What Has The British Nationality Act Ever Done For Us?

Since its very first incarnation, the British Nationality Act has in more ways than one been harmful, not only for the natural born People of England, but also for the other Peoples native to these Isles of Britain. None more so than the version ratified in the 1948 which on its enactment; repealed (unlawfully) the words 'natural born' from live legislation; and a very important section of Constitutional legislation relating to the governance of the English People, by our own People.

The British Nationality Act does absolutely nothing for the native Peoples of Britain other than to destroy our Rights and Liberties, our National identities, our culture, our towns and cities (and pretty soon our Countryside), and our Peace, Security and Prosperity, but does everything for aliens by giving them free unearned legal Right to our Lands and our resources.

Historical Origins: The First Attempt (1690)

The earliest attempt to establish naturalisation legislation occurred eighteen years before the successful 1708 Act. On 10th April 1690, Parliament records a Motion being made for the Naturalising all foreign Protestants, which passed in the Negative. Yeas 77. Noes 82.

This close vote demonstrates how divided Parliament was on the fundamental question of English identity and citizenship rights. The defeat came despite significant political pressure and suggests opposition voices like Sir John Knight's carried considerable weight among members who understood the constitutional implications.

The timing is particularly significant, occurring during the reign of William III when foreign influence was already a contentious issue, and the narrow five-vote margin indicates proponents of mass naturalisation remained determined to pursue their agenda. This early defeat would prove temporary, as the same forces would regroup and eventually succeed in 1708, suggesting a coordinated long-term strategy to transform English nationality law despite sustained native opposition.

Sir John Knight's Prophetic Opposition

During this Session, a Bill was brought in for naturalisng all Protestant Foreigners; but was vigorously opposed, especially by Sir John Knight, who spoke against it. His speech, delivered in 1690, proves remarkably prescient:

Sir, I was early instructed in a Principle of Deference to the Wisdom of our Ancestors; and, at this Time, I tremble, when I reflect on the Correction given me by my Master, that I might not forget, but imitate and defend in all Times this Rule: Let them only be accounted Good, Just, and wise Men, who regard and defend the Statutes, Laws, Ordinances and Liberties, which their Fore-fathers Wisdom and Experience obtained for themselves and Posterity.

Sir John Knight's opposition stands as one of the most prescient and comprehensive critiques of mass naturalization ever delivered in Parliament. Speaking against the first attempt to naturalise foreign Protestants, Knight's arguments would prove remarkably prophetic, anticipating virtually every consequence which would unfold over the subsequent centuries.

His speech demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of constitutional law, economic theory, and social consternations far exceeded his contemporaries. Knight systematically dismantled each argument for naturalisation while drawing upon historical precedent, biblical wisdom, and practical economic analysis. His warnings about the destruction of English liberties, the economic displacement of native workers, the infiltration of foreign influence into government, and the ultimate transformation of English identity would all materialise exactly as he predicted.

The speech reveals a statesman who understood naturalisation was not merely an administrative matter, but a fundamental question about the nature of English civilization and the preservation of constitutional government for posterity.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard of a Ship in a violent Storm, in danger of perishing every Moment; [it was not such a sham Storm as we were lately entertained with in the Gazette, which deceives the People, by affirming that many Ships going for France, laden with Corn, were cast away; tho' those Ships, and many more are since safely arrived in France; but it was such a real Storm, as on the 7th of the last Month destroyed on the Coast of Cornwall, upwards of 70 Sail of our English Ships, most of which were laden with Corn, and several Sorts of Provisions, for the Use of our Dutch Allies, to enable them to live cheap, by making the same dear at Home; perhaps some was for the Support of our half-starv'd and unpaid English Soldiers now in Flanders; when perished likewise more than 700 Sailors, who have left a great many Widows, Children, and poor Relations, to curse our Conduct at Sea, the cause of this Calamity:] In such a dreadful Storm it was [that the foresaid Ship was in] when the good Commander seeing the Danger, and apprehending Death, desired his Crew to assist with Resolution, and preserve themselves and the Ship, which the Sailors refusing to do, he retired to his Cabin, humbled himself in Prayer, and implored the Powers, that alone can save in time of Need; that tho' the Ship and the Company might be justly swallowed up, for the Disobedience of the Sailors, yet that he, and his Cabin might suffer no Damage.

