren, May 23, 1709
regarding the emigration of Leonarat Himmigoffen, Wilhelm
buffing, and others. Giver in Goebel, bAG, XIII, 193-94.

2Copy of a written order from the Hessian Chancellor and
Council, dated Darmstadt, May 28, 1709. Given in ibid., 198.

3Adolf Gerber, Die Nassau-Dillenburger Auswanderung nach
Anerika im 18. Jahrhundert (Flensburg: Flensburger Nachrichten,
1930), p. 6.
40rder to Amtman Heybach zu Nassau Itzstein, June 12,
1709, from the Nassau-Idstein Privy Council. Given in Goebel,
DA., XIII, 195.

5Warning against emigration to Pennsylvania, Heidelburg,
June 27, 1709 in A Brief History of the Poor Palatine Refugees
(London, 1709, in Hugh Hastings (ed.), Ecclesiastical Records
of the State of New York (Albany: J. B. Lyon Co., 1902), III,
pp. 1792-93.
6Learned, Guide, p. 303.
7Copy of a hesse-Darmstadt order to Johann Christian
Krlegsmann and Sebastian Klingelhofern, royal Hessian Ambtskeller
at Braubach, and to the Ambtschultheiss at Catzenelnbogen, Darm-
statt, July 11, 1709. Given in Goebel, DAG, XIII, 197. Many
serfs were departing from this region to -ennsylvania without

Prince Wilhelm of Nassau was willing to allow persons to
depart if they paid their debts and taxes, but hoped means would
eventually be found to stop the emigration movement.1 Nassau-
Dillenburg usually followed the recommendations of-local offici-
als who inquired into the condition of those desiring to leave.
If they were suffering from the famine and in bad economic cir-
cumstances they were usually allowed to emigrate. If the local
official thought them still able to support themselves by in-
dustrial or agricultural work they were usually forbidden pass-
ports.2 By the middle of July secret emigration to Pennsylvania
and Carolina had become so large that Prince Wilhelm of Nassau-
Dillenburg was unwilling to tolerate longer those who avoided
their obligations or broke their oaths. He decreed that those
leaving could only blame themselves for their ruin, and ordered
the confiscation of their property, the nullification of sales of
goods, and the punishment of both the buyer and seller of emigrant
Such measures proved futile. The great number of emigra-
tion petitions received,4 the constant disturbances caused by the
sale of emigrant goods, and the non-payment of debts led wilhelm
to prohibit all departures in the decree of August 30, 1709.
Those who emigrated were to be refused readmission and after three
weeks their property was to be confiscated or sold to satisfy
their creditors. The decree stated that children remaining with
relatives or friends in the homeland would be taken care of from

1This made clear by the decree of June 25, 1709, sum-
marized in Gerber, Nassau-Dill. Ausw., p. 6.
Consult, for example, the emigration petitions and re-
ports given by Julius Goebel "Briefe deutscher Auswanderer aus
dem Jahr 1709," in iAG, XII (1912), pp. 161-62, 173-74, 142, 160-

3Decree of July 17, 1709. Given in ibid., pp. 145-46.
This is evidently the decree referred to as of July 20 and dis-
cussed by Gerber, Nassau-Dill. Ausw., p. 7. For further refer-
ence to it see the discussion of restrictive aid, infra.

4Gerber says that the settlement of not less than three-
fourths of all petitions received asking permission to depart from
Nassau-Dillenburg in 1709 falls within this period between
July 20 and August 19 following the decree against secret emigra-
tion. Gerber, Nassau-Dill. Ausw., p. 7.

from the immovable possessions of the anigrant, which, minus emi-
gration taxes, would be given to them when they reached their
majority. Prince Wilhelm was determined that disobedient sub-
jects, who remained through the winter following the famine,
should not be allowed to depart later, having created accitional
debts and having helped consume the small amount of provisions
By October the Landgrave of Hesse had come to the same
conclusion reached by Prince Wilhelm. On October 8 he decreed
the prohibition of all emigration from his lands to Carolina and
Pennsylvania. Picturing the fate of the Palatines in England and
Ireland he declared that all information disseminated regarding
America was falsely colored and deceitful, and ordered that all
subjects be warned and vigorously prevented from emigrating.2
When the exodus of 1709 caused congestion at Dutch ports
and placed upon Holland the burden of supporting stranded Germans
she sent agents up the rivers to warn the Rhineland states to send
no more. The States General was unable to prevent Palatines in
the Netherlands from going to England, but notices were issued
through Dutch ministers at Cologne and Frankfort that no more
Germans would be admitted.3
England's policy definitely shifted from one of promotion
to one of restriction during June, 1709, when Dayrolle, English
ambassador at the Hague, began to worry over the number of Pala-
tines. On June 24 he received orders to send no more to England,
save those ready to go. He accordingly inserted an advertisement
in the Cologne Gazette that no more would be accepted and sent
some back to give orders to the rest. On July 1 he reported to
London that "''if once the warr be finished, very few of this

1Decree of August 30, 1709. Given in Goebel, DAG, XII,
181-83 and also discussed by Gerber, Nassau-Dill. Ausw., pp. 7-8.

2Decree of Ernst Ludwig, Darmstatt, October 8, 1709, in
Goebel, DAG, XIII 200-01. Ernst Ludwig was Landgrave of Hesse,
Prince of Herzfeld, Count of Catzenelnbogen, Diez, Ziegenhain,
Nidda, Schaum-Burg, Ysenburg, and BGdingen.

