There were two Rev. John Heys preaching in Gloucestershire’s Bristol area in the late 1700s & early 1800s and some researchers have confused the two and commingled their data. One was an eminent clergyman and author who was born in England in 1734 and died there 1815.
Ours died in Chambersburg, PA in 1809, reportedly was baptized in Batley, West Yorkshire on 19 May 1758, and was, shall we say, more “entrepreneurial.” He delivered sermons well, made a great first impression had no trouble getting hired by congregations looking for a minister, or if there were none, starting a new congregation. But issues of character, and/or handling of money would arise and he would wear out his welcome. But opportunity in the new world awaited.
Perhaps he was a man before his time and in our day would have become a rich televangelist with a mega church. I sometimes think of him as a 19th century Jim Baaker.
The large quantities of cheap land in Pennsylvania seemed a golden opportunity. He decided to form a company and get a group of Gloucestershire farmers to purchase shares. He would use the money to buy a large tract in PA they, or other settlers, could move to and farm. Attract enough settlers and the proceeds from the land sales could reap a tidy profit for the investors.
Many in Avening were interested, but may have had concerns about Rev. Hey’s reputation, because when he and his family emigrated to Philadelphia in 1804, they sent John Blackwell’s son, Joshua, along to assist (or keep an eye on him). Unfortunately for the investors, Joshua kept his eye on Rev. Hey’s daughter, Amelia instead.
John Thomas Sharif’s History of Philadelphia says “In the year 1804, Rev. John Hey, a clerical adventurer, visited Philadelphia. He was an Englishman, a Baptist clergyman in his native country, which, it may be presumed, he left for reasons satisfactory to his congregations. In the city he found no difficulty in gaining admission to the pulpits of Baptist and Presbyterian Churches, preaching during the summer with acceptation and increasing popularity. He had a good presence, a fine voice, a showy, oratorical style, and apparently great earnestness of purpose, and his preaching was so different from the grave and formal mannerisms of the pulpit of the time that he secured sufficient followers to justify an attempt in forming a congregation.” The attempt succeeded and they built what at the time was Philadelphia’s biggest church.
I owe a large debt of gratitude to Joshua & Amelia Hey Blackwell, because when Joshua’s widower brother, Enoch Blackwell, married newly widowed Sarah (Lugg) Clinch in 1805, Joshua and Amelia took Sarah’s daughter, Ann Clinch (my ancestor), to raise as a foster child. (A belatedly thank you to them 200 years after the fact.)
Comments:
Why did Sarah give her daughter to Joshua & Amelia? Wasn’t that unusual – I understand that happening if she was unable to support her daughter, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
Such a fine story! I add my thanks to yours. Obviously, Ann was a vital young lady!
Lundy Updike, that’s always puzzled me. We have more to cover about 1804, but will get to 1805 soon, and you’ll all have a better foundation for speculation then. The only explanation I’ve read, doesn’t make sense to me. It was suggested that Joshua and Amelia were a childless couple, who had no children of their own at the time and grew very fond of Ann, so Sarah kindly left Ann with them. But Joshua & Amelia may have been betrothed, but hadn’t married yet, so that doesn’t seem a very plausible explanation. Newlyweds Enoch & Sarah, and the rest of what became known as “The English Company” were heading out to a great unknown — a wilderness full of wolves, cougar and bears (Oh my) and rattlesnakes. And they faced a long, arduous journey by wagon train with herds and flocks with the last part of the journey into land that had no roads yet. So, if year old Ann was sickly, leaving her in good hands, in safe, “civilized”, Bucks County may have seemed prudent. Perhaps Enoch, who had already raised a large family, wanted a young wife, but not a year old step-child. We can speculate endlessly, but I doubt we’ll ever know the answer.
I can see leaving an infant behind in the care of people who wanted her with such an uncertain future. But I wonder if it was supposed to be a temporary situation that turned into permanent.
Lundy, I think the answer is lost in the mists of time. But it can’t have been VERY temporary. The journey would take weeks by wagon train and maybe a[nother] week on horseback, raft, or whatever. And it would take over a year for the settlers to clear land, build homes, establish crops, etc. before being able to return for someone. Many almost starved. Some didn’t survive.
In 1805 there were only two routes to get from Philadelphia to the land Rev. Hey purchased in Lycoming & Tioga Co. There were roads (and stagecoaches) to Harrisburgh (via the route of the present US 30) and then roads following the Susquehanna upstream to Sunbury and the West Branch to Williamsport. The “Williamson Road” (the present US 15) hadn’t been built yet, so it was following trails up Little Pine Creek. Or, from Philadelphia there was stagecoach service to Easton, PA and then following the “Sullivan Trail” (the route of the present US 611 & PA 115) over the Poconos to Wilkes-Barre and then following the rivers to Sunbury, Williamsport, etc. Back then it would probably have taken at least a week. You could raft from Williamsport to Harrisburg, but that was a one-way trip.
At this time, parents often sent their children to live with others. As sort of an informal apprenticeship, older children were put where they could learn a craft or learn housekeeping skills. The notion of childhood as a time of innocence and nurturance didn’t really get rolling until the mid-1800s. Even then, it was a privilege restricted to the upper classes. Child labor laws were an early 20th century innovation.