Sir, I cannot, as that good Commander did, be so vain as to hope, that either myself, or the Place for which I serve, can be preserved from the general Inundation, which this Bill we are now debating lets in, on the Liberties of my native Country and Country-men; and therefore be unconcerned for the Good of England, provided Bristol were safe: To hope for and expect Happiness in Life, when all Mankind but myself are dead, would not be more deceiving, than to propose Comfort and Security to myself and Corporation, when Strangers are admitted to possess and enjoy, by a Law, all that's valuable in the Kingdom; for this Bill doth enfranchize all Strangers that will swear and protest against Popery, with the Liberties of every English Man, after the vast Expence of Treasure and English Blood, it hath cost this Kingdom in all Times and Ages of our Fore-fathers, to secure them to themselves, and their Posterity.

Knight's Arguments Against the Bill

Knight's foundational argument rested on the principle each generation holds the constitutional inheritance of their forefathers in trust, not as absolute owners free to dispose of ancient liberties at will. He viewed the contemporary Parliament's willingness to surrender English rights to foreigners as a profound betrayal of ancestral sacrifice, arguing those who fought and died to secure these freedoms never intended them to be freely distributed to aliens. This wasn't mere conservatism, but a sophisticated understanding that constitutional protections, once dissolved, could never be easily restored.

Wherefore, Mr. Speaker, I must beg Pardon, if at this Time I cannot sit silent, but express a zealous Concern, as well for the Kingdom in general, as for the Place I represent in particular; and I am more moved thereunto, whilst I see so many Members sent here by their Country, for the Conservation of the English Mens Liberties, so warm as to part with all to Strangers with one Vote.

The Argument of the honourable Person near me, to render all the Care of our Fore-fathers of no Esteem amongst us, who are, or ought to be the Representatives of the Kingdom, was to prove, that this Age and Generation are Wiser (he did not say Honester) than the former.

Knight methodically addressed each economic justification for naturalisation—land purchasers, merchants, manufacturers, and agricultural workers—demonstrating each supposed benefit would actually harm English interests. His analysis revealed the underlying economic problems were caused by excessive taxation and foreign entanglements, not by insufficient population. Rather than importing foreign solutions, he advocated for domestic reforms which would restore English prosperity without compromising national sovereignty or displacing native workers.

The Arguments used for the Bill, are in substance these: First, A want of Purchasers for our Lands. Secondly, Of Merchants. Thirdly, Manufacturers, who can work cheaper than the English. Fourthly, Husbandmen to till the Ground.

1. On Land Purchasers:

Knight identified the root cause of England's land market problems as excessive taxation and foreign wars, not insufficient buyers. He argued naturalising foreigners was treating the symptom while ignoring the disease—if Parliament reduced taxes and ended costly foreign entanglements, English wealth would circulate domestically, creating natural demand for land sales without compromising national sovereignty.

First, It's argued by some, that we want Purchasers for the Lands; this is a melancholy Consideration: I therefore desire those Gentlemen who approve of this Bill, to tell me what it is hath brought us to this Condition, that the Landed Men of England are reduc'd to so low an Ebb, that they must sell, and none are left able to buy, unless Foreigners are naturalised?

Let us abate our Taxes, and after the wise Precedent of our Fathers, pay our own Sea-men and Soldiers at home, and send the Foreigners back. Then the Money will be found circulating at home, in such Englishmen's hands, who may buy the Lands that are to be sold, without naturalising Strangers.

2. On Merchants:

Addressing concerns about merchant shortages, Knight demonstrated how England's traditional system of apprenticing young Englishmen abroad had built the nation's commercial empire. He warned naturalising foreign merchants would reverse this flow of wealth, as naturalised aliens would ultimately serve foreign masters and repatriate profits to their true homelands rather than enriching England.

Secondly, It's said we want more Merchants: Whom may we thank for bringing so many to Poverty? But I shall forbear grating, and desire the liberty to consider in short how the Trade of England hath hitherto been carried on.

The Conclusion then of this Experiment must be this: That what hath hitherto been Gain to England by English Merchants and Factors, will be turned to a Foreign Land, by the Foreign Merchants being naturalized for their own not England's.

3. On Manufacturers:

Knight exposed the contradiction in Parliament's simultaneous desire to raise agricultural prices for landowners while importing foreign workers to depress manufacturing wages. He argued English manufacturers were already struggling due to excessive exports to Holland and lack of full employment—adding foreign competition would drive native workers into destitution while Parliament failed to address the real economic distortions.