3Copy of a resolution of August 12, 1709, of the Burgo-
masters of Rotterdam; resolution of the States-General against
further Palatine emigration to Holland, September 16, 1709: re-
ports of the Dutch Ministers at Cologne and Frankfort, Sept. 24,
26, 1709. Given in Diffenderffer, PGSP, VII, 352-53, 356-57,

people will abandon their country and you may lose the opportunity
of having them.'"l His notices failed to check the stream. He
was unable to persuade 1,200 at Rotterdam to go home, and England
gave him no encouragement that more would be aided financially.
Nevertheless, he shipped 1,433 on July 18, the very day an order
was received from kngland to accept no more. As he was unable to
prevent Germans from going to Great Britain at their own or at
private expense, without passports, the situation was critical.2
In December a royal proclamation warned others against coming to
England and stated that many already in the British Isles would
be returned to Germany.3 The House of Commons declared in 1711
that their transportation to England at public expense was ex-
travagant, and a misuse of public funds; that those who brought
them were, therefore, enemies of the Queen and of the Kingdom.4
As both rich and poor were going to Pennsylvania and
Carolina from WGrttemberg in large numbers and authorities made
no particular effort to restrain them, the Duke in 1717 forbade
the sale of emigrant property.5 A commissary at Frankfort who
was enticing subjects to Louisiana is mentioned in a decree of
1720 forbidding WUrttembergers the right to emigrate "to the
islands of Mississippi."6 Shortly afterwards Emperor Charles VI
forbade the Schwenkfelders, who were being persecuted in Silesia,
to sell their property or emigrate from that region of the

1Walter Allen Knittle, Early Eighteenth Century Palatine
Emigration (Philadelphia: Dorrance and Co., 1937), pp. 59,
7-59. Knittle's work is largely based on British Public Record
Office MSS.

2Ibid., pp. 59-60.

Declaration of December 31, 1709, given in Diffenderffer,
PGSP VII, 272, n. lla; Das verlangte. nicht erlante Canaan,
Ehap. v, p. 94-99, quoted in Daniel Haberle, Auswanderunp und
Koloniegrundung der Pfalzer im 18. Jahrhundert (Kalserlautern:
H. Kayser, 1919), pp. 48-50.

4Resolutions of House Commons, April 14, May 31, 1711.
House of Commons Journal, XVI (1709-1711), 598, 684-85.
Decree of September 8, 1717, Stuttgart. Cited in
Learned, Guide, p. 303.

6Stuttgart, May 18, 1720. Cited in ibia., p. 303.

nmpire. Persons aiding them were also to be severely punished.1
In 1732 Karl Albrecht of Bavaria confirmed former restrictive
edicts in a declaration of April 30 at Munich,2 and in 1737 the
matter of emigration to Pennsylvania again received attention in
Eaaen.3 In this same year Frederick Wilhelm I ordered that no
subject leave from Prussian lands without a passport and two
years later issue further regulations against emigration.4 In
1741 attempts were made to limit emigration from the Palatinate.5
Four years later Baaen published another proclamation concerning
the departure of subjects to Pennsylvania.6 The great number of
uacrees is proof of the failure to handle the problem.
In 1749 Duke Carl of iirttemberg directed that twenty-five
or more persons desiring to go to Pennsylvania from Reudern,
Ieckar Denzlingen, Grozingen, ana elsewhere be allowed to leave
provided they renounce their rights as citizens ana never again
return to iirttemoerg.7 Compliance vith these conditions, along
vith the previous discharge of debts and the withholding of prop-
erty of minors unti3 they were of age, were usually required of
emigreating subjects.8 In a declaration in 1750 Eassau-Dillenburg
la1a down the conditions under which emigration would be allowed
from her territories. After the emigrant had paid his debts and

1C. Hendrick, Historical Sketch of the Schwenkfelders
quotea in H. b. Kriebel, "The Schwenkfelders in Pennsylvania,"
Ir P'GSP XIII, p. 24.

2Cited in Learned, Gculae, p. 192.

3Ibid., p. 229.

4Decree of May 7, 1737, at Kbnigsberg ana Edicts of 1739.
Cited in ibid., p. 107.

Ibid., p. 235. 6Ibid., p. 229.

7Uecree dated atuttgart, April 11, 1749. Quoted in Aaolf
GerDer, Neue Beitrage zur Ausuanderuna nach Amerika in 18. Jahr-
r.undert (Stuttgart: J. F. Steinkopf, n. d.), pp. 4-5.
8Ibid., p. 5. Thus after Christopher Bartholemew Maypr
and family emiLrated from the free imperial city of Ulm in Suabia
to iiarylend in 1752, the city authorities held him in such esteem
that they had a certificate engrossed in Latin and sent to him in
holLand reserving for him and his family the right of citizenship
ar.oald he or they ever return. See Francis B. Mayer. "Memoranda
in reference to Early German Emigration to Maryland,' in Society
for the History of the Germans in Maryland, Fifth Annual Report,
1Et0-91, p. 15.

been warned against expecting a better livelihood in America he
was to pay the tenth penny and the 2 per cent departure tax.1
If his remaining property was valued at six hundred gulden or
more his petition was to be rejected. If he scarcely possessed
the means of making his livelihood and would likely fall as a
burden upon his community he was to be granted permission to de-
part without hesitation.2 This remained her policy in following
The iirnberg city council in 1752 allowed the promotion
agent John Martin Rominger to enlist emigrants for New England
provided they desired to go and had permission to leave. However,
he was told he would have little success "as there are rather
too few than too many Citizens and Subjects in these Parts
[Nurnberg]."4 Governmental opposition to agents made it difficult
to enlist emigrants in Wirttemberg and at Heilbron in this same
year.5 The Palatine Elector in his decree of June 21 complained
of the misleading of subjects by agents and the harm done in his
state by those returning from Pennsylvania and "other American
provinces" under the pretext of caring for the property of their
relatives.6 The English king, George II, also issued a warning

1See chap. ix on property and its taxation.

2Relatio 34 of May 2, 1750. In Preussisches Staatsarchiv,
Wiesbaden, Bestand VII, R. 206, Vol. I, Pt. I, pp. 39-41 (here-
after referred to as R. 206). See also Gerber, Naasau-Dill. Ausw.,
pp. 16-17. This relatio was approved on June 8 by William of
Orange, ruler of Nassau-Dillenburg, who pointed out that free
men could not be refused departure from the country after the
payment of their just obligations, though he hoped well-to-do
persons could be retained by persuasion. R. 206, Vol. I, Pt. I,
p. 56.
3See, for example, the case of Johann Eberth Michael of
Wurgendorff, 1766, in ibid., Vol. II, Pt. I, pp. 3-7, 21-22,

4Copy of Mirnberg resolution of 1752, in Massachusetts
Archives, Emigrants, p. 123 (hereafter cited as MA).

