John I’s Children could use UE after their name but did they qualify for land?

 

On November 9, 1789, Lord Dorchester, the Governor of Quebec, declared that it was his wish to "put the mark of Honour upon the families who had adhered to the Unity of the Empire."  He had realized the importance of some type of consideration for Loyalist families.  As a result of Dorchester's statement, the printed militia rolls carried the notation:

Those Loyalists who have adhered to the Unity of the Empire, and joined the Royal Standard before the

Treaty of Separation in the year 1783, and all their Children and their Descendants by either sex, are to be distinguished by the following Capitals, affixed to their names: U.E. alluding to their great principle The Unity of the Empire.

All John I’s children would qualify for the UE designation based on the above statement, but not necessarily for land as a “child of a loyalist”.

On July 1st 1783, the King of England signed a proclamation to provide land grants on the remaining British territories to the Loyalists that had supported the British.

Back to my predicament regarding why John II applied for land at such a late date.  When John II’s sisters, Sarah & Hannah applied for land as the “child of a loyalist” they both stated their full age, 42 & 32 respectively.  Their request for land was denied “The Petitioner not having come into the country as part of her father’s family and having delayed coming in so long, has forfeited her privilege as the daughter as a UE Loyalist.”   Interestingly though, they both reapplied without mentioning their full age, just that they were over 21.  Both requests were then approved. 

Probably none of John I’s adult “children” qualified under the spirit of the definition for “child of a loyalist”, except the four that John I brought with him initially.  I do suspect though that there was enough confusion about what warranted the designation of “child of a Loyalist” that they all applied/reapplied “in case”.

John II applied after the application became a printed form, the form now stating automatically that the applicant was over 21.  Still not sure why John waited so long to apply for the grant, I can speculate, but that is all it would be.

 

Why was John I from “Clinton” in John Reid’s book?

     I have puzzled over why John Mills I, in Reid’s book, Sons & Daughters of American Loyalists, was referred to as John I from “Clinton.”  His loyalist grants were in Grimsby.  This added to my confusion in sorting out this family.  John Mills I was in Clinton by 1814 according to a memorial deed when he sold lots 8 & 9 in Grimsby. John II’s loyalist application in 1817 refers to his father, John I of “Clinton”.  All the other children’s loyalist applications referred to John I of Grimsby.  John I was in Grimsby at least until 1804 when the last application from his other children was submitted.

        Why was John I in Clinton anyway?  His land was in Grimsby.  Was his health failing? I suspect he moved in with one of his daughters in Clinton; both Mary and Phoebe were living there.

 

 

 

John Mills I Land Received as a United Empire Loyalist

(I have highlighted some references to help tie together the documents that reference Johns land.)

Lots 8 & 9, Concession 5, Grimsby

John I first applied for land in 1794:

40 Mile Creek (Grimsby) Registered in Land Bk A pg 154 Upper Canada Land petitions “B” Bundle 2 1795-1796 RG 1 L3, Vol 328 (a) p. 275 C-2192

The Petition of John Mills humbly shewith that your petitioner was formerly an inhabitant of Sussex County, State of New Jersey and by reason of his attachment to the King and Constitution of Great Britain lost nearly all what he possessed of in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty or eighty one on that account was long imprisoned indicted and satt (sic) in a pillory for a long time.  In an extreme late season that is nearly lost him his life and for a long time rendered him incapable of supporting his family and obliged him to remain in the state in a miserable way and that he hath lately come into this Province with his family and most humbly prays that Your Excellency will be pleased to grant him such a portion of land as you may think him worthy of and your petitioner on duty bound will ever pray.  August 10th 1794  40 Mile Creek  John Mills

I here do certify that I was acquainted with the within Petitioner John Mills and that he had the character of an honest industrious man and that he had a large family of small children at the time mentioned in his petition and that the facts there in set forth are truth and that I believe him to be a man deserving your Excellency’s notice.  Certified by Nathaniel Pettit 40 Mile Creek 12 August 1794

 Index to Ontario Land Patents - John Mills granted lots 8 & 9, con. 5 in Grimsby Twp on 10 Aug 1801 (ref: Book N Folio 101)

In a letter dated 13 Mar 1816 from the surveyors office: ”I find John Mills located lots #8 & 9 in the fifth concession of Grimsby – 200 acres, under an order in council of the 8^th October 1796”.  

Further on I will explain why this date is incorrect, but after 1816 it was realized that there was an error in the land book and the Oct 8 date was changed to 7 July 1796.

        As I explained in an earlier post, John Mills appears twice on the “Old UEL List, Appendix B”.  (The centennial of the settlement of Upper Canada by the UEL, 1784-1884)

       John in District H is ours and the errors continue.  I wanted to see if there was a second John Mills listed on July 7th, in the same land book.  Interestingly the index to the land book does not show the July time period.  

     Fortunately I had received my copy of the July 7th listing from Archives Canada may years ago, and they referenced microfilm C-101, so what happened to July, August and September?  The microfilm copy starts out in October, but a few pages in October has been crossed out and changed to July. This can be seen at the top of the 7 July 1796 document.

     

AND M275 is the August 10^th 1794 loyalist application from John Mills I (above) explaining his imprisonment.

     After sorting this out I looked through the index to see if there was a second John Mills petition read on July 7th, there wasn't.  On July 3rd, 1795 "James Mills, a loyalist who had served during the French and American Wars, praying for lands...granted 300 acres."  Either the second John Mills in "The centennial of the settlement of Upper Canada" Appendix B should be James or the surname should be different. 

Lot 15 & 16 Concession 4, Grimsby:
Upper Canada Land Petitions "M" bundle 3, 1797 329A M3 p141 John Mills Petition

 The petition of John Mills humbly shewith that your petitioner was born in the state of New Jersey and in the late war between Great Britain and America he being a faithful subject to the King and Conducted many of his Majesties subjects to New York he being apprehended by the Americans they punished him very severely and they took from him all his property which was considerable.  He came into this province in the year 1793 with his wife and four children and has but 200 acres of land granted him he further prays for an additional grant such as your Honour may think he merits and he as in duty bounty will ever pray. 

April 30^th, 1797 John Mills

We the subscribers do hereby certify that we are acquainted with the Bearer John Mills in the state of New Jersey that he was generally esteemed industrious honest man and all way appeared to be very much attached to the King and British Constitution and averse to the opposition made to it in the time of the war in America on account of which he was imprisoned fined and otherwise evil in treated by His Majesties Enemies tho’ he was in good circumstances in life nearly ruined and after all in a very cold and severe season in the year.  Taken out of the prison and sat in a pillory in such a sever manner and for such a length of time that he was near losing is life and by their great opposition rendered so poor that his family was obliged to be dispersed and he incapable of removing into this province until the year 1793 that his son the only one of them that was of age fit for that service at his request escaped to the British and joined that army as a soldier at New York.

Certified by                              Nathaniel Pettit

April 30^th 1797                          John Adair

                                                Jacob Beam

                                                Daniel Corson

                                                Cris Buchner

                                                David Palmer

                                                John Green

                                                John Moore

Endorsed: Received 16th May 1797

Read the same day ordered 200 acres in addition – PR

 1797 May 16 recommended for further 200 acres and received Lot 15, Con 4, Grimsby Twp., Lincoln Co.  This lot is located at the top of the Niagara Escarpment near 40 Mile Creek.

 

 

 Index to Ontario Land Patents - John Mills granted lots 15 & 16, con. 4 in Grimsby Twp on 17 May 1802 (ref: Book N Folio 344)

Now, why should this get easier -  Lots 8 & 9 were sold by John I but Lots 15 & 16 were sold by John II. Aside from the land granted to John II in 1817, in Lobo (as son of a loyalist), he does not appear to own land until he moved to Windham.  

 Lots 8 & 9 in the 5th concession were both sold to son-in-law Abraham Marlatt in 1814.  By then, John I was living in Clinton, probably with his daughter Mary & her partner Abraham. But, Lots 15 & 16 in the 4th concession tell a different tale.  In 1810 John Mills I sold 1/2 of Lot 15 to John Smith Pettit.  In 1818 John Mills II sold the balance of the lots to Jonathan Pettit.

As the oldest or oldest surviving son was John II automatically going to inherit the Grimsby properties?  Had his father offered the Grimsby land to him as an incentive if moved his family to Canada? John I's application in 1794 refers to his poor health delaying his trek to Ontario, did it fail further? 

The indenture of 1818 for lot 15 & 16 in Grimsby was the first “proof” I had that the tree I found in the Norfolk Museum was correct – that Permila Seeley was John II’s wife. In the indenture she is giving up her Right ofDower.