A third Argument for admitting Foreigners, is upon a supposed Want we have of Manufacturers, especially such as will work cheaper than the English: In my opinion this Reasoning is extraordinary, and ought not to take air out of the House, lest the old English Spirit should exert it self in defence of its Liberties; for at this time, when all Provisions are become excessive dear by the great Quantities exported to Holland, which puts the poor English Manufacturers on starving in most parts of England, for want of a full Employ to enable them to support their Families, by their honest and painful Labour and Industry, shall an English Parliament let in Strangers to under-sell our Country, which they may easily do, whilst they live in Garrets, pay no Taxes, and are bound to no Duty?

4. On Husbandmen:

Knight dismissed claims about agricultural labour shortages by pointing out recent French immigrants showed no inclination toward farming, preferring urban trades over agricultural work. He predicted future immigrants would similarly avoid manual labour, leaving agricultural work as an "English monopoly" while foreigners pursued more profitable occupations.

A fourth Pretence for this Bill is, A want of Husbandmen to till the Ground. I shall say little on this Head, but request the honourable Person below me, to tell me, of the forty thousand French, which he confesseth are come into England; how many does he know, that, at this time, follow the Plow-tail? For it's my firm opinion, that not only the French, but any other Nation this Bill shall let in upon us, will never transplant themselves for the Benefit of going to Plow; they will contentedly leave the English the sole Monopoly of that Slavery.

Biblical and Historical Warnings

The Egyptian Example:

Knight used the biblical plague of frogs as a metaphor for the invasion of Dutch courtiers in English courts, suggesting mass naturalisation would bring afflictions comparable to those which befell Egypt. This imagery connected contemporary immigration concerns to divine judgment and historical precedent.

Upon the whole, Sir, it's my Judgment, that should this Bill pass, it will bring as great Afflictions on this Nation, as ever fell upon the Egyptians, and one of their Plagues we have at this time very severe upon us; I mean, that of their Land bringing forth Frogs in abundance, even in the Chambers of their Kings: For there is no entering the Courts of St. James's and Whitehall, the Palaces of our hereditary Kings, for the great Noise and Croaking of the Frog-landers.

St. Paul's Roman Citizenship:

Drawing on St. Paul's assertion of Roman citizenship rights, Knight argued if even pagan Rome valued and protected the privileges of birth-right citizenship, Christian England should not casually distribute its superior freedoms to strangers, thereby devaluing what English blood and treasure had secured over centuries.

Let us therefore learn Instruction in this Case before us, from that good Book; where we may be informed, that St. Paul by being born Free of Heathen Rome, escaped a Whipping, and valued and pleaded that Privilege; and the chief Captain of the Romans prides himself, that he, with a great Sum, had obtained that freedom, and feared greatly when he had violated St. Paul's Liberty, by binding of him; and shall we set at nought the Freedoms of the English Nation, who are a Religious, Christian Kingdom, and part with the same to Strangers, for nothing, unless the undoing of our own Country-men, who sent us here, but not on this Errand?

Joseph in Egypt:

Knight's most sophisticated historical parallel warned allowing foreigners into government councils—as Egypt did with Joseph—inevitably led to native populations being systematically impoverished and enslaved by foreign administrators who favoured their own kinsmen while exploiting their host nation's resources and people.

Sir, We may further learn, from that Book, the Fate of the Egyptians, who experimented, on the score of Charity, what it is a People may expect from admitting Strangers into their Country and Councils; Joseph was a Stranger, sold a Slave into Egypt; yet being taken into Pharaoh's Council, he, by Taxes, and other fine Projects, brought the seven Years plenty God had blest the Egyptians with, into the Granaries of Pharaoh: but when Dearth came on the Land, and the People cried to their King for Relief, they were sent to the Stranger Joseph, who getteth from them, for that which was once their own, all their Money, their Cattle, the'r Lands, and last of all, their Persons into Slavery; tho' at the same time, he did far otherwise by his own Countrymen, for he placed them in the best of the Land, the Land of Goshen, and nourished them from the King's Store. This Example should teach us to be wise in Time, seeing all this was done by the Advice of one Foreigner in the PrivyCouncil; and what may that Country expect, where the Head, and many of the Council are Foreigners?