5Letter of Joh. Christian Leucht and Joh. Lewis Martin
to Hans Luther, Heilbron, September 2, 1752, in ibid., pp. 146-

6Edict dated Mannheim, June 21, 1752. Cited in Learned,
Guide, pp. 214, 319.

against emigration from Hanover in 1754,1 but the Seven Years'
War (1756-1763) brought emigration at tires to a standstill. In
the last quarter of the century emigration from Wiirttemburg was
largely to Poland and other eastern European states.2
Nevertheless, the Elector Palatine found it necessary in
1760 to forbid the sale of property unless permission to emigrate
had previously been granted.3 There was a scarcity of servants
in the Palatinate in 1764 because so many of them haa emigrated,4
and the authorities of Jiilich-Berg were not quite certain whether
that state would be better or worse off by allowing subjects to
go to the "new French establishments in America."5 Edicts
against emigration were issued by Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria
in 1764 and 1766.6 At least four prohibitive aecrees were pub-
lishea in the Palatinate in 1764.7 Only one measure had been
issued in Hassau-Dillenburg in the ten-year period preceding
1763,8 but three were issued within two years following the
ending of the Seven Years' war.
The policy in regions jointly administered by Nassau-

1Statement made in a decree of the Duke of Cleves, July 8,
1754. Quoted from the NeuchAtel Archives de l'Itat, Manuaux du
Conseil d'Etat, Restrits de sa Majeste, in Faust, Guide, p. 169.

2Adolf Gerber, Beitrage zur Auswanmerur. nach Arerika im
18. Jahrhundert aus Altwurttembergischen Kirchenbuchern (Stutt-
gart: J. F. Steinkopf, n. d.), p. 2.

3Decret of March 4, 1760. Cited in Learned, Guide,
p. 214.

4Rescript dated lMannheim, March 3, 1764. Ibid., p. 215.

5Probably French Guiana. Decree of Electoral Prince
Otto, Ollendorf, March 15, 1764. Ibid., p. 94.

6February 28, 1764, and January 3, 1766. Ibid., p. 192.

7March 5, May 26, May 29, and November 27, 1764. Referred
to in Haberle, p. 6, n. These edicts against emigration in gen-
eral are all forerunners of the general imperial decree of 1768
discussed below.

8That of August 3, 1753.

9Decrees of February 28 and April 12, 1764, July 17, 1766.
Gerber, Nassau-Dill. Ausw., p. 3U. see chap. ix for these laws.
on emigrant property.

Dillenburg and the Electorate of Treves was quite similar to that
within the Nassau lands.l In such areas it was often difficult
to secure as effective cooperation as was accomplished in this
case by the joint decree of 1766.2 Without the combined action
of the two governments concerned any regulation was impossible,
for in theory, at least, the laws of neither state were applicable
alcne, and edicts of the Electoral Circles3 of the holy Roman
Empire could only be enforced by the joint action of the two
The states of the Rhenish Circle, under the leadership
of the Mainz Elector in 1766, issued a joint decree forbidding
emigration outside the boundaries of the Empire. This measure
ordered the arrest and punishment at hard labor of all departing
secretly; forbade the alienation of property under the penalty
of confiscation of the purchase price and annulment of the sale;
allowed no foreigners within the Empire without passes; and or-
dered the arrest and punishment of all enlisters and emissaries.5
Frankfort, however, opposed this united action and advocated in-
stead agreements between the respective governments.6
Throughout the eighteenth century the regulation of emi-
gration to America was a part of the larger problem of control
of emigration in general. One part of this larger problem was
to check desertions from the army and to prevent the enrollment

1Several subjects emigrated from the joint or common dis-
tricts of Camberg and Wehrheim to southern Russia in 1766. R.
206, Vol. I, Pt. IV, pp. 391-94, 396-97, 388; Vol. II, Pt. I,
pp. 8-12, 14, 406-08.

2R. 206, Vol. II, Pt. I, pp. 47-48.

3Administrative divisions of the Empire.

4R. 206, Vol. II, Pt. II, pp. 220-31, especially 222-25.
In practice, the Treves Electorate had often issued decrees for
these areas without consulting Dillenburg.

5Decree of the Rhenish Princes, Mainz, May 12; Ehren-
breitstein, May 20; Bonn, July 12; Mannheim, July 22, 1766.
Ibid., pp. 99-100 and 55-57. This measure was accepted by
Nassau-millenburg and approved by the Prince of Orange for that
state in June; one thousand copies of it were distributed
throughout Nassau-Dillenburg in July and August. Ibid., pp. 53-
55, 58-59, 85, 90, 98.
5Dispatch from B. W. Eck, Frankfort, June 20, 1766.
Ibid., Pt. I, pp. 66-68.

of the subjects of one state as soldiers of other states.1 A
decree of July 31, 1738, by Emperor Charles VI for the Austrian
lietherlands illustrates the stringent regulations taken to pre-
vent unknown emissaries from depopulating the Empire of soldiers.2
Several ordinances were passed during the 1760's forbidding emi-
gretion from the Austrian Netherlands to foreign countries.3
nhlle Joseph II's proclamation of 1768 grew out of the danger of
depopulation of the Empire because of the enlistments for Spanish
service in northern Germany, it also applied to emigration to
America. This measure forbade emigration save where permitted by
imperial law, prohibited the sale of emigrant property, and or-
dered the imprisonment and punishment of those leaving secretly.
Promotion agents were to be punished and all gatherings for emi-
gration to be broken up.4 This declaration of the Emperor was
subsequently proclaimed by the Frankfort and Rhenish Circles and
by some of the individual states, which made it more certain of
enforcement in their lands.5 Although the decree of the Imperial
Aulic Council in 1769 prohibiting emigration to foreign lands was
not very effective, the number of Palatines going to America was
smaller between the large exodus of 1764 and the famine years of

10n the subject of soldiers, see also chaps. ii, viii,
x, ari xii.

2Decree against enlistments for the service of foreign
powers, Brussels, July 31, 1738 in Recueil des Anciennes Ordon-
rnacee des Pays-Bas Autrichiens, 3e sbrie (Bruxelles, 1860-1914)
V, 225-226.

