Editor’s Note: Bruce Murduck, a family-historian who specializes in Ontario research, has researched land records, Loyalist records, etc., for SGS. This first report deals mostly Augustus Seeley. In his report he refers to township, concession, and lots or a portion of a lot. The townships are rectangular except where a lake or river abutted them. The townships are nine miles wide (east-west) and twelve miles in depth (north-south). Townships were normally divided into fourteen concessions. Concessions were separated by a road so each lot would have road access. Concessions were divided into lots. 200 acre- or 100-acre lots were typical, and they were often divided and resold.

Augustus Seeley, United Empire Loyalist, seems a very elusive character.

Some official original records suggest that he had nine children, although there are much later applications for membership with the United Empire Loyalists’ Association of Canada, unsubstantiated at this point, which suggest that he may have had ten.

Only eight children have been positively identified through petitions for land submitted by sons and daughters, requesting their due of 200 acres.

Peter Wilson Coldham’s American Migrations, 1765-1799, published by the Genealogical Publishing Company of Baltimore, MD, details claims for losses submitted by two men, one named Augustus Seely, and the other named Austin Seely.

Details for Austin Seely can be found on Page 164. He was originally of Arlington, Bennington, VT. He reputedly joined the Army in 1777 and served for three months under General Burgoyne. He was imprisoned for six months, and much of his property was confiscated. He submitted a claim for lost cattle with evidence depositions by Zadok Hard and Benjamin Buck. The claim was rejected (cited as British Board of Trade, Audit Office Series 13, Volume 25, Pages 436-437).

Details for Augustus Seely can be found on Page 336. He was originally of Saratoga, Albany, NY. In 1786 he was in Quebec, and submitted a claim for lost livestock and crops. The claim was rejected (cited as British Board of Trade, Audit Office Series 13, Volume 81, Page 373).

The original records submitted to the Commissioners of the Rebellion Losses Claims Commission, as it has more commonly come to be known, show the following:

British Board of Trade, Audit Office Series 13, Volume 25, Pages 436-437

• The Claim of Austin SEELY, a new claim submitted at Halifax 12 April 1786, Page 436 (right side)
  • was of Arlington, Bennington, Vermont
  • adhered to the Royal cause and took arms in behalf of His Majesty in 1777
  • served three months in Generall Burgoyne’s army, receiving no pay or reward
  • was imprisoned in Vermont for six months
  • a considerable part of his property was confiscated
  • submitted an Account of his losses
  • deposition, 25 February 1786, from Zadok Hard & Benjamin Buck of Arlington, VT, sworn before Eliakim Stoddard
• Page 437 (left side)
  • deposition, 25 February 1786, from [Thos. Chittenden?], Governor of Vermont that Austen SELE of Arlington suffered
• Page 437 (right side) – Declaration of Austin SEELY of Arlington
  • was not in the Kingdom of Great Britain or Ireland in 1783-1784 (when the first ‘Rebellion Losses Claims Commission’ heard claims)
  • between 15 July 1783 and 25 March 1784 lived or resided in Arlington, in the back settlement of [St. Town?], signed Austen, n.d.
  • Affidavit, 25 February 1786
  • Austin Seeley appeared personally and made the above declaration before Eliakim Stoddart
• Page 438 (left side) docketing outside cover of New Claim, Memorial of Austin Seely
  • [submitted] 12 April 1786, rejected 20 April 1786

British Board of Trade, Audit Office Series 13, Volume 81, Pages 372-373

• The claim of Augustus Seely, a New Claim submitted at Quebec 15 April 1786
• Page 372 docketing outside cover of New Claim, Augustus Seely, Loyalist
  • [submitted] 15 April 1786, rejected
• Page 373, Declaration of Augustus Seeley
  • was late of the Province of New York, but now of Quebec
  • resided at Saratoga from 15 July 1783 to 25 March 1784 as a Loyalist
  • Sworn 2 March 1786, before S. Anderson [J. P.?], Augustus Seely (x) his mark.
• Page 373, estimate of value of estate in the County of Albany, April 1775, at Saratoga Patent,
  • 8 acres of wheat & 5 acres of good meadow
  • 3 cows, 4 oxen, 1 heifer, 5 sheep
  • 1 horse and saddle
  • Augustus Seely (x) his mark.

So, it’s quite apparent that two distinctly different men are detailed in these two claims. One, Austin Seely, was from the area around Arlington, VT, where he continued to live between 1783 and 1784, even though he submitted his claim at Halifax. This man set his signature as ‘Austen.’

The other man, Augustus Seely, had resided at Saratoga, in New York Province, and submitted his claim at Quebec on almost the same date as Austin Seely had, even as he continued to reside at Saratoga. This man signed only with an (x) mark.

There can be no question but that these were two different men. It would have been monumentally difficult, almost impossible, for a single man to have submitted a claim for losses at Halifax on 12 April 1786, and then to have also submitted a claim for losses at Quebec three days later, on 15 April 1786.

Facts about Austin Seely, of Arlington, VT, are detailed in Gavin K. Watt’s The British Campaign of 1777, Volume Two, The Burgoyne Expedition, Burgoyne’s Native and Loyalist Auxiliaries, Note # 391, page 190 (detailed elsewhere in this report).

So, was the man named Augustus Seely who submitted his claim in Quebec in 1786 the same man who was settled to land in Lancaster Township in 1784? Possibly, but more work will have to be done to flesh this answer out. Certainly, linkages are going to be difficult to prove.

Several residents of Lancaster Township submitted petitions to the Executive Council of Upper Canada. The first was dated 31 March 1790 [Upper Canada Land Petitions, Petition No. 30 ½, Bundle L Miscellaneous, 1788-1795, Volume 306, microfilm C-2138]. This shows the original signatures of William Falkner and Augustis Celey, among others, and the signature mark (x) of James Seley. The docketing on this petition identifies it as a ‘copy.’ But the docketing also suggests that it had been handed to Major John McDonell, who was further requested ‘to make the individual additions.’

Apparently, Lancaster Township had been surveyed on the second concession only as far as Lot 14 by Patrick McNiff. A new surveyor, Mr. McDonnell, had apparently been hired to complete the work where McNiff had stopped and run the lines for the ‘the other two Concessions.’ The petitioners were apparently distressed because the front portions of their parcels were so low in elevation that they found it necessary to go in to the ‘Back Concessions to raise our bread.’ They reported having written to the head surveyor twice in the past, and were concerned that new emigrants being located to some of the unsurveyed back concession lines might cause trouble and inconvenience. The petitioners sought redress.

The notion that this man named Augustis Celey signed his name to this petition suggests that this was not the man from Saratoga whose claim for losses was rejected at Quebec. But within the same bundled petition [No. 21, Bundle L Miscellaneous] was yet another petition. This petition was written on 23 June [1792], also by inhabitants of Lancaster Township. These men affirmed that they had “always been loyal Subjects, and were the first who joined Sir John Johnson, Bart., the year 1775 & followed him to Canada in 1776 and Served in his Reg’t all the time of the late Rebellion, that your Petitioners were amongst the first who Settled on his Majesty’s lands, the year 1784, that notwithstanding our repeated application to have our Land Surveyed it is still undone.”

They prayed that his Excellency would give orders so that the Township could be surveyed “at Lot No. 14 3rd Concession above where Mr. Patrick McNiff left off, ” then to “run the 4th Concession line which will make the Division line between us and the Late Emigrants on that line and at the same time to run our family Lands in the 9th Concession, at which time it will appear whether or not the Emigrants have been placed on our lands or not.”

This petition was received by the governor on 26 June, and in a council meeting on [7?] October 1792, it was referred to the surveyor general to report thereon. It was reported on by 28 October 1792, but no further action appears to have been taken; at least no further docket entries appear to have been made concerning this Petition.

At least 32 men signed the petition; there were probably other signatures on the document, but tears and missing pieces preclude knowing who all of the names might have been. Some of the ‘signatures’ on the document appear to be in an original hand, but most appear to have been written by one person, with many (x) marks present. One of the (x) marks is against Augustus Silly. Another is against Jas Silly.

Does this document show that the man named Augustus Seely who had been living at Saratoga, who had his rebellion losses claim rejected at Quebec in 1786, was the same man who was living in Lancaster Township in 1792? The suspicion is raised, but this document by itself does not in my estimation prove this conjecture.

Some additional petitions were submitted by the inhabitants of Lancaster Township over the next few years. The issue was always the same: lack of survey and distressed conditions for those on the 2nd and 3rd concessions.

Augustus Sealey is named in one of the petitions, on a “Schedule of Locations 3rd Concession of Lancaster, from the Quebec Plan” [Petition 77, Bundle L-11]. As presented elsewhere, Augustus had been located to Lots 20, 21, and 25 on the 3rd Concession line. But neither Augustus Sealey nor James Sealey is otherwise named, nor did they sign their names or make their marks on either of these two additional petitions.

Complete copies of each of these two bundles of petitions are included here simply to aid in showing the complexity of conditions on the ground in Lancaster Township for the first twenty years after Augustus Seeley was settled there.

• First, Petition No. 21, Bundle L-5, 1797-1802, RG 1, L3, Volume 285, C-2125.
• Second, Petition No. 77, Bundle L-11, 1811-1819, RG 1, L3, Volume 287, C-2126.

I must stress that even though Augustis Celey apparently petitioned from Lancaster Township in 1792, as one who had mustered and served with Sir John Johnson’s Royal Regiment of NY (according to Petition No. 30 ½, Bundle L Miscellaneous, 1788-1795), no evidence that he had ever actually mustered with the unit can be found in either the papers of Sir Frederick Haldimand or in Gavin K. Watts’s History and Master Roll of the King’s Royal Regiment of New York (Revised). Unless, as is beginning to be thought possible, his first name was recorded at various times as “Justus” or “Justice,” as a variation of “Gustice” or mishearing of “[Au]gustus.” See the affidavit in the Upper Canada Land Petition in the name of Peet Seeley, Petition 133, Bundle S-3, 1845, for a presentation of Peet’s father James’s father’s name “Gustice.”

Augustus Seely was reported as being located to Lots 20, 21 and 25 on the 3rd Concession of Lancaster Township.

Enclosed copies from appropriate portions of the Abstract Index to Deeds for these Lots [Glengarry County Land Registry Office, Office No. 14; Book No. 80, accessed through https://www.onland.ca/ui/] show the following history relative to the above three lots:

• Lot 20 Crown Patent issued to Augustus SEALY on 1 September 1797. (Augustus SEALY assigned his rights to this parcel to Jacob SNYDER & George CLINE on 16 July 1804.)
• Lot 21 Crown Patent issued to Augustus SEALY on 1 September 1797. (Augustus SEALY also assigned his rights to this parcel to Jacob SNYDER & George CLINE on 16 July 1804.)
• Lot 25 Crown Patent issued to Augustus SEALY on 1 September 1797. (This parcel was sold by James SEALY to John McLENNAN on 16 April 1807.)

It would be very prudent to investigate further to see if James Sealy, who sold Augustus Sealy’s land in Lancaster Township (Lot 25 Concession 3) in 1807 could be further identified by signature or by residence. This could help tremendously in consolidating whether the Elizabethtown James Seely might have been this man, and whether he was ever identified as a son of Augustus’s.

The Crown Patent issued to Augustus Sealy for all three lots in 1797 implies that he had resided on the parcels since at least 1790. He would have been required to complete certain settlement duties, erect a house and a specified number of out-buildings, clear land to a certain extent, and have a specified amount of land seeded and producing a specified quantity of crop before the Crown Patent would have been issued.

An alphabetical index to Lancaster Township Deed Records from the Glengarry County Land Registry Office (Office No. 14, Alexandria, Ontario) [Alphabetical Index, Lancaster Township Deed Records, accessed through www.familysearch.org as Microfilm Reel No. 201743, Digital Series No. 8130277] shows that the instruments which would need to be examined are

• Volume A1, #159 Augustus SEALY to Jacob SNYDER & George Cline
• Volume B1, #448 James SEALY to Norman McLeod
• Volume B1, #449 James SEALY to John McLellan

Instruments numbered 159 and 449 are referred to (but not identified by number) in the abstract Index to Deeds for Lots 20, 21 and 25, Concession 3, Lancaster Township, but which parcel Instrument No. 448 pertains to is not presently known.