Knight's closing remarks combined righteous indignation with parliamentary procedure, suggesting if his religious references offended secular-minded colleagues, they should nonetheless unite in physically ejecting both the naturalisation bill and the foreigners it would benefit, demonstrating his belief the issue transcended partisan politics and threatened England's very survival.

Sir, I perceive some Gentlemen are uneasy, perhaps I have offended them, in supposing they are Religious Representatives; or concluding that their Religion is to be proved from the Bible; if that be it which displeaseth, I beg their pardon, and promise not to offend again on that score; and will conclude all with this Motion, That the Serjeant be commanded to open the Doors, and let us first Kick this Bill out of the House, and then Foreigners out of the Kingdom.

The 1708 Act: Enactment and Consequences

Historically in one form or another there have been quite a few incarnations of this repugnant piece of legislation, originating with An Act for Naturalising Foreign Protestants (1708).

Mr. Wortley Montague's Motion for Naturalisation (1708)

Despite the earlier defeat, a Bill was reintroduced eighteen years later by Edward Wortley Montagu, a wealthy coal-owner and lawyer, who would later become British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire (1716-1718) and was married to the famous writer Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. His father Sidney also supported the bill to naturalise the Palatines.

The Naturalization Act 1708 (also known as the Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act demonstrated the persistent determination of naturalisation advocates to overcome constitutional safeguards. The timing was strategically chosen during a period when England was engaged in the War of Spanish Succession and facing economic pressures which made foreign investment more appealing to Parliament.

Montagu's approach differed significantly from the failed 1690 attempt—rather than presenting naturalisation as a matter of charitable obligation, he framed it as economic pragmatism, citing the supposed success of Prussia in attracting French Protestant refugees. His speech carefully avoided the constitutional and cultural concerns which had derailed the previous effort, instead focusing on wealth generation and national strength through population increase.

The invocation of Prussian precedent was particularly shrewd, as it suggested that England was falling behind European competitors in attracting valuable foreign capital and expertise. Montagu's argument Protestant refugees would naturally prefer the freedoms of Britain over despotic Prussia appealed to English pride while simultaneously undermining traditional restrictions on foreign settlement. This reframing of mass immigration as a competitive economic necessity rather than a constitutional question would prove decisive in overcoming the earlier opposition, marking a fundamental shift in how Parliament approached questions of national identity and citizenship.

Mr. Wortley Montagu made a Motion for the bringing in a Bill for the naturalizing Foreign Protestants: And, in a fine Speech, shewed the Advantages that would accrue to the Nation, by such an Act; alledging among other Particulars, 'The Example of the King of Prussia, who had not only invited, but furnish'd abundance of French Refugees, with Means to settle in his Dominions; where he had fertilis'd an almost barren Country, improved Trade, and vastly increased his Revenue: Adding, that if Foreigners were induced to settle under a despotick Government, where they found Protection and Encouragement, they would undoubtedly be the more inclin'd to bring their Effects, at least their Industry into Great Britain, where they would share the Privileges of a free Nation.

Opposition Paper: Twelve Reasons Against General Naturalisation

And again there was opposition. Whilst the Bill for the naturalising of foreign Protestants was depending, Cobbett's Parliamentary History (1809, page ~1134) records a Paper was printed and industriously dispersed, containing in Substance:

1. Constitutional Dangers:

That the Conflux of Aliens, as would probably be the Effect of such a Law, might prove dangerous to our Constitution; for these would owe Allegiance to their respective Princes, and retain a Fondness for their native Countries; and therefore, whensoever a War should break out, might prove so many Spies and Enemies. Besides, under this Pretence, the professed Enemies of our established Church and Religion, might flock over with design to effect their Overthrow.

2. Public Disgust and Jealousy:

That a general Naturalization might undoubtedly spread an universal Disgust and Jealousy throughout the Nation; particularly, in those Cities and Towns that are places of Manufacture. There having been many Complaints and Commotions in London, and elsewhere, on occasion of Foreigners.

3. Political Infiltration:

That the Design of inviting Multitudes of Aliens to settle here, might prove, in time, a farther Mischief; for they would not only be capable of voting at Elections, but also of being chosen Members of Parliament; have Admission into Places of Trust and Authority; which, in process of time, might endanger our ancient Polity and Government; and by frequent Inter-marriages, go a great way to blot out and extinguish the English Race.

4. Historical Precedent:

That, anciently, Naturalizations, by Act of Parliament, were seldom or never made but upon some special Reasons and particular Occasions. And tho' some Acts had given Encouragement to foreign Merchants and Weavers to settle here, it was when our weaving Trade, and other Manufactures, were inconsiderable to the Advancement they had since attained.