3bay 12, 1764, November 20, 1765, November 20, 1766.
Ibid., IX, 123-24 notes; 278.

4Joseph II's proclamation of July 7, 1768, is given in
h. 206, Vol. II, pp. 201-04 and on pp. 188-89; also from
bctdo:er's Stats-Anzeigen. VI p. 215, in Friedrich Kapp
Cescnichte der Deutschen m Staate New York (New York: F. Steiger,
166,9), pp. 392-93. Attempts were made to prevent emigration from
.regernburg, Colcgne, huremberg, Lubeck, Ulm, Frankfort, Bremen,
ana hamburg. See Learned, Guide, p. 181. On the decree of 1768,
consult chaps. iv, ix, and xii.

5R. 206, Vol. II, Pt. II pp. 186-87, 190-94 200-04;
Stutt.araische privilegierte Zeitusg, August 20, 1766, p. 403;
Learned, Guide, pp. 192-93. The oraer was repeated at Munich
August 5 and at Frankfort August 14, 1768; at Dillenburg, July 20,
1'69. Several desiring to emigrate from WUrttemberg in 1771 were
refused permission because of this imperial decree. Gerber,
lieue Eeitrge, p. 39.

1770-1771.1 Nevertheless decrees against enlisters and deserters
were published yearly in the Austrian Netherlands after 1775,2
and it became necessary in Nassau-Dillenburg in 1768 to republish
the decree of 1766 against the emigration of young, unmarried
persons, as single persons were continuing to leave for the Ameri-
can colonies.3
Emigration from Europe between 1776 and 1815 was smaller
because of wars and because of unsettled conditions in America.4
German states continued restriction by forbidding emigration
without permission or by prohibiting it completely but were not
very successful.5 After Lafayette's escape to America Louis XVI

1A memorial from Nova Scotia even before Joseph II's de-
cree complains that "even the German States hinder people from
passing through their dominions, so that the Palatines, who were
wont to go in great numbers to America, are now as difficult to
be got as people from any part of his anajesty's dominions,
[Great BritainJ who are forbid to be engaged for this purpose."
Philadelphia shipping lists show a similar condition; whereas
eleven ships arrived with immigrants in 1764 and nine in 1771
four arrived in 1768 and four in 1769. See Memorial of Lord
William Campbell, April 8, 1768, in Acts of Privy Couicil, Colo-
nial, VI, 461-62; Ralph B. Strassburger, Pennsylvania German
Pioneers, ed. billiam J. Hinke (Norristown, Pennsylvania: Penn-
sylvania German Society, 1934), I, 774-75.

2For the Austrian Netherlands, the decree of the Queen
Empress, Brussels, February 1, 1735, ordered that the Orainance
of May 12, 1764 concerning emigration be repeated yearly, and
that the ordinances on desertion and enlisters be republished.
Recueil des Anciennes Crdonnances, 3e serie, XI, 3.

Decree of June 3 and July 17, 1766. H. 206, Vol. II,
Pt. I, pp. 15U-6u.

4julius F. Sachse, "Lutheran Clergy of London, and how
they aided German emigration during the XVIII century," in
Lutheran Church Review, XXII(1903), 571. Over 9,261 emigrants
reached the port of Philadelphia between 1785 ana 18u8. See
btrassburger, III, ix.

5A Salzburg aecree of March 3u, 1774, foroade emigration
without governmental consent, punished those aiding emigrants,
and confiscated the property of those leaving without permission.
Further aecrees ana orders regarding emigration were issued in
1796, 1799, ana 1805. hlector Theodore of the Palatinate on
February 23, 1779, forbade emigration without governmental per-
mission of serfs and free subjects. This measure was followed
by further prohibitions on January 19, 1785, ana February 5,
1793. In 1784 Austria summarized about ninety-six separate ae-
crees in one measure; a report of June 4, 1784, states that emi-
gration was prohibited under penalty of confiscation of property
ana hard labor, if caught. Officials aiaing emigrants were sub-
ject to fine or six months' labor. However, secret emigrating

3sgneu an order forbidding French officers to take service in
the Lnglish colonies without permission, but his ministers never
carried out the command.1 Because the Empire suffered from the
sending of German troops to America, the Director of Imperial
Lnllstment in June 1780 was ordered to check the evil by emigra-
tlon edicts so that preference would be given to imperial over
Pru3alan enlistments, both as to officers and men.2
Frederick the Great complained of the sacrifice of
er.man blood in a war in American that did not concern the Empire.
eehlrnd his objections were the refusal of the ruler of Hesse to
allow him the use of Hessians in his troubles with Poland and
Austria and also his strong anti-English bias.3 The use of
3eiman soldiers in the American War for Independence was also
attached by others. The writer Schiller in his Kabale und Liebe
strongly condemned forcible recruiting for the American cause,
ena p:cturea the extravagant and corrupt court of the Duchy of
."lrttemberg.4 In a pamphlet, which was promptly suppressed by
the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, Mirabeau also protested against
the greed of the German princes in their selling of Hessian

was occurring in 1787 and 1791 from Austrianlands to America, and
f.ircrier discussion on emigration control occurred in 1792 and
1794. On July 5, 1799 a general emigration law of Bavaria con-
fIscated the property of emigrants leaving without permission.
See Faust, Guide. pp. 188, 227, 228, 253, 263; Learned Guide,
pp. 131, 188, O 20, 194, 218, 235; Haberle, pp. 2 n., 6 n.

iHenri Doniol, La Participation de la France A l'gtablis-
seaent des Stats Unis d'Amerique (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale,
1866)j, II, 395 n..2.

2Faust, Guide, pp. 238-39. The prince of Nassau-Usingen
rep-rced from Erfurt, August 29, 1780, that Prussian and other
tro:p.3 were being recruited in increasing numbers by German princes
fir their regiments in America.

3Letter of Frederick II to the Margrave of Anspach, Pots-
cam, October 24, 1777, in Oeuvres de Frederic le Grand (Berlin:
Chez Rodolphe Decker, 1847), VI, p. 117; letter of Uctober 24,
1777 in Politische Correspondenz Friedrich's des Grosen (Berlin:
heLmar bobbing, 1925), XXIX (1777), p. 367.

4this play attacks the rule of uukes Eberhard Luawig
(16a3-1733) and Karl Eugen (1744-1793), who crushed the people
with heavy taxes and confiscated private and personal property.
.ee Johann Christoph Friedrlch Schiller, Kabale und Leibe, ed.
1linam Addison Hervey (New York: Henry Holt, 1912), pp. 34-37,
Act II, Scene II.

soldiers to the English.1 The attitude of the German states as
a whole is difficult to determine. One official justified such
recruiting because it enabled states to pay their large aebts,
and because returning troops brought foreign money into the
Opposition to foreign enlistment continued in Germany
after 1783. In 1788 the Elector Palatine decreed the punish-
ment of agents enlisting soldiers for foreign service as well as
the punishment of those helping promote the desertion of troops
and other subjects.3
Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia in 1792 looked upon emi-
gration as quite harmful, as it depopulated the Empire and
brought about desertion and illegal secret departures.4 It was
for these reasons that he opposed the enlistment of fifty men
and women by William Berczy for the Genesee Association of New
York. Accordingly he asked Hamburg to examine departing ships
for Prussian subjects, and remove them.5 Deserters from the army
were to be returned to Berlin on the first transport. All
arrested emigrants were to be asked their trades, whether or not
they were "on their travels," the amount of their property,
whether or not they had been enticed to emigrate, and if they in-
tended to return to the fatherland later. On these matters

1This pamphlet, Avis aux Hessois, 1777, is very rare, and
the present author was unable to find it in Mirabeau's works.
But see Edward J. Lowell, The Hessians (New York: Harper and
Bros., 1884), pp. 21-23.

2See the statements of Freiherr von Gemmingen, minister
to the Margrave of Anspach, given in Friedrich Kapp, Der Solda-
tenhandel deutecher Fiirsten nach Amerika (Berlin: Julius
Springer, 1874), pp. 108, 123, 124). An Eng. trans. is given in
Lowell, pp. 23, 24. See chap. x on the matter of soldiers re-
turning to Europe.

3Decree of Count Carl Theodore dated Mannheim, August 22,
1788. In printed form in Badisches General Landesarchiv, Pfalz-
Generalia, 6487, pp. 14-17 (hereafter cited as BGL, 6487).

4Prussian order to Von Goechhausen at Hamburg, Berlin
April 22, 1792; Von Goechhausen to the Royal Cabinet Ministerium,
Hamburg, April 28, 1792. Both in Preussisches Geheimes Staats-
archiv, Berlin-Dahlem, Rep. 81, Gesandschaft Hamburg, No. 149,
pp. 45, 68-70.
5Ibid., pp. 68-70. On William Berczy and the Genesee
Society see chaps. iii, v, x, and xii.

reports were to be made to Berlin.1
Austria in 1794 discussed the formation of an army corps
maoe up of French deserters, exiles, emigrants, and war prisoners.2
Maximilian Joseph, Count Palatine of the Rhine and Duke of Upper
and Lower Baviria, in 1800 also ordered the punishment of per-
sons aiding soldiers to desert.3 The following year he issued
another decree against promotion agents and banished those emi-
grating without permission. Nassau-Dillenburg also prohibited
colonial enlistments in 1804.5 A decree of the Grand Duchy of
Baden, March 6, 1809, specified that an emigrating subject should
either fulfill his military service before leaving or make a
sufficient cash deposit to hire another person in his place.
Otherwise emigration was forbidden until the age of freedom from
war service was reached.6
Unexamined documents indicate that emigration to America
decreased between 1776 and 1815.7 European states had opposed

1Dispatch to Von Goechhausen at Hamburg, Berlin, May 6,
1792; Von Goechhausen to Stadt Syndicat Doctor Doormann, Ham-
burg, May 15, 1792. Ibid., pp. 73-74, 84-85.

2Faust, Guide, p. 241.

30rder dated Amberg, August 4, 1800, to the Electoral
General Lands Commission at Mannheim. In BGL, 6487, pp. 18-19.

Decree of November 16, 1801, in ibid., pp. 34-36, 33,

5Learned, Guide p. 170. However she continued to
allow poor persons to emigrate. See R. 266, Vol. III, Pt. II,
pp. 145-48, 134-36, 230-31.

6Notice in the Gorsherzoglich Badisches Regierungsblatt
of Carlsruhe, March 11, 1809, in BGL, 6487, pp. 57-58.

7There was a considerable emigration from Wirttemberg to
America in 1780-81, emigration of young boys from the Graftschaft
Seay Altenkirchen in 1784, and emigration from Mechlenburg-
Schwerin to South Carolina and New Scotland in 1789 and 1792.
Emigrants were going from Alsace to America and Russia between
1791 and 1812, and thirty-one Prussian subjects left Hamburg
for Pennsylvania in 1801. There was also emigration from Wies-
baden and Oldenburg in 1805-06. In 1805 Wills and Company were
securing emigrants for Louisiana and Florida in the regions
around dertheim and Frankfort. Baden emigration between 1780 and
1809 was confined largely to military recruiting and departures
to the Russian Crimea. Learned Guide, pp. 304, 84, 291, 226, 35,
169, 292, 311; BGL, 6487, pp. 45-10-9.

emigration to America up to that tine, as John Quincy Adams in-
dicated to Firstenwarther in 1817.1 And they continued to
oppose it,2 but by 1817 emigration had increased so greatly that
one report mentioned the departure for America from iirttemberg,
Switzerland, and the Rhinelands of several thousand persons and
the desire of eighty thousand more to emigrate.3 Three thou-
sand from Trier alone desired to go to the United States.4
Between 1734 and 1770 the emigration problem was a vital
one in Zurich canton, Switzerland. Until the measure of November
3, 1734, control seems to have been largely regulatory,5 but by
this decree permission was made necessary. Not only were the
dangers of the journey to Carolina and the falsities of promotion
literature pointed out but the sale of emigrant property was for-
bidden and agitators were to be seized and punished. Those
leaving secretly were to forfeit their landright ana to be denied
readmission.6 An emigration commission was also created.7
As emigration increased rather than diminished another
order was issued in January, 1735, prohibiting emigration to
Carolina under pain of the loss of citizenship and landright.
The buyers of emigrant property were to be prosecuted and agi-
tators were to be punished without delay.8 Other measures to the

1Letter of Furstenwarther to Baron von Gagern, Philadel-
phia, December, 1817. Quoted in Max J. Kohler, "An important
European Commission to investigate American-Conditions (1817-
1818)," in DAG, XVII, p. 402.

2Restrictive measures were taken by Westphalia and Mann-
heim in 1817 ana by Prussia in 1819. LearnedGuide, pp. 152, 319,

3Communication of Schultheiss and Dr. Ebermaier to Ober-
prasident Gr. v. Solms, Laubach, May 9, 1817. Cited in Learned,
Guide, p. 49.

4Learned, Guide, p. 49. 5Faust, Guide, pp. 14, 18, 20.

6The decree is given in full in German in ibid., pp. 15-
16. See also the quotation in chap. ill on literature.

The Commission resolved to assist no one with money or
passes, and to hinder emigration in every way. December, 1734.
Ibid., p. 57.

8Decree of January 29, 1735, given in German in ibid.,
pp. 16-17.

same effect, dealing with emigration to Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Georgia, and other places in America, followed in 1756, 1739,
174i, and 1744. They seem to have had little effect;1 the emi-
gration fever had to run its course. Attempting to control and
restrict it were the local officials, or landvogts, who con-
stantly referred matters for decision to the cantonal government
anr received in return advice and directions.2 Decrees issued
were reaa aloud in the churches of the canton. While the most
active agents in persuading families not to leave were the local
parish ministers and church synods, it is likely that local pas-
tors were less influential than economic factors in preventing
emitration, and that they sometimes took credit which they did
not deserve.3 At its best, persuasion was not very effective.
Bern's emigration policy between 1710 and 1754 was de-
termined largely by the flow of the emigration stream. While pro-
ribiting emigration in 1717 on the ground that people might
acr.aoon or lose their religious faith in a foreign land, in 1710
ane allowed the emigration of undesirable Anabaptists and Menno-
nites, whose souls, presumably, were already lost. In 1710-11
Eern warned poor subjects of the dangers and hardships of emigra-
tion to Carolina and promised them help if they would stay home.
Let she encouraged the schemes of the agent Ritter to get rid of
undesirable paupers and criminals in the canton.4 In 1725 emi-
,ration without permission was denied by a decree of the Council,
ara In 1728 a congress of the thirteen Swiss cantons decreed that
the local lanavogts should be notified by those planning to emi-
grate.5 When the emigration fever became strong in 1734 Bern was
inclined to pursue a policy of watchful waiting, allowing those

1Decrees of February 5, 1736, May 13, 1739, December 7,
1.yi, February 4, 1741, and March 18, 1744. Cited in ibid.
pp. 17, 14, 29, 32. In the 176u's and 1770's Zurich emTFration
seems to have been to Spanish and Russian colonies and to
Prussian Pomerania. Ibid., pp. 18, 22, 32, 113.
2Ibid., p. 20.

3Ibid., p. 32; Faust, Lists, I, 68, 55-56, 89-90.

4Faust, Guide, pp. 33, 54, 41, 42. See infra, p. 221, and
caap. viii.

5Decrees of June 28, 1725, and Uctober 16, 1728. Cited in
inti., pp. 54, 57.

who paid their emigration taxes to depart if they were not aoa-
suaaea from it by officials.1
When Zurich set up an Emigration Commission ana Ln 1725
forbade emigration to Carolina, Bern followed Ler example. Larly
in January a commission was established and emigration was
denied those having less than five hundred Bernese pounds.3 It
was felt that subjects would listen to warnings concerning the
dangerous voyage and bad conditions in Carolina, and that they
would not emigrate when they realized they would lose their citi-
zenship and landright.4 Both obstruction and restriction were
attempted by Bern in this period but to no avail.5 Passport re-
strictions and confiscation of property were designed to prevent
secret emigration. However, if children remaining in the canton
were provided for, if one had five hundred pounds, and if one
paid his taxes he was allowed to depart.6 Warnings against emi-
gration and restrictions on agents and promotion literature con-
tinued to be the rule. A proposal to increase the departure tax
in 1738 was turned down because it was feared that it would only
cause further dissatisfaction and bring attention to the emigra-
tion movement, which by that time seemed to have passed its crest.7
Nevertheless, further prohibitive edicts were necessary in the
next few years,8 and for the rest of the century Bern continued
to cope with the problem.
The complete prohibition in 1742 of emigration to any
place in America, with the forfeiture of citizenship, land-
right, and property upon departure, was not effective, for in
1744 people were going to Carolina "in hordes."9 A decree of

llbid., pp. 43, 44. Ibid., pp. 44, 57.

3uecree of January 12, 1735. Cited in ibid., p. 35. A
Basel pound in 1737 equalled 2/15 of a Pennsylvania pound. It
was equivalent to twenty shillings or 0.8 gulden or florins, and
worth, in American money, somewhere between thirty cents and a
dollar. See Faust, Lists, II, pp. 27 n., 85.
4Faust, Guide, p. 44. 51bid., pp. 35, 44.

6Ibid., p. 44. 7Ibid., pp. 45, 46, 54-55.

Orders and decrees prohibiting emigration to Carolina
April 10, 1738, January 19, 1742, Iarch 17, 1742, April 26, 1742.
Ibid., pp. 35, 47.

April 26, 1742. See Faust, AHR, XXII, 29; Faust, Guide,
p. 35. Those returning were put in prison.

of 1749, and a measure of May 21, 1753 which prohibited emigration
to Carolina and Pennsylvania and reaffirmed the law of April 26,
1742, also failed to check the mass emigration of that period,
even though they laid down stricter penalties.1 There were nu-
mei'c.us examinations of emigrants, and various proposals were made
in the Rath to check the movement.2 Between 1754 and 1770 the
fear was often expressed that the canton woula be aepopulatea by
emigration to America and other countries.3 Even in the period
of mooerate departures between 1754 and 1763, ten thousand per-
sons are said to have left the canton.4 Although a special com-
mission was proposed in 1765 to suggest measures to prevent de-
Fpo:'ration5 we find no record of anything being done. Subse-
quent lessening of the emigration stream made further fears un-
necessary for a time.
The high tides of Basel emigration to the American
colonies occurred in 1734-43, 1749-52, 1767-73, and 1816-17.6
1he initiative in checking the first of these waves was taken by
Zurich which induced the Council of the Thirteen Lords to re-
strict emigration to Carolina by preventing the sale of emigrant
gocos and by checking the activities of enlisters.7 A further
restrictive measure followed on April 20, 1735, but various ex-
cections were made to both decrees.8 In less than a year the

lProhibitions of May 6, 1749, and May 21, 1751. Faust,
Cu&-ce, pp. 36, 50. See also pp. 39, 55.
2Ibid., pp. 49, 112, 113.

3Faust, AhR, XXII, 42-43; Faust, Guide,pp. 36, 51. Emi-
gration was prohibited in 1765 to Russia and on November 23, 1767,
to ra.nish colonies. Emigration to Spain was restricted on
Lecesoer 21, 1768, and a warning against Prussian Pomerania
issue on November 29, 1771.
4Ernst Lerch Die Eernische Auswanderun nach Amerika im
1I. Jahrhundert (1906), p. 31, cited in Faust, AHR, XXII, 42-43.
Four thousand entered foreign military service and six thousand
emlirated to other countries.
5Faust, Guide, p. 51; Faust, AHR, XXII, p. 3u.
6Faust, AHR XXII, 31; Faust, Guide, p. 101.

7Zurich's request of January 3, 1735 led to the restrictive
measure of January 5. The Cnoncil of Thirteen was a committee of
the .leinen Rath, the governing body of the canton. Faust, Guide,
pp. 102, 103, 109.
Ibid., pp. 102, 109; Learned, Guide, p. 236. Similar
aocrees were issued, december 11, 1734, and arch 9, 1735.

latter measure had become ineffective. Warnings against emigra-
tion were so useless that Basel willingly allowed various groups
to go, provided they made arrangements for children left in the
homeland and paid their emigration taxes before departure.1 In
1740 the Council of Thirteen admitted their inability to check
determined emigrants.2 After deciding to grant no further per-
mission to depart new permissions were constantly granted. One
young woman, who had earlier been refused permission, in 1736 was
allowed release from serfdom in order to marry a man who was
emigrating. This gave her the right to go wherever he went, even
to America.3 A report of the Deputies for Rural Affairs in
March, 1749, discussed the hardships and delays of the journey
to Pennsylvania. It asserted:

Such circumstances should persuade an otherwise sensible
person not to make such a voyage; however, we have noticed
among those whom we have questioned and among those who have
had private interviews with some of us, to whom all kinds of
warnings have been made, that the more one tries to discour-
age them by giving truthful and sane reasons, the more con-
firmed they become in their bad intentions. They believe
that we are begrudging them their imagined luck, and that the
government would derive great benefit from them if they were
to stay in the country. They think that that is why we make
their departure so difficult; they would become more aeter-
mined in this if the matter were drawn into a longer delib-

For this reason it was recommended that the emigration of child-
less couples and unmarried persons be permitted, provided all
taxes be paid, their citizenship surrendered, and their return to
Basel denied.5
Probably the most important Basel decree was that of

1Faust, Guide, pp. 102, 103, 104, 109, 111.

2Decision of the Council of Thirteen, March 3, 1740, cited
in ibid., p. 109.

3Faust, Lists, II, p. 110.

4Report of March 8, 1749. Given in German in A. B. Faust,
"Unpublished Documents on Emigration from the Archives of Switzer-
land," in DAG, X.VIII, 17-21.

5Ibia. See also Faust, Guiae, 104-05. On the matter of
children, see cnap. xi.

'August 13, 1749.1 After pointing out the dangers of emigrating
to Carolina, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and other colonies the meas-
ure oraered the arrest and punishment of anyone helping citizens
to Fcpart, as well as anyone reentering the country. Those who
left after March 22 were to be denied future inheritances. tmi-
grrnts could not be given any of their inheritances in advance,
ana secret departures were to be prevented. Though these poli-
cies were reaffirmed during the next few years and though this
decree was repeated in 1771 its provisions were fruitless.2 It
failed to check secret exoaus. Even the provision against re-
turr. to Basel was set aside in the cases of poor emigrants on
record as leaving in 1771-72. Paupers unable to continue their
journey were allowed to make special applications for reaamission
to the canton and were accepted.3
Lists of those who left or intended to leave the Basel
region for America in the early months of 1803 total 526 per-
so.ns." The next great emigration was that following the Napole-
onic wars and the famine of 1816. Basel in 1816-17 particularly
cpposea the emigration of paupers as they gathered at the sea-
ports and cause complaints from Holland. Otherwise her atti-
tuae eas the same as in the preceding century.5
Space does not permit discussion of the attitude of other
Sviss cantons which sent emigrants to America but in smaller
niunl:ers. Their policies have been amply illustrated by the
three major cantons whose viewpoints have been given above.6
Only little financial help was extended to subjects to
keepF them from emigrating. Elisabeth Charlotte of Orleans
wrote In 1709 that she was glad that the Electoral Prince of the
Falatirate had resolved to treat his poor subjects better; she

LThe decree is given in German in Faust, Ah., XXII, 128-
30. Faust in his article in ibia., p. 31, speaks of its renewal
in 1"71, and in his Guide, pp. 104, 109 gives the date as
Karch 25, 1771. It was particularly severe against agents col-
lectir,,, inheritances for Basel emigrants in America.

2Faust, Guide, pp. 105, 106, 107, 112.

3Faust, Lists II, 174; Faust, Guide pp. 107, 109, 113.
Tire z:.vernment, however, did not oppose emigration at this time.

4Faust, Guide, p. 114. 5Ibid., pp. 108, 115.

6The matter may be followed from Faust's references in

indicates that many who had been departing for Fennsylvanis were
already returning.1 In this year some persons who aed intended
to go on to Pennsylvania settled at Alzei, where they haa teen
released from taxes for the current year.2
Prince Wilhelm of Nassau-Dillenburg also attempted vari-
ous reforms in his state in 1709 to prevent abuses which were
causing emigration. Because of the wars he had remitted or re-
laxed taxes, had destroyed game which were harming the peasants'
crops, and had granted alms and aid to the poor. Because war
taxes and other burdens had helped promote the emigration fever,
he promised that they would be lightened. Many superfluous and
corrupt officials were dismissed and officers retained were
warned of their duty to the state.3 This order accomplished
nothing, and the emigration fever increased.4 Wilhelm was more
severe in his emigration decree of August, 1709, because he felt
that subjects who emigrated secretly were not thankful for what
he had done to alleviate their distresses.5
In 1789 Nassau-Dillenburg was able to induce an emigrant
and his children to remain home by promising an advance payment
on his charcoal, because otherwise he could not support himself
through the winter.6
A few attempts were made to restrict emigration in
Switzerland by extending aid to poor subjects. In her warning
against the departure of poor citizens from the Obelland in
1710-11, Bern gave assurances of help.7 In 1734 a good singer

1Letter to Louise, Versailles, June 8, 1709. Given in
German in Elisabeth Charlotte, Briefe der Herzogin Elisabeth
Charlotte von Orleans, William L. Holland, ed., in Bibliothek-
des Litterarischen Vereins in Stuttgart (TVbingen, 1871),
CVII, 106-07. What his reforms were the letter does not say.

2Paper addressed to Regierungsrat-Prasidenten Freiherrn
von Holleshein, Heidelberg, July 30, 1709, and order for tax re-
lease of August 8, 1709. Both cited in Learned, Guide, p. 234.

3Copy of a decree of Wilhelm of Nassau-Dillenburg,
July 17, 1709, in Goebel, DAG, XII (1912), pp. 145-46.

4Ibid., p. 127. 5Gerber, Nassau-Dill. Ausw., p. 7.

6R. 206, Vol. VII, Pt. II, pp. 144-49. It is not cer-
tain, however, whether Johannes Orttman stayed home or emigrated.
7Faust, Guide p. 41.

was prevented from going from Zurich to Carolina by the offer of
a position as schoolmaster.1 In 1742 some Bernese highlanders
were diverted from emigration by proposals of work in the French
part of the canton, others were promised employment on the lana.2
At the same time emigration was strictly forbiaaen. The Com-
mercll1 Council discussed the problem of how to improve the con-
altion of the poor people in the Oberland, ana in 1744 advised
the establishment of a workhouse and of manufactures. The use of
the ar.lvided lands and of the forests was suggested for the
hopelessly poor. Suggestions were made to use would-be emigrants
in various industries, but few of the plans were ever attempted
and those that were undertaken soon failed.3
A pastor in Zurich canton stated in 1744 that more than
the maternal care of the government was needed to prevent emi-
gration. He suggested sufficient work to provide industrious
people a livelihood, but made no further suggestions.4 Another
pastor in the canton in 1744 aided the poor of his parish in
various ways, "For if despair once adopts another road, condi-
tions would be very bad, because God's severe judgment is to
De feared."5 The crux of the difficulty lay in the problem of
providing the poor with sufficient work and sustenance, but the
task was one incapable of solution by the minds of that day, as
perhaps it is by our own generation.
This failure to deal with the fundamental causes of emi-
grbtion made restrictive efforts in the main a failure. Abb4
.aynal pointed out that the oppression of governments and bad
economic conditions drove people to emigrate, and that it was

'Ibid., pp. 18, 19.

2Faust, AHR, XXII, 29; Faust, Guide, p. 47.

3The matter has been briefly discussed in E. Lerch,
Die Earnische Auswanderung, a separate print from the Blatter
fur Eernische Geschichte, Kunst, una Altertumskunae, Jahrgang V,
heft 4, Dec. 1909, pp. 19-31, but neither of these have been
available to the writer. See Faust, AHR, XXII, 32, and Faust,
Cule, pp. 36, 47, 55.

4Report from Dattlikon parish, March 27, 1744, in Faust,
Lists, I, 43, and plate 1, frontispiece.

5Report of Pastor Caspar Brunner, TrUllikon parish,
April 25, 1744, in ibid., I, 88-89.

futile to try to retain them by force; only milder means and
better expectations at home could restrain them.1 Even in cases
where restrictive decrees are referred to as being effective, no
mention is made of the influence of factors like war and peace,
famine, or the fact that the stream may have already passed its
flood stage.2 In 1685 a prominent French official saw that, de-
spite all the stringent restrictive measures of Louis XIV, it was
impossible to prevent departures where subjects were determined
to leave.3 Printed words of warning,4 the efforts of local
pastors,5 and persuasion of government officials6 were futile,
and new restrictive decrees only exasperated subjects and
heightened their desire to go.7 A Wirttemberg report stated:

No remonstrance helps to check such people from depar-
ture who are once infatuated by the better circumstances
of the American Islands, and nothing that is pointed out to
them about the condition of these provinces and the diffi-
culties and dangers of the voyage is able to change in the
least anything that believers have received in a letter from

1Abbe Raynal, History of the Settlements and Trade of the
suropeans in the East ana west Indies (London: w. Strahan and
T. Cadell, 1783), VII, 411.

2Wirttemberg emigration was small in 1768 and German emi-
gration to America was almost checked in 1789. We doubt, however,
that restrictive legislation was responsible in either case.
Learned, Guide, p. 304; letter of Phineas Bond, Philadelphia,
November 10, 1789, in Amer. Hist. Association, Annual Report,
1896, I, 643.

3Dispatch of M. de Bonrepaus to Marquis de Seignelay,
London, December 31, 1685. Quoted in Weiss, Fr. Prot. Refugees,
II, 399-400.

4Faust, Guide, p. 47.

5See the letter of pastor Johan Friderich Wettstein,
Langenbrickh, Basel canton, March 1, 1736. In Faust, DAG, XVIII,

6See, for example, the examinations of Swiss emigrants in
1642, given in ibid., 15-17, and in Faust, AHR, XXII, 106-08.

7Report of Deputies for Rural Affairs, Basel, March 14,
1750. In Faust, DAG, XVIII, 28.

8Report of the Balinger Vogts Venninger, August 31,
1713 (?), quoted in Gerber, Beitra9e, p. 2.

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs