johnwood1946

New Brunswick History and Other Stuff

Early Maugerville and the Sheffield Parsonage Dispute

leave a comment »

JohnWood1946@hotmail.com

The Early Settlement of Maugerville and the Sheffield Parsonage Dispute

John Wood

© 2010 by the York-Sunbury Historical Society, Inc.

Originally published in The Officers’ Quarters journal, Vol. 27, No. 1. Reprinted here with permission.

The story of the founding of Maugerville can be found in several references.1 In 1758, Governor Lawrence in Halifax issued a proclamation inviting people interested in settlement in Nova Scotia to file proposals. These proposals could be made to Thomas Hancock in Boston or to others in New York City, for land “recently vacated” by the French. This generated some interest, but there was a need for further information concerning the terms of settlement. New Englanders also wanted to know about the form of government in Nova Scotia and needed assurances that it was tolerant to religious dissent. Governor Lawrence therefore issued a second proclamation in January of 1759 outlining terms similar to those that later appeared in the Maugerville grant. He also said that the government was similar to that of other colonies, although he revealed nothing about the division of powers between the branches of government and did not mention the powerful Board of Trade. He said that there would be full liberty of conscience and that people of all persuasions, “papists excepted”, could build meeting houses and contract for ministerial services.2

In around 1760 or 1761, Alexander McNutt became a Nova Scotia land promoter, likely through the offices of Thomas Hancock in Boston. McNutt was a “high pressure promoter, … persuasive, …distinctly untrustworthy, … (and) a fertile liar”.3 McNutt showed some official looking papers to prospective settlers in New England and claimed to have authority to offer grants. The Board of Trade was not too happy with McNutt’s zeal, and they offered a reservation on the Saint John River to a group of prospective Scottish settlers instead.

The New Englanders were still proceeding upon McNutt’s assurances, however, and a group led by Israel Perley reconnoitered the river in 1761. Francis Perley obtained authority to survey a township at a place of his choosing, also in 1761. Among other things, the order authorizing the survey provided that “You shall Reserve four Lots in the Township for Publick use, one as a Glebe for the Church of England, one for the Dissenting Protestants, one for the maintenance of a school, and one for the first settled minister in the place.” The survey was completed and, in May of 1762, a small group of settlers arrived at the Saint John River following a three day voyage from Newburyport, Massachusetts.

The would be settlers first explored the lower river and then went to Ste. Anne across from the Nashwaak and set up camp. A survey party led by Israel Perley was at work when a large group of Malecites in wardress and paint demanded that they withdraw. After much debate, they were forced to return to the lower end of Oromocto Island on the other side of the river, further from the Malecite village of Aukpaque. Survey and settlement then proceeded without challange.4

Disorganization in government continued and the Board of Trade recommended that Council offer grants to the Scots. Francis Peabody and perhaps others of the advance guard went to Halifax with their survey but arrived on the very day that the Halifax panic began and could not meet with anyone. The panic was caused by rumors that a French fleet had descended upon Saint John’s, Newfoundland, which had fallen. In any case, they returned to the Saint John River without official sanction for their settlement. James Simonds and John Peabody then petitioned on behalf of the 300 people who had already arrived. They said that McNutt had empowered them to lay out a township and they had done so. They had built houses and planted grain, and demanded that McNutt’s promises be honoured.5 Council agreed that they could stay at their own risk until things were straightened out one way or another,6 and then asked the Board of Trade to provide for grants for the New Englanders also.7  Meanwhile, more people were arriving upon the river and others were planning to arrive,8 while the Lieut. Governor, Council, and the Board of Trade debated with each other as to who was responsible for the mix up and how it should be resolved.

In mid-1763, two Councilors, Charles Morris and Henry Newton, were sent to Maugerville to evict the few remaining Acadians and to tell the New Englanders that the land was already reserved for the Scots and that they would have to leave. Instead, they wrote to Joshua Mauger, MP and agent for Nova Scotia in London, recommending the New Englanders. They argued that ejecting the New Englanders would be ruinous and that they would be useful in settling the Scots who, being soldiers, would not arrive with stock. Francis Peabody, John Carlson, Nicholas West and Israel Peabody then petitioned Mauger expressing astonishment at Council’s position. His Majesty’s proclamations had offered land and McNutt had encouraged them with the authority of the Lords of Trade. They stretched the point a bit when they said that they had also expected grants as retired (Provincial) troops, since retired (British) troops had already received grants. In reliance upon these things, nearly 100 of them had chosen their spot, sold everything and moved. Four days later the Board of Trade recommended that their grants be confirmed, Joshua Mauger having covered the New Englanders’ legal expenses. The King in Council then ordered that a township be laid out whereupon Council changed its mind again and recommended against a grant. It was too late, however, and the grant was made on October 31, 1765.9 At the time a census was taken in 1762, the Maugerville community had 261 souls, with others in Gagetown and Burton.10 The Maugerville settlement never amounted to more than a few hundred people until the Loyalists arrived.