5. Economic Impact on the Poor:

That it was more than probable, that the greatest Number that would come over would be of poor People, which would be of fatal Consequence with respect to the many poor, industrious Families, who would be reduced to the utmost streights hereby; it being evident, that no Hands were wanted to carry on our Manufactures, from the great Quantities that lay on hand, their cheapness, and the lowness of Wages now given.

6. Navigation Act Concerns:

That a general Naturalization would, in effect, defeat the Patent of the Act of Navigation, which had always been esteem'd to conduce to the Interest of the Nation, by the Incouragement and Increase of the English Mariners and Advance of Trade.

7. Wealth Transfer:

That hereby, in Process of Time, Aliens would be advanced in Riches, and her Majesty's Subjects impoverished: For those beneficial Trades of buying and selling by Commissions, Remittances, and Exchanges of Money, would, in great measure, be engrossed by Foreigners, by reason of their many Friends and Relations abroad.

8. Capital Flight:

That hereby the Treasure of the Nation would be exhausted and remitted into foreign Parts: For it might well be supposed, that those Aliens that had valuable Estates, could not, or would not transport the greatest part thereof hither; and leaving Children and their nearest Relations behind them, they would come hither only upon a design of getting Riches, and to return home again therewith.

9. Customs Revenue Loss:

That the Queen's Customs would hereby be considerably diminished: For many Statutes, which lay a greater Duty on Aliens than on Natives, would, as to this, be repeal'd.

10. Trade Manipulation:

That Opportunity would hereby be given to Merchants to colour the Goods and Merchandizes of other Strangers beyond Sea, their Correspondents, Friends, or Relations, either out of Friendship, or to the great Detriment of her Majesty's Customs and Trade of the native Subjects.

11. London Corporation Rights:

That the Duties of Package and Scavage of the Goods of all Merchants, as well Denizens as Aliens, were the indispensable Right and Inheritance of the Commonalty and Citizens of London, let to Farm by Lease (wherein are about 18 Years to come) for a Fine of 1000 l. and the yearly. Rent of 950 l.

12. Economic Conditions:

And in the last place, That the Nation being now engaged in an expensive, though necessary War; Taxes high, Trade obstructed, great Quantities of Woollen, and other Manufactures lay unsold; And, as the Effect hereof, the several Prices of making them very small; many Families destitute of Work throughout the Kingdom. What then, at such a Time as this, must be the Consequence of inviting hither by a general Naturalization, Multitudes of poor Foreigners, who would only employ themselves in Trade and Manufactures?

Opposition Paper: Arguments in Favour

The proponents of naturalisation marshaled sophisticated economic and political arguments which would prove remarkably enduring in British immigration debates. Rather than addressing the constitutional and cultural concerns raised by opponents, they focused exclusively on pragmatic benefits, particularly the successful integration of French Protestant refugees who had already contributed significantly to English commerce and manufacturing.

Their case rested on the fundamental premise population increase automatically generated wealth and national strength, citing continental examples where Protestant immigrants had revitalised entire regions through their industry and capital investment.

On the other hand, the City of London having petitioned the Commons on the 18th, that they might be heard by their Council against the said Bill; and their Request being granted, their Lawyers chiefly insisted on the 11th of the before-mentioned Reasons; but, upon Examination, it was found, that the Duties of Package and Scavage did not, of late, yield above twenty Pounds per Annum, most of the foreign Merchants being already naturalized.

The Majority of the House easily discerned the Captiousness of the other popular Arguments, being throughly convinced, both by their own Observation, and the Reasons alledged, both within and without the Walls, That (as the Preamble of the Bill sets it forth) the Increase of People is a Means of advancing the Wealth and Strength of a Nation.

The Swift Repeal (1711): Recognition of Failure

The gov.org website has this to say about the 1708 Act:

The 1708 'Act for naturalising Foreign Protestants' was passed in the reign of Charles II with the aim of encouraging to this country those Protestant weavers who were fleeing religious persecution in Europe. So many took advantage of it that the national identity was felt to be under attack, and the Act was repealed in 1711.

Which from the Records, proves to be correct. It took as little as three years in the early 1700's to realise that people will for their own personal advantage, abuse legislation offering free citizenship of our countries, and that; mass immigration is injurious for the Peoples of our nations.

Nonetheless, the Bill was ratified.

WHEREAS the Increase of People is a Means of advancing the Wealth and Strength of a Nation And whereas many Strangers of the Protestant or Reformed Religion out of a due Consideration of the happy Constitution of the Government of this Realm would be induced to transport themselves and their Estates into this Kingdom if they might be made Partakers of the Advantages and Priviledges which the natural born Subjects thereof do enjoy.

Statutes of the Realm (1708-13), Vol.9. p.63

Until three years later.

Parliamentary Proceedings for Repeal (1711)

The speed with which Parliament moved to repeal the naturalization legislation demonstrates the severity of the problems it had created. Within just three years of implementation, the empirical evidence of "divers Mischiefs and Inconveniencies" had become so overwhelming that even supporters could no longer defend the Act's continuation.

A Motion being afterwards made, that Leave might be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of the 7th Year of her Majesty's Reign, For the Naturalizing of foreign Protestants, the Act was read, after which, Leave was given to bring in a Bill to repeal the said Act.

The same Day, Mr. Finch presented to the House a Bill to repeal the Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants; which was read the first time, and ordered a second Reading.

The same day likewise the Bill to repeal An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestants, was read the third time, passed, and sent up to the Lords.

The text of the resulting Act pulled no punches.

An Act to repeal the Act of the Seventh Year of Her Majesties Reign intituled An Act for naturalizing Foreign Protestants (except what relates to the Children of Her Majesties natural born Subjects born out of Her Majesties Allegiance)

WHEREAS an Act of Parliament was made and passed in the Seventh Year of Her Majesties Reign intituled An Act for naturalizing Foreign Protestants And whereas divers Mischiefs and Inconveniencies have been found by Experience to follow from the same to the Discouragement of the natural born Subjects of this Kingdom and to the Detriment of the Trade and Wealth thereof Be it therefore enacted by the Queens most Excellent Majesty by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in this present Parliament assembled and by the Authority of the same That the before mentioned Act and all the Matters and Things therein contained (except so much of the said Act by which the Children of all natural born Subjects born out of the Allegiance of Her Majesty Her Heirs and Successors are to be deemed adjudged and taken to be natural born Subjects of this Kingdom) shall be and is hereby repealed annulled and made void to all Intents and Purposes whatsoever.

It received assent the same day:

The Queen being, the same Day, come to the House of Peers, with the usual State, and the Commons being sent for up, and attending, her Majesty gave the Royal Assent to the following public Bills... 3. An Act to repeal the Act of the seventh Year of her Majesty's Reign, entitled, An Act for naturalizing foreign Protestauts, except what relates to the Children of her Majesty's natural born Subjects, born out of her Majesty's Allelegiance.

The 1948 Act: Constitutional Subversion

Therefore it is logical to assume today those individuals acting as our governors, the Monarch included, are fully aware of the same, which in all reality makes them enemies and traitors of our Peoples and of our ancient Constitutions.

The British Nationality Act 1948 was introduced by the Labour government and came into force on 1 January 1949, following the 1947 Commonwealth conference on nationality and citizenship, which had agreed each Commonwealth member state would legislate for its own citizenship. The Act was primarily a response to post-World War II challenges, including the need to redefine nationality in a changing world where the British Empire faced pressure to decolonise and grant independence to various territories.

The Act created the new status of "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" (CUKC) for people born or naturalised in either the United Kingdom or one of its colonies, while retaining the overarching status of "British subject" to cover every citizen of a Commonwealth country. This meant that "After 1948, a non-white person born in colonial Kenya or Jamaica had enjoyed identical citizenship, on equal terms, to Winston Churchill."

Between 1948 and 1962, some 500,000 non-white British subjects entered under the legislation, despite documented evidence of elite suspicion of non-white Commonwealth migration.

I mentioned earlier that the 1948 Act repealed not only the words 'natural born' from all live legislation, but also, a section of Constitutional legislation of great importance to our People. These were express repeals (i.e. in those words) and not implied.

The Act of Settlement Repeal

Read this carefully, from An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, aka, the Act of Settlement 1701.

That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him;

What it does is; defines clearly and expressly in very simple words who is 'English', i.e. 'born of English parents'; and makes sure those citizens who were not 'natural born' or native to England that would want to do us harm (originally those from European countries, but implies the rest of the World), do not have access to the governance of our country and People, or to positions of power whereby the peace, security and prosperity of our People is put at risk.

The 1948 Act's repeal of critical sections of the Act of Settlement represents one of the most constitutionally significant but least understood aspects of the legislation. Section 31 (continued in 1981) explicitly states "For the purpose of assimilating the rights and liabilities of natural-born and other British subjects under the enactments specified in Part I of the Fourth Schedule to this Act, those enactments are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Part."

The Fourth Schedule's repeal was not merely administrative housekeeping—it fundamentally altered the constitutional safeguards established in 1700. The Act of Settlement originally provided naturalised subjects and denizens were expressly excluded from full participation in national life, maintaining that "true subject status remains that arising as a matter of natural law rather than positive law". The original provision had ensured that only those "born of English parents" could access positions of constitutional power, explicitly preventing naturalized aliens from infiltrating the governance structure.

Fourth Schedule
Enactments Repealed
Part 1
Enactments Relating To Natural-Born British Subjects.

12 & 13 Will. 3. c. 2.

The Act of Settlement.

In section three, the words from ” That after the said limitation shall take effect “ to ” in trust for him ” so far as they relate to British subjects and citizens of Eire.

This eliminated the crucial distinction between natural-born subjects and those who had acquired citizenship through naturalization, marriage, or other means.

By removing the "natural born" requirement, the 1948 Act opened all positions of constitutional authority to individuals who had no ancestral connection to England and whose primary loyalties might lie elsewhere. The result was citizens of independent countries such as Canada, India, Rwanda, and Jamaica (all Commonwealth countries), as well as Irish citizens, are treated as being akin to British citizens as regards who is eligible to be a member of the House of Commons. This represented a complete inversion of the Act of Settlement's original purpose, which was specifically designed to prevent foreign influence in English governance and ensure only those with natural allegiance to the Crown could exercise constitutional power over the English people.

Conclusion: The Devastating Legacy

The damage the British Nationality Act has done to our People's and Nations is incalculable. It has turned out to be the most insidious repugnant piece of legislation ever inflicted upon our Peoples and the most subversive attack on our English Constitution most people would not even be aware of.

Yet the evidence presented here reveals this was no accident of history, but the culmination of a deliberate, centuries-long campaign to dissolve the constitutional protections our ancestors bled to secure. The same arguments deployed in 1708—economic necessity, labour shortages, competitive disadvantage—are recycled today with mechanical precision. The same dismissal of popular concerns as "prejudice" and "narrow thinking" echoes through Westminster debates from then until now. The same promise mass immigration will strengthen rather than weaken the nation has proven false repeatedly, yet continues to be made with undiminished confidence.

Sir John Knight's warnings of 1690 read like a prophecy written for our time: the systematic displacement of native workers, the capture of trade and commerce by foreign networks, the transformation of English people into strangers in their own land, and the ultimate subjugation of the indigenous population by those they foolishly welcomed as equals. Every consequence he predicted—economic exploitation, cultural dissolution, political infiltration, demographic replacement—has materialised exactly as he foretold.

The 1948 Act's destruction of "natural born" protections represents the moment when this long campaign achieved total victory. By eliminating the constitutional barriers which prevented naturalised aliens from governing the native population, it completed what the 1708 Act had begun: the legal framework for England's demographic and political conquest. Today's migration crisis, with over 700,000 arrivals annually, is not an unintended consequence but the logical endpoint of policies designed to achieve precisely this result.

The pattern is unmistakable: each crisis—economic, demographic, constitutional—is used to justify the next expansion of alien settlement, each expansion creates new crises requiring further expansion, and each generation inherits a diminished inheritance while being told they are benefiting from "enrichment." The political class profits from this system—through cheap labour, property speculation, and the fragmentation of native solidarity—has successfully convinced the English people their own displacement represents "progress."

The British Nationality Act stands as the legal monument to our national suicide, the constitutional instrument through which a free people voluntarily surrendered their birthright to strangers. Until this legislation and its effects are reversed, until the principle of "natural born" governance is restored, and until the English people reclaim their constitutional right to be governed by their own kind, we remain a conquered nation administered by foreign interests under the pretense of our own consent.

The choice before us is stark: restore the constitutional order our forefathers established, or accept permanent subjugation under the very legal framework they warned us against. The British Nationality Act must be repealed, its effects reversed, and the ancient rights of the English people restored—not as a matter of policy preference, but as a matter of national survival.