In religion, the people of Maugerville were almost all of Puritan stock, Congregationalists, Dissenting Protestants. They had difficulty attracting a settled minister and difficulty in paying the costs of even temporary ones. Early itinerant pastors included a Mr. Wellman, Rev. Thomas Wood, Samuel Webster and Zephaniah Briggs. The first settled minister was Rev. Seth Noble who arrived in 1775, the same year that the meeting house was completed.11 Their meeting house was on Lot 90 in what is now Maugerville, and they also occupied Lot 15 in Sheffield beginning in 1763.12

It is ordinary enough that a new church would undertake a covenant, but was especially typical for the Maugerville people who were organized and ordered in all of their activities. The congregation’s covenant was written in 1763 or 1764, and was a statement of faith; “We … do (as we hope) with some measure of seriousness and sincerity take upon us the following covenant, ….”.13

The members defined themselves in terms of prevailing thought, as expressed in a catechism; “… we cordially adhere to the principles of … the Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly of Divines…”.14

They were also organized internally; “And it is our purpose … to discharge the duties of Christian love and Brotherly watchfulness toward each other, ….” and “… respecting Church discipline it is our purpose to adhere to the methods [prescribed by] … the synod at Cambridge in New England Ano. Dom. 1648.”15 This was a responsibility that they took seriously, as there were many occasions such as the time that a committee was formed to talk to a member “Concarning his beainge Charged with scandalless Sins”. Within about two weeks he had got the message, and was “Restored to thair Charitty a Gain”.16

The church was also Calvinistic, believing in salvation by election; “… depending [on] Him to do all for us, and to work all in us, especially relating to our eternal salvation, being sensible that in ourselves we can do nothing.” 17

Continued immigration would have made it difficult for the Maugerville church to remain the unanimous religious expression of the people. There were trends in New England that were changing things there, and even the Saint John River was not so remote as to avoid these influences forever. However, as it turned out, there were Maritime events that would be even more powerful in bringing radical change.

The work of Henry Alline who led the Nova Scotia Great Awakening between 1776 and his death in 1784 was a challenge to the solidarity of the Maugerville church. Alline visited Maugerville in 1779 and established a church on the Saint John River. The Congregational Church in Maugerville renewed their covenant in that same year, 1779, and made reference to “divissions and calamitys that God has sent or permitted in this place.18 For his part, Alline saw events around Maugerville more positively, in that “The power of religion was reviving, but the enemies raging …”.19 Alline’s movement spread throughout the Maritime Provinces like a fire, and changed forever the state of religion there. Never before, or since, has there been such a revival, or such a time of change in Atlantic Canada.20 This movement led to the establishment of the first ‘Christian’ churches and eventually to the Free Christian Baptists, but the history of that will not be delved into here.

In politics, many of the Maugerville settlers supported the American cause in the revolution. Contacts were made with George Washington and petitions were written for support from the Americans (rather than from the British) against Malecite attacks. One such initiative was cited by Raymond, who quoted the Maugerville settlers as follows: “Resolved that it is our minds and desires to submit ourselves to the government of Massachusetts Bay and that we are ready with our lives and fortunes to share with them the event of the present struggle for liberty …”.21 Some of their members even took part on a raid upon Fort Cumberland.

On another occasion, the British threatened the people on the river with armed force if they did not remain loyal, and the settlers at Maugerville found it necessary to write a letter stating “that their greatest desire hath ever been to live in peace under good and wholesome laws” and that they were “ready to attend to any conditions of lenity and oblivion that may be held out to them.” 22 

Much of the blame for these pro-American sentiments was at one time placed on Parson Seth Noble who arrived in 1775, but Gerald Keith has shown that this support existed earlier than had previously been thought, and that Noble was not necessarily instrumental in it. Keith and other later writers also make the point that the political leanings of the Maugerville people flowed more from their Massachusetts roots than from anything that Noble might have done.23 Seth Noble and Phineas Nevers were nonetheless rebels, and had to leave the river because of this. “But if some of our earlier historians suggest that Parson Noble almost single-handedly seduced an entire settlement of contented though pliable people to follow his attachment to the rebel cause – it seems all a bit too thick.”24

In general, the Maugerville letter quoted above likely expressed the situation best. It was not a wholesale declaration of loyalty but, rather, a plea not to be drawn more deeply into a conflict that was larger than they could deal with on their own. Caught between the Americans, the British and the Malecites and their allies, political actions had to be taken with some discretion. There is no doubt that many of the settlers favored the American cause, but this ambiguity in their position would still allow one descendant, who should have know better, to deny this altogether.25

And so, by 1782 there was an established settlement at Maugerville with religious and political views that were typical for New Englanders. Their situation was isolated from the mainstream and they had survived by their wits and through solidarity with one another. It is difficult to imagine what a shock it must have been to everything they had accomplished over the course of twenty years when, in the summer of 1783, 15,000 Loyalists arrived in what is today New Brunswick.

The competition for land around Maugerville became fierce with the arrival of the Loyalists. There were even incidents of turning Acadians off land that they justly owned. Fences were burned, cattle were stolen and root cellars were destroyed.26 Loyalists would quickly petition for land occupied by others so long as any basis for disputing a claim could be found. In 1784, the Congregational church complained “with regard to the growth of immorality in this place we acknowledge and lament it …” and wished that they could find a place “where Vice and immorality did not thrive, or at  least where vital purity did flourish more than here”.27

During the Winter of 1783 and for three years, the Dissenting Protestants and the Church of England shared the use of the Dissenters’ meeting house on Lot 90.28 Also prior to 1784, the Church of England and the Dissenting Protestants agreed that Lot 115 sic., which the Dissenting Protestants had been using in part for a cemetery was to remain with them; Lot 90 was to go to the Church of England for a glebe; Lot 50 for a school; and another Lot for a Church of England clergyman. 29 Relations would not remain cordial for very long, however.

There was a very wise decision on the part of government in January of 1786 to address the tensions between the old settlers and the Loyalists. Act Number 1 of the first legislative assembly created the present County of Sunbury, with four Parishes, viz. Burton, Lincoln, Sheffield and Maugerville.30 The old settlers and the Loyalists now each had their own territory; the old settlers in Sheffield, and the Loyalists in Maugerville.

In about 1786, the school Lot 50 was granted to the heirs of John Sayer, “through some error”31 and in November of that year Moses Coburn, John Wason and David Burpee, agents for the Dissenting Protestants of Maugerville and Sheffield were moved to petition in defense of the Dissenters’ church Lot Number15.32 They pointed out that four lots had been reserved in Maugerville, and they give details of this. Improvements had been made to Lot 15 since 1764. About 25 acres had been cleared and cultivated and another 30 acres had been fenced and partly cleared. The entire lot had been leased on behalf of the Dissenting Protestants. The petitioners went on to point out that the Dissenting Protestants had occupied Lot 15 since 1764 and had a cemetery there. They were also expecting a minister to arrive from Europe in the spring of 1787, and asked for a grant of the lot. The reference to a lease reflects that they were occupying the lot, but did not have an actual grant.

The minister whom they were expecting was obtained with the help of Selina Hastings, the Countess of Huntingdon, who was the founder of a sect of Calvinistic Methodists known as the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connection.33

On June 1, 1788, Rev. John James and Rev. Milton arrived at Maugerville and, after a short while, it was agreed to provide board, washing and lodging for a year to one or both of them. A subscription was taken up to cover the costs and, in July, a committee was set up to wait on their needs. It was agreed that the two men would preach in Sheffield alternately for a month at a time and that they would share in the support of the Church which was estimated at £50 or more over the course of the year for both of them.34

On November 10, 1788, John James was given a call to settle and was provided with the details of the subscription that had been gathered. By December 15th, he had accepted the call at a salary then estimated at between £50 and £60, in addition to the income from a farm and stock, which they were providing to him. They did not know what difficulties were ahead in their relationship with John James!

On February 1, 1793, the school Lot 50 was again granted, this time to Church of England for a glebe. Gorham notes that the granting of Lot 50 to the Church of England should, by inference, have confirmed that Lot 15 was to remain in the possession of the Dissenting Protestants. 35

As stated earlier, it was decided that Lot 90 in Maugerville, which was the location of the Dissenting Protestant meeting house, was to go to the Church of England. Therefore, on March 10, 1789, “… by the joint exertions of the Inhabitants of Maugerville and Sheffield, was removed entire, a large building erected by the Protestant Dissenters, for the purpose of Devine Worship, to the distance of 3 miles. Its dimensions are 40 feet in length, 36 feet in breadth, and 22 feet in height.—  This huge Fabric coming down the River St. John, on the Ice, halled by 60 yokes of Oxen, attended by about 200 people, among whom there were a number of Ladies in slays who graced the Phenomenon with their presence, made a most noble appearance.—  The design was executed to the general satisfaction of every beholder.”  The meeting house was now at Lot 15 in Sheffield.36 The almost completed dwelling house was still being used for services, as it was very common for them to meet in private houses. Perhaps the meeting house was still on blocks or needed other work to be done, or maybe it was just too cold in the winter. In any case, Lot 90 is where the Anglican Church sits in Maugerville to this day, while Lot 15 is the site of the United Church in Sheffield.

On June 1, 1789, John James began his one-year tenure. By autumn, however, he was already unhappy and called a meeting and told the committee that he did not feel obliged to serve more than his one-year term, and that the income that had been provided was insufficient. In addition, he wanted time off to visit the United States. They replied that they were not authorized to increase his salary, but that they would help him in any way that they could to not be in need. They also thought that the congregation would not be happy with him traveling to the U.S. for a visit, given all of the work that they had put into the support of the church.

The next Sunday, he asked the congregation for permission to visit the United States until the following spring. This was not well received, and he then told them that he would stay until June of 1790 and that if his demands had not been met then he would go to England where he could get a salary of £200 per year. In the meantime, he moved to a house nearer to the meeting house and hired a servant. The congregation continued to supply him with firewood and food.

His unhappiness grew, and a meeting was called in February of 1790 to ask what it would take to satisfy him. He said that he wanted at least £60 per year. In addition, he wanted a lifetime lease of the parsonage, which should also be furnished, together with four cows and a pair of oxen. He wanted ownership of the farm transferred to him at the end of a year or so. In early May they met again and, out of gratitude to the Countess of Huntingdon, agreed to give him a new call. They agreed that he should have the house and barn for as long as he preached there and that at the end of four years they would give him £25 to help him buy a farm of his own. His salary was also increased by £20. He accepted this call in writing, with the added proviso that he be given three months off that year, and one month in each succeeding year if he so demanded.

In June of 1790, Mr. James departed for Boston for his three-month break, but did not arrive back until December, 25 weeks later. He then gave up preaching twice on Sundays, because the days were so short at that time of year. Complaints arose during that winter that he was not visiting his flock or at least not in the way of a visiting clergyman ought; that he kept bad company; and that he drank and sometimes to excess. He denied the last complaint, which was dropped for lack of evidence. He responded to these accusations by calling the congregation a bunch of backbiters and rumor mongerers, and generally slandered them in public.

In the spring of 1791, he was still unwilling to start preaching twice on Sundays notwithstanding the lengthening days. He had also been keeping a chicken in part of his house reserved for worship (which the people did not approve of), and complained angrily to the congregation one Sunday that the noise of his chicken made it impossible for him to go on preaching there. By May, he gathered some people together and demanded that he be given time off to go to the U.S. to marry a woman to whom he was already engaged. He said that he would then return, a happy man. This was agreed to and, in around August of 1791, he returned without a wife and the people suspected that he never had any intention of being married during that absence.

Shortly thereafter, having established a school, he seemed to lose interest in his religious duties.

On March 4, 1792, Mr. James offered to resign effective June 1, 1792.37 At about the same time, however, a young woman (Mary Coy) became uneasy and upset with Mr. James, and a meeting was called to resolve whatever her difficulties with him were. However, he showed up very late for the meeting and the woman was too upset to make any accusations. However, she confided her concerns to some members of the congregation and they all went to see John James whereupon the woman openly accused him of “scandalous indecencies” toward her. He strenuously denied these accusations, but his listeners then brought forward a list of other similar complaints that had been circulating. Days later, he announced his intention to join the Church of England, “the most indulgent and least censorious church in the world”, and to preach for them. Consequently, he denied any right on the part of the Congregationalists to inquire further into his conduct.38  The following Sunday, he began preaching for the Church of England in the meeting quarters at his house, while still keeping all of the benefits that had been given to him by the Congregationalists.

The next month, on April 10, 1792, the Sheffield Parsonage Dispute began in earnest with a petition by the Dissenting Protestants.39 They reviewed the reservations of lots that had been made by government, and pointed out that the Dissenting Protestants were the first settlers and had set aside Lot 15 for their glebe or parsonage in 1763. Thirty acres had been cleared and a house, barn, and meeting house had been built. They had hired Mr. James for £80 per year plus the use of Lot 15 including the stock. On Sunday March 4, 1792, following a dispute, James had resigned, however. On March 11, 1792, Mr. James declared himself for the Church of England and had since been preaching to them and a few Dissenting stragglers. The Dissenting Protestants had heard that Mr. James had asked, or was about to ask, for Lot 15 for himself as a Church of England glebe. This was notwithstanding that there were only two Church of England families in the Parish. They asked that the Lot not be reassigned or at least not until they had had an opportunity to make a further submission. In general, all of the Dissenting Protestant petitions were well reasoned, measured in tone, and legalistic. By comparison, the Church of England petitions were unmeasured outbursts.

Within a month, on May 2, 1792, the Church of England supporters submitted their petition.40 In it they said that it had been decided that a Vestry should be established in Sheffield to attract “many deluded people” back to the established Church. This would improve them and correct their religion; avoiding anarchy, confusion, idleness and the destruction of a regulated society. They thought that if anyone should doubt this, then they should consider their loyalty and correctness in these matters under the established religion. They pointed out that three of the four reserved lots in Maugerville and Sheffield fell outside of Sheffield and that Mr. James who was giving Church of England services there was holding the fourth lot. The Dissenting Protestants had claimed this last lot without justification and few if any improvements had been made to it before the Loyalists arrived. The more recent improvements were mostly by Captains Van Allan and Ryerse, they claimed. They proposed that the Dissenting Protestants might continue to have their meeting house where it was or move it at their option, but that the Church of England should receive a grant of the lot. This petition was “not complied with”.

The Dissenting Protestants replied three weeks later, on May 22, 1792.41 They said that they had held the lot for 29 years relying on royal proclamations and a promise of religious freedom, and on the reservation of a lot for a minister. They had cleared 30 acres, built a parsonage house and barn, and also built a meeting house. They were nearly all Dissenting Protestants and had been misrepresented as being torn by religious schism, which they were not. They were a legitimate religious organization, which had hired a respectable minister from England (“not an ignorant preacher” as had been alleged) on the basis that they could provide him with facilities. They had also undertaken to pay him nearly £80 per year.

The Dissenters went on to review that they had lately objected to their minister’s conduct and that he had gone to the Church of England with a view to becoming ordained in that church. This minister had refused to vacate the parsonage, claiming that he was owed a settlement on his salary. He could have made his case in support of a settlement without having taken over the parsonage, however. The minister had also caused a few misguided persons to seek Lot 15 away from the Dissenting Protestants.

The Dissenting Protestants said that they were in the vast majority in Sheffield and that this was their only reserved lot. The Church of England already had a lot in Maugerville where they were more numerous.

In conclusion, the Dissenters thought that there was no reason why the lot should be taken away from them to serve mostly people from Burton on the other side of the river, and that the only reason that the Church of England had formed a Vestry in Sheffield was to seize the lot. They therefore asked that the lot be granted to their trustees in common.

Late July, 1792, Bishop Inglis visited. William Hubbard, Joseph Clark and Sheriff DeVeber, “three sturdy churchmen”, asked him to have John James ordained and appointed Rector in Sheffield, but he only took this under advisement. 42

There was another petition in 1792 by Timothy Wetmore, barrister, in Gagetown. This was a 30-page document claiming that the Dissenting Protestants had no right to any glebe lot, and that such grants should be made to the Church of England only. I have not been able to locate this petition, however.43

By June 19 of 1793 the Church of England was still on the attack with another petition. This was further to their earlier petition which had not been complied with.44 The Church of England claimed that 70 to 100 people regularly attended Church of England services on Lot 15, and that they were not “few in number and unworthy of notice” as the Dissenting Protestants had claimed. They asked that a grant of Lot 15 to the Church of England be reconsidered on the basis that they could disprove much of what the Dissenting Protestants had claimed.

On August 6, 1793 at 10 o’clock in the morning, Messrs. Burpe and Coburn walked through the open door of the dwelling house on Lot 15 in the presence of James Gallishan and Thomas McCreig, where they remained until about 2pm. At 2 pm, William Hubbard and Gabriel DeVeber, the Sheriff, arrived and asked Burpe and Coburn if they were holding the house peacefully. A long conversation ensued during which Hubbard and DeVeber attempted to convince the two Congregationalists to leave, but to no avail. The Dissenters were finally left in possession of the parsonage.

At 1 pm on the following day, Justices of the Peace John Mersereau, William Hubbard, Clark and Miles, and Sheriff DeVeber arrived with bluster. They had a man named Carvel with them. Burpe asked them what their business was there, and William Hubbard replied that they knew very well. Burpee then invited Samuel Nevers and Daniel Jewett to come in as witnesses to the proceedings whereupon Burpe and Coburn were ordered out under threat of law, which they refused to do. Hubbard then shut the door to keep anyone else from coming in. They then invited Carvel to go and fetch his belongings and to bring them in, but Burpe and Coburn prevented this. Carvel did bring in two muskets, one of which was loaded. Hubbard criticized Carvel for not having attached bayonets and an alarmed Burpe said “Gentlemen, I can but look upon this matter as a forcible entry upon us in our own house and peaceable possession”. The Justices then met privately in the next room and Hubbard came out and announced that he was giving the house to Carvel anyway, and that Burpe and Coburn could stay or leave as they pleased. Carvel and his wife came in and Burpe demanded from John Mersereau a copy of whatever lawful proceedings there were against them; but Mersereau said that there would be time enough for that later. Samuel Denny Street then arrived and calmed the situation. He asked the Justices if they were there in pursuit of their duties as magistrates, to which they said they were and that Burpe and Coburn had taken the premises by force. Street then asked what force they had used, and whether there had been a jury to determine this or whether Burpe and Coburn had barred their entrance. John Mersereau then admitted that there had been no force. John Mersereau and Joseph Clark were Wardens of the Church of England. Miles and Hubbard were Vestrymen. DeVeber was a member of the Church of England.9 The comings and goings of so many people, the barring of the door, and the appearance of Samuel Denny Street all indicate that there was a lot of attention being given to these events, and a crowd was probably gathered around.

Other Dissenting Protestants supported their Sheffield comrades and, in an undated petition by a number of inhabitants of Gagetown and Waterborough,45 they said that some of them were ‘old settlers’ who had associated themselves with the Dissenting Protestants of Sheffield because they could not support a minister themselves. They had also helped with building the meeting house. In reliance upon government, they thought that a lot had been reserved for a parsonage and they never suspected that the Church of England who already had ample reservations would interfere. However, a Vestry had been formed and the Church of England had taken over the parsonage house, which had been used for worship by the Dissenting Protestants while awaiting completion of their meeting house. On cold days, it was now necessary either meet in a private house or to argue over possession of the parsonage on a Sunday. The Church of England also had a tenant in the parsonage and farm (Carvel), which had previously been held and maintained by the Dissenting Protestants.

These were the arguments that took place over possession of Lot 15 in Sheffield; generally known as the Sheffield parsonage dispute. The dispute was not settled quickly, but in the end the Dissenting Protestants kept their meeting house and parsonage on Lot 15. They were granted five acres to include these buildings and their burial ground in 1820. The rest of the lot was granted to the Madras schools.46

Notes:

  1. The story of the founding of Maugerville can be found in W.O. Raymond’s Papers Relating to the Townships of the River St. John …, NBHS Coll. VI, Saint John, 1905, pp 287-301; and in his book The River St. John, Saint John, 1910, pp 263-288. J.B. Brebner’s book The Neutral Yankees of Nova Scotia, McClelland and Stewart, 1969, a reprint of the original published by Columbia Univ. Press, 1937; and L.M.B. Maxwell’s The History of Central New Brunswick, Fredericton, 1984, a reprint of the original 1937 work are also very useful. These references were used for this telling of the story down to the making of a grant for the township of Maugerville in 1765, with other sources as indicated.
  2. PANS 301, No. 3, a copy of the proclamation probably transcribed by John Draper of Boston.
  3. J.B. Brebner, The Neutral Yankees of Nova Scotia, McClelland and Stewart, 1969, a reprint of the original published by Columbia Univ. Press, 1937, p30.
  4. L.F.S. Upham, Micmacs and Colonists, U.B.C. Press, 1979, p69; in addition to J.B. Brebner, ibid.
  5. PANS RG1, Vol. 301, No. 3, Council Minutes, July 29, 1762.
  6. PANS RG1, Vol. 204, Council Minutes, July 1, 1762.
  7. PANS RG1, Vol. 301, No. 3, Council Minutes, July 29, 1762.
  8. James Hannay, ed., The Maugerville Settlement, NBHS Coll. I, St. John, 1894, pp 64, 66.
  9. PANS, Places, Nova Scotia Land Grants, Old book 8. This is also included in W.O. Raymond’s The River St. John, although his transcription is not exact.
  10. Gerald Keith, The Pickard Papers, NBHS Coll. XV, 1959, pp 55-79.
  11. Gerald Keith, ibid.
  12. PANB, The petition of the Dissenting Protestants, May 22, 1792.
  13. James Hannay, The Maugerville Settlement, N.B.H.S. Coll. I, p 69. This includes a transcript of the covenant.
  14. ibid.
  15. ibid.
  16. James Hannay, ed., Documents of the Congregational Church at Maugerville, NBHS Coll. I, Saint John, 1894, pp 119-147.
  17. ibid.
  18. James Hannay, ed., The Maugerville Settlement , ibid., p78.
  19. Quoted by D.G. Bell in his book Newlight Baptist Journals of James Manning and James Innis, 1984, p 61
  20. W.S. MacNutt, New Brunswick, a History: 1784-1867, Macmillan of Canada, 1908, p 167. The imagery of fire is MacNutt’s.
  21. W.O. Raymond, The River St. John, Saint John, 1910, p 434.
  22. ibid., p 439.
  23. Gerald Keith, ibid.
  24. Gerald Keith, ibid.
  25. Gerald Keith, ibid., p 71.
  26. L.M.B. Maxwell, The History of Central New Brunswick, Fredericton, 1984, a reprint of the original 1937 work, p 31.
  27. James Hannay, ed., Documents of the Congregational Church at Maugerville, ibid.
  28. James Hannay, ed., The Maugerville Settlement, ibid., p 86; and William D. Moore, Sunbury County 1760-1830, M.A. Thesis (History), University of New Brunswick, 1977, pp 91-95.
  29. R.P. Gorham, Notes on the History of the Church of England in the Parish of Maugerville …, December, 1937, PANB microfilm F1284.
  30. R.P. Gorham, ibid., p5
  31. R.P. Gorham, ibid., p5
  32. The petition of Moses Coburn, John Wason and David Burpee, agents for the Dissenting Protestants in Maugerville and Sheffield, November, 1786, PANB RS108.
  33. 70.1911encyclopedia.org as searched in July of 2004, concerning the Countess.
  34. The remainder of this article relies heavily upon James Hannay, ed., Documents of the Congregational Church at Maugerville, ibid., in addition to other sources as indicated.
  35. R.P. Gorham, ibid.
  36. St. John Gazette and Weekly Advertisor, PANB, March 20, 1789.
  37. The petition of Hugh Johnston and Israel Perley, April 10, 1792, PANB MG23, D1, Series II, Vol. 71, No. 4.
  38. The petition of Hugh Johnston and Israel Perley, ibid.; and R.P. Gorham, ibid.
  39. The petition of Hugh Johnston and Israel Perley, ibid.
  40. The petition of the Wardens and Vestry of the Parish of Sheffield and the Lower Part of the Parish of Burton, PANB, May 2, 1792.
  41. The petition of the Protestant Dissenters within the County of Sunbury, May 22, 1792, as presented by D.G. Bell in his book Newlight Baptist Journals of James Manning and James Innis, Saint John, 1984, pp 303-308.
  42. R.P. Gorham, ibid., p 13.
  43. L.M.B. Maxwell, ibid., p 43.
  44. The petition of the Members of the Church of England, June 19, 1793, as reprinted by L.M.B. Maxwell, ibid., pp 124-126.
  45. The petition of a number of Inhabitants of Gagetown and Waterborough, PANB, undated.
  46. William D. Moore, Sunbury County 1760-1830, M.A. Thesis (History), University of New Brunswick, 1977, pp 91-95
Advertisements

Written by johnwood1946

August 22, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Posted in Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: