- NOTE TO USERS -
A CASE STUDY OF URBANIZATION IN EARLY ONTARIO
Guy R.A. St-Denis Department of History
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Faculty of Graduate Studies The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario May 1999
" Guy R.A. St-Denis 1999 National Library BibliitMque nationale 1*1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliogra~hiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rwWellington OttawaON K1AON4 OaawaON K1AON4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accorde me licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive pernettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliotheque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, priiter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette these sous paper or electronic formats. la fonne de rnicrofiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sw format electronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriete du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protege cette these. thesis nor substantial extracts from it Ni la these ni des extraits substantiefs may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent &e imprimes reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation, ABSTRACT
tlSuckertowntl was another name for Cashmere, a small village on the Thames River in southwestern Ontario. The origins of this village date to 1834, when a settler dammed the river in order to generate hydraulic energy for a saw mill. Along with the owners of similar dams, he expected the river to be transformed into a canal, and that his mill seat would become one of several important lock ports. The canal never materialized, but the dams did foster industrialization, which in turn gave rise to a trend in urbanization. However, the introduction of railways at the mid-century point resulted in a general decline for the developing river villages. Suckertownls reversal proved the most severe, and ended with its dispersal soon after the turn of the twentieth century. Although Suckertown's failure affims the role of transportation as the dominant factor in shaping the course of urbanization in Ontario, this thesis asserts that entrepreneurship governed the development of water -based urban trends during the first half of the nineteenth-century.
iii During the course of my research, I have been the fortunate recipient of much assistance from a great number of individuals. I wish to thank everyone who contributed to this work, and especially those who find themselves inadvertently omitted from the following list- I consider myself fortunate to have been supervised by Dr. Ben Forster of Western1s History Department. He guided me through the complicated graduate process with much encouragement, patience, and good humour. As well, I derived a great deal of insight into nineteenth-century Ontario from each of the following academics : Dr. Roger Hall, Dr. George Emery, and Dr. J. Rod
Millard of Western' s History Department ; Dr. Frederick H. -strong, formerly of the same department; Dr. Colin Read, of the History Department at Huron College ; Dean Gerald Killan of
King1s College; and Dr. Charles F.J. Whebell and Dr. W.R. Wightman, both formerly of the Geography Department at Western. The Honourable Henry N.R. Jackman, whose relatives include the Gardiners of Cashmere, extended considerable encouragement for my undertaking, as did the last of Westernts great scholar libtarians: the late Dr. James J. Talman and Dr. Margaret Banks. Friends and acquaintances also gave generously of their time and knowledge in order to further the cause of this pro ject . John Leverton lent considerable advice, which warrants considerable obligation; the late Ian Kenyon and his assistant, Neal Ferris, shared their archaeological field surveys of Cashmere; Lloyd Mitton, of Chatham, was the source of some very interesting information regarding the Gardiner grist mill; Marion Matt was always keen to recite her extensive knowledge of Bothwell's past; Betty Simpson of the Glencoe and District Historical Society was instrumental in directing me to local historical resources; and Duncan McKillopls investigations into the Talbot Settlement proved both timely and relevant. Daniel J. Brock, Alice Gibb, Stephen Harding, and Lorraine Thompson, as well as Glen C. and Crystal Phillips, contributed many useful items of information to my cause, and thanks to them my effort has been enhanced considerably. I am also indebted to the Pattersons of west Mosa for their co-operation over the years. The late Finlay Patterson, the former owner of the site of Cashmere, spent many hours
indulging my interest. His son, Ross Patterson, has proven himself to be just as accommodating, allowing me unrestrained access to his property whenever I felt the urge to investigate some physical aspect of the village. Ross1 daughter-in-law, Lenore Patterson, actively searched out crucial information in the Mosa Township Clerk's Office, which proved a godsend as the manuscript neared completion. The staff of many libraries, archives, and other repositories of historical information were frequently called upon to assist in my endeavour. At the National Archives in Ottawa, Patricia Kennedy was an almost constant source of reference assistance regarding the myriad of governmental records in her custody. Closer to home. at the London Public
Library, Glen Cumue, Alastair Neely, and Mary Velaitis gave freely of their time. At the University of Western Ontario, Edward Phelps , formerly of the Regional Collection, John Lutman, the current head of that same department (now prefixed in honour of J-J. Talman), and Theresa Regnier, their assistant, never failed to indulge my frequent demands Finally, a special acknowledgement is reserved for my cousin, Douglas W. Heath, whose unflagging interest in Suckertown helped to sustain my own- TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Certificate of Examination ii Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vii Table of Maps and Plates viii Introduction
1 The Founder1s Legacy
2 Impulses and Interruptions
3 The Railway Village
4 A Crude Awakening 5 Decline and Dispersal ion Bibliography Vita
vii TABLE OF MAPS AND PLATES
Page
Map of Southwestern Ontario, 1875 82 Plan of Mosa Township, 1826 83
Survey Plan of Gardiner Street, 1843 84 Registered Plan of Canton, 1856 85 Map of the Oil Regions, 1866 56
Map of Cashmere and Vicinity, 1910 87 Portrait of James Gardiner, G- 1904 88 View of Cashmere, 1880 89 View of the Site of Cashmere, 1998 90
Photograph of the Gardiner Mill, 1937 91
viii INTRODUCTION
One day in the summer of 1834, a settler who lived deep in the wilds of Upper Canada began heaving rocks, stumps, and brush into the river flowing past his farm. With the help of his two sons, and perhaps a few neighbours , Singleton Gardiner succeeded in damming the stream an& diverting its force down a millrace. The purpose of the exercise soon became evident when a nearby saw mill suddenly jolted into operation. Thus marked the humble beginnings of an entrepreneurial venture, and the advent of a little-known trend in water-based urbanization in what is now southwestern Ontario. The settler1s enterprise was prompted by the emergence of a scheme to transform the Thames into a canal, which ultimately ended in failure. However, Singleton Gardiner s untimely death a few months later spared him the disappointment, and closed a lifetime characterized by varied careers. Although born and raised on a farm in Ireland, Singleton served in the Royal Marines as a young man. After his discharge and subsequent marriage circa 1803, he toiled as a labourer in Belfast until he and his family immigrated to America in 1804, There he worked a small farm along the
Hudson River in New York State until 1816, when he relocated his family to the Talbot Settlement in Upper Canada. After almost ten years, the middle-aged Singleton once again imposed migration upon his family. In 1825, they moved deep into the 2 extensive forest known as the Longwoods Tract, where they settled on land alongside the Thames River in Mosa Township, on the western edge of Middlesex County. Almost another decade later, Singleton built a saw mill and dammed the Tharnes. It proved his last venture. Yet, after his death, his two sons continued his entrepreneurial plans. In 1841, James and William Gardiner built a grist mill, presuming that the dam would power their mills, provide employment, and ultimately give rise to a village. James, in particular, was determined to accomplish what the proposed canal had failed to deliver: an opportunity to speculate in land sales. In unison with local road improvements. he expanded the industrial base of the mill seat. However, by the mid-1840s, his designs for a village had stalled. Compounding this setback was the construction of the Great Western Railway, which threatened his ambitious plans. Nevertheless, the completion of the railway in 1854 actually stimulated urban development, and in 1856 the mill seat was surveyed into village lots. Known initially as Tanton, then I1Cashmere," and ultimately (albeit colloquially) as llSuckertown, the fomer mill seat burgeoned. Yet, the prosperity associated with the Great Western increasingly gravitated back to the railway itself, and the village began to decline. Although prosperity had given way to stagnation and decline, the newly renamed village of TashmereIt soon en joyed 3 another round of great good fortune. In the early 1860s, the Bothwell oil boom injected new life into the local economy and Cashmere once again thrived until the oil market collapsed in 1866. A far greater setback occurred in 1870. when James took up residence in Chatham. Without his entrepreneurial drive and direction, Cashmere s economy suffered heavily during the 1870s. and barely survived the 1880s. A fishery below the dam sustained the village, and the establishment of a stave mill in 1893 brocght a temporary return of prosperity. In 1901, however, the government of Ontario removed the dam. Consequently, both the mills and the fishery were forced to close, Cashmere was soon deserted, as the few remaining families drifted away. Today all that remains to mark its site is the road that once led down to the mills, a line of stones across the river where the dam once blocked the current, and a scattering of archaeological remnants which still litter a farmer's field. * * * Although Cashmere has been overlooked by most academic historians, in the late 1940s a history professor at Wayne University in Detrolt produced a brief article on the village.' Fred Coyne Hamil was both a native of southwestern Ontario, and a distant relative of the Gardiners . While much of his interest in "Suckertown" was personal, he also recognized the importance of such villages to Ontario's history. In 1951, Hamil published his now classic =lev of the Lower Thames, in which he expressed his support for the microcosmic approach to history-rather "than a broad treatment which must of necessity overlook many local but significant ~ariations.~~ As Hamil concentrated his attention on the social development of the lower Thames Valley, another historian began to shape learider notf onsI1 regarding Canadian historical development. In 1953, Maurice Careless published his seminal article wFrontierism. Metropolitanism, and Canadian History," in which he considered the llbroadlysignificmt stages and trendsw in national historiography, and stressed the importance of metropolitan ~rbanization.~wMetropolitanism,ll according to Careless, was a process whereby regions were influenced by metropolitan cornrmnities, which organized them, focused their views, and dealt with outside metropolitan forces on their behalf, Careless was largely influenced by the American historian, Norman S.B. Gras, who in 1922 emphasized the inter-dependence of the metropolis and its hinterland in his Jntrodurtion to Fcon~micHistnrv .' However, by incorporating the staples theory of the Laurentian school of historians. Careless was able to place his theory regarding the rise of great cities in a solidly Canadian contexte5 The introduction of metropolitanism marked the beginning of a new era in Canadian historiography, and a distinctly indigenous approach. Prior to this development, many Canadian historians espoused the frontier thesis of the American historian Frederick Jackson Turner, who argued the contiaual westward progression of the frontier was the source of his nation's sense of rugged individualism.' Turner first proposed his frontier thesis in 1893, and within a generation its tenets began to inf hence Canadian historical thought .' After the close of the First World War, a new sense of nationalism emphasizing Canada s place within the North American context began to displace former close associations with the British empire. By the late 1920s, a new school of Environmentalists, or North Americans All, enthusiastically applied Turner% frontier thesis to most aspects of Canadian history.' Until the introduction of metropolitanism, the frontier thesis incorporated the Canadian experience into the total
North American frontier movement - ly10 Many Canadian historians, however, were not entirely converted by the new belief system. Arthur R. M, Lower was one of the first to question the reliance of Canadian history on Turnerls thesis, arguing that Canada had a more restricted frontier and had maintained its attachment to the Old World far a longer period than the
United States .lL Thus began the search for a more relevant historiography, and it was in the midst of this quest that Careless introduced his theory. The concept of metropolitanism proved exceedingly popular and, beginning in the late 1960s, contributed to the rise of urban history as a distinct discipline of academic study." 6
Careless continued to develop his model, and in 1979 he published an article in which he reiterates the urban- hinterland relationship as primarily economic, but broadens his scope to acknowledge the ramifications of social forces from political direction to cultural headship. While Careless was willing to recognize the social component of metropolitan urbanization, he was not prepared to pursue it at the level of detail exhibited earlier by Hamil. Instead, he elaborated his conceptual framework for the study of major urban centres-" A few years earlier, however, Careless had acknowledged the significance of a microcosmic approach to urban historiography . In 1974, he published an article entitled Vome Aspects of Urbanization in Nineteenth-Century Ontario," one of a series published in festsc. hrift format honouring the historian James J - Talman-Is In his contribution, Careless considers the geographical factors associated with the earliest phase of urbanization, in which the first settlements were linked to river and lake fronts for transportation and communication purposes. IrIt was only slowly that other centres grew up behind them, up rivers into the land mass, or where early roads like Yonge Street penetrated the terrain. mL6 Apart from acknowledging that sizeable urban places did not develop in the interior of the province until railways brought all-weather bulk transport, Careless was content to leave the details of how these nwater-born" communities developed to some future Hamil. Two Londonhistorians also contributed anarticle dealing with urbanization to the Talman festschriff ." By examining London, Ontario within the conceptual framework of wMetropolitanism," Frederick H. Armstrong and Daniel J. Brock compared London's rise to one of Careless1 urban centres that
"grew upn in the interior. Although instituted as an administrative centre in 1826, London quickly attained economic predominance over its own hinterland by means of road and rail connections to Port Stanley on Lake Erie. With these links to the numerous schooners plying the Great Lakes, London's early commerce and industry had access to important distant markets. While Armstrong and Brock provide compelling evidence in support of the Careless theory as it relates to interior or inland urbanization, their study did not address the broader development of water-based urbanization in southwestern Ontario. This task fell rather inadvertently to a graduate student in geography at the University of Western Ontario. In 1970,
David J.B. Overton defended his M.A. thesis entitled "An Examination of Models of Port Development: Lake Erie North
Shore, 1784-1870,11 in which he demonstrated the importance of economic interaction between lake ports and their hinterlands.le Like Armstrong and Brock, Overton's findings support the Careless theory of early inland urbanization. Moreover, Overton reveals that economic interaction between the lake shore and the interior occurred along several transportation corridors simultaneously , thus providing a valuable theoretical framework in which to conduct further studies. Unfortunately, the precise method by which early water-based urbanizationdevelopedwithinthe interior regions was beyond the scope of Overton's thesis. Combined with a declining historiographic interest in the mechanics of urbanization, Overton1s departure marks a long period of neglect, as exhibited by the paucity of literature on the topic.l9 Any contribution to rectify this neglect of Ontario's water-based urban history requires a clarification of terminology. While the tern lturbanizationlldenotes the development of a community toward city status, this standard definition does not adequately describe the activity examined here." Also, the level of urban achievement is of less consequence than the manner in which urban aspirations originated and progressed. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, urbanization will refer to the process and not the result. * *
Entrepreneurship is another term that requires clarification. In a general sense, it refers to the ventures of individuals who assumed financial risk in order to derive profit. However, given the vast potential for entrepreneurial enterprise, and the varied degrees of success which could attend them, it is not surprising that historians appropriated the interpretation of a famous economics professor at Harvard- From 1932 until his death in 1950, Joseph A- Schumpeter expounded his concept of entrepreneurship as an integral component in the broader themes of capitalism and socio- economic evolution,22 Prior to Schumpeter, entrepreneurship was viewed as the passive agent that guided a company's adaption to market changes ." Schumpeter, however, interpreted entrepreneurship as the catalyst that generated innovation, production, and successively higher levels of profit - In essence, entrepreneurship generated economic growth." Schumpeter also redefined the actions of entrepreneurs, whom he viewed as the innovators responsible for introducing new goods to a market; devising better methods of production; expanding markets ; developing sources of supply for raw materials; and implementing increased organization of industrial activity." Schumpeter s interpretations were enthusiastically received by economists and historians alike. l5 However, after the Second World War new theories of entrepreneurship began to emerge. An American historian, Thomas C. Cochrane proved the mast radical when he suggested that the role, or behaviour, of an individual should form the criteria for his or her designation as an entreprene~r.'~ Cochrane did not pursue the matter further, since he was not primarily concerned with tole definition.'' It was not until the early 1960s that a American psychologist, David C. McClelland, constructed a model of entrepreneurship. While McClelland was primarily concerned with the origins of entrepreneurship, his model allowed the introduction of new
insights. Whereas Schumpeter @ s concept was culture specific, ahistorical, and based on status, McClellandls model was cross-cultural, status neutral, and adaptable to historical studies .28 Accorbingly, in 1979 a Canadian maritime historian applied McClellandfs model to his own research. In an article on James Peake's involvement in the nineteenth-century shipping industry of Prince Edward Island, Lewis R. Fischer grapples with the fundamental question of entrepreneurship, namely: what exactly constitutes an entrepreneur?'' As Fischer relates, few historians felt compelled to
define the term "entrepreneur. ff Instead, they assumed readers would share the meaning intended." For the sake of clarity, however, Fischer was compelled to seek a definition of greater precision in order to determine if James Peake was in fact an entrepreneur, or just another businessman. To accomplish his goal, Fischer modified McClellandls model by developing a set of criteria which emphasized entrepreneurial behaviour. Heading the list was risk, although with some probability of success. Highly correlated with risk were: control over the venture; an innovative approach to the process of gnterptise; responsibility for the outcome of the investment; expectation of a positive outcome; and the skill necessary to oversee operations." Using this scale, Fischer concluded that Peake met the criteria of behaviour necessary to be designated an entrepreneur. '' Peake certainly did not practice entrepreneurship on a grand scale, but neither did he warrant some lesser classification simply because he did not achieve the status of a shipping magnate. Arguably, there are many levels or degrees of entrepreneurial success, and each is equally worthy of consideration. It is for this very reason of imprecision that the term entrepreneurfrwarrants an exact definition within the context of this thesis, Therefore, an entrepreneur will refer to an individual of limited means who assumed risks, seized opportunities, and promoted long-term plans in order to achieve a perceived goal of profit. * *
Fortunately, @ftransportationtfis generally accepted to indicate an act of conveyance from one place to another, by whatever means available. Eowever, since this thesis challenges the importance of transportation to the early water-based urbanization of Ontario, a review of the relevant historical literature is unavoidable. Beginning with canals, Robert S. Taylorts thesis on the four Welland Canals, and Bruce E. Hill's dissertation on the Grand River Navigation Company, both devote a chapter to the urban development instituted by canal construction. However, neither detail the precise manner in which canal villages developed. Recently, however, John N. Jackson, a professor of Geography at Brock University, St. Catharines, made an ambitious attempt to address the deficiency. In his 1997 publication -2maJ.s Enoineerincr . Imtrial. wd Urm T-n, Jackson examines the urbanizing effect of the Welland Canal from its inception in the early nineteenth century to modern times.'* Robert R. Taylor, of Brock University's History Department, also considers the process based on a study of the development and decline of Memitton? While Taylor and Jackson both offer valuable insight into canal-generated urbanization, the comparative value of their work vis - a - v is the Thames River is limited, since this stream was never transformed into a canal. Regardless, the scheme by which it was promoted is a crucial historiographic component in any consideration of the early wwater-bomwurbanization of southwestern Ontario. Because the Thames canal scheme was so thoroughly obscured by its failure, it escaped detailed historical attention. In 1993, however, the author of this thesis published an article documenting the various attempts in the 1830s to make the Thames River navigable .3T Otherwise, and apart from the earlier work of Fred Coyne Hamil, the transportation potential of the Thames River has received but passing notice from historians. Although considerably more literature exists on the topic of railways in Ontario's history, there is little treatment of the precise effect railways had on urbanization. Apart from 13
the well-established fact that the Great Western Railway gave rise to many new villages along its route, while causing a decline in the older and distant nwater-bolmw (or based) communities, historians have overlooked the urban ramifications of this new mode of transportation. Instead, they have concentrated on the railway specifically. William H. Breithaupt ' s 1929 article, The Railways of Ontario, provides a good example of a study fixated with construction and policy.3s Still, his summary of railway development, as well as a similar article written in 1946 by
Terry Ferris entitled "Railways of British North America, " both remain valuable introductions to the subj ect . Expanded versions of the same theme were published in monograph form, and the most notable among the early contributions is Railwav Develo~menL by Norman Thompson and J.H. Edgarw4' Published in 1933, this book endeavours to document the whole range of Canadian railway history up to that year. The result was a less than analytical approach and, although Thompson and Edgar devoted an entire chapter to the Great Western Railway, they did not consider its impact on urbanization. Nor would a similar, updated version in 1960 stray from the antiquarian tradition. TheCanadiana cocommissioned work authored by G.R. Stevens, traces the history of the various lines which were nationalized in 1918 ." Like the earlier contribution of Thompson and Edgar, me C'anau- 14 Railwav~is sweeping in its content. To his credit, however, Stevens does consider the Great Western's impact upon urbanization, but only in generalized terms regarding the positive effect of the railway on the rising major urban centres through which it passed? Yet, as early as 1947 a graduate student at the University of Western Ontario observed the linkage between transportation, industry, and urbanization." In his Master1s thesis on The History of the
Great Western Railway, l1 Robert W. Cam tantalizingly makes the bold assertion that urban development was both created and revived Ifas industries gravitated towards those places served by the railway.m4s However, instead of pursuing the railway's effect on urbanization, including the impact on those minor urban centres which developed along the Thames River in anticipation of a canal, he was content to reflect upon the grander consequences for London and Hamilton.
Had Cam persisted, he might have recognized that a distinct trend in urbanization existed prior to the arrival of the Great Western, and that a canal figured prominently in the process. Furthermore, had he made a detailed study of one of the several pioneers who established mill seats on the Thames River, he would have discovered a concerted effort to link the interior of southwestern Upper Canada with the shipping facilities of the Great Lakes.
* * f
The promoters of the Thames River canal planned to divert the commercial dominance of the Lake Erie shoreline inland. They failed, but before their project was abandoned, the several dams that provided hydraulic energy for mill seats were incorporated into their scheme as lock sites. In the best tradition of similar works, these dams were fully expected to evolve into lock ports in rivalry for the hegemony of the lake ports. while the canal scheme never succeeded, neither was the idea completely abandoned. As long as water- based transportation remained the dominant means to move bulk cargo, it was reasonable to expect that the Thames River would be transformed into a canal, and that inland urbanization would commence at intervals along its course. Before this expectation could be realized, however, advances in steam technology introduced a new mode of bulk transportation. Initially, railways posed no threat. They were viewed as adjuncts to waterways, or overland "portage roadsn in the Great Lakes shipping system. However, with the realization that railways offered a viable alternative to canals, the dream of extended navigation on the Thames River was gradually forgotten. Yet, the completion of the first railway through the province was still 20 years in the offing, and so mill seat urbanization along the Thames continued in a slow and limited fashion. Ironically, despite the increasing menace of the Great Western Railway, the route of which was planned to closely parallel much of the course of the Thames River, the mill seat villages actually benefitted from its completion in 1854. Coupled with an improving economy, the opening of the Great Western generateaunprecedented business activitywithin the interior of the province. The resulting boom also extended to the Thames, where it translated into a sudden and unexpected expansion for villages like Cashmere. However, as railway depots developed into villages in
their own right, the prosperity delivered by the Great Western began to gravitate back to its source. The result was a period of stagnation and decline for the villages on the Thames River, and the effective girdling of water-based urbanization in Ontario. Transportation had finally decided the course of urban development in Ontario. Yet, as this thesis will demonstrate by means of a detailed case study into Suckertown's history, it was entrepreneurship that dominated urbanization during the first half of the nineteenth-century in Ontario.
Ibid., p. 112.
_Ibid.r p 112. However, Lower was willing to concede the power of the New World "to change old institutions and give them new form and spirit. See : ibid., p . 113. Previously, urban history existed only within the confines of social history. See: Davis, "Metropolitan Thesis," pp. 95-96 .
3.M.S. Careless, rvMetsopolisand Region: The Interplay Between City and Region in Canadian History Before 1914" [hereafter nMetropolis and Regiontt],Urban History Review, no. 3-78 (1979): p. 109. See also: Frontier and Metro~olis: Reuions, Cltles,. . and Identltles. . Canada before 1914, The Donald G. Creighton Lectures, 1987 (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, ~1989). . . In 1978 Careless published The Riseof3.t~~ in Canada Before 1914, a Canadian Historical Association booklet in which major Canadian urban centres are examined as regional case studies within the framework of his metropolitan theory. See: J.M.S. Careless, The Rise of Cltles. . in Canada Before 1934 (Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Historical Association Booklets, 19781, no. 32. Ibid., pp. 65-79.
Frederick H. Armstrong and Daniel J. Brock, The Rise of London: A Study of Urban Evolution in Nineteenth-Century Southwestern Ontariot1[hereafter "Rise of Londonm], in Frederick H. Armstrong, H.A. Stevenson and J.D. Wilson, eds., Aaects of Nineteenth - Centurv Ontario (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 1974). pp. 80-100.
David J.B. Overton, lrAn Examination of Models of Port Development : Lake Erie North Shore, 1784-1870tf(M .A, thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1970) . See also : W .R. Wightman, !The Evolving Upper Canadian Steam Packet Service, 1816-185OIWQntario Geo~ra~hy,no. 37 (1991): pp. 23-38. The author is indebted to Dr. Wightman for a copy of this article. The Urban History Review, for example, which is Canadian content specific, has not featured one directly-related article on early water-based urbanization in southwestern Ontario since it began publication in 1972. However, in 1981 Fred A. Dahmls published an article on "The Evolution of Settlement Systems: A Canadian Example, 1851-1970.ty Dahms examines the rise of Guelphfs hinterland villages, including: Erin, Elora, Fergus, Acton, and Arthur--all of which were "established at a dam where mills were built." See: Fred A. Dahms, "The Evolution of Settlement Systems: A Canadian Example, 1851-1970," Journal of Urban Historn, 7, no. 2 (February 1981) : p . 183. Dahms makes extensive use of a "neglectedIt theory formulated by Charles F.J. WhebeU, a now retired Geography professor from the University of Western Ontario, who in 1969 viewed North American settlement as a process of migrations inland, which were conducted along major transportation routes and which developed technological innovations according to defined time periods. See: C-FJ. Whebell, trCorridors: A Theory of urban Systems," -31s of the Association of American - G-ss, 59, no - 1 (March 1969) : pp. 1-26. Careless recognized that a village constituted part of the process of development toward metropolis status, and also broader trends- See: J.M.S. Careless, "Some Aspects of Urbanization in Nineteenth-Century Ontariot1 [hereafter ItAspects of Urbanization"] , in Frederick H. Armstrong, H.A. Stevenson and J .D . Wilson, eds . , meets of Nineteenth - Centurv Ontar& (Toronto, Ontario : University of Toronto Press, 1974): p. 65,
Christian Seidl. Voseph Alois Schumpeter : Character, Life and Particulars of his Graz Period," in Christian Seidl, ed. , Lectures on Schwet- Rconomj-cs (Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1984): p. 193. See also: Joseph A- Schumpeter, The Theorv of Economic Devm,Harvard Economic Studies, voll XLI, trans- Redvers Opie (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1934) ,
Robert C- Cauthorn, Contrjbutions to a Theorv of (New York, New York: Garland Publishing, 1989), p. 1. Ibid., p. 1.
Lewis R . Fischer , "An Engine, Yet ModerateN : James Peake , Entrepreneurial Behaviour and the Shipping Industry of Nineteenth Century Prince Edward Islandrrrin Lewis R. Fischer and Eric W. Sager, eds., Thetntem-u . . Cmadians:
1820-1914 [hereafter "An Engine, Yet Moderatet1](St. John's, Newfoundland: Maritime History Group, Memorial University, 1979) , p. 101. See also: Hugh G.J. Aitken, -ations jq Enternrise (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, l967), pp. 93-112.
41, Norman Thompson and J.H, Edgar, Canadian Railwav Develo~ment: From the Earliest Times (Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan Company of Canada, 1933 . 42. George R. Stevens, Canadian National Railwgy~,2 vols. (Toronto, Ontario : Clarke, Irwin and Company, 1960) , vol . 1
43. bid vol. 1, p. 115.
44. Robert W. Cam, Wistory of the Great Western Railwayw (M.A. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1.947). CHAPTER ONE
The Founder's Legacy
In the autumn of 1804, an American ship moored in Belfast harbour prepared to set sail for New York- Among the passengers who boarded the William and Jane was a man named Singleton Gardiner, his wife, and their baby daughter .' Singleton was a 30-year-old native of Armagh whose father, according to family tradition. was a ltwell-to-dolffarmer who
"got into laww over the amount of his tithes and was ruined financially.' A reversal in the family llfortunelloffers a possible explanation for Singleton's enlistment in the Royal Marines in about 1797, where he attained the rank of sergeant before his discharge in circa 1803.' He married soon after, and in December of that same year his wife gave birth to a baby girl .' Singleton supported his family by working as a labourer in Belfast, but by the autumn of 1804 he decided that America held better prospects. After delays and a long voyage, the William and Jane finally put into New York harbour in mid-January of 1805 .'
The Gardiners then continued up the Hudson River to Peekskill, where Singleton purchased a small farm.' In 1816, after having spent a decade at Peekskill, and during which time two sons were added to his family, Singleton sold his property, uprooted his wife and children, and set out for Upper Canada.'
Although his reasons for this decision can only be surmised, the War of 1812 looms as the most obvious. After all, as a former soldier of the King, the American declaration of war probably awakened Singleton's sense of loyalty to the Crown-- especially given the many restrictions placed on enemy aliens ."us, by the close of hostilities at the end of
1814, Singleton might very well have longed for a return to British rule. However, patriotism alone was not the motivating factor behind Singletonts decision to start for Upper Canada- Had this been the case, he could have picked up and left soon after peace was restored- Instead, he waited a year and a half before he made his move. Obviously, he was not prepared to sacrifice his hard-earned American property in order to satisfy a patriotic whim, Land was important to Singleton, and he was not about to jeopardize it. However, while his farm had tied him to Peekskill during the War of 1812, the availability of fertile and free land in British North America increasingly drew his attention northward. In June of 1816, Singleton and his family arrived at Port Talbot in Upper Canada, where the attraction was not so much the village as its namesake : Colonel Thomas Talbot . As the land agent whose jurisdiction extended over a large portion of what is now Southwestern Ontario, Talbot s favourable impression of a potential settler was crucial for a government grant of land." Although the Colonel judged Singleton eligible for the ITbounty of the Crown," the Executive Council (or government) of Upper Canada would have disagreed. As a lingering consequence of the war, Americans were barred from receiving Crown land, This restriction extended even to British subjects who had merely lived in the United States during the conflict, regardless of whether they had actually become citizens of that republic." Theref ore, while Singleton does not appear to have applied for American citizenship, the government of Upper Canada still considered him an enemy alien, Talbot, however, was not concerned with such technicalities. Settlers were hard to find, and without them he was unable to claim his share of Crown land in lieu of his
services on their behalf. An added incentive in Singleton's case, besides his preparedness to take up the rigours of a settler's life, was the 500 guineas he claimed to have brought with him from New York.I3 Hard cash was as scarce as settlers, and Talbot quickly accommodated his rnonied guest by offering
to sell him some of his own land, According to Singleton, he bargained for 100 acres of land near Port Talbot at three dollars per acre ." At the same time, Talbot probably advised him that he would be eligible for additional government land once the restriction against Americans was rescinded. Indebted to Talbot for the favour of this indulgence, a relieved and grateful Singleton accepted the offer. But the endearment was not to last. Although Singleton no doubt worked diligently to establish his family in their new surroundings, his exertions were impeded by the wilderness environment. By the end of October, 1816, his log house was still only half finished, and it had already cost him some $200 "for we Cannot get a board without fetching them 130 miles [, 1 and no stone nor brick to build Chimneys [ ,] nothing but [clay]. "'' Then, before he could finish the job, he was compelled to set off in search of flour. His destination was Buffalo, where he arrived
after 10 days[!] passage from Port TalbotI,] a place I never would again see was it not for my family[;] but I was obliged to (come] here for [flour] and I am afraid 1 will not get what I want [ .I I got one [barrel] and had to give $12 for it [, ] but when [done] it is much Cheaper than I: Can get it at Port Talbot [ .] Just before I left [home] 1 had 104 lb[s.] which Cost me $16.. . So you may Judge what a Comfortable place I am in [ .] No 1, I it is the hardest place I ever seen for to get the [necessaries] of life and I: [believe,] according to the number of inhabitants [, that] they have suffered more for the want of bread than [any] other place 1 ever seen or [heard of.] CMany 1 persons here I, ] I [believe, have1 not Ctastedl bread for 2 [months, ] for [they] had not the gain [, 3 and if [they] had [, theyl Could not get it ground. L6 Besides the incredible inconvenience of a long trip to Buffalo, there was also the inherent danger involved. [God] only knows whether I will get [home] or not [ ,I for the [lake] is so [dangerous] at this season of the year that I dread the Journey of going 150 miles in [an] open boat [.I Still, Singleton was determined to persevere. [It] is a great undertaking [ ,I but I must either do it or my family [must] suffer for want of Bread [ ,] which [they] have never [done] as 26 Singleton's family did not go without bread, simply because he had the financial resources to purchase flour- Many other pioneer families were not so fortunate- Most of them were desperately poor, and what little wealth they
possessed they generated themselves through their own toil as they improved their l@wildv1lands. Some, including wealthier settlers like Singleton, supplemented their fanning income by keeping an inn. These pioneer drinking establishments also served as de facto community halls where, on occasion, important public meetings were held. A record of one such meeting suggests that Singleton began his innkeeping career in Upper Canada soon after he arrived at Port Talb~t.'~ In October of 1817, local land owners gathered at Singletonls inn in order to collectively answer a survey distributedby Robert G~urlay.'~This self-appointedpromoter- turned-critic of Upper Canada had earlier distributed questionnaires asking for inf omation about the development of various townships in the province. To ensure recipient participation, he gave respondents the opportunity to speak their collective minds as to what, Ifin your opinion, retards the improvement of your township in particular, or the province in general; and what would most contribute to the same? Understandably, settlers like Singleton were receptive to someone who took an interest in their plight. Of the many replies Gourlay received, which were later published in his Statistical Account of UDP~~Canada in 1822, one was from Dunwich Township--which encompassed Singleton's interests. The answer was unequivocal: The crown and clergy reserves intervening so frequently amongst our farms, impedes the improvement of our township; and we are of opinion, that the growth and prosperity of the province in general is impeded by them?' The profits realized by the lease of these reserves provided financial support for both the government and the established (Anglican) chu.rch. This source of income was also highly speculative, since the leases were calculated according to the level of improvements made to surrounding farms .22 For Singleton and his neighbours, whose labours increased the value of these government lands, it was a clear case of exploitation. While they could abide the harsh way of life in the Talbot Settlement, if nothing else but for the sake of land ; however, they had little patience for government land policies which exploited their labours and exacerbated their hardships.
In the autumn of 1819, discontent in the Talbot Settlement intensified when the Colonel discontinued his offer of free land. Unwilling to pay for what had formerly been sratis, the Highlanders decided to circumvent Talbot and petition the government of Upper Canada for their own township.23 As the ~xecutiveCouncil later considered their request, they discovered Talbotts nefarious dealings with barred "Americant1immigrants. They reacted by rescinding 28 Talbotrs promise of additional land for the Highlanders-- although they later countermanded their de~ision.~'However, they were not entirely lenient, and they punished Talbot by forcing his Scottish settlers to pay higher fees associated
with larger grants,25 Then, when the Executive Council reacted to other irregularities in Talbot ' s land agency by refusing to grant him title to the lands he was supposed to transfer to his settlers, the Highlanders became convinced that he had
somehow cheated them,26 Emboldened by the government's reduction of their settlement fees , the Highlanders decided to take Talbot to
task," In 1821, they petitioned the Executive Council, charging that Talbot had Ifblinded their eyes[, led] them as tray and endeavoured to swindle them of their rights [ , ] and to settle them on a plane that was [inconsistent with] the
Order of Government. , . They concluded their powerfully worded attack by claiming additional land as their legal right. The Executive Council were indignant at the effrontery and demanded an apology.2g The surprised settlers grudgingly complied, but in the process they again criticized Talbot and requested a further reduction in their fees ." Both their apology and their bid were rejected. Finally, in 1824, Talbot himself interceded on behalf of his Scottish settlers and persuaded them to submit another apology." Although Singleton was not directly involved in the
Highlanders1 dispute with Talbot, he did share a common grievance with his Scottish neighbours . When Talbot sold Singleton 50 acres, he did so under the same terms as he had
exte~ded to the Highlanders. Perhaps in anticipation of additional land, Singleton was compelled to sign the second
collective apology of September 21, 1821 ," Yet, while he played only an obscure role in the affair, Singleton soon became embroiled in his own personal dispute with local authority. In June of 1822, he was fined for refusing to perform his share of the statute labour (or mandatory road work) ." This minor incident escalated when his wagon and saddle were seized and sold in order to satisfy the amount of
the fine .I4 Unable to secure justice in the matter, Singleton retrieved his property and was promptly charged with theft.3s Upon his arrest, he struck a prominent local tory magistrate named Mahlon Burwell and was further charged with assault and battery.
In April of 1823, Singleton was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of f25, plus court costs of an additional €20, and to remain in custody until both were paid. 36 He refused.17 Much of his defiance had to do with a court case he launched against Burwell and another magistrate for trespass, which Singleton expected would reveal the source of the injustice against him.'' But an exoneration was not so easily obtained. As the days turned to weeks, Singleton grew increasingly impatient and in May of 1823 he appealed to
Lieutenant-Governor Maitland for bail so that he could put in 30 his crops .lg After several more weeks of waiting, Singleton became paranoid as well. Convinced that higher-ranking tories had been recruited to collude against him, Singleton penned another letter--this time to William Dummer Powell, the chief justice - Singleton was desperate to have Powell preside over his case against the Port Talbot magistrates, as they managed to employ Henry John Boulton (the son of the attorney general,
D ' Arcy Boulton) to represent them." Unfortunately for Singleton, he was disappointed on all counts. He did not receive bail; Powell did not preside at the Quarter Sessions ; and his suit against Burwell was postponed. As June gave way to July, Singleton must have despaired of ever getting out of jail. However, there was action on his behalf, even if it moved at a snail s-pace . On July 10. Powell suggested that Singleton should be pardoned and set free on his own recognizance until such time as he paid the fine." Maitland agreed and two days later he wrote the attorney general. namely Henry John Boulton, requesting that Singleton be so discharged.42 Yet, Singleton was unmoved by the news, and he adamantly refused to reward injustice by paying either the fine or court costs. Instead, he opted to sit in jail for another three months! Maitland, no doubt thoroughly frustrated, finally set him free unconditionally on October 6, 1823 ." Not long after Singleton's release, a new date was set for his case of trespass. On November 14. 1823. however, the suit was dismissed on a technicality over the wording of the notice of intent." While Singleton was granted a new trial, it was not until early in 1825 that the matter was again brought before the court. In the meantime, however, Burwell was held accountable for his actions in the court of public opinion, As the provincial elections of July, 1824 approached, many people in the Talbot Settlement "believed that Singleton was being persecuted because of his liberal views, and because he had been considered as a candidate for the provincial Assembly in opposition to B~rwell.~*~' Singleton, however, disavowed any interest in a political career.46 Regardless, he must have been gratified by the outcome of the election, and the contribution he made in ousting Burwell. Singletonls personal dispute with Burwell culminated in January of 1825. when his charge of trespass was finally heard in the Court of King1s Bench. John Beverly Robinson, the attorney general, represented Burwell and Patterson and promptly objected to the trial, arguing that the case could not he sustained. The magistrates, he maintained, had acted according to their jurisdiction when they committed Singleton for felony after he stole back his saddle. The chief justice, William Campbell, was of the same opinion and offered a nonsuit. This opportunity to withdraw was declined, and it- then fell to William Warren Baldwin, the attorney for Singleton, to "shew cause.11 Contending that Burwell and
Patterson had been privy to Trainer l s false accusation against Singleton, Baldwin argued that these magistrates knew a felony had not been committed and therefore they were guilty. Robinson countered that Trainer's oath excused Burwell and Patterson from the charge of trespass, unless Singleton could prove collusion. He could not, and so the chief justice was
"constrained to agree to a nonsuit [, 1 as in the msence of such testimonv trespass will not lay against magistrates..."" In Singletonis mind, the Port Talbot tories and their Family Compact friends in York had once again deprived him of justice . He had no recourse, except to condemn Upper Canadafs legal system in the most pronounced manner possible. William Lyon Mackenzie, an active and outspoken reformer who would help lead the Rebellions of 1837, offered Singleton the perfect venue to vent his frustration. In April of 1825, Mackenziets Colonial Advocate published a letter from Singleton in which he observed: If the laws of any country are so framed and the Judges so limited and restrained by those laws, that they may not, in any case whatever, deviate from the strictest letter of them, even when a mere mistake in the proceedings has produced the greatest injustice, apparent to every disinterested and impartial hearer, does not such laws prostrate the very end for which they were compiled, viz: the preservation of the lives, the security of the property, and the determination of justice between man and man? Especially in a country where no court of equity exists in which redress can be obtained? How long do the judges and lawyers suppose they will be able to govern a free and enlightened people without a court of equity?" 33 Singleton appears not to have received an answer-not that he likely cared, He was too busy preparing to fulfill an earlier vow he made while sitting in jail - Soon after his letter was published, Singleton and his family packed up and quit Port Talbot . They travelled a considerable distance into the woods, and at the end of their trek they found themselves in the middle of the Longwoods Tract--= expansive forest between Delaware and Chathan~.'~ Once again they were pioneers on the frontier, but at least Singleton could compliment himself on being free of Port Talbot, The Longwoods were an isolated and Itdreary part of the road beyond Delaware, and yet to Singleton the depths of this primeval forest offered a
sanctuary from "tyranny and oppression.w50 By fulfilling his
VOW l1 to go over on the River Thames, he could escape the petty injustices of Port Talbot. However, there was no avoiding the larger Talbot Settlement. By 1824, several of the recently surveyed townships in the Longwoods had come under Talbotls superintendence, including Mosa Township where Singleton planned to settle (maps I and 2) ." Although the aging repeat-pioneer was well-aware of the new extent of Talbotls domain, he decided to remain in the Talbot Settlement--and for good reason, For several years prior to his departure from Port Talbot, Singleton had been amassing considerable amounts of
real property through grants and purchases. In 1819, just before the disgruntled Highlanders took Talbot to task,
Singleton petitioned for a government grant of 100 acres based on his military service." Instead, he was given a settler's allotment consisting of the south half of lot 18, on the north side of the Longwoods Road in Mosa Township near present-day
Wardsville .S3 In January of 1821, Singleton once again petitioned for his military entitlement? His request was not recommended, however, as he lacked the necessary proof of his discharge from the Royal Marines." In addition to seeking the ltbountyu of the Crown, Singleton also purchased land. In June of 1821, as the dispute between Talbot and the Highlanders grew more heated, Singleton acquired 240 acres of land on the south side of the Thames River in Aldborough owns ship .'' This property was only a few miles from the lot located to him on the Longwoods Road in Mosa Township. Obviously, Singleton was preparing to leave
Port Talbct, but his departure was delayed over his dispute with the magistrates. Upon his release from jail in October of 1823, he had to wait almost another year before he was able to sell his As a result, Singleton was still at Port Talbot in October of 1824, when 40 of his friends celebrated the anniversary of his so-called triumph over Burwell and
Patterson.58 In the spring of 1825, Singleton and his family finally set out for their new home. However, their destination proved not to be his considerable property in Aldborough Township. 35 Rather, Singleton decided to settle in Mosa Township--but not on his grant near Wards~ille-~~He opted instead for a lot three miles to the west, which he leased from its owner (maps
1 and 2) .60 He soon after opened his home to the travelling public, which accounts for his discriminating choice of properties? Singleton was determined to resume innkeeping, and he knew that his success depended upon the location of the venture. Therefore, he disregarded his Aldborough lands in favour of a site fronting on the Longwoods Road, which ran along the northerly side of the Thames River. This road, which doubled as the main highway through the province, carried much of the overland traffic through western Upper Canada, and appealed to potential innkeepers like Singleton Gardiner. However, Singleton was experienced enough with tavern-keeping to realize that an inn established near Wardsville would be frequently by-passed in favour of accommodations in that village. It was for this reason that he ignored his own grant of land on the Longwoods Road." Little is known about Gardiner's im, and nowhere is it mentioned among the series of early tavern licenses for the London Distri~t.'~ This omission can be explained, however. During a journey from York (Toronto) to Sandwich (Windsor) in
1827, William Baby stopped at Singleton1s tlhouse of entertainment." The most memorable thing Baby could recall about the establishment was its lack of liquor? Of course, Singleton was not prepared to go before his magisterial enemies at Port Talbot in order to apply for a tavern license." Yet, while the lack of spirits cost him a certain clientele, the stage traffic which passed his door more than made-up for the loss, Moreover, the amount of business soon increased dramatically, when a line of public stages was authorized to make runs between Ancaster and Sandwich in
addition catering the travelling public,
Singleton also had the occasional meeting to host. The most
important gathering at Gardinerrs 11111 assembled on August 1, 1834, when delegates from the rising villages of Chatham and London met to consider the navigational potential of the Thames River - '' This interest in a canal stemmed largely from the deficiencies of overland transportation in Upper Canada. Since there were few good roads, the Thames River appeared to offer the perfect solution: a canal. And, despite its u~a~igabhupper reaches, the river was already utilized for limited freight transport during the spring and autumn--or whenever the water was high enough to guide timber rafts
downstream with the current .68 With the construction of a series of dams and locks, the resulting ftslack water navigationn would compensate for periods of low water by allowing the passage of shallow draft canal boats. The delegates from Chatham and London had little difficulty convincing themselves that the Thames could be converted into a canal, and they soon eagerly pledged 37 themselves to the scheme.69 Singleton proved himself an avid supporter of their cause, and not just because he hosted their meeting. Singleton was well-aware of the profits associated with the water privileges (or hydraulic power rights) of a lock site, which explains his sudden decision to build a water-powered saw mill in that same summer of l834.?' By pushing the construction of the dam to half completion, he was able to argue for its inclusion in the proposed Thames River canal." Clearly, Singleton was maneuvering for a lock site, but his ambitions were cut short with his untimely death on
December 25, 1834. '' His plans, however, did not die with him.
At the time of his demise, Singleton Gardiner was well into his 61st year and rather old to be homesteading. However, the first of his requests for government land, which he submitted in 1819, suggests that he planned to quit Port Talbot and once again take up the life of a pioneer at a much earlier date. As early as the autumn of 1816, only a few months after his arrival at Port Talbot, Singleton began to express his dissatisfaction with the settlement. As well, the forthright criticism of the Dunwich committee, in response to Gourlay's questionnaire, indicates a broader and growing discontent among Talbot's settlers by October of 1817. Despite the founding father1s self -serving generosity in giving his Scottish settlers free land, they soon began to 38
resent the system of colonization he enforced- Not only were
they expected to open local roads and pay higher taxes based on all the improvements they produced, their labours enhanced the value of local clergy and government reserves, Justifiably, the settlers felt exploited and all they required to become completely disaffected was a perceived injustice, which the Colonel soon provided- In 1819, the same year Singleton decided to submit the first of his requests for government land, Talbot discontinued his indulgence of free land. By this action, he raised the spectre among his Highland settlers that they were being cheated out of their full entitlement, The result was one of Upper Canada's earliest public protests, and one that not only swept up Singleton, but also profoundly altered the remainder of his life . Although he did not play a prominent role in the dispute between the Highlanders and Talbot, Singleton was involved in so much as he had also received land as a barred vlAmerican-m Consequently, his lot was cast with the Highlanders, and his relationship with the Port Talbot tories suffered as a result - In 1821, when he refused to perf omadditional statute labour, Singleton unwittingly became the symbol of resistance against Talbot and his associates. Having thus invited the wrath of the local oligarchy, Singleton decided that it was time to leave Port Talbot. However, before he could effect his removal, his plans were interrupted by his conviction and incarceration. The ordeal--far from forcing his submission-- solidified his resolve for justice, and his determination to start a new life on the frontier, where local authority was vested in liberal-minded men like himself. In the meantime, however, Singleton's plight contributed to Burwell's downfall in the provincial election of 1824. Singleton could have easily taken Burwell s seat. had he desired it. Yet, his personal interests clearly outweighed his desire for revenge or public service, and he opted instead to focus his energy on his forest estate and the opportunity to exercise the opportunities associated with local entrepreneurship. In fact, Singleton Gardiner exemplifies the significance of entrepreneurship in the earliest, or water-based, phase of urbanization in Ontario. Ostensibly, he dammed the Tharnes River in order to power his saw mill. However, his real intention was to secure a lock site in the emerging canal scheme, and direct the development of a village for the purpose of speculation. In keeping with Hamil's microcosmic sociological approach, this detailed examination of Singleton s actions acknowledges the "human equation" in urban development as asserted by Amstrong and Brock, while illustrating the importance of the entrepreneur with regard to the rise of inland urban centres--which Careless proposed in his theoretical concept of water-based urbanization. And yet, as nicely as Singleton's life lends itself to these various historiographic perspectives, he certainly did not immigrate 40
America with the intention of founding a village, He came search land - That he embarked on a relatively substantial entrepreneurial venture in the last months of his life, proved a happy coincidence and illustrates the opportunistic nature of early local entrepreneurship in Ontario. Notes to Chapter One
British Museum, Manuscript Collection, Hardwicke Papers, Passengers from Ireland to America, 1803-1806 (MS 35,932), vol. DLXXXIV, William and Jane, 12 Sep- 1804, p- 147. See also: Brian Mitchell, ed., Irish Passerqer Listsl 1803-1806 (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, ~1995).p. 74. Singleton's wife's name was Ruth (Hamilton) Gardiner, and his baby daughter's name was Mary Gardiner. Singletonrs older brother, Thomas, also accompanied him.
2. Singleton's tombstone in the Gardiner Cemetery, Mosa Township, is the source of his age and nativity. According to it, he was born August 2, 1774. The family tradition regarding the wealth of his father is taken from the reminiscences of William Coyne. See: University of Western Ontario, The D.B. Weldon Library, The J.J. Talman Regional Collection [hereafter Talman Regional Collection] , James H. Coyne Papers, MS , William Coyne, "Pioneer Reminiscences of West Elgin," J=- 1875, p- 1.
3. Despite several research attempts, the records of the Royal Marines at the Public Record Office in Kew did not yield information on Singleton Gardiner. However, there is evidence of his military service in official Canadian sources. See: National Archives of Canada [hereafter National Archives], Upper Canada Land Petitions, Gardiner to Colbome, 1 Jul. 1834, G18 (1833-1834), no. 109-109a. According to this source, Singleton was discharged after almost six years of service. His return to civilian life might been a result of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802, which achieved a temporary peace in Europe during the Napoleonic Wars . 4. This daughter was Mary Gardiner, who was born December 22, 1803. She went on to marry John Gibb, and later died on February 29, 1860. This information is taken from her tombstone, which is located in the Gardiner Cemetery, Mosa Township, Ontario.
5. The arrival of the William and Jane was noticed in the New York Commercial Aavertiser of January 11, 1805, after a reported voyage of 90 days! However, this report does not correspond with the ship's passenger list, which was attested to by the captain ilnder date of September 12, 1804, and countersigned by the port collector on September 15, 1804. If the ship set sail immediately after this latter date, and the voyage in fact lasted 90 days, then the William and Jane should have arrived in New York in mid- December of 1804 rather than mid-January of 1805. The length of the voyage, as well as the discrepancy of about a month in the arrival time, might be explained by delays at Belfast, a stop-over along the British Isles, poor weather conditions, and perhaps even the possibility that the William and Jane was an incredibly slow boat- See: New York Commercial Advertiser, 11 Jan. 1805, p. 3, c- 2; ibid-, 14 Jan- 1805, p. 3, c. 2- See also: British Museum, Manuscript Collection, Hardwicke Papers, Passengers from Ireland to America, 1803-1806 (MS 35,9321, vol, DUCXXIV, William and Jang, 12 Sep- 1804, p- 147- 6. Commemorative Biogra~hicalRecord of the Countv of Kent. Ontario [hereafter Bio~a~hicalRecord of Kent] (Toronto, Ontario: J.H. Beers and Company, 19041, p. 20. According to this source, Singlecon owned 30 acres of land which straddl .ed the bound&y separat ing Putnam County (part Dutches s County prior to 1812) and Westchester County search of the land records for these counties failed produce instruments pertaining to his purchase or sale of the property in question,
7. The two sons were: William Gardiner, born July 28, 1811; and James Gardiner, born August 31, 1814. See: the tombstone of William Gardiner, which is located in the Gardiner Cemetery, Mosa Township, Ontario; Bio- Record of Kent, p- 21- With regard to the date of the Gardiner familyls arrival in upper Canada, see: ibid., p. 20. According to another source, the precise date was June 20, 1816. See: National Archives, Civil Secretary's Correspondence, Upper Canada Sundries [hereafter Upper Canada Sundries] (RG 5, Al), Gardiner to Powell, 4 Jun, 1823, p. 31,947. United States of America, statute (17981, Fifth Congress, session 11, chs, 58, 66, Enemy aliens were liable to be "apprehended, restrained, secured and removed. . ,It See : ibid., c. 66. Singleton certainly was not constrained by the war, or even by the mortgage payments he made on his property--since they did not extend beyond 1814. See: New York State, Putnam County Registry of Deeds, mortgages, liber A, Gardiner to Ferris, 25 Nov. 1812, pp. 58-60; ibid., Gardiner to Hunter, 1 Dec. 1813, pp. 274-275. These instruments concern separate parcels of and containing 5 1/4 and 8 acres o land respectively. ingleton also mortgaged five acres April of 1812- See New York State, Dutchess County clerk's Office, mortgages, book 17, Gardiner to ~ro6,21 Apr. 1812, p. 405-407. lo- According to Singleton, he and his family arrived in Upper Canada on June 20, 1816- See: National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Gardiner to Powell, 4 Jun. 1823, p. 31,947, See also: Biosranhical Recwd of Kent, p- 20-
For examples of his peculiar subjectivity in deciding a prospective settler's eligibility for Crown land, see: Fred Coyne Hamil, Lake Erie Baron [hereafter Lake Erie ~aronl (Toronto, Ontario : Macmillan Company of Canada, 1955) , pp - 155-168 .
National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Gardiner to Maitland, 15 May 1823, p. 31,832. See also: m., Gardiner to Powell, 4 Jun. 1823, pp. 31,947-31,948. The 500 guineas might have constituted part of the proceeds from the sale of Singleton's land at Peekskill, New York. However, there is evidence which seems to suggest that Thomas Gardiner, who was Singletoncs older brother. provided the money used to purchase the land from Talbot. See: National Archives, Upper Canada Land Petitions, Gardiner to Colborne, 20 OCt. 1834, G18 (l833-1834), no. 185h-h-18511. - Talman Regional Collection, Colonel Thomas Talbot Papers, correspondence, Gardiner to Coyne, 27 Oct. 1816. In fact, Singleton% deed from Talbot listed only 50 acres of land near Port Talbot. When Singleton wrote of having bargained for 100 acres, half of it probably went to his brother, Thomas. According to land records, they both received 50 acres of the south half of lot 17, concession 10, Dunwich Township. See: Ontario, Middlesex County [East] Land Registry Office, copybooks, London District (old series), bargain and sale, Talbot to Gardiner, 6 Sep. 1819, no- 267; ibid - , 31 Dec . 1819, no. 248 - Talman Regional Collection, Colonel Thomas Talbot Papers, correspondence, Gardiner to Coyne, 27 Oct. 1816.
I For printed versions of this letter, see: "The Talbot Settlement and Buffalo in 1816," Ontario Historical Society P I (1899): pp. 139-140; James H. cope, eD, 2 pts . (Ottawa, Ontario : Royal Society of Canada, 1909), pt. II, pp - 184-185; Jesse E. Middleton and Fred Landon, The Province of Ontario - -4 Historv, 1615- 192 7, 5 vols . (Toronto, Ontario : Dominion Publishing Company, ~1927)~vol. 1, pp. 289-290. It should be noted that a section of this letter (dealing with Thomas Gardiner's military service during the War of 1812) has been omitted from each of the published versions. Talman Regional Collection, Colonel Thomas Talbot Papers, correspondence, Gardiner to Coyne, 27 Oct. 1816. Singleton might have been an innkeeper at Peekskill, and he probably kept a house of public entertainment at Port Talbot as early as 1817. However, the first record of this establishment is in the form of a tavern bill dating from 1818, See: ttMinutesof the Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the London District, 1800-1818,11 in Alexander Fraser, Twentv- S~COnd Re~ortof tbe Denartment of Public Records and Archives of Ontario. 1933 (Toronto, -- - Ontario: Kingrs Printer, 1934) , pp. 196-197. Singleton was appointed secretary to the proceedings, See: Robert Gourlay, Statistica1 Account of U~nerCanada [hereafter Batistical Account of U~nerCanada], 3 vols- (London, England: Simpkin and Marshall, 18221, vol. 1, p. 346. The meeting was held in Singleton's house, which likely doubled as an inn as early as 1817 and certainly so by 1818. See: "Minutes of the Court of General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the London District, 1800-1818, in Alexander Fraser, Twenty - Second Re~orto f the De~artment of Public Recorm md Archives of Ontario, 1933 (Toronto, Ontario: Kingfs Printer, 1934) , pp. 196-197. Gourlay, Statistical ~ccountof Umer Canada, vol. 1, p. 274.
Ibid., pp. 348. See pages 271-274 of this volume for the list of Gourlay's queries. Lillian F. Gates, Land Pol~cles. . of Ug~erCanada , Canadian Studies in History and Government (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, ~19681,pp. 160-175. Hamil, Lake Erie Baron, p. 101; National Archives, Upper Canada Land Petitions, Black, st al. to Maitland, 3 1Dec.l 1819, B12 (1819-1820), pt. 3, no. 235k-m. This bundle contains additional interesting information on the topic. See also: National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Robertson to Maitland, 27 Nov. 1819, pp. 22,228-22,229. Hamil, meErie Baron, p. 101. Ibid., pp. 101-102. These other irregularities involved the misappropriation of government lands. See: Ibid., pp- 102-103.
Ibid., pp. 103-105 - National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Robertson to Maitland, 29 Aug. 1821, pp. 26,752. Hamil, Lake Erie Baron, p . 105. National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Robertson, et al- to Maitland, 21 Sep. 1821, pp. 26,897-26.901. Malcolm Robertson served as the settlersr representative in the matter. Earlier, he made an attempt to deflect the lieutenant-governorls anger by accepting responsibility for any offence they might have caused through his agency- See: ibid., 6 Sep. 1821, p. 26,797. Talbot prefaced the apology with a note, in which he observed: "They are a stupid, ignorant, obstinate, and vindictive race, and I am persuaded that should they continue in disgrace, the -ad will be, that they will become most inveterate-~e.be1s.l~ See: National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Talbot to Hillier, 19 Mar. 1824, pp. 34,726-34,727.
Ibid., Robertson, gt aL to Maitland, 21 Sep. 1821, pp- 26,897-26,901. Thomas Taylor, Beports of Cases AA Court of Kina's Bench in York. Uqpet Canada [hereafter ReQorts of King's Bench] (York, Upper Canada: John Carey, [I8281 ) , VO~. I, pp- 248-249. Ibid., p. 249. Gardiner later got the wagon back, as the bystander who made the purchase did so with the intention of returning it, National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, affidavit of Abraham Wightman, 7 Dec. 1822, p. 30,930; Taylor, Kinsls Bench, vol. 1, pp. 249-250. Archives of Ontario, Records of the London District, Minutes of the Quarter Sessions of the Peace, Statements of Issues, Fines and Amerciaments, and Recognisances (1821-18311, vol. 12, 8 Apr. 1823, p. [ZO]. See also: National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Gardiner to Powell, 4 Jun. 1823, p. 31,947. The exact date of Singleton's conviction was April 8, 1823, although he recalled the date as having been April 9, 1823. See: ibid., Gardiner to Powell, 4 Jun. 1823, p. 31,947. An impression of the court proceedings can be extrapolated from a visitor's account of the Quarter Sessions held the following September. The cases were "of the most frivolous description,--comenced in ill blood, fanned by iniquity, pursued with vengeance, and terminating, perhaps, in the destruction of families; they fully verify the old saying, 'whilst the world is, man will oppress man.' The Barristers appeared to feel so great an interest for their Clients, that they frequently lost sight of all order and decorum. No less than three of the long Robe were on their legs at one time, disputing a trifling point of practice or of law, whilst one of the Jurors was interrogating a witness. The patience of the Judge in conflicts of this kind, must be stretched out to a great length.11 See: Montreal Gazette, 20 Sep. 1823, p. 2, C. 4. See also: . p 3, c- 2- Singleton later alleged that the magistrates offered him his freedom soon after he was incarcerated, if he agreed to take no further action against Bumell. He refused, claiming the affair had gone too far "to give it up." See: National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Gardiner to Maitland, 15 May 1823, p. 31,832. Id. The other magistrate was Leslie Patterson. National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Gardiner to Maitland, 15 May 1823, p. 31,831.
1,Gardiner to Powell, 4 Jun. 1823, p. 31,945.
Ibid., Powell to Maitland, 10 Jul, 1823, p. 32,234. Powell was not quite sure how to advise the lieutenant-governor regarding the matter of costs, and so he deferred to the opinion of the attorney-general. See: ibid., p. 32,235.
Id., Hillier to Boulton, 12 Jul. 1823, pp. 32,237-32,238. Hamil, Lake Erie Aaro~,pp. 171-172. Fred Coyne ~amil,one of Thomas Talbot's biographers, suggests that Singleton was released on a technicality, namely that Dmagistrates in quarter sessions were not competent to imprison for cost^.^' The only problem with Hamilys explanation is that this decision came too late to be of any use to Singleton. John B. Robinson, the new attorney general and Boultonls replacement, was responsible for the opinion--but he did not give it based on Singletonfs case, m. In fact, it was in reference to a request from %urwellrs witnesses for court costs. They thought they should be remunerated for their time and trouble in appearing before the Quarter Sessions to give evidence against Singleton, but they were disappointed by Robinson. And by the time he presented his opinion to the lieutenant-governor, Singleton had already been "set at liberty by authority. See : ibis. , p . 171; National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Wilson, et al. to Maitland, 4 Nov. 1824, p. 36,352. It would appear that Singleton never did pay the costs. See: id., Wilson to Salmon, 23 Dec. 1824, pp. 36,822-36,823; md., Robinson to Hillier, 2 Dec. 1824, pp. 36,615-36,616. Singleton might have been motivated in part by revenge as several of his friends and family were summoned to the Quarter Sessions in April of 1823 as witnesses, only to be summarily dismissed by the magistrates. See: u.,Gardiner to Powell, 4 Jun. 1823. p. 31,947, Taylor, Re~ortsof Kinars Bench, vol, I, pp. 25-26. Hamil, Lake Brie Baron, p. 171. William Lyon Mackenzie claimed that Burwell lost much support over the incident involving Singlet on. See : Colonial Advocate, 2 Sep. 1824, p. 4, c. 2. See also: William L. Mackenzie, Sketches of Canada and the United States (London, England: Effingham Wilson, 18331, p. 112- Mackenzie mistakenly thought that Singleton's problems involved an old house- National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Gardiner to Maitland, 15 May 1823, p- 31,832. Taylor, Re~ortsof Kincrrs Bench, vol. I, p. 258- For the trial proceedings, see: ibid. , pp . 247-259. Colonial Advocate, 14 Apr. 1825, p. 1, c. 4. This letter was no doubt written for Singleton by the ColoniaL Advocatets editor, William Lyon MacKenzie-
The Longwoods Tract was surrendered to the British by the Chippewas, according to provisional agreement, on March 9, 1819. See: Treaties and-rrender~, 3 vols. (Ottawa, Ontario: Queen's Printer, 1891), vol. I, pp. 49- 50, 58-60; VO~.11, pp. 281-282.
Colonial Advocate, 6 Apr, 1826, p. 1, c. 4. The author of this remark also noted, however, that the Longwoods "are quickly settling, as are the adj acent townships." See : National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Gardiner to Hillier, 27 Feb. 1823, p. 31,197. Between 1821 and 1824, Mosa Township came under Talbotls superintendence. See : Hamil, Lake Erie Baroq, p. 128 ; Upper Canada, House of Assembly, Journaldix, 183 6, vol. 1, no. 22, p. 21- Although the petition is based on Singletonts military service, it might represent the fulfillment of Talbot s promise o f additional land--which he possibl.y extended to Singleton when the two men first met. See: National ~rchives, Upper Canada Land Petitions, Gardiner to Maitland, 29 Jun. 1819, G12 (1819-1820), no. 59.
George Gibb, Singletonfs son-in-law, occupied this lot. By 1832 he had built both a house and a barn, He had also cleared 12 acres of land, as well as his share of the road allowance. See: National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Chewett to McMahon, 27 Jan- 1832, p. 68,580. As Singleton had not previously received land, the Executive Council probably treated his earlier petition as though it were the request of an ordinary settler entitled to 100 acres. 54. National Archives, Upper Canada Land Petitions, Gardiner to Maitland, 24 Jan, 1821, G13 (1819-18241, no. 22.
55. National &chives, Upper Canada Land Book, vol. L (1821- 1824). p. 66. Gardiner was ultimately successful. On Jul. 3, 1834 he received a military grant of 200 acres in Emiskillen Township, Lambton County. See: ibid., vol. Q (1833-1835). p. 449. The lot in question was number 20, in the second concession. For the petition, see: National Archives, Upper Canada Land Petitions, Gardiner to Colborne, Jul. 1, 1834, GI8 (1833-1834), no. 109-109a- 56. Middlesex County East Land Registry Office, copybooks, London District (old series), Baby to Gardiner, 16 Jun- 1821, no. 335. See also: Upper Canada, House of Assembly, Journal ADD-, 1830, "~roceedingsof the Commissioners of Forfeited Estates," p. 148. This property was earlier confiscated from Andrew Westbrook, a notorious traitor during the War of 1812. Westbrook lived in Delaware Township, but joined the American forces at the outset of the war and led a number of raids against his former countrymen.
57. Middlesex County East Land Registry Off ice, copybooks, London District (old series), bargain and sale, Gardiner to Beedle, 20 Sep. 1824, no. 760. This transaction did not go unnoticed by the parties who tried to collect court costs from Singleton. They interpreted the sale as his attempt to avoid payment. See: National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Willson, et ah- to Maitland, 4 Nov- 1824, p - 36,352.
58. There "were appropriate toasts and songs, with plenty of good cheerm and Itit was a very late hour when the meeting dispersed.ll See: colonial Advocate, 14 Oct. 1824, p. 2, c- 3. Judging from the fact that Singleton Gardiner assisted Burwell with surveys conducted in the autumn of 1829, the two men must have resolved their differences. See: Ontario Department of Lands and Forests, Report and Field Notes, diary of Mahlon Burwell, "Indian Settlements at the Moravian Grant in the Townships of Zone and Orford, and on the River Thames in the Township of Carradoc ...," [1829], no. 666. 59- Singleton let a son-in-law have his lot near Wardsville. George Gibb was bequeathed this property (S1/2 lot 18, 1st Range North of the Longwoods Road) upon Singleton's death in 1834. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, will, Singleton Gardiner to certain devisees, 15 ~ug.1832, no. 2441. However, Gibb had possession of the property at least as early as 1832, and perhaps even earlier. See: National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Chewett to McMahon, 27 Jan. 1832, p. 68,580- 60. This property was the south half of lot 28 in the first range north of the Longwoods Road, which Singleton leased from Neil McNair of Southwold Township, the original grantee. McNair received the patent for the south half of lot 28, in the first ranqe north of the Longwoods Road, on 21 Feb . 1823 . Singleton appears to have occupied this lot from the time he arrived in Mosa in 1825. See: Archives of Ontario, Mosa Township Abstract Book (GS, 624), vol. 1, '5.E. 1/2 of Lot No, 28 1st Range North of L.W. Road," patent, Crown to McNair, 21 Feb. 1823; Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1826, no. [SO] ; ibid. , 1827, no. 8 . He also leased the northern portion of lot 28 on the south side of the road, which was owned by Thomas Matthews of Dunwich Township. The north part of lot 28, in the first range south of the Longwoods Road, was granted to Matthews on 15 Nov. 1832- It also appears to have been occupied by Singleton from the time of his arrival in Mosa. See: Archives of Ontario, Mosa Township Abstract Book (GS, 624), vol . 1, "Npt of Lot No 28 1st Range South of L.W. Road," patent, Crown to Matthews, 15 Nov. 1832; Talman Regional Collection, Mosa owns ship Assessment Rolls, 1826, no. [50]; ibia., 1827, no. 183; uj.d.. 1828, no. 39; ibid., 1829, no. [3 1 ; ibis., 1830, no. I151 ; ibis., 1831, no . Et>l ; id., 1832 (southern portion) , no. 52. Within a few years, however. Singleton purchased both properties. He secured the lot on the north side of the road in 1828, and in 1832 he bargained for the one on the south side. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, London District (old series), vol. 1, memorial, McNair to Gardiner, 8 Mar. 1828, no. 1666; u.,Matthews to Gardiner, 7 Aug. 1832, no. 1906.
61. Singleton probably began keeping an inn soon after his arrival in Mosa Township in 1825; however, the earliest reference to it dates from 1827. See: William Lewis Baby, Souvenirs of the Past [hereafter Souvenirs of the Pa], 2nd ed, (Windsor, Ontario: William L- Baby, 18961, p- 123a- 62. In addition to his considerable land holdings, Singleton was also assessed for the taxes on two additional lots containing 300 acres between them--both of which he appears to have leased. See: Talman ~egionalCollection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1830, no. 5 ; . , 1831, no. [SO]; iw., 1832 (southern portion), no. 52; &j& , 1833 (southern portion) , no. 1451 ; u., 1834 (southern portion) , no. [663 . These lots, numbers 27 and 29 in the first range north of the Longwoods Road in Mosa. were King's College reserves, Portions of both were subsequently granted to Singleton's sons. ~illiamGardiner received the south half of lot 27 on October 31, 1833, and James Gardiner got the south half of lot 29 on 22 Mar. 1844. See: Archives of Ontario, Mosa Township Abstract Book (GS, 624), vol. 1, "S1/2 of Lot No 27 1st Range North of L-W, Road, " patent, Crown to William Gardiner, 31 Oct- 1833; ibid., "Spt of Lot No 29 1st Range North of L.W. Road, " patent, Crown to James Gardiner, 22 Mar. 1844. All together, Singleton had approximately 840 acres at his disposal. However, by the time of his death, almost ten years later, he had managed to bring only 30 acres of his estate under cultivation. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1826, no. [SO] ; $bid., 1827, no. 181 ; ibid-, 1828, no. 39; ibid., 1829, no. 131; Bid-, 1830, no. 5 id.1831, no. [SO1 ; ibid,, 1832 (southern portion) , no. 52; ibid-, 1833 (southern portion) , no. C451; ibid ., 1834 {southern portion), no. t661. 63. Talman Regional, Collection, Tavern Licenses for the London District, 1831-1834. See also: Talman Regional Collection, Returns of Shop, Tavern and Still Licenses in Middlesex Co~nty,1831-1833, 1835, 1841-1842.
64. Baby, Souvenirs of the Past, p. 123a. William Baby was a member of a prominent Windsor, Ontario family.
65. Issuing tavern licenses had long been a duty of local magistrates. See: James Ha Aitchison, "The Development of Local Government in Upper Canada, 1783-1850," 2 ~ts: (Ph-D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 1953), pt. I, p- 31.
66. In 1827 Chauncey Beadle of St. Catharines was wanted "the exclusive privilege of establishing and runninG a line of public stages between the village of Ancaster, in the Gore district, and the town of ~andwich [Windsor], in the Western district." See: Upper Canada, statute (1827). 8 Geo. IV, c. XVI.
67. Guy St-Denis, IwAn Erie Canal for Western Upper Canada," p. 234.
68. In 1825, a contributor to the Colonial Advocate observed that: llLoadedboats come up [the Tharnesl to Delaware from Sandwich, and luntber is floated down in rafts to the latter place." See: Advocate, 30 Mar, 1826, p. 1, c, 2. In 1827 Joseph Pickering noted that Delaware was the "lowest point of the river, where pines grow, which are here sawed into boards, &c. and rafted down to Sandwich, Detroit, and other places." See: Joseph Pickering, IILQll~r1e.s. . of an Emiarant [hereafter ~~ar~l,. . new ed. (London, England: Effingham Wilson, 18311, p. 82- In November of 1834, William Baby paddled a skiff down the Thames River from London to within a few miles of Chatham. At the newly-built Gardiner dam, Baby "hired a mill hand to jump the skiff, trunk and package still in it though, over the mill race, which he successfully accomplished; but how, it puzzles me-" See: Baby, Souvenirs of the Past, p. 42.
69 St-Denis, '*AnErie Canal for Western Upper Canada, " p. 234. 70- Singleton obviously knew that millers, mechanics, and merchants were attracted to the hydraulic pcwer afforded by lock sites on canals- It was only a few years earlier, for example, that William Hamilton Merritt advertised the letting of valuable mill %citest1 and the sale of pleasantly situated town lots on the Welland Canal. Singleton very likely envisioned himself doing the same thing. See: Colonial Advocate, 22 Apr- 1830, p - 3, c- 4 - 71. Singleton was in the process of building the saw mill in mid-July of 1834. See: National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, Gardiner to Colborne, 12 Jul . 1834. p . 78.001. See also: Upper Canada, House of Assembly, Jm,Jan. 20, 1836, p. 27. Joseph Pickering observed that nSaw and grist mills cost from 1801. to 6001. in erecting,-according to the expense in making the dam, and the manner in which they are finished. A single saw, with plenty of water, will cut from 800 to 2000 feet per day, according to the water-
power- and the kind of wood, which sells at the mills at from 20~.to 35s. per. 1000. feet superficial measure." See: Pickering, mr~esof an Emisant. p. 106. 72. Singleton Gardiner was buried in the family cemetery located on the home farm, and alongside the Longwoods Road. See: Mosa Township, Gardiner Cemetery, tombstone of Singleton Gardiner. CHAPTER TWO Impulses and Interruptions
James and William Gardiner carried on with their father s entrepreneurial plans, and their first order of business was to secure authorization for the dam. In his haste, Singleton had neglected to obtain the necessary legislative permission.' As a result, opposition soon mounted against the dam from upstream, where it was denounced as an obstruction to the passage of vessels (then meaning rafts) and the migration of fish. James and William wasted little time in dealing with this threat to their enterprise, and in January of 1835 they submitted a petition to the Rouse of Assembly asking for "authority to construct a [weir] or dam across the River Thames on lot number twenty-eight, broken front, in said Township of Mosa, with a suitable lock, inclined plane and apron. u2 As was usual with legislative procedure, the petition was referred to a select committee which included two reformers: Thomas Parke of Middlesex and Dr- Charles Duncornbe of Oxford; and one tory: Nathan Cornwall of Kent. Despite the political differences of these committee members, the canal scheme promised to serve the greater good of their constituencies, and so they gave it their unanimous support.3 On March 3,
1835 the bill to authorize the erection of the dam was read for the first time .' After its second reading on April 7, the "Thames mill dam billttwas read a third time the following day and passed.' It was then immediately sent to the Legislative Council for concurrence, and there the bill was read and routinely referred to another select committee.' The legislative process had progressed remarkably well up to this point, but then the dam1s opponents caught up with it. On April 9, the select codttee in the upper house delivered its report, after having been informed that a Mill-dam, on lot number tweaty- eight in the broken front of the Township of Mosa, was erected across the River Thames last summer in the months of July and August, by Singleton Gardner [~jc] , who departed this life in December last; [and] that the inhabitants of that part of the country were, and now are, opposed to having a Dam at that place, as it wholly prevents the fish from ascending the river, and obstructs its navigation.' The codttee decided that they could not recommend the bill, since its opponents had been deprived of the opportunity to voice their objections in the lower house. In fact, these opponents believed Singleton1s death would void the bill, and so they did not bother to act against it.' On April 11, the Legislative Council formed a Committee of the Whole in order to consider the matter. They decided to "sit again this day three months,"g In effect, the bill was given "the hoist," a procedure which, as the teminology suggests, allowed the Legislative Council to defeat the measure by agreeing to let it expire without a vote." Undismayed, the Gardiner brothers began another attempt in January of 1836." In their second petition to the House of Assembly, they acknowledged that their father had
obstructed the river--Itnot supposing there would be any more ob j ection made to the dam than to others erected higher up the river - . . "" Having made this point of precedence, they then
neutralized their opposition by claiming that it was too late that season to erect an apron on the said dam, petitioners have in the course of last summer (1835), made a substantial apron and inclined plane of the following dimensions, viz: width of apron, 30 feet; length of inclined plane, 37 feet; height of dam, 4 feet; --being more accommodating than that required by the 9th Geo. 4th. ch. 4 El8 feet wide, by an inclined plane of 24 feet, 8 inches,- to a perpendicular of 6 feet] . That a saw and grist mill at this point would be of essential benefit to the public .I3
A bill was soon reported, which later passed third reading on
February 22, 1836 .L4 Within a few days the bill was introduced
to the Legislative Council, and there it was read the third time and passed without amendment on March 1, 1836." With the
lieutenant-governor's assent a week later, the bill became law on March 7, 1836.'"
Since mills tended "greatly to increase the general prosperity and wealth of the surrounding country," the government was inclined to grant the Gardiner brothersf request." However, the principal concerns of those opposed to the dam were not ignored. Included in the act were provisions which rewired the construction of locks, a larger inclined plane, and sufficient aprons for the passage of rafts and the ascent of fish." As a safeguard, the government maintained the right to void the act if the dam obstructed vessels or fish for a period of 20 successive days, and to amend or repeal the legislation "at any time hereafter, when
in their opinion the public interest shall rewire it ... 19 i3 The Gardiner brothers had succeeded in legitimizing their father's dam, and all that remained to complete his entrepreneurial vision was the construction of the canal. At the end of the next year, however, their plans for the future were suddenly interrupted. On December 14, 1837, Richard Neil of Mosa found himself riding through the township ordering its militiamen to muster in Wardsville ,20 The ref omers had turned rebels and, under the j oint leadership of William Lyon Mackenzie and Dr. Charles Duncombe, they launched a general uprising throughout the province. The government reacted by calling out the militia, and the Gardiner brothers dutifully complied. William, however, did so with much reservati~n.~' His irresolute attitude was shared by many of his neighbours, and local rebels decided to take advantage of the situation in order to recruit for their side. The next day, as the captain of the militia tried to convince his company to march, the rebels harangued them with the boastful claim that they were "three to one of the Royalists1@and therefore persuaded most of the men that Whey need not go...lf" Later that same day, the militia deserters became full-fledged rebels wnen they conspired to procure guns and ammunition so that they could oppose the government forces. One of the rebel leaders proposed to get arms from Detroit, and William Gardiner was one of two men who volunteered to go with him." Despite the enthusiasm for insurrection which prevailed
in Mosa, the rebellion was quickly crushed and, before the end of December, William was once again called to attend a meeting--this time presided over by the magistrates of the London District treason trials. Since he behaved in a suitably repentant manner, and posed no real threat, the magistrates were lenient, William was allowed to go home, but several months later he once again participated in rebellious intrigues. In June of 1838, the rebels of Mosa held another meeting where, once again, they attempted to recruit from the ranks of their neighbours. When William learned that rebels exiled in the United States planned to attack Canada on July
4, he dutifully reported the details to a local magistrate." William's infomation reached Chatham soon after, whereupon the authorities quickly organized a posse to apprehend the rebels in their rear. With a list of rebels that William provided, they set out for Mosa." Tensions ran high for the next several days, but the peaceful passing of July 4 brought the gradual realization that the threatened invasion was to be a non-event . By having acted as a spy for the Crown, William had redeemed himself as a loyal subject of the Queen. As for James Gardiner, he affirmed his loyalty by teaming supplies 57 for the militia during the rebellions ?This less flamboyant show of support might have been grudging, since he was hardly a subservient adherent of the tory status auo. On the contrary, he soon became a leading figure in local reform politics, which proved a far greater threat to Mosat s tory establishment than all the township% rebels had posed in the darkest days of the rebellions. James entered the hostile realm of local politics in
March of 1843, during a highly discordant political meeting regarding the alleged improper conduct of the Mosa postmaster
Robert Thompson--a prominent ref om magistrate. Not surprisingly, Thompson1s detractors were tories , and when they tried to install one of their own as chairman, the reformers countered with James as their ch~ice.~' This affair was motivated by an earlier attack on William Hatelie, Mosalstory magistrate. When reformers complained of his intemperate, unjust, and violent conduct, his name was removed from the Commission of the Peace for 1840 ?Hatelie protested, and the matter climaxed early in 1843 when he went to the local press complaining of his unfair treatment. The reformers, having become sufficiently riled at Hatelie's refusal to accept defeat, decided to retaliate by attacking Thompson in March of that same year. The result was a reform reprisal against another prominent tory. To the reformers, Adam Hatelie presented an irresistible target. He was the Mosa Township clerk, a tory, and William
59 senre in their respective capacities until the next town meeting, By this means, Hatelie managed to retain the clerkship of Mosa until early in 1846, when the question was settled by the election of reformer Samuel Kirkpatrick to the
position. l2 With municipal order restored, more or less, the quarrel between Thompson and the Hatelies gradually subsided. Mosars return to relative polf tical harmony allowed James to devote his full attention to business matters; however, his active participation in the local feud between reformers and tories probably had more to do with his personal interests than with those of his politics. At the same time that James became active on the side of the reformers, he and his brother's personal enterprise was threatened by the tories of London. Despite the legislative authority the Gardiner brothers received in 183 6, they continued to face considerable opposition over the construction of their dam. Much of the dissatisfaction was centred in the rising district capital of London, where a group of citizens were convinced that several dams below their town unjustly deprived them of fish. The Gardiners were singled out as the most conspicuous offenders, since thzir dam posed the first or lowest obstacle. By 1840, having tolerated the situation long enough, the Londoners finally took action and had James indicted for nuisance. At the October sittings of the Quarter Sessions, he admitted that the dam had blocked the river. He then explained that it had also been altered as required by law." He suffered only a light fine and costs.
The Londoners had been outmaneuvered, but eventually they decided to take the law into their own hands--which they justified by means of a long-held legal view regarding nuisances. Solicitor-General Henry J. Boulton expressed it best in 1822, when he scoffed at what he considered an attempt to veil the obstructions posed by damming rivers "under the name of works.f1 On this point he was adamant: dams "are a pubic Nuisance [and] may be abated by any individual who is strong enough to keep his ground if attacked during the operation. . . v34 Boulton also opined that the parties responsible for the nuisance could be indicted, which the Londoners had already tried without success. Theref ore, Bennett and his supporters decided to take a more direct, and forceful approach - James recognized the gathering threat, and prepared to meet another tory onslaught by consolidating local support for his saw mill, and also for a grist mill he built in 1841 (plate 10) .'' By having actively participated in the struggle against the Hatelies, James had secured the protection of neighbouring reformers--a band of whom could turn out at a moment s notice to protect his property. Ultimately, in April of 1843, a 'party1! from London, accompanied by Police Constable Philo Bennett, set out for the Gardiner dam. Upon their arrival at Jamesr house, they assured him they had no nefarious plans. Neither James nor William were convinced. Then, according to Be~ett,he and another man went to the dam, where we found it unnecessary to adopt any destructive means, as the dam had been partially destroyed by the flood, and the river was then too high; a large party had assembled to resist us , but from the circumstance as above stated, we returned amid death-like threats to Flemmings, where Mr. Pixley and myself took stage for London; the rest of the party, who had never been to the mill-dam at all, started about the time I left Flemmings ,. ,I6 Later, amid accusations of riotous and disorderly proceedings and serious questions about the legality of the Londoners' designs, Bennett was forced to defend his actions. L was guided by the best legal advice which London affords, in all the measures contemplated for the removal of the dams, and acting upon the opinions received, I am determined with others, to exert myself to the utmost in obtaining for the inhabitants of London a privilege which they are so unjustly deprived [namely f ishl . . .37 Coming to Bennett's support was an individual calling himself Viscator, who claimed that a lock had not been incorporated into the dam; the inclined plane was too short; and the brush construction allowed water to pass through the dam instead of over its apron. Therefore, the Gardiner dam constituted an illegal obstruction 2' Constable Bennett and his anti-dam party pursued the matter further by addressing a petition to Sir Charles Metcal fe , the governor-general of the United Province of Canada. With 361 signatures, they requested Metcalf e ' s assistance in removing Gardiner' s dam and others like it in the Thame~.~' The petitioners repeated their old grievances, namely: the detrimental effect on navigation and fish. They also recounted how the owners of several dams had been indicted before the Quarter Sessions for nuisance, but that nothing had been done by the clerk of the court. The matter had also been brought before the Grand Jury, which allegedly ignored the evidence and "defeated the ends of J~stice.~'' John Noml, one of the anti-dam activists, offered the following succinct explanation. =thof the decision come to by the Jury has created much surprise, yet from its construction there is little to be wondered at. Six of the number were owners directly or indirectly of similar nuisances? Anticipating justice from the Queen's representative, the Londoners ultimately found themselves disappointed. In his reply, the governor-general did Itnot see how he could interfere for their protection, " and could only advise them "to take such legal steps for the abatement of the nuisances
complained of as their legal advisors may point out..."" The dam opponents suddenly found themselves back where they had started, and with little hope for recourse. Whether fomenting rebellion or harassing old tories, both William and James Gardiner exhibited characteristics inherited from their father. However, in business matters, James most
resembled his father. In 1834, at the age of 20, he set out on what he termed his "individual careern by working his own
farm and milling timber in his father s newly-built saw mill .43 Ironically, after Singletonvs death, the saw mill and dam were left to William-who was more content to Whether or not James resented his brother's inheritance, he continued to operate the saw mill. He also entered into partnership with his brother, no doubt hoping to claim a share of the speculative prof it arising from the proposed lock site ." By 1840, however, it was obvious that the Thames would not be made navigable within the foreseeable future- For James, who lacked financfal means, it became crucial that he remain in partnership with his brother. This arrangement suited William, who provided the hydraulic power while James ran the operation and contemplated expansion. Although there had been plans to construct a grist mill as early as 1836, a depressed economy forced its delay.46 However, James was finally able to build the grist mill in 1841." 1t was a logical first-step in his plans for expansion, since grinding wheat was one of the mainstays of pioneer industry. Despite the failure of the canal scheme, which had eliminated the speculative promise of a lock site, the future still appeared bright. "You must look forward to what the country will be, not to what it is at present. It'' Such was the advice of the English novelist Captain Frederick Marryat, which he gave to prospective settlers in 1840. According to Marryat, commodity values would increase in a manner proportionate to the growth of the population. "When I was at London, on the river Thames , (in Upper Canada I mean) , I might have purchased a farm,
lying on the banks of that river, of four hundred acres, seventy of them cleared, and the rest covered with the finest oak timber, with a fine water-power, and a saw-mill in full work, a good house, barn, and out-buildings and kitchen garden, for six hundred pounds. In ten years this property will be worth more than six thousand pounds; and in twenty more, if the country improves as fast as it does now, at least fifteen thousand pounds ." Marryat was overly-optimistic, and yet his economic prophecy did echo the expectations of many Upper Canadians--including
James Gardiner. It was important that James remain optimistic, especially since his grist mill probably proved less profitable and more problematic than William1s saw mill. With one run of stone driven by eight horsepower of hydraulic energy, the grist mill had required an outlayt1of £500 It was a considerable amount of money to invest, and there was also the additional expense of the miller's wages." Still, by 1843 James added carding machinery to the grist mill in order to process wool and flax.52 while there are no account books or other records to provide a gauge of the success attending the grist mill, it is possible to glean some idea of the difficulties James would have encountered as a mill owner.'3 In 1859, Amelia Harris wrote an account of her father's pioneer experiences at Long Point, where he owned a grist and saw mill during the early years of the nineteenth centu~y.~' Included in her recollections is a brief, but valuable, comparison of the two industries. The grist mill, she recalled, was a constant drain upon her father's purse, with the 'Idam breaking, machinery getting out of order, 65 improvements to be made, bolting cloths wanted, and a miller to be paid...n55 However, the cost of operating the saw mill "was trifling, its machinery was simple, and any commonly intelligent man with a day or twors instruction could attend to it."'" The saw mill was also more remunerative: Veople brought logs of pine, oak, and walnut from their own farms and my father had half the lumber for sawing; and this, when seasoned, found a ready sale. . . "" James no doubt had much the same experience, and like
Mrs. Harris I father, he too found "a commonly intelligent manw to run his saw mill. However, Silas Ball was not the only one involved in its operation. In 1843, for instance, he subcontracted to one Courtland who, with other unnamed individuals, "overhauled and repairedn the mill. In December of the same year, they advertised "every description of Lumber, which will be sold on reasonable terms for cash or barter. wsg They also offered to "buy Walnut Mill Logs, and pay the highest market price for the same.qf60 It was also in December of 1843 that a firm by the name of Cronkite and Company announced the establishment of a chair and cabinet factory at the Gardiner mill seat, and having now on hand a complete assortment of Chair and Cabinet Furniture, are prepared to sell or exchange the same on reasonable terms; and hope by prompt attention to their business, to meet a share of the public patronage.6L In addition, the company offered to do every description of
Tustom Wood Turning. ltS2 Yet, while there was abundant timber and an noverhauledw saw mill, there was little or no local market for the finished products. Given the company's decision to advertise in the Chatham Journal, Cronkite and Company perhaps planned to sell their goods in the more settled lower Thanes Valley, Although it was relatively cheap to transport furniture by one of the numerous rafts which descended the river, the down-stream demand was not sufficient for the company to survive through the following year? Despite the failure of Cronkite and Company, James must have been heartened by his bid to improve the mill seat's accessibility.64 On June 9, 1843, he petitioned the London District Council for a Ifnew line of Roadw to his By this simple act, and a remarkably prompt process, James soon derived a public road at no expense to himself. Upon receipt of the petition, the Council directed a surveyor to examine the proposed route of the new road.'" report on the feasibility of the request was then returned at the end of June.=' Then, after a Little more than a month's delay, the
Council recommended the request early in August (map 3) .68 Finally, a by-law officially established the new road, which later became known as Gardiner Street.69 while James was no doubt prompted to request a new road in order to facilitate his plans for expansion, he might also have been motivated by the government ' s proposed improvements for the Longwoods Road." With the amalgamation of Upper and Lower Canada in 1841, the legislators of the new Province of Canada established a Board of Works to improve and extend transportation facilities .'= The man appointed to head its operations was an energetic Irish engineer by the name of
Hamilton K. Killaly." Included among his many duties was the reconstruction of the Main Province Road, or provincial highway, and that part of the highway between Chatham and London (known locally as the Longwoods Road) soon came to Killalyls attention. In March of 1842 he instructed a surveyor to ascertain without loss of time whether a line somewhat to the north of the present road between Chatham & London thro the township of Mosa cannot be found which would avoid all, or most of the bad hills & deep ravines by which the present road is crossed. Anticipating local opposition, Killalyfs advice was "to explore this personally, as you cannot depend upon the statement that may be made by most of the settlers on that portion of the present line[,] their intent being to mislead. The following September, as his surveyors went about their duties, Killaly drew comment from the London Incruirer. Its editor was of the opinion that the new road shoufd follow the track of the old one wherever it would reasonably be found to answer, without too much inconvenience; in this case the remuneration expected to be received by those whose lands it may cross, would go a great length in assisting to finish the road, as well as giving no pretext to farmers for saying they suffered injury, when in reality it will advance 50 per cent the value of the land adjacent to wherever the road may pass .15 68 Like these farmers, James was also concerned--but not at the thought of having his farm intersected by a new road. Rather, he was apprehensive that the new route of the Longwoods Road would be shifted a considerable distance away from his industries . Writing to the surveyor general at Kingston in March of 1843 , James complained that "the new survey of the road from London to Chatham. . .will very [materially1 injure me with regard [to] my business, " which included an expensive grist mill of recent construction, an attached carding machine, a "turning latherwand a tavern.'' While James had good reason to be worried, his fears proved unfounded. Almost two months earlier, Samuel Keefer, an engineer with the Board of Works and Tillalyfs right hand, " influenced the matter in James favour ." "1 am decidedly of opinion that the line should follow the present travelled Road through
those townships [of Mosa and Ekfrid], with the exception of course of such partial deviations and straightenings as are necessary to form a creditable line of road.Itm Had James known of this favourable turn of events when he complained to the surveyor general in March of 1843, he might have saved himself some postage .79 In any case, his mind was finally put at ease when, in May of 1844, gangs of workmen converged on the old route of the Longwoods Road." However, these gangs did not present a welcome sight for long. In August of 1844, Ira serious affray took place,I1 so the Chatham Gleaner reported, between some of the laborers on [the Longwoods Road], and the neighboring settlers; some Indians from Moravian town were also concerned. The laborers were ultimately beaten off, but an inhabitant named William Gardiner, who appears to have been the innocent cause of the skrimage, was so severely injured that little hope is entertained of his recovery. The trouble began when some of the workmen insulted two women in Wardsville, causing a fight in which William appears to have "worstedN one of the gang." However, the latter r s "companions thereupon came in and inflicted vengeance upon the victor. f183 When the townspeople rushed to William' s assistance, a brawl ensued. The rioting continued for quite some time, but with the arrival of the natives "the road men were beaten off and declined returning to their work, through
William survived, but his beating must have dampened his brother's enthusiasm for the road improvements--which were not completed until the following December And yet, the labours of William's assailants considerably eased the difficulty experienced by farmers in getting their grain to his brother's grist mill. The same held true for teamsters, who transported products from Jamesr various other enterprises: lumber from the saw mill; wool and flax from the carding machine; and turned wood products from the lathe. The increase in traffic on the Longwoods Road, another direct result of the workmen's exertions, also generated greater custom at his tavern. Without doubt, the improvements made to the Longwoods Road were a great boon to James, and to the Canadian economy as a 70 whole. E'undeu by an Imperial loan of f 1,500,000, the
ambitious building programme of the Board of Works included the construction of harbours, canals, and major highways . Combined with a growing British demand for timber and wheat, the expenditures of the Board of Works contributed to an upswing in the provincial economy during the early 1840~.~'
With the return of prosperous times, James Gardiner was able to expand the mill-seat and link it with the nearby Longwoods Road. But, despite his best efforts, he was unable to establish a village. Contrary to the Careless hypothesis, that inland urbanization during the early water-based phase developed along rivers and roads, neither means of transportation was a guarantee of success. As Overton demonstrates in his study of port development along Lake Erie1s north shore, the rise of inland urbanization was dependant upon a direct comection to a lake port. The Gardiner experience supports Overton, illustrating the urban consequence of water courses and highways which did not lead directly to the nearest harbour. However, the degree of industrialization achieved by James Gardiner also serves to emphasize the importance of local entrepreneurship in the process of urbanization. By the time of their father's death in 1834, both brothers had grown into strong-willed young men. And, with a role model like Singleton Gardiner, it is hardly surprising that his sons stood firm against the intimidation of local authority. Yet, during the armed insurrections of the late 1830s and the political upheavals of the 1840s, James and
William Gardiner both ultimately supported the Crown. As the sons of the most stalwart opponent of tory rule in the Talbot Settlement, these young men had inherited definite liberal, or
reform, leanings; however, their reactions to the rebellions were markedly different. William acted the part of the radical, while James remained moderate. Afterwards, however, their roles were reversed. William's close call with treason caused him to refrain from further reform activism. But James, who had resisted the popular uprising, engaged whole-heartedly in the raucous local politics which followed the rebellions.
The events of the late 1830s not only defined the individual personalities of the two Gardiner brothers, but also reinforced their respective disposition toward business risk. The great lengths their father had taken in order to establish his inn, and also to ensure his place on the proposed canal, instilled the importance of entrepreneurial endeavour in the brothers as they grew to adulthood. Yet, William was content to let his brother manage the saw mill, which William himself had inherited from his father's estate.
Conversely. James was determined to expand the industrial base of the mill seat into a village and thereby compensate himself
for the legacy he was denied. Nothing was allowed to threaten his entrepreneurial designs, not even the presumed fishing rights of London tories or even reversals in the provincial economy- However, as the activities of the Board of Works illustrate, transportation was beginning to displace local entrepreneurship as the dominant force governing urbanization. Notes to Chapter Two
Singleton was well aware of his obligation to seek prior permission to dam the river. In July of 1834, for example, he published- the required- notice of his intention, See : Umer Canada Gazette, 10 Jul, 1834, p- 7, c. 2- Upper Canada, House of Assembly, Journal, 20 Jan. 1835, p- 32; bid, 22 Jan. 1835, p. 40. A lock is an enclosure in a canal for raising or lowering boats; an inclined plane refers to the sloping construction of the back of a dam used to reduce the force of water on the structure; an apron is the reinforced fronting on a dam in the form of a slide or shelf designed to protect the foundation of the dam from being undermined by falling logs and ice-
Ibid., 26 Jan. 1835, p. 55; St-Denis, "An Erie Canal for Western Upper Canada," pp, 235-236. Upper Canada, House of Assembly, Journal, 3 Mar. 1835, p . 201.
Ibid. , Apr . Upper Canada, 135.
Ibid-, 9 Apr. 138-139. Ibid. , p. 139.
Ibid, , 11 Apr. 1835, p. 146; ibid., 13 Apr. 1835, p. 147 -
St-Denis, "An Erie Canal for Western Upper Canada, fl p . 245 - Upper Canada, House of Assembly, Journal, 18 Jan- 1836, p. 15. Ibid., 20 Jan. 1836, p. 27- Ibid. See also: Upper Canada, statute (18281, 9 Geo. IV, c. 4. An inclined plane refers to the sloping construction of the back of a dam used to reduce the force of water on the structure; an apron is the reinforced fronting on a dam in the form of a slide or shelf designed to protect the foundation of the dam from being undermined by falling logs and ice.
Upper Canada, House of Assembly, Journal, 21 Jan. 1836, p. 44; ibid., 29 Jan. 1836, p. 82; ibid., 20 Feb. 1836, p. 193; ibid., 22 Feb. 1836, p. 197. Upper Canada, Legislative Council, Journal, 25 Feb. 1836, p - 45; ibid., 26 Feb- 1836, p, 47; ibid-, 29 Feb. 1836, p. 51; - ibid., 1 Mar. 1836, p . 52. See also : Upper Canada, House of Assembly, Jot~rnal,1 Mar, 1836, p. 233 - Upper Canada, Legislative Council, Journal, 7 Mar - 183 6, p . 62. See also: Upper Canada, House of Assembly, Journal, 7 Mar. 1836, p. 255- Upper Canada, statute (1836), 6 Wm- 1, c - 24 - Ibid. As noted elsewhere, an inclined plane refers to the sloping construction of the back of a dam used to reduce the force of water on the structure; an apron is the reinforced fronting on a dam in the form of a slxde or shelf designed to protect the foundation of the dam from being undermined by falling logs and ice. Mso, the government-stipulated that the whole work was also to be kept in good repair and free from toll. Ibid. ss . 11-111- It fell to Richard Neil of Mosa Township, ensign in the 5th Regiment of Middlesex Militia, to personally notify each man of the order to muster, See: National Archives, Records Relating to the Rebellion of 1837-1838, London District Treason Trials [hereafter London District Treason Trials] (RG 5, B36), case files, vol. 2, A36, information of Richard Neil, 22 Dec. 1837. Ibid., information of William Gardiner, 23 Dec, 1837.
Ibid., information of James Edwards, 22 Dec- 1837. See also: Colin Read and Ronald J. Stagg, eds., The Rebellion of 1837 in U~erCanada: A Collection of Documents (Toronto, Ontario: The Champlain Society in co-operation with the Ontario Heritage Foundation. 19851, p. 329.
National Archives, Upper Canada Sundries, information of William Gardiner, 25 Jun. 1838, p. 10gr717A. Ibid., Fuller to Street, 30 Jun. 1838, pp. 109,819-109,820. Talman Regional Collection, Harris Papers, London District Rebellion Losses Claims, Minutes of Codssioners, vol, 1, claim of James Gardiner, 29 Oct. 1843, no. 182. See also: ibid., claims, vol, 5, account of James Gardiner, no, 182, Ibid., 25 Feb. 1843, p. 2, c. 6; Ud-, p- 3, c. 4; .=-,4 Mar. 1843, p. 2, C. 2; -irer, 7 Apr. 1843, p- 3, c - 2 . See also r National Archives, Indian Affairs, Superintendency Records, Western ( Sarnia) Superintendency, J.B. Clench Papers, 1812-1854 (RG 10, vol. 4411, letter, Hatelie to Johnston, 14 Nov, 1840, pp . 803-805. National Archives, Provincial Secretary, Canada West , Correspondence [hereafter Provincial Secretary West] (RG 5, Cl), vol. 153, file 10,257, petition, Cope, a.to Metcalfe. 18 Mar, 1845. Efatelie later claimed that he was never asked for the township books, as Anderson refused to serve . IbiCa,., vols. 125-127, files 7,379-7.399, Certificate of James Gardiner, 15 Apr. 1844, p. 49.477. For additional information on this affair, see: .=., pp. 49,458-49,494-
Ibid., vol. 153, file 10,257, petition, Coyne, .-.- to Metcalfe, 18 Mar. 1845 , Talman Regional Collection, London District and Middlesex County Minute Book (1842-1859), 14 May 1845. pp. 115-116; ibid., Mosa Township, Minutes of Town Meetings (1839-1851), 27 May 1845, p. 22; u.,5 Jan. 1846, p. 23. Archives of Ontario, Records of the London District, Minutes of the Quarter Sessions of the Peace, vol. 6 (1839-1840), 14 Oct. 1840. According to James Bedforb, one of Jamesi witnesses, the new apron was 30 feet, 5 inches wide and 42 feet long. The height of the dam from the top of the apron to the level of the river below was approximately 2 feet, 8 inches. National Archives, Upper Canada sundries, "Opinion of the Solicitor General respecting Nuisances on Rivers," 1822, p. 30,657. The first year in which the grist mill appears in the Mosa Township assessment rolls is 1842. However, since assessment rolls were prepared in the spring of the year, the mill probably was built sometime in 1841. See: Talrnan Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1842, p. 131, no. Ill.
London, 29 Apr. 1843, p. 3, c. I. Ibid. Ibid. , National Archives, Provincial Secretary West, vol, 110, petition, Goodhue, et al. to Metcalfe, c- 13 Jun. 1843, pp. 42,983-42,983A. Ibid. , letter, Norval to Harrison, 27 May 1843, p. 42,978 . Ibid. Ibid., Harrison to Norval, 21 Jun. 118431 , p . 42,981- Bioara~hicalRecord of Kent, p. 21. William, no doubt, assisted in the saw mill as well. Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, will, Singleton Gardiner to certain devisees, 15 Aug. 1832, no. 2441. Singleton does not specifically refer to either the saw mill or the dam, since they were both built after he made out his will. Rather, the eastern portions of lots 28 on both sides of the Longwoods Road are bequeathed to William, while James is left with the western remnants* James did not receive a share of the saw mill and dam, as they were situated on William's share of his father's landed estate. The assessment rolls for Mosa Township suggest that such a partnership existed at least as early as 1835. Between 1835 and 1840, James paid most of the taxes on the saw mill. William paid the taxes only twice: in 1837 and 1839. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1835, no. 111; ibid,, 1836, no. [I471 ; w.,1837, no. [57];ibid., 1838, no. [131]; ibid., 1839, p. 141, no. [23; ibid., 1840, p, 5, no, [18], During their attempt to win legislative favour for the dam, the Gardiner brothers alluded to a grist mill which, along with a saw mill, they argued would be of lfessentialbenefit to the public ." see- upper Canada, House of Assembly, Journal, 20 Jan. 1836, p. 27. For information on the depressed Upper ~anadianeconomy in the 1830s and 1840s, see: Gerald M. Craig, Qgper Cua: e Formative Years, 17 84-l84&, The Canadian Centenary Series (Toronto, Ontario : McClelland and Stewart, 19631, p. 242. Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1842, p. [3], no. [I]. This is the first year in which the grist mill appears. Since assessment rolls were prepared in the spring of the year, the mill probably was built sometime in 1841. Also, as James paid the taxes on the building, he probably owned it; however, William very likely contributed to the cost of the mill's construction. [Frederick] Marryat, A Diarv in America, 2 pts . (Paris. France: A. and W. Galignani and Company, 1840), pt. second, p. 226.
Ibid. Marryat was a popular novelist in England during the 1830s. See: W.A.B. Douglas, "Marryat, Frederick," Dictionarv of Cqu-,VII: pp- 585-586. National Archives, 1851 Census (RG 31) , Mosa Township, Middlesex County, Canada West, p. 79, no - 26 - James appears to have been the sole owner of the mill, even though it was situated on William's property and powered by his dam. The grist mill produced El75 worth of flour, while an attached carding machine of four horse power produced f75 worth of wool after an initial outlay of f150- See: ibid. Given the complicated machinery used in grist mills, it is unlikely that James was competent to serve as his own miller. However, neither is there record that a professional miller was employed. National Archives, Board of Works Papers (RG 11), Unregistered Correspondence, vol. 82, Gardiner to Parke, 27 Mar. 1843. This machinery was an important component in the -processing of wool and flax, and yet it was not listed in the assessment rolls of the period. In 1847 Silas Ball advertised his woof carding services at the "Wool Carding and Cloth Dressing Establishment of Mosa Mills," which was under the management of Luke W, Davis. This enterprise no doubt employed the carding machinery belonging to James. See : Chatham Gleaner, 25 May 1847, p. 3, c - 3. While assessment rolls for Mosa Township survive from the 1830s and 18408, they are of little use-in gauging the value of grist and saw mills, or the extent of their business, since both were assessed using flat rates. Daniel J. Brock, "Ryerse (Ryerson), Samuel," Dictionarv of f, V: pp. 732-734.
The recollections of Amelia Harris were later published. See: Egerton Ryerson, The Lovalists of America and Their Times : From 1620 to 1816, 2nd ed,, 2 vols. (Toronto, Ontario: William Brigqs,-- 1880) , vol. 11, p.- 247. See also: James J. Talman, Lovalj st Narratives from UQD~~Canada (Toronto, Ontario: The Champlain Society, 1946) , p . 133. The original manuscript, whiEh does not lend itself so nicely to quotation, is among the family papers. See: Talman Regional Collection, Harris Papers, MS, Amelia Harris, flAccountof Capt . Samuel Ryerse at Long PointffLC. 18591 , pp- 124-251 . Ibid., Lovalists of America and Their Times: From 1620- 1816, p. 248; -ist Narratives from U- ?-cia, p- 133; llAccountof Capt. Samuel Ryerse at Long Point, p. [251 - Ibid -
Ball paid the taxes on the saw mill from 1841 until 1847, which indicates he had entered into partnership with James. The likelihood of such an arrangement is strengthened by the 1848 Mosa Township assessment roll, in which James and Silas Ball were originally assigned half interests in the saw mill. However, the assessor scratched out his original notation and then listed the mill entirely with James. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1841, p- [I], no. [8] ; u.,1842, p. [I], no. [I31 ; ibid., 1843, p. C21 , no. [18] ; u.,1844, p. [4] , no. 1231 ; bid. 1845, p. 161, no. [24] ; u.,1846, p. 6, no. [I]; bid, 1847, p. 1, no. 1141 ; u-,1848, p. 2, no. [8] - Chatham ;Tou-, Jan. 13, 1844, p. 4, c. 4. Ibid- How long this arrangement lasted is unknown. bid . The Cronkite of "Cronkite and Company1' probably was William Cronkite. He is listed in the 1843 Mosa Township assessment roll in connection with lot 28, although there is no reference to the chair and cabinet factory- See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1843, p. [2], no. 1211. The lathe probably was a fixture of the saw mill run by Silas Ball. Rafts appear to have descended the river on a fairly regular basis. In 1833, a pioneer named Gowman tried vainly to hire someone with a team to transport his family and their belongings from Westminster Township, near London, to West ~ilbury own ship, near Chatham. Aninnkeeper then suggested transportation on one of the Vine raftsn which passed every day or two. According to Thomas Gowman, the pioneer's son,- the innkeeper "had not done speaking before we saw a raft coming down the river. Father went out and hailed them [the rafters], and they drew in to shore ...Father soon made a bargain with them to take his family as far as [Gardinerlsl Mill, so we were soon afloat and sailing [rafting] down the Thames . . . l1 See : Archives of Ontario, MS , Thomas Gowxnan, I1Pioneer Life in Upper Canadaw (MU 2330), vol. 1, pp. 11-12. For a more technical description of rafting operations on the Thames, see: Rev. Thomas Webster, "Early Scenes in Canadian fiife,I1 EJew Domuon. . Montm (April 1871) : pp. 205- 206. With regard to Cronkite and Company's demise, this firm is not listed in the Mosa Township assessment roll for 1844 or subsequent years. Also, the company's advertisement ends abruptly with the May 4, 1844 issue of the Chatham Journal. Talman Regional Collection, London District Quarter Sessions, Road Records [hereafter London District Road Records] , petition, Gardiner, et al. to OtMara, 9 Jun. 1843. The petition was required to be signed by 12 local freeholders .
There are a number of township manuals which describe the procedure by which new roads were opened. For example, see : A Brief View of the towns hi^ Laws (Toronto, Upper Canada: W.J. Coates, 18351, pp. 36-45.
Talntan Regional Collect ion, London District Road Records, surveyorfs report, OIMara to Warden and Council of the London District, 30 Jun. 1843. Ibid - . . By-Laws of the Munx~palCowcil of the District of London (London, Canada West: William Sutherland, 18491, pp. 30-31. Such roads often served no purpose other than to improve access to private mills, although they were almost routinely approved because they served the public interest. . The poor state of the Longwoods Road was well-known in the western portion of the province. See: Hamil, Vallev of the Lower Thaws, p. 161. Doug Owrarn, MIManagementby Enthusiasm1: The First Board of Works of the Province of Canada, 1841-1846" [hereafter ''Management by EnthusiasmN], Ontario Hjstorv, W[, no. 3 (September 1978) : pp - 171-172. Ibid., p. 173. National Archives, Board of Works Papers (RG 11, Al) , Instruction Book for Engineers, vol. 135, Killaly to Billyard, 11 Mar. 1842.
The London Inqujrer for the date in question is missing; however, the editor1s views were corramznicated. For example, see: Western -aJQ, 22 Sep. 1842, p. 2, c. 2.
National Archives, Board of Works Papers (RG 11) , Unregistered Correspondence, vol. 82, Gardiner to Parke, 27 Mar. 1843. 77. Owram, "Management by Enthusiasm, p - 175. 78 . National Archives, Board of Works Papers f RG 11), Instruction Book for Engineers, vol. 135, Keefer to Gzowski, 1 Feb. 1843. One of these "deviations" was plotted just beyond Gardiner's tavern, and resulted in the Longwoods Road veering off in a northerly direction to the county line. 79. The Board of Works had a reputation for keeping its plans secret. Its engineers and their assistants were equally "as mute as possiblet1about the letting of contracts for road work. See : London Inwirer, 7 Oct. 1842, p . 2, c - 3 - Maps and Plates Map 1. Mosa Township is located in the heart of southwestern Ontario's prime agricultural region. In Singleton Gardiner's day, however, this township was noted for being in the midst of the Longwoods Tract, an extensive forest stretching from Chatham to London. s of UDD~ 1826/ Talman Regional Collection, WO Library
Map 2. In 1825, Singleton Gardiner settled on lot 28 in Mosa Township's first range north of the Longwoods Road. The property on the south side of the road was the site of his dam-building activity in 1834. Talman Regional Collection, UWO Library
Map 3. In 1843, the London District Council opened a new road to facilitate the Gardiner grist and saw mills. Later known as Gardiner Street, this road still exists in the form of a farmerts lane.
D r>f the Oil Rea .ons. 1866/Talman Regional Collection, UWO Library
Map 5. This map represents the extent of oil operations at
Bothwell in May- of 1866. White dots indicate the locations of pumping wells, while black ones show the sites of wells under construction or abandoned. a1 Mw. 3910/Department of Militia and Defence
Map 6. With the removal of its dam in 1901, Cashmere's industrial base was undermined. Within a few years the last remaining families had moved away, and by 1910 only two structures remained standing at the site of the village. Plate 7. James Gardiner was the younger son of Singleton Gardiner and, like his father, he was an entrepreneur. After establishing himself as a pioneer industrialist, James went on to make a small fortune in oil land speculation. During his retirement, he became one of the directors of a prominent banking establishment in Chatham, Ontario. He died in 1905, at the age of 91 years. 'JJ rd Guy St-Denis Plate 9. Little remains of Cashmere, except the road that once led to it. This view of the village site was photographed from the heights above it, looking in a southerly direction towards the Thames River. Courtesy, Lloyd Mitton
Plate 10. In 1907, the old Cashmere grist mill was sold to a farmer near Tfiamesville who used it as a barn. This view of the former mill was photographed during the Flood of 1937. CHAPTER THREE The Railway Village
The prosperous trend of the early 1840s proved disappointingly temporary. In 1847 the effects of a trans- Atlantic depression began to be felt in Canada West, and by the autumn of that year business had become severely retracted.' Yet, despite all the economic doom and gloom, the mood in London on October 23 was festive, celebratory, and optimistic. During a sumptuous dinner, replete with laudatory toasts followed by long-winded replies and condescension all around, an old man rose to address the occasion. He was none other than Colonel Thomas Talbot- I thank you gentlemen most gratefully for the honour you have done me this day- I have witnessed a scene which I never hoped to behold in this settlement--it is an event never to be forgotten. I believe I am the oldest inhabitant. I slepr: on this spot 55 years ago, when my best friend was a porcupine. We were of ten excessively hungry in those days, but we all used to declare that we never were so hungry as the night we ate the porcupine. (Cheers and laughter) . What a change has occurred since then! Now I see different beings around me- -no porcupine [s 1 - -no bristles ; but in their place a company of half civilized gentlemen (laughter and cheers ) .' The scene Talbot Itneverhoped to behold1' was a ground breaking ceremony, and the honour he referred to was the privilege of turning the first sod for the construction of the Great Western Railroad. The line of this railway, which now constitutes that portion of the Canadian National Railways linking Niagara 93 Falls and Windsor, was incorporated as the London and Gore Railway in 1834.' Its route was originally projected to radiate outward from London to Burlington Bay (at Hamilton), the navigable waters of the Thames River (at Chatham), and to Lake Huron (at Sarnia) . In effect, the London and Gore was a "portage road, or an overland link between waterways- In an era when canals still dominated attitudes toward transportation, railways were commonly seen in this subsidiary role, Consequently, its appeal was limited to the southwestern end of the province, which made it difficult to seek outside sources of funding. Compounding this problem was the combined negative effects of the Rebellions of 1837 and the onset of an economic depression. As a result, the project was abandoned, In 1845, the scheme was revived under the name of the Great Western Railroad. A more substantive alteration was the extension of its route, which was rather vaguely projected from the Niagara River through Hamilton and London to the Detroit River (the termini were later fixed at Windsor and Niagara Falls). Although the Great Western still bore the hallmarks of a "portage road," it promised to serve local interests within the framework of broader railway developments south of the border,' While American railway construction around the Great Lakes had kept pace with the advance of the new transportation technology, the opposite held true in Canada West, However, the geographic position of the 94 province, lying between lines terminating in New York and Michigan, offered American railway traffic a shorter route
between Chicago and Boston, By the mid-1840s, the time was right for the implementation of this connecting link and the promoters of the Great Western confidently sailed to England in 1845 to seek out investors.' The revised scheme held great appeal, and for reasons other than its obvious lucrative potential. The economy had rebounded and political stability had returned to the Canadas, both of which served to lessen the risk involved with the venture. As a result, several English financiers subscribed to all the shares they were offered, which amounted to most of the companyrsstockma
The onset of an economic decline at the end of 1845 subsequently slowed investment, but one of the railway's promoters was determined to see the venture proceed.' Heartened by an improvement in the stock market, Allan Napier MacNab of Hamilton fully expected to see construction begin in
the autumn of 1846 .lo However, while MacNab struggled to secure financing for the railway, and its predominance over rival lines, the economy resumed its decline. By the time of the sod-turning ceremony in October of 1847, the economic state of affairs was nothing short of dismal." Still, work on the Great Western went ahead. In early November the
Chatham Gleaner seized upon the good news offered by the railway s progress : We learn from the Agent of the Great Western Railroad Company at this place, that the contracts for the whole line of road from London to Windsor have been entered into, and that the work is already under way, the contractors having commen operations west of London. The chopping grubbing from that town to Chatham are to completed before the end of March ne~t-..'~ But MacNabls determination could carry the work only so far. The enterprise depended on the sale of stock, the proceeds of which the found increasingly difficult collect because of the lingering poor economy. By June of 1848, the directors of the Great Western Railway were forced to suspend all operations except the construction of wharves at
The Great Western's finances took a decided turn for the better in 1850, when the government permitted municipalities to buy stock in the company." This incentive came just as the
economy began to strengthen.l5 As a result, construction began
in the spring of 1851, with the directors concentrating their financial resources on the Itheavy points between Hamilton and London, as well as the Galt Branch. The lighter and more easily graded sections," including most of those west of London, were left "until the position of the Company should warrant their completion. tl'" In the meantime, surveying parties spent the summer and autumn of 1851 determining the precise route of the rest of the railway. Their preparations would ensure that "no delay might occurn once work began in earnest ." That momentous occasion finally arrived in February of 1852, when the rest of the contractors were notified to ltcommence their work and 96 carry it forward with energy- Heavy cost over-runs soon became a new feature of the company's business, but they did not force the suspension of operations as before. Thanks to the continuing growth of the economy and the enduring speculative appeal of the Great Western Railway, the company succeeded in raising the capital necessary to offset the unexpected expenses .I9 It was also in 1852 that the company became eligible for financial assistance from the government under its Guarantee Act.'" Railways over 75 miles long were guaranteed the interest on half their bonds once half the line was completed. With this added impetus, work on the Great
Western was pushed toward the anticipated completion date, which was optimistically fixed as December I, 1852 .21 The anticipated date came and went, but still the construction continued. Only after another year would the railway be completed. Ultimately, on January 17, 1854, amid much fanfare and many celebrations, the first train travelled the entire length of track between the Niagara River and Winds~r.~~The Great Western Railway was officially opened. All along the Great Western's route, enterprising individuals hastened to prof it from the railway s intrusion upon their properties. As early as the spring of 1852, only a year after construction had begun, the editor of the Chatham Western Planet proclaimed that: IrNow is the time for investment ! Rampant speculation was the order of the day, and the editor contributed to the mania by promoting the Wallace familyl s pro jected village of Thamesville . Itone year hence and a lot that MISS WALLACE will now sell you for $30 or $50, will be worth ten times the amount - Miss Wallace, who acted as her family1s sales agent, was one of many speculators who thought they had the perfect location for a railway village- The place has every advantage, good pure water, a well settled surrounding country, roads leading from London to Chatham on the one hand, and those leading from Lake Erie to Huron on the other, pass immediately through it. These with the Cars stopping to wood and water, and discharge and take freight, must and will make it a place of business,'' Unfortunately for the Wallace family, the anticipated depot was not built on their property. Instead of the south side of the Thames River, adjacent to the railway's bridge, the depot was established on the north side and a short distance to the east. Consequently, when Thamesville finally began to take shape in 1856, it was David Sherman who subdivided his farm into village lots, not Miss Wallace ." The Wallace experience challenged the maxim of the day, which stressed the importance of being "onw the railway. As potential land speculators soon learned, it was not sufficient to have property intersected by the proposed line of railway; they also had to be in line for a depot. The Gardiners possessed neither of these necessary components, and yet the mill seat prospered during the Great Western's construction-- thanks in large measure to its great demand for timber, lumber and other wooden products. The grist mill also contributed to the cause, supplying flour for the hungry work crews who
laboured away in the bush. By sewing the railway in this manner, the threat posed by the Great Western was forestalled in favour of a golden opportunity for short-term profit- James wasted little time in reviving his plans for
expansion, and in February of 1853 he purchased two acres of land from his brother-including the dam and Williamls saw 1ni11.'~ James had finally secured the mill seat and, having become a wealthy man, he was able to do so with relative
ease," However, James was not content to rest and reflect - In the autumn of 1853 he entered into co-partnership with his nephew, Singleton Gibb, in order to construct and operate a saw mill Rather than a second saw mill, however, it appears that "Gardiner and Gibb1! simply utilized the machinery from
William's old saw mill. By the spring of 1854, a Mosa
resident named James Edwards did establish a second saw mill -" In 1855 Charles Bennett, a carpenter from Montreal, established a sash factory.30 With two saw mills in close proximity to his factory, Bennett was assured an abundant
supply of lumber, The summer of 1856 brought more good news - In July of that year Henry Ross Archer opened a general store,
and in August Christopher Hendershott began keeping an inn." The mill seat was beginning to take on the appearance of a village, which the inhabitants called Vanton. 1132 Just as the rudimentary components of urbanization business began to fall into place, the menacing impact of the 99 railway finally emerged. In 1855, George Brown (of Toronto's Globe) established the Village of Bothwell in nearby Zone Township." Having earlier won a lucrative contract to supply firewood to the railway, Brown was able to secure a depot which, in turn, gave rise to the village. In the space of a few short years, Brown had achieved the potential for land speculation which the Gardiners had spent the better part of two decades trying to attain. Not only was Brown's rapid success galling, it was also disturbing. As Bothwell grew, it began to draw business away from Canton." The brief era of golden opportunities had quickly passed. The Gardiner brothers, however, persevered with their plans for Canton, heartened by a local example of adaptation. When the citizens of nearby Wardsville discovered that the railway would miss their village by about three miles, they built their own station at the tracks? While this offshoot soon developed into the Village of Newbury, both it and Wardsville prospered in the years immediately following the construction of the Great Western. The Gardiners could not have failed to notice a parallel. If Wardsville could gain access to the railway via Newbury, there was no reason why their village could not enjoy a similar arrangement with Bothwell. Thus, in October of 1856, a surveyor was hired to lay out the Village of Canton (map 4) ." Comprising 125 lots, with each lot roughly one quarter acre in size, the surveyed village covered some 30 acres .37 10 0 Like Wardsville and Newbury, Canton and Bothwell enjoyed a period of rapid growth immediately following the completion of the railway. In 1854, there were only three individuals at Canton who paid property taxes, besides James and William- Over the course of the next year, however, their number doubled to six, and in 1856 two more names were added to the list Based on these eight names alone, a conservative estimate would place Canton's population in 1856 at approximately 50 people,3g The direct reason for this sudden influx can be attributed to the employment opportunities offered by the saw mill and the sash factory; yet, general economic factors were also at play." With the advent of the 1850s, the trans-Atlantic economy improved--as did investor confidence in the Great Western Railway. Then, with the railway1s completion in 1854, the interior of Canada West achieved unconstrained access to eastern markets and a greater share of the strengthening economy. By the end of 1856, James had successfully implemented most of his plans for expansion. The mill seat was in his possession; the village had been surveyed; and both were expanding in response to the prosperous times. However, in order to ensure Canton1s continued growth, the village required a hinterland. James recognized the importance of drawing business in from the surrounding countryside, especially from the other side of the Thames River. Yet, without a bridge, and none nearby, the farmers of north- 101 western Aldborough Township faced a formidable challenge in attempting to cross the river. It had long been a problem, and one that the farmers on 50th sides of the river had earlier tried to resolve.
In 1848 the Gardiner brothers and several of their neighbours tried to establish a ferry. They began their
attempt with a petition to the Distrfct Council for a new road, which they proposed should be opened just to the east of
the mill seat and from the Longwoods Road down to the Thames
River .lL The line of this new road was governed partly by the lay of the land, but more so by an existing road on the other side of the river. The road in Aldborough offered a means of communication with the Itsixteen, the township1s harbour where the Sixteen Mile Creek empties into Lake Erie (now known as Port Glasgow) . The Council acknowledged the importance of extending this route across the Thames River, and complied and the petitioner1s request for what is now known as the Cashmere
Road .'2 Howevsr, the subscription to build the scow failed and the ferry service was never implemented.43 The sturdy pioneers of Aldborough were left to their own devices."
By the mid-1850s, the barrier formed by the Thames River had become a chronic problem. As Bothwellls expanding hinterland increasingly impinged upon Canton, the Gardiners sought to extend the economic range of their village across the river. The obvious solution was to build a bridge. Accordingly, in December of 1856 the Canton Bridge Committee was formed,'* William se=ed as chairman, and he soon called for tenders based on the following specifications: The said Bridge to have a single Track, 16 feet wide, and to be built on one abutment, one pier, and one bent. Length of first span from abutment to pier 130 feet; length of second span, from pier to bent 50 feet; depth of water at pier 8 feet; height above the water to be 26 feet; the abutment pier and bent to be built of oak, the other parts of oak, chestnut, or pine.'6 While the Committee had grand plans, their efforts for a bridge were by no means extravagant considering the prosperous times. As 1856 drew to a close, Canton's future looked bright. The new year not only held the promise of a bridge, but also the expectation of a post office. Earlier, in November of 1856, Divisional Postal Inspector Gilbert Griffin had strongly recommended the establishment of a post office at Canton, Acting upon the request of its citizenry, he reported their village to be a "thriving little placev with a store, a good tavern, two Mills, and Itother
houses. n47 The postal authorities in Ottawa agreed with the request, but not to the name. lTant~n,'~sometimes known as
It Canton Mills Cant on Falls, conflicted with the name a post office in the eastern end of the province. Instead, the Post Office suggested severalalternatives. The people of Canton decided on lTashmere. Thereafter, Edward Heale, the new owner of the general store, was duly appointed their postmaster and on January 1, 1857 the Cashmere post off ice was opened for busine~s.'~ The post office marked a major economic development for 103
Cashmere. People from west Mosa, who formerly travelled to Wardsville to get their mail, were suddenly diverted into Cashmere. Once there, they were tempted to make purchases of one kind or another. In this sense, the post office served much the same purpose as the proposed bridge: it enticed business into the village from the surrounding countryside . The post office had been easy to secure, and the prospects for a bridge must have seemed equally as bright. Yet, while the economy was flush and the village thrived, there was no money for a bridge at Ca~hrnere.~~Early in 1857, James tried to resolve this impasse by taking a sudden interest in the public affairs of Mosa. He ran for the reeveship, won, and very conveniently found himself designated a county councillor. Unfortunately for his stratagem, the economy took a drastic turn for the worse before he was able to raise the matter of funding for the Canton bridge. With the onset of autumn in 1857, the full effects of an international financial crisis became painfully evident in Canada West. '' George Jervis Goodhue, London s financial mogul, gave his impression of the reversal: For several years previous to 1857, large sums of money had been expended by Rail Road Companies. Most of the municipal corporations had borrowed, and expended, very large sums for local improvements [; J there had been for several years good crops, & good prices, and very large discounts by several Banks upon accommodation paper. These combined led to excessive over trading, particularly so in Real Estate on credit.'' The combination of events which led to this sorry state of "over tradingw was not peculiar to Canada West- Land speculation had also been rampant across much of the United States. Fuelled by the construction of railways which were financed by over-extended banking houses, it was only a matter of time before the boom became a bust. On August 24, 1857 the
Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company suspended payment. " The announcement triggered a panic and other banking establishments reacted by recalling their credit, causing the ruin of many manufacturers and merchants in the process ." Their counterparts in Canada West fared no better, nor did the farmers. A general crop failure depressed the agricultural economy, and compounded the already reduced demand for Canadian wheat brought about by the cessation of the Crimean
War.'' It was against this grim economic backdrop that James Gardiner made a desperate pitch for the loan of public money in order to build the Cashmere bridge- In October of 1857, James stood before the Middlesex County Council and requested a El00 loan for the Cashmere Bridge Committee. The term was to be one year at six percent interest. It was a desperate measure, and one which was lost.56 In December, he asked for a debenture in the same amount, payable in two years, and with "satisfactory security for the repayment of same at maturity." This motion also failed. He made one last effort the next day, raising the principal to €150 and reducing the repayment period to one year. After his third failure, an exasperated James called 105
for the nays and yeas- Only three of the 16 votes cast were in favour of the motion-''
Given the economic disaster that had befallen them, the Council could hardly justify the loan of money to build a bridge at Cashmere. James persisted in hopes of securing Cashmere's future growth, although he probably sensed the futility of his request. Rowever, once the ensuing depression began to affect his own business interests, he quickly abandoned the idea of a bridge, Soon after, in January of
1858, James and his nephew, Singleton Gibb, were forced to dissolve their saw-milling partnership.'' As a result of the economic catastrophe, Cashmere's trade and commerce virtually ceased to exist. Yet, curiously, the industrial base remained intact, there was no exodus of business from the village, nor was there a shift in its populati~n.~~
To the Gardiners and their neighbours, Cashmere must have seemed as good a place as any to wait upon the recovery.
However, the advent of the railway era had profoundly altered urbanization in what is now southwestern Ontario, and doomed water-based villages like Cashmere to protracted periods of decline, As Careless theorizes and Overton demonstrates, direct interaction with lake ports continued to facilitate the rise of inland communities, but access to the shipping transportation of the Great Lakes was no longer crucial.
Beginning in the mid-1850s, it was the Great Western Railway 106 that determined the course of inland urbanization and, as railway historians are quick to affirm, it involved a rapid process that began with the establishment of depots along the tracks of the newly-completed railway. Unfortunately, railway historians have viewed this form of urban development in isolation and, as a result, the transition from water-based to rail-based urbanization has been historiographically marginalized. Yet, the decline of water-based urbanization was by no means a foregone conclusion. Soon after the Great Western's
completion in 1854, local entrepreneurs - -who were responsible for the rise of such villages in the first place--embarked upon determined efforts to adapt to the new transportation technology. In the case of James Gardiner, the railway had by-passed his industries to the considerable distance of some three miles. Seemingly deprived of the economic activity associated with a major transportation route, the mill seat appeared destined to commercial segregation and ruin. Yet, James was able to impel both industrial expansion and urb- development by the sheer determination of his entrepreneurial force of will. This aggressive approach to village founding proved successful, as long as the economy remained strong, and until the nearby Village of Bothwell became a serious contender for the trade and commerce facilitated by the railway. As a depot village, Bothwell was poised to rule the local 107
economy and Cashmere simply could not compete. Yet, recognition of this disadvantage was temporarily Lost amidst the prosperity of the mid-1850s. Mistaking the railway as the sole source of the boom times, and heartened by WardsviLlels successful relationship with a distant station at the railway, James pushed his plans for a village. Within a few years, however, he realized the threat of Bothwell and the importance of laying claim to a market area for Cashmere. But by then it was already too late. Not only had the influence of local entrepreneurship in matters of urbanization been thoroughly displaced by railway transportation, the Panic of 1857 had dashed all hope for a bridge to a hinterland in Aldborough. Notes to Chapter Three
1 . At Montreal, for example, the warehouses "were crammed with goods for which there were no markets; the vessels frozen at the wharves Looked as if they might never sail again-" See: Careless, Union of the Canadas, p. 122 -
2. Globe, 27 Oct. 1847, p. 2, c. 5-
3. Upper Canada, statute (1834), 4 Wm, IV, c. 29, preamble. 4. Russell D. Smith, The Early Years of the Great Western Railway, 1833 -I857l1 [hereafter "Early Years of the Great Western Railwayf1],Ontario Historv, LX, no. 4 (December 1968): p. 207,
5 - Canada, statute (1845), 8 Vic., c. LXXXVI - 6. Smith, "Early Years of the Great Western Railway,! p- 208.
7. Ibid.; Beer, Sir Allan Nwier MacNab, p- 213. 8. 9. Ibid., p. 218. 10 . Ibid., p- 228. 11. Ibid., p. 238. 12. Chatham Gleaner, 9 Nov.
13. Beer, Sir Allan Napier MacNa, p, 242. See also: London Times, 23 Jun, 1848, p. 2, c. 3.
14. Canada, statute (1850), 13 & 14 Vic., c . CXXIX. IS. C.M. Johnston, The Head of the Lake: A Histow of Wentworth Countv (Hamilton, Ontario : Wentworth County Council, 1958 , p. 189. By the autumn of 1850, the Great Western's directors were anxious to resume operations. See: Beer, Sir Allan Na~ierMacNa, p. 273. 16. Great Western Railroad. Proceedinas of the Annual General Meetin5 of Sharehd&rs ...=d Renort of the Directors [hereafter Great Western Railroad Proceedinag], (Hamilton, Canada West : Spectator Off ice, 1852) , p . 1101 .
17. Ibid., p. 15. An earlier survey of the route was conducted in 1847. See: Charles B. Stuart, Renort on the Great W estern Railwav, Canada West. to the President and Directors (Hamilton [?I, Canada West: 18471, p. 7.
Smith, I1Early Years of the Great Western Railway, " p . 211. Canada, statute (1849), 12 Vic. , c. XXIX. Re~ortupon the Merits of the Great Western Railroad. Canada West: By a Committee of its &ner%c- Friends (Boston, Massachusetts: Eastburn1s Press, 18511, p. 6-
Smith, "Early Years of the Great Western Railway, IF p. 219. See also: Hamilton Gazette, 23 Jan. 1854, p. 2, c. 3. The first two sections of the railway had already been opened. On November 1, 1853, the line between the Niagara River and Hamilton comenced operations. See : igi4. , 3 Nov. 1853, p . 2, c . 6 - Then, on December 15, 1853, traffic on the track between Hamilton and London was instituted. See: Smith, tlEarly Years of the Great Western Railway, lf p . 218. See also: Hamilton Gazette, 19 Dec. 1853, p. 2, c. 6. Western Planet, 20 Apr. 1852, p. 2, c. 3 - bid.
Kent County Land Registry Off ice, registered plans, "Plan of Tecumseh in the County of Kent, " 1856, no. 144. Other sources give the year-of Tecumsehls survey as 1854. See: IIlustrated Hbtoric-91 AtJw of the Cornties of Es,sex ad Kent [hereafter astorical Auas of F~sex=A Kern] (Toronto, Ontario: H. Belden and Company, 1880-1881; reprint ed., Owen Sound, Ontario: Richardson, Bond, and Wright, 19731, p. 56; Victor Lauriston, Powtic Kent: More than Three Centuries of Histam. 1626 - 1952 [hereafter Romantic Kent1 (Chatham, Ontario: Shepherd Printing Company, 1952 , p. 374. The village of Tecumseh was later renamed Thamesville, The purchase price of the two acres was f250. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, bargain and sale, Gardiner to Gardiner, 8 Feb. 1853, no. 232. This sale followed the resolution of a title complication involving the broken front of lot 28. By 1849, William realized that 53 acres of his bequest had been reserved for the support of King's College in Toronto. The threat to his interest, and those of brother, was eliminated in June of 1852, when the llPrincipal Masters and Scholarsw sold the property to William for an unspecified and likely nominal sum. See : Archives of Ontario, Township Papers (RG 1, C-IV), Mosa Township, letter, Shanly to Commissioner of Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, bargain and sale, Upper Canada College and Royal Grammar School to Gardiner, 1 Jun. 1852, no. 231-
27. In 1854 James paid the taxes on f1,328 worth of property, while the average assessment was f225 (or £25 less than the purchase price of the mill seat). His real and personal property totalled El, 103. He was also a partner with Singleton Gibb in a saw mill, which was assessed at E450. Presumably, he paid half the taxes, accounting for the extra f225 added to his assessment. The average assessment for Mosa Township in 1854, namely f225, was determined based on the total combined amount of real and personal property of 409 resident taxable parties, which was E92,265. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1854, p. 4, nos. 106, 9 ifp. 9, no. 287. Although James possessed property which was almost six times more valuable than that of most township residents, he was by no means the richest man in Mosa. That distinction went to Henry Ross Archer, a merchant, whose assessments totalled f2,800. See: u.,1854, p. 6, no. 159. Still, James could boast the third highest rate of assessment. 28. Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County Chancery Court, Gardiner p. Gibb, 1864, no. 974, p. Al. Much of Gardiner's success stenaned from the economic condition of the time. The trans-Atlantic depression of the late 1840s devastated the merchants of Canada West, but not so its farmers. Their wheat found a ready market in the United States, and their harvests were abundant. From about 1850, Canadian grain and timber exports to the United States--as well as Great Britain- -began to increase in response to market demand. Prosperous times soon returned to Canada West, and it proved relatively easy for James to build on his prior good fortune. See : Careless, Unj,on of the Canadas, p . 130.
29. Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1854, p. 2, no. 43. See also: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, bargain and sale, Gardiner to Edwards, 1 Apr. 1854, no. 350-
30. In May of 1855 Bennett assumed Edwards1 mortgage and purchased a portion of the property for his sash and door factory. Edwards later sold out to George Fleming, who continued to operate his former saw mill. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, mortgage, Edwards to Tisdale, 1 Apr. 1854, no. 351; md., bargain and sale, Edwards to Bennett, 28 May 1855, no. 526; aid., [mortgage], Tisdale to Bennett, 29 May 1855, no. 519 ; u., bargain and sale, Edwards to Fleming, 22 Mar. 1856, no. 627; ibid., release, Tisdale to Edwards, 2 Aug. 1856, no, 698 [see no. 3511 . Bennett also manufactured other wooden products besides sashes and doors. In 1864, for example, he an his then partner, James E Wood, asvertised venetian blinds. See: London Free Press, I5 Aug- 1864, p. 2, c. 6.
31- Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, bargain and sale, Gardiner to Archer, 24 Jul. 1856, no, 678; ibis., Gardiner to Hendershott, 18 Aug- 1856, no. 694. Archer's store was in fact the second one in the village. The first was operated by William and John Edwards. It appears to have been in operation only a short time by the time it failed in January of 1856. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County Chancery Court, Juson v. Gardiner, 1863, assignment, Gasdiner and Edwards to Brown, 18 Jan. 1856, Also, Hendershott had purchased a lot in the village a year earlier, but he was not yet described as an innkeeper. See : Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, bargain and sale, Gardiner to Hendershott, 8 Sep- 1855, no- 585. 32. The first known reference to Canton in land records dates to 1853, when a bargain and sale was negotiated describing two acres of land as being "in the Village of Canton-" See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, bargain and sale, Gardiner to Gardiner, 8 Feb. 1853, no. 232. However, a newspaper advertisement called the mill seat Tanton" as early as 1843, See: Chatham JournaL, 13 Jan, 1844, p, 4, c- 4. In 1937 William A. Edwards, a contributor of local history items to the London Free Press, attributed the name of the village to It [Fo c s le] Hawkins, l1 an old sailor who had drifted into the wilds of Western Ontario and ended up in the vicinity of Gardiner's mills. "At night the taverns often teemed with boisterous men variously engaged. There were fights and feuds which caused Hawkins to be reminded of scenes in Canton, China, so the men took Hawkins' word for it and for a long time the place went by that name? See: London Eveninu Free Press, 7 Aug. 1937, p . 13, c . 2. However, John S. Gibb, a descendant of Singleton Gardiner, claimed that his ancestor "called the place Canton after an Irish village near his old Home in Azmagh Co Ireland-, - See: Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, Secretariat, Geographical Names, Records of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names, ~&esWhite Letters [hereafter James White Letters], Gibb to White, 130 Mar. 19061 . Perhaps the old sailor was in fact the inspiration behind the name, since an exhaustive search failed to pinpoint any village in Armagh by the name of Canton. Ultimately, however, William deserves official recognition for the name, since he was responsible for the survey of the village. 33. Careless, Brown of the GI she, vol. 1, pp- 210-211. As John S- Gibb, a long-time resident of the neighbourhood, recalled in 1906: "the Building of the Great Western Rail Road at first stimulated then destroyed the place by Establishing Trading Places along its line." See: Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, James White Letters, Gibb to White, 130 Mar. 19061 . Historv of the County of MidciJesex. Canada (Toronto, and London, Ontario: W.A. and C.L. Goodspeed, 1889; reprint ed., Belleville, Ontario: Mika Studio, 1972), p. 537. Newbury was also known as Newtown in the early years of the 1850s. Middlesex County West Land Registry Office (now closed), registered plans, "Plan of the Village of Canton, Lot 28 Broken Front, Mosa," 1856, no. 281. This might not have been the first survey of Canton. When William sold a parcel of land in August of 1856, reference was made to a survey by Samuel Smith. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, bargain and sale, Gardiner to Hendershott, 18 Aug. 1856, no. 694. In addition, several blocks of land were laid out for future expansion. By subdividing these blocks with streets and lot lines, Canton could be extended right up to the Longwoods Road, and nearly doubled in size. The villaqe,- - however, was restricted to ~illiam~sproperty, presumably because he was the one who paid for the survey. Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1854, p. 4; bid, 1855, p. 4; ibid., 1856, pp. 4-5. If each of the eight heads of household were married, then the population of Canton would have equalled at least 16 people.- - If each household consisted of an additional three to six individuals, then Canton's population could have ranged from 48 to 96 inhabitants. Beginning in 1855, the Reciprocity Treaty with the United States eliminated duties on Canadian natural products entering the United States, and vice versa. ~arlier,in 1854, Britain became embroiled in the Crimean War, and the Empire's resultant demand for grain and timber meant that the Canadas had little difficulty competing for access to Englandvs open markets. See: Careless, Union of the Canadas, p . 138. The petitioners requested the new road to be established between lots 26 and 27. See: Talman Regional Collection, London District Road Records, petition, Gardiner, et aL. to OtMara, [Jan?] 1848. This was the second attempt to open this line of road. In 1844 the same request was made, but the road was not opened. See: id., Fleming to OIMara, 11 Mar. 1844 and associated papers-
42. This road is now known as the Cashmere Road, even though it was never planned as a thoroughfare to that village. Gardiner Street, which did come to serve as the Cashmere road, is an unmarked lane through Ross Patterson% fields.
43. The proposed scow was to be large enough to "ferry a loaded [team] with Safety." See: Talman Regional Collection, London District bad Records, petition, Gibb, e 1-to Warden and Council, [Jan?1 1848 . 44. Most of the settlers were forced to limit the amount of grain destined for the grist mill to the capacity of their boats and canoes- See: J.H. MacIntyre, ed., me Pioneer Davs in Aldborouuh (Rodney, Ontario : Mercury-Sun, g. 1933 , p- 69. Presumably, braver souls might take their chances trekking across the frozen river in winter, while the more foolhardy among them tested the damlspotential as a footbridge during other seasons.
45. An earlier attempt to obtain public funding for the bridge at Cashmere failed. See: Talman Regional Collection, London District and Middlesex County Council Minute Book (1842-1859), 17 Oct . 1856. 46. London Free Press, 6 Jan. 1857, p. 4, c. 7.
47. Talman Regional Collection, Postal Xnspectorls Report Letterbook (1854-1857), Letters Outward [hereafter Postal Inspectorls Report Letterbook], Griffin to Spence, 1 Nov- 1856, no. 624. See also: National Archives, Records of the Post Office (RG 3, 84), Correspondence from the Secretary to Post Office Inspectors, 1854-1858 [hereafter Correspondence to Post Office Inspectors], letterbooks, vol. 224, Griffin to Griffin, 23 Oct- 1856, no- 311-
48. Talman Regional Collection, Postal Inspectorls Report Letterbook, Griffin to Spence, 13 Dec. 1856, no. 655. The Post Office suggested the following names: Ruglor, Cashmere, Ardmore, Glandre, Cashel, and Glamnis. See: National Archives, Correspondence to Post Office Inspectors, letterbooks, vol. 224, Griffin to Griffin, 10 Nov. 1856, no. 325. As well, Cashmere also came to be known as llSuckertown,"It was a nickname bestowed upon the village by local wits. Despite its derisive ring, "SuckertownN did not refer to the character of the inhabitants of the village. Rather, it celebrated the most abundant type of fish netted at Cashmere. The earliest reference to "Suckertownn yet discovered dates from 1874. See: Free Press (London, Ontario), 18 Apr. 1874, p. 4, c. 1. National Archives, Correspondence to Post Office Inspectors, letterbooks, vol. 224, Griffin to Griffin, 17 Dec. 1856, no- 365; . , Records of the Post Off ice (RG 3, 03), Divisional Inspectorsy Reports [hereafter Divisional Inspectors ' Reports] , history record card for Cashmere. Earlier in 1856, before the Canton Bridge Committee was formed, there was an unsuccess~ulappeal to the county for public funding of the bridge. with- this initial disappointment, the Gardiners and other bridge promoters decided to go it alone by means of a bridge committee. See: Talman Regional Collection, London District and Middlesex County Council Minute Book (18424859), 17 Oct - 1856 -
National Archives, Buchanan Papers (MG 24, DIG), vol- 28, p- 23,755. This "evidencew of George J. Goodhue appears to have been given in response to a legislative enquiry into the effects of the Panic of 1857 and the subsequent economic depression. See: &ondon Rvenina Free Press, 8 May 1971, sec. two, p. 8-M, c. 3. The author is indebted to Dr. Frederick H. Armstrong for both sources of information. National Archives, Buchanan Papers (MG 24, DIG), vol. 28, p. 23,755. An nacconunodation paperttbasically amounted to the guarantee of a loan. George W. Van Vleck, me Panic of 1857 [hereafter panic o f 18571 (New York, New York: Columbia University Press, 1943), p. 64. See also: New York Dailv Times, 25 Aug. 1857, p- 8, c. 3. Van Vleck, panjc of 1857, pp. 65-69. Robert L. Jones, mtorv of Aariculture in Ontario. 1613- 1880 (Toronto, Ontario : University of Toronto Press, 1946),
Talman Regional Collection, London District and Middlesex County Council Minute Book (1842-1859), 17 Oct. 1857.
Ibid., 17-18 Dec, 1857. Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County Chancery Court, Gardiner x. Gibb, 1864, no. 974, bill of complaint, pp. 12- 31 Apart from the Chancery suit which James later brought against his nephew, there is little indication of economic distress at Cashmere, The assessment rolls show a reduction in rates, but nothing consistent or particularly dramatic. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1856, nos. 106, 112-123; u.,1857, nos. 117, 124- 136; -, 1858, nos. 109-110, 118-137, CHAPTER FOUR
A Crude Awakening
Cashmere became a very dull place after the Panic of 1857, and must have appeared destined to continue as such. However, in the summer of 1860, newspaper reports announced "great" discoveries of oil near the village .' Although the presence of this putrid liquid had been common knowledge for years, its value as a source of illumination had been dismissed on account of the offensive smell it produced when burned,' In the mid-1850s, however, a process was discovered by which oil could be refined to eliminate most of the odour .' The introduction of kerosene, as it was termed, created a great demand for crude oil, and explorations were mounted wherever it was thought to exist. Thus, by 1860, a number of prospectors concentrated their efforts at the oil springs on the Thames River, just below Cashmere (map 5) .' Yet, despite its evident oil-bearing potential, Cashmere was initially overshadowed by a swampy region some 20 miles to the north-west , in Lambton County1s Emiskillen Township. Known as the ItEnniskillen Springs. this tract contained extensive gum beds of oil intermixed with soil, and as early as 1851 a company was incorporated in order to mine the conglomerate.* Charles N. Tripp. of Woodstock. was convinced that this oil wgumbolrcould be processed into lamp oil and a f om of asphalt. The venture proved unsuccessful, however, 117
and the company failed in 1857. Tripp was then succeeded by James Miller Williams, a prominent carriage maker from
Hamilton, who also planned to refine the oil gumbo .6 In 1858, Williams had a well dug in order to supply water for use in his refinery and, to his great surprise, his workmen struck oil7 Soon prospectors, speculators, and other interested parties hurriedly made their way to the backwoods of Lambton County. Quite unintentionally, Williams had launched the great Emiskillen oil boom8 While Cashmere was largely ignored during this rush for Emiskillen, its potential was not overlooked. Earlier, in about 1857, Williams sent Tripp to Mosa in order to prospect for oil.' Tripp chose David Allen's farm as the most obvious place to begin the exploration. Located a short distance below Cashmere, Allen's farm was the site of the oil springs where the so-called "greatt1discoveries were later made in
1860 .I0 There Tripp dug a 27-foot deep well on the river flats, which quickly rewarded his efforts with a good show of
surface oil .IL An iron pipe was then driven down to a considerable depth, but it broke before hitting oil. After this disappointment, Tripp disappeared and Williams returned to Enni~killen.~' With the discovery of oil at Enniskillen in
1858, a number of prospectors decided to take another look around Cashmere. However, the low price of oil forced the suspension of almost all oil operations on the Thames.13 By 1860, oil prospecting had resumed at Cashmere, and it 118 was in the summer of the same year that the ltgreatw discoveries of oil were reported.I4 However, like Tripp before them, most of the oilmen abandoned their operations on account of defective machinery and the additional problem of quicksand .Is However, several diehards opted to remain, including John L. Lick. LC By March of 1861, Lick had struck oil at a depth of 30 feet." While it was not the flowing well he had hoped for, the seeping crude was still a reassuring sign. The "oil excitementn was building, and a visit from Dr. Abraham Gesnet only served to further charge the atmosphere. Gesner--the man who developed kerosene--had come to scout on behalf of a company of Americans, and the effect of his tour was plainly evident .la At Chatham, the editor of the Elanet noticed that post-hole augurs were in great demand, and "a careful observer may see people in couples and threes, all going in hot-haste, on the tour of oil prospecting, and every hour almost gives fresh rumors touching new springs of oil discovered - "19 At Cashmere, however, there was much less enterprise, "perhaps owing to the lack of capital, or to the fact that the oil does not promise in such large quantities as in the more favored neighborhood of Enniskillen. 1120 Lick, the most determined and the best equipped of the oilmen, sank his well another 40 feet by mid-May of 1861 and encountered more oil .2L Yet, there was no further news out of Cashmere until the following October, when a company of oilmen hit rock at the 119 depth of 60 feet . This news was very encouraging, since there was concern that the oil might be too deep to make prospecting
for it profitable .lz Soon after, Lick also reached the rock and began to drill, but there were no dramatic results. Then, at the end of March, 1862, his luck changed - While waiting for more pipe to put down his well, he made a test bore on higher ground." At 62 feet he struck something firm. Wishing to confirm he had struck the rock layer, he bored another hole. Once again, his auger stopped at the same depth. This time, however, a burst of gas followed with a tremendous roar. A match was then applied, which produced a flame over five feet higheZ4 The roaring, burning gas appeared ominous to local sightseers,
but to Lick it was a welcome sight * With this impressive display of his imminent success, Lick was able to attract
much-needed capital for his venture.25 While other oilmen persevered on Allen's Flats, Lick moved his operations to the site of the "gas There he set to work in a ravine which soon came to bear his name? By early September of 1862, Lick had drilled upwards of 50 feet into the rock, striking several veins of oil in the process. As he continued down, the Itamount of oil and force
of gas increased [with] every foot .w28 Yet, oil was not
actually struck until March of 1863 *29 Even then, it was almost another two months before the well, at a depth of 224 feet, finally began to flow spontaneously without the aid of 120 a pump. The yield was impressive. Lick1s principal partner, a Mr. Jordan, claimed that "he had pumped as high as one hundred barrels in ten hours--the oil being of the very best quality, even finer than the best crude of Emiskillen. 11" The Lick Well had finally come in, and with it an important "new oil regiont1was established ," A year earlier. in January of 1862, the first of the deep wells at Emiskillen began producing prodigious amounts of oil - 32 Other Rgushers soon followed, flooding the market, reducing demand, and lowering the price from $10.00 to 10 cents per barrel. 33 Most oilmen abandoned the enterprise. since the cost of teaming the oil to the railway had exceeded any profit they might hope to rea1ize.l' Despite this distressing turn of events, Lick persisted and the gushers at Emiskillen soon subsided." As the level of production at Emiskillen decreased, the price began to rise again. By the time of Lickfs strike in March of 1863, oil sold for $1 - 00 per barrel.36 But with the arrival of autumn, the same amount of oil commanded $6.50 ." However, the price soon dropped again in response to a glut in the market. By early December a barrel of crude sold for about $4 - 00. " Once again, the slump was temporary, and over the course of the next year oil producers began to realize greater profits as demand gradually outstripped supply.39 It was the beginning of a second boom, and this time Bothwell was poised to capture the attention. In the opening months of 1864. as the price of oil 121 continued to sell at about $4.00 per barrel, speculators "began flocking in from all q~arters.~" There followed a sudden and unprecedented demand for potential oil-yielding land, which inflated property values to previously unheard of levels. One observer noted that "farms, especially along the river, now command prices that would be considered very extreme a few months ago; and even those one concession back are eagerly looked after, 'I4' The excitement generated by this speculation did not last, and by the end of the year oil prospects at Bothwell Itwere far from flattering.w42 A number of wells were sunk, but with indifferent success, and those that did strike oil frequently had to stop operations for lengthy periods of time With the advent of 1865 little change had occurred in either the process of production, the amount of yield, or even the price paid for a barrel of crude. But there was increasing excitement, and once again it took the form of land speculation. "Oil landsw were in great demand and sold for highly inflated prices? One correspondent, who called himself lfOleo,nthought he saw method in all the madness. He believed that large companies had conspired to keep "matters as quiet as possiblef1 in order that relatively low prices might be maintained. Early in March of 1865, he predicted that these same companies would conspire to inflate land prices "and we will probably, during the next three months, see an excitement here that Canada has never equalled. m4S His prediction was accurate enough, although the land speculation lasted much longer than three months. Along with the oil boom, it was just beginning to gain momentum. While the price of oil remained firm at about $4.00, it soon became conrmon knowledge that the yield, and therefore the prof it, increased in proportion to the depth drilled." The result was a flurry of new drillings . In June of 1865, *Oleon was able to report that "the face of the land is covered with
derricks. 11" The number of strikes increased dramatically, but the "announcement of another pumping well has become such a common occurrence, that it fails to create the sensation the same news was wont to do a year ago, and it will require a regular Ispouter' to arouse the drooping spirits of the oil
men. .. 1148 What they wanted were mammoth yields, like those of the deep wells at Enniskillen. The amount of production became especially important once the price of oil began to rise. At the end of July, 1865 a barrel of crude sold for about $6.00 per barrel, and by the end of the year the price
had soared to $ll.00.49 It was good news for John Lick, who had since put down a new well that supplied him with some 50 barrels per day. The untaxed profit at this higher level of production amounted to
something like $550 a day. In one day Lick made considerably more money than most of the oilfield's labourers earned in a year. " It was an impressive return, but even it was soon made to look trifling compared with other operations." 123
Bothwell's new-found fame spread quickly and before long every train brought 'a new batch of speculators.m53 BY Christmas of 1865, when a barrel of crude realized $11-00, the boom had reached its high point. The effect of this black gold rush on the local landscape was nothing short of spectacular. With its depot on the Great Western Railway, which served as the transhipent point for the oilfields, Bothwell became the undisputed capital of the local oil industry (map 5) . The village presented 'la very lively appearanceu and "Tip," from Cashmere, noticed that buildings "of all descriptions and intents, continue to spring up, as if by magic. The G.W.R. Co. are also making great improvements around the depot, stumps are fast disappearing, and fine streets grading up in all directions. Iv5' Another visitor to Bothwell found the town swarming "with American speculators, hundreds of whom do nothing throughout the day (or night, either) but importune each other to buy or sell. 115s They , along with the seemingly innumerable oilmen who descended upon the place, were responsible for the surge in its population.
At the end of 1857, for example, Bothwell's population was estimated at about 500 people.56 By March of 1866 there were upwards of 6,000.5' The presence of so many people caused a severe housing shortage, but by mid-November of 1865 hotels and boarding houses reportedly were lqstrungalong Peter street to Cashmere by the score.. .1v58 Located as it was on the outskirts of 124 llDerrickville, Cashmere hosted its share of oilmen (map 5) - However, the village was no mere bedroom community. The two saw mills supplied the oilmen with timber for their rigs, and
also for the many hotels and boarding houses. The latter category of construction created a brisk market for the sash and door factory. The village blacksmith had ample business making and repairing implements for the oilmen, or tading to the varied needs of the countless teamsters. A lone merchant sold the oilmen most everything they could conceivably require along domestic lines; and the grist mill surely did a booming business, considering the sizeable amount of bread which must have been consumed by the collective man-sized appetites. Not to be overlooked was the local hotel proprietor, who first liquored up the oilmen and then put them up for the night.'' In effect, Cashmere's economy had become inextricably geared towards the local oil industry. Although oil continued to command the magnificent price of $11.00 per barrel right through to mid-February of 1866, the supply very soon thereafter caught up with the demand. By the first week of March the price had dropped to $7 -00 The downturn did not come as a complete surprise, however, as the
price of oil had been known to fluctuate in the pastW6' Still the refiners at Bothwell were accused of having "conspired
together to run the price of oil down ~OW...~By the end of April, they could purchase a barrel of crude for as little as $4.00. The producers responded by tanking their oil and waiting for "a rise in the market, which is always sure to
come in the fall.1162But in June of 1866, the Fenians invaded the province and engaged the Canadian Militia at Ridgeway. The resulting threat of war with the United States alarmed the numerous Americans in and around Bothwell, and many of them soon departed for their native country.63 The effect of the Fenian Raids not only undermined the anticipated Vise in the market, " but also decimated the oil industry at Bothwell. Most of the Americans who suddenly decamped for home were also the oilmen and speculators--the very same individuals who had been responsible for the sudden rise of Bothwell's oil industry in the first place. Therefore, while crude continued to sell for as much as $3.00 per barrel by the autumn of 1866, most of the oil operations and land speculation had already been abandoned? This sad state of affairs was further compounded by another glut in the market, and by early 1867 the price of oil had plummeted to 75 cents? The end had come, and the effect was profound. At Bothwell, which had "been puffed far beyond any other place, " no one could be enticed to accept oil lands--not even "as a gift . . ."66 Only a few speculators remained. One of them was James Gardiner, who had been an active speculator in the Irexcitementflfrom the beginning. As early as November of 1860, he represented the interests of a man from Detroit who wished to lease lot 20 in the river range of Zone Township in order to sink a well- It was on this same property, three years later, that John Lick ultimately made his famous discovery. '' Moreover, James was one of the individuals who helped finance Lick's oil explorations, the success of which convinced him that oil was within easy reach? Expecting similar g~odfortune, James established his own oil company. The work was ncomnenced under fair auspices, as advantage was taken of a well that had been previously sunk to a depth of 64 f t . by Wilcox Co . However, by August of 1864 the new company had expended no less a sum than $1,400, yet the whole depth they have gone down is only 32 feet or, adding the 60 feet of the old well, 92 feet in all, and there the well has for some time remained, and, from all appearances, will remain, as it is not to be supposed that the shareholders will advance a fresh supply of funds to no purpose ." Adding insult to injury, the company's failure was blamed on "both want of skill and good management in the expenditure of so large a sum.. ."'O As president of the company, James bore the brunt of this carping--although he could hardly be blamed for the failure of such a risky business. 'l 1ronically, a hole scooped out of the riverbank near Gardiner s mill produced oil almost instantaneously, but there was no guarantee that an expensive drilling operation nearby could entice it out of deeper ground.'2 The failure of this well was an important lesson in the fickle nature of oil prospecting, and one that certainly was not lost on James. He would never again venture his own capital in the oil business--no matter how tempting the opportunity. The strongest test of his resolve came in December of 1865, when a drilling operation near Cashmere was suddenly interrupted by a strong show of crude.'' The "veinm was found so close to the surface that the proprietors were Irwhollyunprepared to receive the oil." They had no tanks and only three barrels, all of which were soon filled. The well overflowed ind quickly covered everything in sight, including trees, logs, stumps, and brush heaps--"for the well is right in the woods. - ,If 74 News of the discovery soon reached Cashmere, where the magnitude and proximity of it " turned everything topsey-turvey [&I . There followed a veritable rush to the site, as curious visitors thronged The place like mad. " Nor did they have far to go, as the well was located on the heights above the village and on the next lot to the east. All this attention had its effect , Five acres of lot 27, "which is the lucky one,I1 were offered for sale at $250 the week prior; however, once the oil made its appearance, the price immediately doubled with the addition of a one-sixth royalty. And "what figures may be reached, if the well holds out, there is no telling, for since that sale was made, $1000 per acre was refused for the royalty. w75 The success of the Wood Well, as it was called, must have come as a bitter pill to James, especially when he considered how very close it was to his own venture (map 5) . Yet, he was not tempted to undertake another exploration--preferring instead to speculate in land, Although the rewards were far less spectacular, so too were the risks. And so, like many of his neighbours, James simply sold off parcels of land at highly inflated prices. In August of 1865, for example, he reportedly received $300 per acre for five acres of lot 29." That same month he also sold 37 acres for $200 per acre, or $7,400.'' With the proceeds of these two sales alone, James could have very easily defrayed the cost of another well. However, he resisted the temptation, His caution was not shared by John Lick who, after his early death in 1873, was reported to once have been worth an "immense fortune." But he was an inveterate speculator, and though looked upon as an oracle in oil matters, is said to have lacked judgement. His fortune was wasted in speculations almost as rapidly as it had been accumulated, and there is but little doubt that his misf ortune accelerated his death - '' James was not destined to suffer the same fate, or even that of his brother. Earlier, on June 27, 1861, 110 acres of William's land was sold at public au~tion.'~ This unhappy affair had its origin in 1855, when William was a co-partner in a general store at Cashmere, In order to secure collateral for the repayment of certain debts incurred by the partnership, William decided to mortgage his property to a merchant from
Hamilton,8o However, the business failed early in 1856.8' When the firmfs liabilities were calculated, Gardiner and his partner owed approximately E1,421--but the assets amounted to 129
almost E1,500.82 William must have breathed a sigh of relief for the sake of his encumbered property. Unfortunately for him, the Panic of 1857 and a lingering depression intervened and the hard times made it impossible to settle outstanding accounts Finally, in January of 1861, William was given notice that his property would be sold under power of sale.84 William1s problems were just beginning. In April of 1861, three more creditors set their sights on his remaining
25 acres of land, which comprised much of the Village of Ca~hmere.~~Although the plaintiffs were entitled to have the 25 acres sold to satisfy their claims, no action was taken?
Finally, in May of 1865, the land was soldm8' However, it was not William8s creditors, but William himself, who sold the property, and it was a good' friend of his who bought it .'" With the oil boom well underway, William had decided to fight back against his creditors. Having thus secured his 25 acres of Cashmere lands, he then turned his attention to the 110 acres sold under the power of sale in 1861. In August, 1865, he launched a Chancery complaint to recover his property, alleging that his creditors had colluded in order to defraud him. However, before the end of October, 1865, Williamrs lawyer had worked out a settlement. William emerged from the negotiations with a lump sum of $2.500, as well as one and a half acres of land,g1 This cash component seems to have suited him, since his life was drawing to a close. On December 13, 130 1865 he prepared his will, and a good deal of the money he received from the settlement was put into trust for the support of his wife and children." He also disposed of his remaining landed property. One parcel, amounting to a quarter acre and the site of his house in Cashmere, he left to his wife. An equal arnount of land on the north side of the
Longwoods Road was bequeathed to the Wesleyan Methodist Church. The remaining one acre constituted the family burial ground, which he set aside as such, and where he was buried after his death on December 26, 1865 -'= Like his brother, James also endured his share of financial problems and in March of 1864 he launched a Chancery suit against Singleton Gibb. Earlier, after the dissolution of their sawmilling partnership in April of 1858, Gardiner and
Gibb worked together for about two weeks in order to collect debts owed their firm, Thereafter, James persisted in the unenviable task alone and, despite his best efforts, about $1,600 remained outstanding. He paid the firm's obligations, fully expecting that his ex-partner (who happened to be his nephew) would contribute his fair share.'' However, Gibb paid only a portion of the amount he owed. Wishing to avoid litigation, James made "every offer and every effort" to bring about a settlement by arbitration. Finally, and as a last resort, he turned to the Chancery Court to force Gibb's payment. 9s The fact that James took this extreme measure against a 131 relative to exact his due might be construed as the action of a hard-nosed businessman. More likely, however, it indicates an act of financial desperation. The assessment rolls for the early-to-mid-1860s indicate that he possessed a valuable pr~perty.~' However, James was no longer as well-off as these records suggest. In July of 1862 a representative of the R.G. Dun credit rating service paid a visit to Gardiner*s mills, where he faund James doing "but littlew business. While noting that he possessed means and some property, he was also
involved1*and Dunfs man in Mosa could not recommend him for a favourable rating--noting however that he was 11honest.ws7 The same Dun representative paid another visit in February of 1863, and discovered that James had not managed to improve his situation--no doubt because he had the debts of the dissolved sawmilling partnership to pay off . Once again, he was reported to have a large property, but it was "heavily encumbered. The conclusion: "Not safe at present. nga No matter how honest, James had too many debts to be considered a good credit risk. And yet, within a few years he found himself in a most enviable position. In March of 1866, he was offered the substantial amount of $15,000 for SO acres of his land at Cashmere.gg The timing was perfect. Although the oil boom at Bothwell was well on its way to collapse, it was not widely accepted as a permanent condition. Therefore, while the price of oil had fallen to $7.00 per barrel, the oilmen still continued to drill .'OO They were used to 13 2 fluctuations in the market, as were the speculators--who traded as wildly as ever. As a result, local land prices remained artificially high--at least until the Fenian Raids of June, 1866. Although James jumped at the opportunity to sell this property, his decision had not been made on the spur of the moment. In fact, he had already detennhed to liquidate his property at Cashmere and had been in the process of doing so for some time. Almost a year earlier, in June of 1865, he sold his grist mill along with the dam."' Nor was it his first attempt to dispose of these properties. Earlier, in
1860, and perhaps motivated by a desire to satisfy the outstanding debts of Gardiner and Edwards, he advertised both the grist mill and his saw mills in the classifieds of the Toronto ~obe.'02 His offer did not result in a sale, and it would take him until 1865 to find a buyer. Afterward, James continued to sell off other properties at Cashmere, and in the meantime he moved to Chatham in December of 1870.x03 There he lived the life of a retired gentleman, allowing Ithis capital to work for him (plate 7)
Over the course of the 35 years he lived in active retirement, James had ample time to reflect on his good fortune. While he always expected that land speculation would be the means by which he would acquire wealth, he had no way of anticipating the important role oil would play in the 133 process. After Cashmere's location proved insurmountably disadvantaged for urbanization, the oil boom of the 1860s suddenly inflated property values to levels they never would have otherwise attained. Fortunately for James, despite the turbulent economic times which preceded the oil boom, and the involved state of his personal affairs, he managed to retain his properties. As a result, he was able to turn a most magnificent profit. His earlier drilling fiasco cautioned him against embarking upon further explorations, and thereby served to safeguard his modest wealth. Instead. James wisely invested in a secure mortgage company, and then spent the rest of his long life managing his fortune. The historians Frederick Armstrong and Daniel Brock would attribute James Gardiner's masterstroke to luck, Admittedly, the oil boom that resulted in him becoming a wealthy man was in essence a grand fluke. However, luck alone does not account for his good fortune. Entrepreneurship was an equally important factor and, as James had learned from the failure of his oil well, so too was a cautious approach to speculation. No longer convinced that his force of will would guarantee success, he decided to quit Cashmere. Fortunately, luck had allowed him to cash-in on the oil boom, allowing him to pursue a more conservative, and yet still lucrative, form of entrepreneurship in Chatham's banking establishment. As for Cashmere. soon after the collapse of the oil boom in 1866, the village began a rapid decline. Nearby Bothwell 134 also suffered heavily from the bust. However, this village was in a far better position to adapt to the reduction of the oil industry. With its railway connection and telegraph communication, Bothwell managed to maintain its dominance over the local economy in a manner consistent with the Careless model of interplay between an urban centre and its hinterland. By comparison, Cashmere obviously was disadvantaged. Yet, its inhabitants did not recognize the odds mounting against their village. Given the previous wild fluctuations attending the oil market, the bust of 1866 appeared to be just another temporary adjustment. As a result, Cashmere1s citizens waited patiently for the return of prosperity...which would never come, Notes to Chapter Four
1. London Free Press, 2 Aug. 1860, p. 3, c. I. The oil came up in several places on either side of the Thames River, and great quantities flowed into the stream,
2. Crude oil had been burned by the earliest settlers, Itbut on account of the displeasing smell," it was not used much.1t See: -on Free Press, 3 Apr. 1861, p. 3, c. 1. It should also be noted that countless generations of local native peoples used oil for medicinal purposes. See: Dtham Planet, weekly ed., 25 Aug. 1864, p- 2, c- 5.
3 . Phelps, Edward C.H. , John Henry Fairbank of Petrolia (1831- 1914) : A Canadian Entrepreneurtf [hereafter "John Henry Fairbank of Petrolian] (M.A. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1965), p . 17. 4. This surface oil seeped up from greater depths through springs in the ground. 5. Victor Lauriston, -ton1 s medYea-. 1849 - 3.949 (Sarnia, Ontario: Haines Frontier Printing Company, 19491, p. 158. The International Mining and Manufacturing Company was later incorporated in 1854. See: Canada, statute (1854), 18 Vic., c. 48. 6. Phelps , "John Henry Fairbank of Petrolia, pp . 18 -19 . 7. Globe, 31 Jul. 1858, p. 1, c. 9. See also: [JohnF. Tyrrell] , me Oil Districts of Cw[hereafter =of =of (New York, New York: American News Company, 18651, p. 8. 8. At the beginning of February. 1861, the arnia Observer reported on "the multitude now engaged in the process of digging for oilN at Exmiskillen. See: Samia Observey, 1 Feb- 1861, p. 2, c. 5.
9. Glo&, 4 May 1863, p. 4, c. 4. David Allenfs faxm was lot 30 in the first range south of the Longwoods Road, Mosa Township. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1862, p. 9, no. 140. Tripp and his associate, a man named Gunison, were assisted by Allen in digging "hand wells." "After digging holes, they planked them up on all sides, and went in the morning to skim off the oil accumulated during the night, or since their previous visit.11 The ruins of these early wells were still visible in 1866. See: Weeav Plmet, 15 Feb . 1866, p . 1, c. 4. Apparently there were five oil springs on Allen's farm, and a barrel pet day could be had from just one of them "if the water be kept down and the oil presenred. " See: Sarnia Observer, 17 May 1861, p, 1, c. 7 - -, -, weekly ed., 25 Aug. 1864, p. 2, c. 5. One night, Ifas Tripp was about leaving off work he fancied, upon striking his pick into the soil, that he heard a sort of hollow sound, yet he did not give the matter much thought just at the time, and in a few minutes afterwards quitted his work. To his surprise the next morning, when going to the well to resume digging, he found it full of oil and water." See: -, 4 May 1863, p. 4, c- 4-
Globe, 4 May 1863, p, 4, c, 4, llDomestic troubles, we believe, drove him from home, and he made his way South after visiting, if we remember aright, Pennsylvania oil regions also. He plunged into the wilds of Texas and was heard of no more.11 Tripp was later given up for dead, but in 1865 he suddenly reappeared to secure land claims at Emiskillen. He died at New Orleans in 1866. For a brief sketch of his life, see: -don Free Press, 30 Oct- 1866, p. 2, c. 5.
[Tyrrell], QilDistricts of C-, p. 33. Some of these oilmen are featured in a contemporary newspaper article on the Bothwell oil region. See: Globe, 27Aug. 1861, p. 2, c. 3.
-, -, weekly ed., 25 Aug. 1864, p. 2, c. 5. Lick apparently arrived in Mosa during the spring of 1861, where he was employed by an ~mericancompany to superintend the operation of their well on David Allen's farm (lot 30, first range south of the Longwoods Road, Mosa Township) . See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, assignment of lease, Thayer to Hillhouse, 8 Mar. 1865, no. 1854; Chatham Planet, weekly ad., 25 Aug. 1864, p. 2, c. 5. The American company referred to above a have included "Mr. Jordan of Michigan, Mr. Thayer, of ~ennsylvania, and others. . .lm See : C-Iv C-Iv Pwct, 15 Feb. 1866, p. 1, c. 4. Purther, these tfothersna have consisted of Henry S. Mudge and William Wilcox, both of Ohio. See ibid. ; Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, assignment of lease, Thayer to Hillhouse, 8 Mar. 1865, no. London Free Pr~sq,13 Mar. 1861, p . 2, c - 3. According to another source, Lick @@took1Ithe contract to sink the Old Company Well [meaning the Thames Oil Well Company] in April of 1862; See: -Wgeklv Pl-, 15 Feb, 1866, p. 1, c. 4, m tri-weekly ed., 8 Mar- 1861, p. 3, c. 1- ~~t~?sop'~~,,6 Mar. 1861, p. 3, c. 1; , 22 Mar. 1861, p. 3, c, 1, Ibid., 8 Mar. 1861, p* 3, c. 1. A correspondent from Cashmere thought the [impending civil] war excitement that prevails in our neighboring land is partially the cause of the delay of one company," and that perhaps "want of confidence as to the paying results; or, very likely, waiting to what Mr. Lick may find ..." was another. See: arnja Obse-er, 17 May 1861, p. 1, c. 7.
London Free Press, 3 Oct. 1861, p. 2. c. 4. The well in which the rock was first encountered, namely that of Messrs. Jordan and Seymour of Erie, Pennsylvania, was later abandoned because of quicksand. See: , 4 May 1863, p- 4, c. 4.
A correspondent of the f gave a Mr. Latham credit for the idea of drilling on higher ground. "Several laughed at him when he said oil was easier got on the upland than where Mr. Lick was at work, on [=lent sl flats, where several wells were tried to be put down, and there they are not worth much yet. See: -rn Weeklv Planet, 17 Aug. 1865, p. 1, c. 3. This "Mr. Latham" probably was Hamilton Latham, who farmed lot 29 in the first range south of the Longwoods Road in Mosa. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1862, p. 16, no. 251.
LondonFreer4 APT. 1862, p. 3, C- 1. The source of this information is misleading, in that Lick's test well was not located at Cashmere proper. It was situated upon lot 21 in the river range of Zone, whereas Cashmere was on lot 28 south of the Longwoods Road in Mosa. However, in terms of the nearest centre of population, it was "at Cashmere. " This area of oil exploration was known by various names. "Some call this new oil land the Thames Oil Springs,' others the fBothwell' or -lCashmereloil land. Another man advertises his farm as the 'Tipper- Oil Springs.' These are all on the River Thames, within two miles of Bothwell, where the oil is shipped on the cars." See: Planet, 7 Apr. 1864, p. 2, c. 7. London Free Press, daily ed., 29 Apr- 1862, p . 3, cc 1. Among the principal shareholders of this joint-stock company, besides Lick, was his rival Jordan. The company had a capital stock of $5,000 divided into $5.00 shares. For more information on the company, see : Globe, 4 May 1863, p. 4, c. 4- This transfer placed him on the next lot to the west, in both another township and county. Lick moved to the high ground of the Colville farm, lot 21 in the River Range of Zone Township, where he later made his famous oil discovery- See: London Fsee P-, 26 Sep. 1862, p. 2, c. 4; Historical Atlas of E-c Kenfs, p- 55. Although unmarked, the site of this famous oil well is well- known to local inhabitants as Lick's Ravine. See: Middlesex County [East] Land Registry Off ice, registered plans, "Diagram Shewing the Positions of Lots 28 and 29," in Vlan of North Half of Lot 28 and Part of Lot 29, 1st Range North of the Longwood Road, Township of Mosa, Middlesex-," 1865, no. 208. As well, there is the series of McMillanfs maps which plot the relative positions of oil wells in the vicinity of Bothwell. For two of these plans, see: Talman Regional Collection, "Map of the Oil Regions, in the Vicinity of Bothwell, C.W., Dec. 1865 ; --. , May 1866.
London Free Press, 6 Sep- 1862, p. 3, C. 2. There was some difference of opinion as to the exact date that Lick first struck oil. The Toronto Globe suggests that it flowed as early as Match 21, 1863, but later stated the date was March 1, 1863. However, the Sarnia Observel; lists the date as having been March 23, 1863. See: Globe. 25 Mar. 1863, p. 2, c. 3; igjg., 4 May 1863, p. 4, c. 4; Sarnia Observey, 27 Mar. 1863, p. 2, c. 7.
Globe, 4 May 1863, p. 4, c. 4. The excavated portion of the well (as opposed to the bore hole beneath it) was allowed to fill to its 70 foot capacity, and it was from this reserve that the oil was pumped into barrels.
Globe, 25 Apr. 1863, p. 1, c. 5. Lick was the first of the oilmen to meet with success. The others, including his partner and rival, concentrated their operations on the river flats. There they were continually hindered and frequently defeated by quicksand. Lick had likewise suffered, but eventually he moved to higher ground where he was able to avoid the ill-effects of water seepage for a longer period of time. See: .rue, 25 Mar. 1863, p. 2, C . 3; ibid., 4May1863, p. 4, c. 4; -Planet, weekly ed., 25Aug. 1864, p. 2, c. 5. Globe, 28 Jan. 1862, p. 2, c. 6. See also: 27 Jan. 1862, p. 2, c. 8. See also: Phelps, "John Henry Faisbank of Petrolia," p. 26, Sarnia Observer, 30 Jan. 1863, p. 2, c. 4; Phelps "John Henry Fairbank of Petrolia, p. 26, and its note no. 29 ; Globe, 27 Jul. 1863, p. 4, c. 2. Chatham Weeklv Planet, 4 May 1865, p. 2, c. 7. In the spring of 1862, the price of crude oil had fallen as low as 10 and 15 cents per barrel. See: =obeI 27 Jul. 1863, p. 4, C. 2. This llwholesale failurelT was first perceived on 9 Jan, 1863, according to the Farnja Obwer. The consternation created by the "cessation of the flowing wellsvvhad abated by early February, by which time many of the pumping wells had resumed operations. See : 23 Jan. 1863, p. 2, c. 4; u.,6Feb. 1863, p. 2, c. 5- Ibid., 4 Dec. 1863, p. 4, c. 2. By the end of July the price of oil was $2.50, with expectations that it would soon teach $3.00. See: GUk, 27 Jul. 1863, p. 4, c. 2. By the middle of August, the price had risen to $4.00. See: igt9., 17 Aug. 1863, p. I, c. 8. The higher price varied somewhat, depending on the quality of the oil and the negotiations of the contracting parties. For example, John H. Fairbank of Oil Springs, was paid as much as $7.00 per barrel in October of 1863. See: Phelps, "John Henry Fairbank of PetroliagWp. 35. In addition to the forces of supply and demand, the Confederate invasion of Pennsylvania and the threat it posed to the oil refining regions of that state also drove up the price. "No article is more dependent on the American struggle than Petroleum--high prices we must have [in Britain] anyhow, but exceedingly high ones if Pennsylvania is destructively invested, - .It See: GmloZae,18 Jul. 1863, p. 4, c. 3. , 4 Dec. 1863, p. 4, c- 2 According to notations recorded in a diary by John H. Fairbank of Oil Springs, the price of oil fluctuated between $3.00 and $3.50 between Decembelr of 1863 and April of 1864. By June of 1864, the price had returned to its former price of $5.00 per barrel. See: Phelps, "John Henry Pairbank of Petrolia," p. 35. Ch atham We-v Planet, 23 Feb. 1864, p. 2, c. 5. 42. A number of wells were sunk throughout 1864, but with indifferent success. The price of oil was not high, "being some $3.50 delivered at Bothwell," whereas breakdowns averaged "fully one-third of the time ..." As a result, the interest Bothwell could generate in its oil resources "was in a languishing state, and oil lands either in lease or fee [simple] could be got for a very low figure .It See : .--. , 18 Jan. 1866, p. 1. c. 4 43. The problem was one of inadequate equipment. Most of the engines were of insufficient horsepower for the job required of them. With water seepage a constant threat, oilmen had to run their pumps continually and at full-throttle in order to keep their wells from being flooded. In July of 1865. a correspondent of the Chatham me: likened the light, portable engines used at Bothwell to ltsmallboys at men's work.It He considered these engines adequate for drilling, but not for pumping water and oil from depths of 500 to 700 feet. Pumping was frequently interrupted by break-downs, allowing the water to drown out the oil. Then, it "being desirable to -T 1-t ti=, and to exhaust the water as speedily as possible. the steam is therefore put on strong, and the pump is driven at a high rate of speed--for a pump working down to such depths. As a consequence, things generally get racked. twisted, and thrown out of line, and, too frequently, there is another break, the result of trying too eagerly to make up for the lost time occasioned by the first. And so on it goes.lV See: ,-a Observer, 4 Aug. 1865, p. 1, c. 3.
44. Ch atham Weeklv Pl set, 9 Mar 1865, p . 2, c. 5. The Colville farm was on lot 21 of the river range, Zone Township. "Oil landsn were secured at an extreme distance east and west [upwards] of eighteen miles and fully two miles from the river either side, and some of it at Urnost fabulous prices, ranging from the Colville farm, at $300 per acre, with an incumbrance of three leases on it, down to ten or twelve dollars per acre, miles from the Thames; and lands that have in days gone by been sold for taxes, are eagerly gathered up and sent to the New York market..." See: w.
46. Oil readily changed hands at $4.50, "with eager inquiry." See: , 6 Apr. 1865, p. 2, c. 6. According to William E . Gardiner, wells were being sunk deeper, Itand so far the opinion of practical operators, that the deeper the wells are sunk the more oil and the less water will be found, is sustained." See: pa3(London, Canada West), suppl., 28Apr. 1865, p. I, c. 2. 47. Chatham Weeklv Plwet, 15 Jun, 1865, p- 1, c. 5. London Free Pre-w, 17 Jun, 1865, p . 3, C . 5 - a Observer, 4 Aug. 1865, p. 1, c. 3. According to a report made towards the of September, prices were increasing, "and going up from day to day." See: atham Weaklv PI.-, 21 Sep. 1865, p. 1, c. 6. By the end of the year the price of oil was a staggering $11.00 per barrel. See: London Free Press, 25 Dec. 1865, p. 2, c. 4. On June 29, 1864, Lick began to dig a new well on the Atwell farm (lot 20 in the River Range of Mosa). This new well was located on the other, or westerly, side of the creek running through Lick's Ravine. Lick was motivated to relocate by a diminished supply at the well which made him famous. See: Chatham Elm, weekly ed., 25 Aug. 1864, p. 2, C. 5. For the lease Lick received from the owner of the lot in question, see: Kent County Land Registry Office, lease, Atwell Sr- to Lick, 21 Jm. 1864, no. 320. The rate of production varied greatly. The Lick Well, for example, "was pumping at the rate of 50 barrels a day. This continued for a week, when, unfortunately, a part of the walking beam gave way ..." Production was brought to a standstill as a result. See: -I=-, 26 Oct. 1865, p. I, c. 4. The wages for labourers at the oilfields ranged from $1.00 to $4.00 a day or $313 to $1,252 per year (excluding Sundays) . See: u., I8 Jan. 1866, p . 1, c. 4. 52. Earlier, in August of 1865, the Boston Well on the Pepper Farm suddenly began pumping some 240 barrels of crude over the course of every 24 hours. See: s, 17 Aug. 1865, p. 1, cc. 2-3. See also: w.,p. 2, c. 3. At the then current price of $6.00 pet barrel, the profit for one day amounted to $1,400. Had the wellts yield not diminished by the time the price reached $11.00, the daily profit would have been somewhere in the area of $2,640. Still, the Boston Well must have returned a small fortune as the price of oil began to climb. While it was not a Vegular spouterw like those encountered at Enniskillen or even a great flowing well, it still produced a great volume of oil in a relatively short time.
53. Chaturn Wewv P1-, 31 Aug. 1865, p. 1, c. 6. The success of the Boston Well was credited with the "marvelous effect in bringing the district into notice." See: -id. , 7 Sep. 1865, p. 2, c. 3.
54. London, 23 Nov. 1865, p- 2, c. 3. 55. w.,16 Oct . 1865, p. 3, c. 5. Canada Directory for 1857-58 (Montreal, Canada East: John Lovell, 18571, p- 64-
Ibid., 23 Nov. 1865, p. 2, c- 3. Even so, large numbers of oilmen were forced to board a train for London every night just in order to find a bed- See: Chatham Weekly Planet, 18 Jan. 1866, p. 1, c. 4. Talrnan Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1866, p. 14, nos- 138-139; ibid., p. 16, nos. 160, 164; ibid-, p. 26, no. 265- This positive effect was felt as early as January of 1864, when a correspondent to the London Free Press summed up the situation: There is a great change since this time last year. Every shanty is occupied; the blacksmith shops are crowded with work; the hotels overflowing with stragglers and the boarding houses filled to excess. Yankees of all ranks are here, includirlg deserters and skedaddlers.-. The saw mills are busy turning out curbing and circles for wells, and the factories are turned into tank shops--in fact everybody is swimming in the trade of oil, and nothing else is the topic of conversation. All are victims of the raging fever." See: Globe, 2 Jan. 1864, p. 4, c. 1.
London Free Prew, 6 Mar. 1866, p- 2, c. 3. The editor of the New York Suviewed it as the lvusual result of all such fevered speculative impulses ..." And, in terms of America's oilfields, he expected their "working and development must and will settle downffand Ifbe remunerative to those who really understand and apply themselves intelligently to the business of oil production." See: C,h 26Apr. 1866, p. I, c, 6. Ibid., 26Apr. 1866, p, 1, c. 6. Sarnia Observer, 26 Oct. 1866, p. 1, c. 3. The Fenians were members of a movement which proposed to liberate Ireland from British rule by conquering Canada. The American wing consisted of many Irish American veterans of the Civil War. Lbi& The opening of "extensive operationsf1at the Petrolia fields contributed to the glut. See: . See also: Phelps, ffJohnHenry Fairbank of Petrolia,ll p. 55.
Globe, 24 Jan. 1867, p. 2, c. 2. "But while the Canadian oil receded to a ruinous extent, exactly an opposite result took place in the United States. Crude oil which was selling in March and April last at $1.25 per barrel, has since advanced to $4 at the wells- The reason for this is ? ;-aa Beu2 UO- &J OlJk PP a0 udu " 2.4 e0zt Ida0 vr aarl fdc, U 343u uoaJ3 l-4 plF: 0 London Free Press, 6 Dec - 1865, p. 3, c. 3. See also: ibid., 5 Dec. 1865, p. 3, c. 2; tham WayPlanet, 16 Nov. 1865, p. 2, c. 3. London Free Press, 6 Dec. 1865, Ibid.
Chatham WeuvPlanet, 31 Aug. 1865, p. lr c- 2. A search of the pertinent land records failed to produce a reference to this sale for the date in question. However, James did sell five acres of lot 29 south of the Longwoods Road in January of 1866 for $1,500. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, bargain and sale, Gardiner to Butler and Watson, 16 Jan. 1866, no. 2211. chatham Weeuv PI-, 17 Aug- 1865. p . 1, c . 3 . A corresponding land record was not found. According to the Bothwel?.Review, and communicated in the St. Thomas Weeklv Digpatch, Lick was known to have I1deposited in Mr. Laughtonrs safe cash and certificates of stock to the value of over $100,000." See: Weeklv D~sD-, 24 Apr. 1873, p. 1, c. 7. After the loss of his fortune, Lick persisted in his quest for oil at Bothwell. However, in the spring of 1873 he suffered a hemorrhage of the lungs, and on April 18, 1873 he died of double pneumonia at the age of 46 years. See: Archives of Ontario, Office of the Registrar General of Ontario (RG 80-8), Death Registrations (MS 9371, 18 Apr. 1873, no. 3917. Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, deed, Kerr to Murray, 25 July 1862, no. 1543.
Ihid., mortgage, Gardiner to Kerr, 5 Feb. 1855, no. 479. This property included 103 acres of the east half of lot 28, south of the Longwoods Road and 7 acres of lot 28 on the north side of the same road. William% various properties in the 25 acres comprising Cashmere were exempt from the mortgage - On January 18, 1856 William Gardiner and his partner, John Edwards, assigned their business to John Brown of Hamilton, who concluded their affairs by collecting debts owed them and by paying their creditors. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County Chancery Court, Juson y. Gardiner, 1863, assignment, Gardiner and Edwards to Brown, 18 Jan. 1856. 83. Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, mortgage, Gardiner to Kerr, 5 Feb. 1855, no. 479; aj.&,deed, Kerr to Murray, 25 Jul. 1862, no. 1543, While William was allowed terms of repayment under a provision for redemption, he subsequently defaulted.
84. Ibi& , deed. Kerr to Murray, 25 Jul. 1862, no. 1543. The mortgage came due on January 1, 1858, but it was not until January 24, 1861 that Kerrls demand for repayment was served on William. The auction was held on June 27, 1861 at London. William F. Murray was the successful bidder. Be was later deeded the property on July 25, 1862, after having paid $800 for it. See: u.
85. The plaintiffs were Richard Juson, Edward Ferguson and Edward Hilton. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, certificate in Qlance~,Juson, u.y. Gardiner, e , 6 Apr. 1861. no. 1370-. Regarding Jusonls relationship with Kerr, see: "Kerr, Archibald, " Pictin~rvof wnBiow, I : p. 115. For Jusonns entry, see: u.,pp. 111-112. 86. However, when they perceived an attempt on William's part to cheat them, they lodged their complaint in the Middlesex Court of Chancery. Juson related how William and two additional creditors connived against him and his business partners. Earlier, in March of 1857, Robert W . Harris and Adam Rope, merchants of London, received a judgement against William for some f33. Since Harris and Hope were first in line for payment, the Juson claim was pre-empted...until they learned that Hope had sold Williamls assigned property to Thomas mtrong (who happened to be William's brother- in-law). See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County Chancery Court, Juson y , Gardiner, 1863, bill of complaint, (in Report, 23 Jun. 1863). Armstrong acknowledged that he intended to let William occupy the property, but that he purchased it from Hope for his own benefit. See: ibid-, examinations of Armstrong, pp. 4-5, 7 (in Report, 23 Jun. 1863). It was then, in the spring of 1861 that Juson and his associates made their complaint in Chancery, alleging that Harris and Hope as well as the sheriff of Middlesex were in collusion with William to effect a pretended sale in order to defraud them. See: u.,bill of complaint, (in Report, 23 Jun. 1863) . The sheriff was implicated for having acted on an expired writ to have Williamls land sold, which resulted in its acquisition by Armstrong and prevented Juson and his associates from obtaining their judgement. The sheriff, in his defence, claimed to have been newly- appointed to the office and advised in his duties by the London lawyer, John Wilson, who also happened to be the solicitor for Harris and Hope. See also: ibid., answer of Glass (in Report, 23 Jun. 1863) . While the complaint against the sheriff was dismissed, the court decided in favour of Juson. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, decree in Chancery, Juson, a.y. Gardiner, st a.,28 Jan. 1862, no . 1483. See also: u.,Middlesex County Chancery Court, Juson, & a.y. Gardiner, a.,1863, decree, 28 Jan, 1862. Early in January of 1862, Williamls sale to Hope was declared void and the deed to Armstrong was ordered cancelled. See: ibid. Harris and Hope were not the first creditors to seek judgement against Gardiner and Edwards. In June of 1856 John and Thomas M. Thompson received judgement against them in the amount of E104,11.9* See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County Court, Thompson, at a1- Y. Gardiner, pLU., 1856, no. ES8S.
87- Juson and his associates were able to proceed against this property based on an judgement they secured in the Court of Queen l s Bench at Toronto in October of 1857, in which William was ordered to pay them P262 and costs. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, bargain and sale, Gardiner to Ward, 3 May 1865, no- 1913 - 88. The purchaser was George G. Ward of Wardsville. See: w. 89. William filed his complaint in Chancery against Thomas C. Kerr, who represented his brother Archibald' s interests as a junior partner, and who--in March of 1865-very conveniently acquired Williamls auctioned land from the successful bidder . See : u., certificate of -, Gardiner v. Kerr, a-,8 Aug. 1865, no. 1975; w.,deed, Murray to Kerr, 10 Mar. 1865, no. 1845. 90. While the exact details are unknown, most of the disputed lands were consolidated in Becher's trusteeship. In September of 1865, George G. Ward sold the 25 acres to Becher. On October 21, 1865, William sold Thomas C. Kerr 23 acres, while Kerr transferred 31 acres back to William. Then, on the same day, William sold 25 acres to Becher. Becher received another 7 acres from William on December 13, 1865. See: ibig., bargain and sale, Ward to Becher, 26 Sep. 1865, no. 2046; ibiq., bargain and sale, Gardiner to Kerr, 21 Oct . 1865, no. 2111; iSjS., bargain and sale, Kerr to Gardiner, 21 Oct. 1865, no. 2109; w.,bargain and sale, Gardiner to Becher, 21 Oct. 1865, no. 2110; u., deed, Gardiner to Becher, 13 Dec. 1865, no. 2151. 91. William appears to have been dispossessed of almost all his land by the time he prepared his will in mid-December of 1866. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County Surrogate Court, will copybooks, vol. 4, estate of William Gardiner, I3 Dec- 1865, no. 428, pp- 329-331. He received the $2,500 from the sale of the 25 acres to Becher, which was transacted the previous October. See: if2j4-, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, bargain and sale. Gardiner to Becher, 21 Oct, 1865, no. 2110, Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County Surrogate Court, will copybooks, vol. 4, estate of William Gardiner, 13 Dec- 1865, no. 428, pp, 329-331- This date is according to the surrogate registrar. See: ibid- His tombstone in what is now known as the Gardiner Cemetery, located on the north side of the Longwoods Road, records his death as having occurred on December 24, 1865. The cause of death is not known- Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County Chancery Court, Gardiner x. Gibb, 1864, no, 974, bill of complaint, Mar.
1.James had no little difficulty in collecting the money awarded to him by arbitration. In the end, he met with only indifferent success. See: w. The combined assessed value of his properties, including his mills and some 260 acres, ranged between $4,050 in 1861 to $3,100 in 1865, See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1861, p. 9, no. 129; u.,1862, p. 9, no. 128; m.,1863, p. 8, no. 131; w,,1864, p. 1,no. 193; m.,1865, p. 10, no. 120. National Archives, R.G. Dun Papers [hereafter Dun Papers] (MG 28, 111, 106), Canada, vol, 19, p. 32c, 21 Jul. 1862. According to the 1861 census, James had $6,000 invested in his grist and saw mills. Both mills were powered by water and employed four men. However, the combined value of the mills was only $3,000, and Jamesf labour costs amounted to $104 per month. See: National Archives, 1861 Census (RG 31) , Mosa Township, Middlesex County, Canada West, dis . 1. p- 2. no. 3.
National Archives, Dun Papers, vol. 19. p. 32c, 10 Feb. 1863. Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, deed, Gardiner to Harris, 10 Mar. 1866, no. 2286. The purchaser was Edward W. Harris, a London lawyer. Although he paid $15,000 for the 50 acres, which included several oil wells, derricks, engines e.,the property was assessed at only $1,450. As well, there was considerable depreciation after the oil boom, so that by 1871 the assessment was a mere $470. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1867, p. 16, no. 527; . 1868, p. 14, no. 233; u.,1869, p. 8, no. 146; b 1870, p. 8, no. 137; u.,1871; p. 8, no. 136. Harris held on to the land and finally recouped some of his losses. He sold the land in 1887 for $1,600! See: Talm Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, deed, Harris to Tunks , 5 Oct . 1887, no. 7429 .
100. Globe, 5 Mar. 1866, p. 2, c. 2. There are no wells here producing very great quantities of oil--the best producing, at present, being from 30 to 40 barrels per day. But there are many wells producing enough to yield very handsome returns to the proprietors." See: w. 101. Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, bargain and sale, Gardiner to Perguson, 14 Jun. 1865, no. 1958; u.,23 Jun. 1865, no. 1959. James held the mortgage. See: w.,mortgage, Ferguson to Gardiner, 23 Jun. 1865, no. 1960. 102. Globe, 10 Feb. 1860, p. 1, c. 4. 103. In 1865 James was assessed for 209 1/2 acres of land, including a grist and saw mill as well as a blacksmith shop. By 1872 he retained only one acre with the sad11 and blacksmith shop. He is not listed in the 1873 roll. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1865, p. 10, no. 120; u-,1866, p. 26, no. 265; w., 1867, p. 13, no. 524; m.,1868, p. 12, no. 202; w., 1869, p. 8, no. 143; igid., 1870, p. 8, no. 136; u., 1871, p. 8, no. 134; il2iq., 1872, p. 5, no. 86. Regarding his move to Chatham, see: ~~R~cordof Kw, p. 21. 104. -icd Record of KenL, p. 21. When James decided to take up residence in Chatham, he was no doubt influenced by his sons--both of whom were already living there. In 1867 Samuel F. and William E. Gardiner began a banking and exchange business in Chatham, and probably with the financial backing of their father. See: u.,p. 9. See also: w.,p. 378. The brothers dissolved their partnership in 1869, with Samuel F. continuing on his own until 1881. See: w. nS.F. Gardiner's Exchange and Collecting Office" offered a wide range of services. Deposits were received, notes discounted, money exchanged, drafts were issued and collected, money was lent, and even tickets on the Cunard Line of steamships were sold. His father probably was one of the "private friendsf1who provided the source of capital Samuel F. was "always ready to lend to farmers on Mortgage of farms on most advantageous terms for repayment. See : Chatham-, 4 Nov. 1880, p. 3, c. 7. He was then appointed manager of the newly-incorporated Chatham Loan and Savings Company. See: Bioura~hicalRecord & Kent, p. 9. The Chatham Loan and Savings Company later became a branch of the Reliance Loan and Savings Company, which was subsequently merged with the Standard-Reliance Mortgage Corporation. This latter company failed in 1919. The Chatham branch, originally the Chatham Loan and Savings Company, held most of the deposits and remained "perfectly solvent." By means of a holding company, Standard Reliance Assets, many of the deposits and debenture investments were salvaged over a period of 30 years. See: Lauriston, -ic Kerpp. 743-744. With an authorized capital of $1,000,000, this company became one of south-western Ontario's most prominent lending establishments. See: rles of Cm(Toronto, Ontario: M.G. Bixby 1886) , p. 146. For an interesting, early advertisement of the Chatham Loan and Savings Company, see: pothwell w, 10 Sep. 1885, p. 4, c. 3. Under the able management of Samuel P., the Chatham Loan and Savings conducted a prosperous business advancing money on real estate and debenture security. The old adage that rfmoneymakes moneyn (so paraphrased) applies perfectly to James, who appears to have spent the rest of his long life cashing dividend cheques. At the time of his death in September of 1905, the mttpn echoed the cornon-- albeit vague--knowledge that he had died a wealthy man: Vames Gardner, an old resident of Chatham, died Sunday, aged [91] years. He moved to the city in 1870, having previously operated a saw and grist mill and farm in Middlesex county, where he made a fortune." See: Adv- (Dutton, Ontario) , 14 Sep. 1905, p. 8, c. 2. For other items concerning his death, see: Qlathamet, 11 Sep. 1905, p. 1, c. 5; m.,p. 5, c. 2; m.,14Sep. 1905, p. 1, c. 4. CHAPTER FIVE Decline and Dispersal
James timed his departure very well. Although only a few years separated Cashmere from the fame of its former oil
associations, the bust in 1866 brought about the sudden and severe resumption of its earlier decline. Before long, Cashmere was reduced to a straggling collection of frame dwellings, dominated by several mills which backed onto the river. ' Admittedly, there was little to recommend the future of the sleepy little village, and yet the energy generated by its dam guaranteed its survival. Ironically, however, the Thames River, which had given rise to the village in the first place, was also largely responsible for its reversal.
At about mid-point in the century, the normally placid stream gradually developed the potential for sudden and devastating floods. This disturbing trend was attributed to the activities of the pioneers, who energetically cleared forests and drained swamps all along the river s watershed. In consequence, the spring run-off drained directly into the Thames, and freshets became an annual occurrence. Occasionally, this routine was punctuated by a flood of monumental proportions. ~t Cashmere, the severity of flooding was compounded by its geography. Not only was the village built on the river flats, it was also nearly surrounded by highlands . Bluffs of some 50 feet rose above Cashmere on three sides, while an earthen cliff of approximately the same height dominated the opposite bank of the river. The village could not have been more precariously situated had it been built on piles in the river. Yet, apart from the occasional severe spring freshet, the
Gardiners had no reason to suspect that floods would ever pose a serious threat .' The first indication to the contrary came in March of 1865, when a wtremendousm flood carried away the Westminster Bridge at London and seriously damaged the bridge at Thamesville, Farther downstream, Chatham's bridge endured, but a favourite local landmark did not. The hulk of an old steamer, embedded in the sand of the Thames, was dislodged
with the high water Ifand sailed majestically down the river sans rudder, sans deck, sans anything. Likewise, Cashmere, "with all her mills, came very near being carried off by the
flood.. .If5
The next major flood occurred just a little over a decade later, by which time the citizens of Cashmere had become accustomed to some degree of spring flooding. However, the flood of 1876 proved a severe departure. On February 12/13, 1876 an ice jam at the ~oraviantownbridge, several miles downstream, caused the Thames to back-up into Cashmere? A witness recounted how the river had risen some 27 feet above the low water mark, which flooded the streets and nearly every house in the village. Since few houses in Cashmere had second storeys, most of the villagers had to evacuate. Their livestock were not so fortunate.
I believe that every stable in the place was flooded, and for twenty-four hours you could hear pigs squealing, hens [squawkingl, cows bellowing-- all splashing about in the water. There was not dry land enough on the Cashmere Town Plot to keep the stock on, and a good number of them had to be driven through the water to the high land in the fields of neighbours, while the hens generally took to the tops of the buildings.-." When the ice jam finally gave way, the level of the river dropped dramatically, making a clean sweep of fencesw and everything else that was not secured.' Fortunately, Cashmere did not suffer the main thrust of the flood. Of course, there was considerable water damage, but the buildings remained firm on their foundations. The inhabitants sirnply returned, cleaned up the mess, and carried on with their lives. One of the individuals who took the disaster in stride was John Heath, the newly-arrived grist miller. Writing to his sister shortly after the flood, he made little reference to the disaster except to say that: Itwe have had a good 3eal of high water; which is getting down again now. . , Obviously, the flood of 1876 was not sufficiently devastating to frighten off Cashmere1s miller. Nor did it intimidate his fellow villagers into quitting the place. Like the "tornadow of 1860 that wreaked havoc upon Cashmere, the flood of 1876 was considered an isolated incident--and not the beginning of a dangerous trend.'Vashmerefs citizens failed to recognize the threat posed by the river, largely because 153 they were preoccupied with the economic stagnation of their village, Bothwell's advantageous location on the Great Western Railway undermined Cashmere's industry and commerce, but not everyone identified the railway as the source of the problem. John Heath, for example, attributed Cashmere's ncollapsetf to the Itingratitude of those [namely James Gardiner] who, after acquiring wealth [in the villagel , left it without a single evidence showing a disposition to improve the place,**LL Regardless of contemporary perceptions as to causal effects, Cashmere's decline brought the same result: a severe reduction in business. The situation had becbme critical by January of 1876, as indicated by the village shopkeeper's decision to close up shop." George Mansfield first began to keep store in 1865, but after the collapse of the oil boom in 1866, he experienced a marked falling off in his business. He reacted accordingly, and the closure of his store, which constituted one of Cashmere's economic cornerstones, was an ominous sign of things to come. But for Heath the miller,
Mansfield's exit served as a convenient opportunity to enhance his milling business in a mercantile fashion. In February of 1876, even before the village had recovered from the flood, Heath convinced himself that he should establish a store to fill the void. He fully expected that farmers coming to his mill would purchase "a good many things, I' especially since there was no store "and [there] used to be [two? , lt13 154 What the ambitious miller failed to recognize, or simply chose to ignore, was that Cashmere could no longer support one store, let alone two- The village was obviously in decline, as clearly indicated by the drop in its population. En 1864 and 1865, there were 120 people living in Cashmere; however, by 1877 this number had plummeted to just 35." Defying the odds, Heath put his faith in Cashmere--as did his two brothers. After having purchased the grist mill in November of 1875, John decided to buy the sash, door, and blind factory early in 1876--which his brother, Thomas, operated .I5 A year later, John's other brother, William, purchased the saw mill formerly owned by James Gardiner.16 The Heath brothers were firmly in control of Cashmere's industry. But, as they soon realized, they had built their empire amid ruins. While Cashmere s population remained fairly constant for a few more years, its business activity took a decided turn for the worse? In March of 1879, a sister of the Heath brothers gave the following opinion: "If the mill has not been doing any better than the store has since I went away[, I things must be looking pretty bad down [there] . Nor did
Ir thingsv improve by early summer of the next year. A visitor to Cashmere, who called himself "Professor Blot,'' found that Two old mills still make a ghostly show of business on the river front (plate 8) .1fL9 Vrofessor Blot, " otherwise known as William Judson, a London and later western American artist, was boating down the Thames in June of 1880 when he and his 155
party stopped at Cashmere. He found its principal street still dignified by a phantom store, which bears on its fore-front the ancient legend, npos+ Offjre, in shadowy letters. But alas ! 1t is many a day since a disgusted postmaster put up his shutters and turned his key for the last time. So long that its shutters are tumbling from the windows, and the last vestiges of blue and yellow labels announcing the virtues of Bungye1s Ointment and Electric Pills are fluttering in the dejected breeze which still visits the place.'O Actually, it was only the store which had closed. The post office remained open, and continued to operate well after the village had completely died out." Judson, or rather "Professor Blot," can hardly be blamed for having pronounced the village "a most completely dead and dried up relic of Canada1s ante railway times. Cashmere obviously was no longer the "brisk and promising little townm Judson envisioned, with "its mill site and ford lending it an importance which can scarcely be realized in these days of
steam and bridges, w72 Fortunately for the Heath brothers, they had come to the same conclusion and departed for greener pastures a short time before I1Professor Blotw could ridicule their folly.23 Thus deprived, Judson had to content himself with a lament, "The pretty village is in ruins, and its inhabitants literally gone a-fishing. What they do in the intervals, when fish are not in season, does not appear on the
surf ace. lrZ4 Had Judson enquired, he might have learned that they spent a good deal of time cleaning up after the rampaging river. By the 18808, recurring spring floods had become a well- established routine of life in Cashmere. But, once the high water had receded, the village was left to languish in peace for the rest of the year, Events in 1883, however, proved an exception to the rule. In April the Thames, swollen with melt-water fromupstream, overflowed its banks. "In Cashmere the water flooded some of the houses, and reached nearly up to the second floor of the mill, Mr. Dixon [the new miller] stated to us that the rise was only within two feet four inches of the highest rise on record in that place.1t25While the severity of the spring freshet of 1883 surprised the residents of the village, the possibility of a flood had not been unexpected. However, in July, well after the threat of such danger was normally thought to have passed, Cashmere found itself "as badly submerged as at the time of the spring freshet, and much damage was done there."" The July, 1883 flood was the result of heavy rainfall in the region of London, which saturated the ground and then drained directly
into the river. A ltwallof waterggrapidly gathered and rushed down the shallow riverbed toward the unsuspecting inhabitants of London West. Like Cashmere, London West was built on the river flats and surrounded by high ground. However, unlike Cashmere, it was located at the confluence of the north and east branches of the river--in the direct path of the flood's full force. The severity of the disaster has been likened to a Itwhirling gully of wildly- tossing water, broken houses, drowning animals 157 and screaming human beings. If*' Seventeen people lost their lives and the same degree of devastation surely would have visited Cashmere, had that village been situated slightly more like London West." As it transpired, there was no loss of life at Cashmere and none of the water damage was irreparable- Once again, the citizenry returned and awaited the next bout of high water, which came in 1887 and forced them to "move upstairs.w2g Despite the severity attending the 1883 and 1887 floods, the impact on the population of the village was negligible. Between 1883 and 1887, the population of Cashmere remained nearly constant at approximately 26 people.'O
By 1887, there were precious few job opportunities in Cashmere. Yet, there was still enough work to support several families amounting to some 30 people." The major source of employment was the fishery, which had developed at the base of the Cashmere dam. As the lowest obstruction on the Thames, this dam intercepted vast quantities of fish during the spring migration. It was then a relatively easy matter for the men of the village to sweep the river below the dam with seine nets, taking most of the fish stock in the process. After packing their catches in barrels, the fish were then shipped to markets in Detroit or Buffalo vta the railway at Bothwell. Despite its seasonal nature, was a profitable occupation for the select few who engaged in it. However, as reliable as this annual yield was, there were seasons when high water permitted the fish to evade the Cashmere fishery. It was then that the fishermen's loss became the innkeeper's gain, Whenever the water rose too high, displaced villagers sought refuge in the Cashmere H~tel.'~ The proprietor would have
enjoyed a banner years in 1883 and 1887, except that he had
already closed his doors a few years earlier." The next major displacement of Cashmesets population occurred during the spring of 1893. Just as its citizens were "hugging themselves with the belief that all danger of a flood
was past," the water raised at the rate of six inches per hour, until it gained a height it has not reached in twenty years. We understand there was but one house in the village [that] was not flooded. There was quite an exciting time for a couple of hours in moving furniture to the upper storeys, and a number of people leaving the village. A large number of people thronged the hills all day as it was quite a novel sight. It would remind you of an ancient [V]enice, if you could conjure in your mind the grist mill to be the [Doges] Palace. 34
The flooded streets of Cashmere could hardly have evoked images of Venice. Even to those onlookers who had not seen the village for some time, there was little evidence of change over the course of a decade--except, of course, for all the water. By 1893, with its population having stabilized and increased slightly to some 35 people, Cashmere's decline appeared to have levelled-off.15 As long as the dam remained intact, the grist and saw mill, as well as the fishery, would provide a livelihood for each of the few remaining families. However, the ever-present threat of flooding cast serious doubt on Cashmere's future. Later that autumn, however, the village enjoyed an unexpected resurgence. In November of 1893, it was announced that Joseph Atkinson, a lumberman from the nearby village of Florence, had plans to establish a stave mill in Cashmere. The welcome
news was confirmed early in the new year when "an immense quantity of logsftwere cut for the new enterprise ." By May of 1894, the stave mill was in full operation.'' Although initially only a few men were employed, they and their families increased the population of the village to about 46 people and thereby warranted the return of a general store." A year later, in 1895, the population had risen to
approximately 66. 40 This number dropped only slightly over the
next couple of years. and in 1897 the count stood at 62 .4' Cashmerefs future suddenly appeared modestly bright. even if it was perhaps too-closely tied to the success of the stave mill. Still, the danger of this dependance was easy to overlook, especially in 1896 when Atkinson improved his mill uwonderfully by putting in machinery for making barrel
hoop^...^^' Despite this investment, the return of prosperity lasted only a few more years; then came the bombshell. In the autumn of 1899 the people of Cowal, a village located at some distance across the river in neighbouring
Elgin County, were "greatly elatedt1when they received word that a new enterprise would soon arrive in their midst: "Mr. Atkinson, of Cashmere, has leased Thomas Griff in1s saw mill for a term of three years. He will at once put in machinery for a stave factory. He will employ about ten men. It" Of course, Atkinson planned to cannibalize the stave mill at Cashmere for this machinery, and by early December the deed was done." Atkinson probably based his decision to move out of Cashmere on the unpredictable nature of the Thames . After all, when not a raging flood water, it was a mere trickling stream- Whether too high or too low, the river frequently forced Atkinson to suspend operations for long periods of time." Still, when conditions in the river were right, Cashmere was the perfect place for a stave mill. Besides the cheap energy provided by the river, it also served as a convenient means by which to transport logs to the mill--and logging along the Thames was still a considerable, if obscure, industry. '" However, the river s next flood proved the last straw for Atkinson.
In mid-March of 1898, gawkers once again thronged the bluffs at Cashmere to "see the sight of a village almost covered with water, I' The steady rise of the river Thames has caused the residents of this hamlet to move to the upper rooms of their dwellings and they have to use boats to go out and in. The damage will be considerable to those who had loose property on their premises, and more especially to the stave and hoop factory, situated on the banks of the river, as the whole stock of logs, together with a large quantity of staves and other material, have been washed awayO4' Atkinson must have suffered heavily from the flood, as four positions in his stave mill appear to have been eliminated as a result. Along with these mill hands went their families, 161
and some 20 people. At the time of the flood in 1898, Cashmere boasted a population of some 60 individuals By the spring of 1899, however, that number had dropped to about 40 ." Then, when Atkinson moved his factory out at the end of 1899, the rest of his employees left with it. In the spring of 1900, only four families comprising 22 people, remained at
Cashmere ,'O Once again, the fishery became Cashmerets industrial mainstay.
1n 19 01, however, the provincial government purchased and removed the dam in order to facilitate the migration of fish up the river.'' Unable to export suckers or produce hydraulic power, the consequence for what was left of Cashmere was predictable. At the end of January, 1902, only three families
remained in the village. 52 By 1907, one lone family constituted Cashmerefs entire population, and in 1908 they also left.'' With the passage of several more years, most of Cashmerefs buildings were moved out of the village to new
locations (map 6) 54 While one or two dilapidated old buildings continued to stand on the site of the village until the late 1920s, nothing tangible remained of Cashmere by the end of 1930 except the road that once led to it (plate 9)."
Like most other water-based villages, Cashmere's decline was the direct result of its disadvantaged location in relation to the Great Western Railway. Compounding its unfortunate situation was the increasing tendency of the 162
Thames River to flood, especially during the second half of the nineteenth-century. Still, it was the effect of changes in transportation that had launched Cashmere's decline, ref erring specifically to the introduction of the Great Western Railway. Yet, the village remained viable as long as its Barn remained in place. Although the hydraulic energy it generated was sufficient for only one or two small mills, it was nonetheless free. It was for this reason that Joseph Atkinson established his stave mill at Cashmere in 1893. Ultimately, however, the attendant risk of flood drove Atkinson to seek a more secure location for his venture, and reversed the brief period of prosperity his stave mill brought to Cashmere. Atkinsonls arrival, and more especially his departure, underscores the lingering importance of local entrepreneurs to urban development. As late as the 1890s, at a time when established railway facilities had decided which places would thrive and which would wither, the influence of local entrepreneurship was still such that it could completely reverse the decline of a village. Arguably, had James Gardiner remained committed to Cashmere, neither the detrimental effect of the Great Western or the increasing number of devastating floods would have carried the same consequence. However, when he departed for Chatham in 1870, the village was deprived of entrepreneurial leadership and, despite the best intentions of several lesser entrepreneurs, Cashmere suffered a far more severe decline. Yet, even after the removal of Atkinson's stave mill in 1899, there was still hope for Cashmerets future. After all, the dam was secure in its place, and remained magnificently profitable to area fishermen, Tons of fish were seine netted below the dam, packed, and transported to Bothwell for rail distribution to distant American markets. And, despite mounting criticism from upstream anglers, the Cashmere fishery promised to continue a profitable enterprise. However, the fishing interests in London intervened and forcefully agitated for the removal of the dam. With their success in 1901, Cashmere s fate was sealed - Notes to Chapter Five
1. In August of 1869, a youngman named James H. Coyne (who went on to become the lancl registrar for Elgin County and a historian of some note) viewed Cas~Merefrom the bluffs above the village. As he later confided to his diary, "It will hardly bear comparison with the other Vale of Cashmere in the far East." See: Talman Regional Collection, James H. Cope Papers, diary, 8 Aug. 1869. According to the 1869 assessment roll, there were some 15 families at Cashmere, which suggests there were at least as many houses to accommodate them, Most of the buildings would have been houses, although there was also the hotel as well as the post office and general store. The mills at the river included the grist and carding mill, two saw mills, and the sash, door, and blind factory. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1869, pp. 4-5, nos. 67-85. There were no doubt additional buildings in the form of stables, sheds, and outhouses.
2. The New Yorkmr3.4recognized the effect of deforestation and drainage as early as 1865. "The removal of the forests - and marshes gives the swhine free access to the land, and when once the ice and snow begin to melt, the water, not being absorbed by the ground, flows down toward the streams which, swollen thereby, rcsh sea ward with irresistible force. It See: -on Ev-a ~A~VS~~SPZ,23 Mar- 1865, p. 2, c. 3- In 1876 another astute, and mare local, observer predicted that "floods will annually increase as the system of municipality [township] drainage is progressing, as it brings the water out of the marsh [swamp] land in a few hours which formerly took weeks to find its way to the river. " See: Free. Press (London, Ontario) , weekly ed., 17 Feb. 1876, p. 8, c. 4; see also: , 16 Feb. 1876, p. 4, c. 5. Christopher Hives appears to concur with these judgements in as much as they relate to the drainage of swamps. However, he points out that most floods occur during the spring, while the ground remains frozen and at a time when l1no water is allowed to permeate the soil.I1 Therefore, he considers the importance of deforestation to be over-rated. Instead, Hives emphasizes physiographic and climatic factors. See: Christopher Lawrence Hives, "Flooding and Flood Control: Local Attitudes in London, Ontario, 1790-1952n [hereafter "Flooding and Flood Controln] (M.A. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1981), p. 1. See also: u.,pp. 7-11. 3. There were earlier destructive floods; however, their impact on Canton (Cashmere) is unrecorded. Since the village was still in its formative stage as late as 1861, the damage probably was minimal and largely restricted to the mills.
See: mrcutile Auencv Referenre mok, Cdn. ed. (Montreal, Quebec: Dun, Wiman and Company,. Jan.. 1876), p. 84; r I orts of the nom~n~.onof Cana- (New York, (treet (treet Press, Feb. 18761, p- 84- 13. Guy St-Denis Papers, Heath Family, letter, John Heath to Mary Ann Heath, 17 Feb . 1876. 14. County of Middlese-zetteer and Generallness Directom, for 1864-5 (London, Canada West: John Cameron, 1864) , p . 177; Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1877, p. 4, nos. 81-92. Population statistics are difficult to find between census years- However, beginning in 1867, the Mosa Township assessment rolls provide a column listing the number of persons in each family. Unfortunately, these statistics are not consistently recorded. The only other sources of population are county directories and credit reference books, neither of which are particularly authoritative.
15. John Heath purchased the old Gardiner grist mill from James Fisher on November 6, 1875. Fisher had purchased it from John Ferguson earlier that same year, on June 28, 1875. - See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, deed, Fisher to Heath, 6 Nov. 1875, no. 4256; w.,Ferguson to Fisher, 28 Jun. 1875, no. 4214. John Heath then purchased the sash and door factory on June I,1876 from James E. Wood. See: w.,deed, Wood to Heath, 19 Jun. 1876, no. 4427. It will be remembered that this enterprise had formerly been owned by Charles Bennett. See: ihid., bargain and sale, Bennett to Wood, 10 Jan. 1866, no. 2208- Thomas Heath is listed in conjunction with the llfactorywin the Mosa Township assessment rolls. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1878, p. 4, no. 83; u.,1879, p. 4, no. 89. 16. Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Lana Registry, copybooks, deed, Blum to Heath, 13 Feb. 1877, no. 4541. Earlier, in September of 1872, James Gardiner sold this property to George Mansfield and Henry Blum. It was the last of Gardiner's holdings at Cashmere. See: u., Gardiner to Mansfield and Blum, 5 Sep. 1872, no . 3685. 17. In the words of two prominent Canadian economic historians, the period from 1873 to 1896 "was one of periodic and prolonged slumps interrupted by brief periods of recovery." See: W.T. Easterbrook and Hugh G.J. Aitken, Economic &st (Toronto, Ontario : Macmillan Company of Canada, 195613. 392. Judging from the economic state of affairs in Cashmere during 1879 and 1880, the village would appear to have suffered from one of these "periodic slumps." However, much of the severity associated with Cashmere's dull times undoubtedly was a phenomenon experienced by other river villages which had also missed out on the modem economies of railway transportation and steam power. In Cashmerets case, its decline had begun years earlier with the opening of the Great Western Railway, but was then temporarily stayed by the oil boom at Bothwell during the 1860s-
18. Guy St-Denis Papers, Heath Family, letter, Juliana Heath to Mary Ann Heath, 11 Mar. [I8791 . Juliana went to Detroit in the autumn of 1878, where she worked as a maid for a prominent family. See: m,,letter, Juliana Heath to Mary Ann Heath, 7 Nov, 1878, Juliana Heath's remark that "thbgs must be looking pretty bad down theren is the only indication of the degree to which the economic downturn affected Cashmere. Evidence of a depressed local economy is difficult to find. Assessment rolls list the value of each parcel of real property and usually some description of the type of industry associated with the land in question, but not the level of profit enjoyed by the owner. Publishes credit ratings give some idea of an individualfs "pecuniary strength;" but not the level of a corrarmnityts business activity. Early census records contain valuable industrial statistics ; unfortunately, this information was recorded only once every ten years and was not preserved beyond the 1871 enumeration .
19. [William Judson], JiTour of the [hereafter =of the Thames] (London, Ontario: Advertiser Steam Presses, 1881), p. 90. Judson reveals at the outset of this book that the tour was commenced on a June day of an unspecified year. However, it is not likely that the excursion took place in June of 1881, since he makes no mention of the Victoria Disaster which occurred on 24 May 1881, On that fateful day some 180 people drowned when the paddle steamer Victoria capsized in the Thames River below London. The fact that Judson did not notice this great tragedy suggests that it had not yet occurred. Therefore, the tour probably took place in June cf 1880 as opposed to June of 1881. While Judsonts book is imprinted with the year 1881, it probably went to press before the disaster occurred.
21. The Cashmere post office served the surrounding rural community from a location half a mile east on the Longwoods Road, to which it had been moved by May 11, 1901. See: T1ondonAdvelrtiser,21 Jan. 1902, p. 6, c. 4; w-,11 May 1901, p. 7, c. 1. The removal of the post office probably accounts for the resignation of the postmistress, Mary J. Mansfield. She gave up the responsibility on March 5, 1901, presumably because she preferred to remain in the village. The Cashmere post office was finally closed on February 1, 1914 in response to the local inauguration of rural mail delivery. See: National Archives, Divisional Inspectorsr Reports, history record card for Cashmere.
[Judson], Tour af the -, p . 90. In April of 1880 John Heath sold his properties and moved to nearby Wardsville. Thomas and William Heath departed for Stonington, Illinois at about the same time. See: Talmaa Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, deed, Heath to Gibb, 15 Apr. 1880, no. 5287; u.,mortgage, Heath to Blum, 13 Feb. 1877, no. 4542. In 1885, Williamfs property was sold by Blumys executors, suggesting that Heath had defaulted on his mortgage. See: u.,deed, Moore to Tunks, 2 Mar. 1885, no. 6357. Thomas Heath, who never actually owned the n"fctoryn at Cashmere, later returned from Illinois and joined his brother John in Wardsville.
[Judson], Tour of the -, p. 91.
Bothwell Tm,19 Apr. 1883, p * 1, c . 4. m-,19 Jul. 1883, p. 4, c. 1. A clipped version of this quotation was first encountered in: Hives, "Flooding and Flood ControlfWp. 39. However, the source he cites does not contain the quotation, which he credits to a reporter for the -on Wvertiser named William Thompson. Rather, it leads to a reprinting of the 1937 flood recollections of J. Lambert Payne, who was a reporter for the -on Free Press, See: Lon- Eveoi.nq PE-,5 Jul. 1969, sec. two, p- 8M, c. 1; w.,4 May 1937, p. 6, c. 3. The quotation appears to have been the invention of Orlo Miller, who based it on Thompson's experiences. See: Orlo Miller, A Centurv of Westem Ontarlo (Toronto, Ontario: Ryerson Press, ~1949), p . 206. According to Christopher Hives, "seventeen people lost their lives, a surprisingly small number considering the severity and suddenness of the flood and the fact that it occurred at night. See : Hives, It Flooding and Flood Control, p . 43. othwell Tw,17 Feb. 1887, p. 1, c. 3. The 1883 population figure is taken from a city and county directory, as the Mosa Tomship assessment roll for that year is missing. See: t.v- of Lwdnn ud Co-v of Middles= nirectnrv for 1883 ondo don, Ontario : London Publishing Campany, 1883), p. 102. For the source of the 1887 population calculation, see: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1887, p , 4, nos . 89-94, In 1888, the population had actually risen to 35. See: u.,1888, p- 4, nos. 93-99 The sash and door factory appears to have been closed, and the grist and saw mills were not labour intensive operations which required large numbers of workers. As early as 1876, an observer commenting on the increasing number of floods at Cashmere noted that the "annual freshet, although disastrous to the place, is not so to all its business men, as it is a harvest for an inn keeper, who generally does a staving business for a week about that time. See: -an Frw Press, 16 Feb - 1876, p. 4, c. 5 - The hotel was also located in the village, and presumably just as susceptible to being flooded. However, it might have been on slightly higher ground, or perhaps had two storeys. The tavern keeper at the time of the 1876 flood was George McIntosh. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1876, p. 4, no. 91. However, he is not listed as such in the assessment rol-1s after 1877 (the extant rolls cover the years up to 1900 with the exception of the following years, which are missing: 1880-1884; 1886, 1893). Despite the misleading report in April of 1882, that McIntosh had secured a license for the Cashmere Hotel, he appears to have given up that house by the spring of 1880 in favour of W.H, Gilbert and moved to nearby- Wardsville. See: Bothwell T-, 27 Apr. 1882, p. 1, c. 3. See: Talman Regional Collection, Wardsville Assessment Rollsr 1880, p. [3], no. 114. The license McIntosh received might have been for a hotel in Wardsville, and not the one at Cashmere. It would appear that the Cashmere Hotel subsequently closed sometime in 1880 or early in 1881, as a hotel keeper is not listed in the 1881 census for Cashmere. The prospect of the opening of a hotel in that village was met with some anticipation in May of 1882, when the Cashmere correspondent of the Bothwell T-es announced that "Mr. Nellis, above Wardsville, has, we learn, obtained license for the Cashmere Hotel, and will have the house opened to the public next week. This will prove a great convenience to those visiting the mills, and the public gene~ally.~' See u.,11 May 1882, p. 1, c. 5. While Mr. Nellis might have opened a hotel at Cashmere, it does not appear to have lasted long. BothweI.1.Tmr Mar. 30, 1893, p. 4, c. 2. After the flood, there were the following comments: "High boots are in good demand, soft mud about four inches deep on the streets;" "Mr. Dixon had quite a job in cleaning the mud out of his [grist] mill after the water went down; " and ItMrs. Jose~h- ~ixonis moving to Wardsville. She says she has Chad1 enough of high water." See: Bothwell Times, 6 Apr. 1893, p. 5, c. 2. The population of Cashmere between 1890 and 1892 can be calculated using t he figures representing the total number of persons in the family of each individual assessed. In approximate terms, Cashmere had 35 people in 1890; 35 in 1891, and 32 in 1892. Unfortunately, the 1893 roll is missing. See: Talman Regional ~ollection,Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1890, p. 5, nos. 92-97; w., 1891, p- 5, nos. 103-108; u.,1892, p. [5], nos. 99-104. v,23 Nov. 1893, p- 4, c- 3. Ibid., 4 Jan. 1894, p. 4, c. 2
Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1894, p. 5, nos. 103-110. The assessment rolls indicate that there was a merchant at Cashmere between 1893/1894 and 1896/1897. See: Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1894, p. 5, no. 106; u.,1895, p. 6, no. 106; igi9.. 1896, p. so, no- 107. In 1925 an "old womann remembered Schellyls store as "a very good one," which sold everything from "loggin' chains and canthooks to knittinf needles. " See: J,oaon Evema Free Press, 7 Nov. 1925, p. 8, c. 6. According to the following mention, the store changed hands in September of 1895: "Mr. [Walter] Schelly, our general merchant, has sold his property to Mr. [John H. ] Shrum, of this place. Mr. Schelly intends going east." See: wcoe Transcripr, 12 Sep. 1895, p. 8, c. I. Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1895, pp. 5-6, nos. 102-115. m.,1895, pp. 5-6, nos. 102-115; w-,1896, pp. 5-6. nos. 102-119; 1897, pp. 5-6, nos. 108-125.
Bothwell T-eq, 27 Aug. 1896, p. 4, c. 2. Advance (Dutton, Ontario), 6 Sep. 1899, p. 8, c. 1.
On December 7, 1899, the wcoe Trnwript reported that the Tashmere saw and stave mill has been recently moved to New Montreal [another name for Cowall .If See : ~Af2 Transcru, 7 Dec. 1899, p. 1, c. 4. For example, in September of 1895, the stave mill was forced to suspend operations on account of low water in the Thames, "there not being sufficient to float the logs down." And in April of 1896, "owing to the high water, the Cashmere stave mill had to shut down for a few days -..Ip See: .GknGm -, -, 12 Sep. 1895, p. 8, c. 1; , 9 Apr. 1896, p. I, c. 4. During the winter months, farmers along the Thames would chop trees on the forested sections of their lands and pile the logs on the riverbank. Once the high water had receded sufficiently in the spring, the marked logs were then rolled into the river and log drivers directed them down stream. When they reached the sluggish current of deeper water, they were gathered into large booms, or rafts, and towed by tug boat to sawmills in Chatham or Detroit. For an interesting article on the topic. see: London Advemim. 22 May 1901, p. 8, c. 5. Winter logging had long been a seasonal occupation for farmers in the Thames Valley. In 1867, for example, many farmers who turned lumber men in the winter took advantage of the *briskn American demand for lumber to flmake up for light crops of last year. " See: wonFree Press, 13 Feb. 1867, p. 3, c. 5.
Bothwell Ta,17 Mar. 1898, p- I, c, 4, This flood probably was the result of an ice jam downriver. See: bid. 10 Mar. 1898, p. 4, c. 1. The logs which were swept away could very easily have been worth several thousands of dollars. On one occasion, two years later, loss representing an investment of $8,000 made for a If beautiful sightw on the river above the dam. See: w., 17 May 1900, p. 5, C. 4. Talman Regional Collection, Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1898, p. 5, nos. 109-124.
Ibid., 1899, pp. 5-6, nos. 110-124. Unfortunately, the Mosa Township Assessment Rolls do not appear to exist for the several years imediately following 1899. These records are not to be found either in the Talman Regional Collection at the University of Western Ontario library, or in the Mosa Township Clerk's Office. Instead, the population of Cashmere in 1900 is based on information listed in the 1901 census- With a list of the names of the heads of households at Cashmere, taken from the 1900 0Mi- Coy~tvDjrectoxy, the families living at Cashmere were isolated and the number of individuals in each was tallied to obtain the estimated population. See: osterfs Lomn C esex Counu Foster and Company, Directom,- 1900-- - (Toronto, Ontario: J-G. 1900), p . 423 ; National Archives, 1901 Census (RG 31) , Mosa Township, Middlesex County, Ontario, dis . 90, sub. dis . 9, sub. div. 4, p. 2, nos. 15-16, 18-19. It should be noted that Adoram Everingham and his large family accounted for nine of the rreo~leresident at Cashmere in 1900. 51. Canada, Sessio-erg, 1902, vol. XXXIV, pt. VTX, no. 31, t of Fisfieries of the Province of 0ntarj.o. 1901, pp. 19-20- 52. This information is based on the 1902 collector's roll for Mosa Township, since the assessment roll for that year does not appear to exist. See: Mosa Township Clerk's Office, Mosa Township Collector's Roll, 1902, p. 58 nos- 109-112.
53. In the 1907 Mosa Township Assessment Roll, Adoram Everingham's name is the only one which appears in association with Cashmere- See: Mosa Township Clerk's Off ice, Mosa Township Assessment Roll, 1907, p . 6, no. 100 - In 1908 Adoram Everingham moved his family to London, where he worked as a carpenter as opposed to a fisherman. Everingham is first listed in the London city directories beginning with the 1908-1909 edition. See: of London.. .nirect.nrv foothe Yeus 1908 - 1- (Hamilton, Ontario: Henry emo on, 1909), p. 230. Everingham ultimately sold much of his property at Cashmere in 1910 to John S. Gibb. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, conveyance, Everingham to Gibb, 30 Apr. 1910. no. 10964. 54. Cashmere s buildings were constructed of wood. and relatively easy to move to other sites. By 1911, the vacant village lots were consolidated into just one farm. See: Talman Regional Collection, Middlesex County West Land Registry, copybooks, conveyance, Gibb to Patterson, 1 Apr. 1911, no. 11106. 55. William A. Edwards wrote several articles on the history of Cashmere, as well as its lore and legends. An article published in 1925 features a picture of an old run-down house, which in the caption is described as "the only building which marks what was once the site of Cashmere ..." A picture of what might be the same house, but perhaps from a different angle, is featured in an article he published in 1927. In an article from 1930 he makes reference to the old Campbell house, presumably the same dwelling, which was moved up to the highway a few years earlier. See : London mnaFree Prw, 7 Nov. 1925, p. 8, C. 6; u.,19 NOV. 1927, p. 8, c. 1; u.,13 Sep. 1930, p. 8, c. 5. In 1930, William A. Edwards noted that the last house in the village (that of Daniel Campbell) had been removed only a few years earlier. See: w,, 13 Sep. 1930, p. 8, c. 5. Furthermore, in an article dating from 1929, Edwards used an illustration purporting to be the remains of the old stave mill, which suggests that it also remained standing at Cashmere mtil the time of the article's publication. See: id.19 Jan. 1929, p. 8, c. 1. CONCLUS ION
To the casual observer at the turn of the twentieth- century. Cashmere ' s dispersal represented no great loss . Even at its height in the mid-1860s. and despite its close proximity to the booming oilfields, the village managed to attract only 120 permaaent residents. Nor was it able to sustain even this small number for any considerable length of time. With the collapse of the oil boom in 1866. Cashmere suffered a rapid decline in population. and by the mid-1870s its population was reduced to a mere 30 people. This reversal continued until 1893, when the introduction of a stave mill doubled the demographic size of the village. However, when this industry was relocated in 1899, half of Cashmere's inhabitants went with it. Having thus regressed to its former depopulated state, Cashmere was left vulnerable to the
mounting agitation of the upstream anglers. In 1901. they finally succeeded in having the dam removed, and what was left of Cashmere soon disappeared. Not surprisingly, the history of a failed village did not warrant much academic notice. Fred Coyne Hamil was the only historian to show the slightest interest in Cashmere. which he then expressed in terms of a local curiosity. However, Cashmere does warrant greater attention--not as an urban experiment =per but as a representative example of the development and decline associated with water-based urbanization in early Ontario. As such. Cashmere serves to substantiate the metropolitan theory of Maurice Careless, in which he emphasizes the importance of the relationship between urban centre and hinterland, as well as David Overton's conceptual framework regarding the relationship between lake ports and their hinterlands . Moreover, Cashmere provides insight into the origins of water-based urbanization by revealing the role of entrepreneurship in the process. Admittedly, the level of entrepreneurship considered in this study was of a small scale, and conducted by individuals of limited means. Yet, these entrepreneurs commanded considerable influence in their communities, especially during the first half of the nineteenth-century when Ontario was still very much a pioneer society. Characterized by their ambition and persistence, these men exhibited a keen sense of opportunity. Singleton Gardiner was just such a man, despite the fact that he did not wholeheartedly embrace entrepreneurship until very late in his life. Like many immigrants to Upper Canada, he was initially engrossed with the correlation between land ownership and wealth. Therefore, the accumulation of a sizable estate was his first order of business. However, his devotion to husbandry was soon divided by the opportunity to keep an inn. Further entrepreneurial endeavour on Singleton s part was severely restricted and nearly impossible, given the frontier environment in which he lived - Yet, opportunity " came 175
knockingm in 1834 when loose proposals for a Thames canal solidified into a cohesive movement- It was then, in true entrepreneurial fashion, that Singleton took a sudden and keen interest in the nearby Thames River. Recognizing the lucrative potential of a lock site, he hastened to build a dam under the pretence of establishing a saw-milling operation- By this coy maneuver. he managed to secure a place on the anticipated canal, as well as a monopoly over all the water rights, hydraulic energy, and land speculation. Even if the scheme proved unsuccessful, he would still possess a valuable mill seat. The old Irishman had planned for every contingency, except his own death. Although Singleton's eldest son, William, inherited the mill seat, it was James Gardiner who followed in his father's entrepreneurial footsteps. Not content to farm, James was detezrmined to generate wealth by continuing with his fathet s canal strategy. As the promise of a canal faded, James took it upon himself to transform the mill seat into a village, and by this means create his own opportunity for land speculation. To accomplish this goal required an expansion of the industrial base, which James failed to achieve. However, he proved just as entrepreneurial as his father in taking advantage of opportunities. Initially, the completion of the Great Western Railway in 1854 proved a positive development. By linking isolated interior communities with distant eastern markets, the railway 176 facilitated commercial activity all along its route. As the nearest urban centres to this new corridor of economic activity, the water-based villages along the Thames enjoyed sudden and unprecedented prosperity. The Gardiner mill seat was no exception, and in 1856 William Gardiner reacted by having a village surveyed. The Great Western had finally accomplished the principal goal of the Thames canal promoters, which had been to improve bulk transportation through the interior of the province, and thereby shift economic dominance inland from the lake ports. At the same time, however, the trade and commerce of the railway began to gravitate to the rising depot villages, causing a general decline among the river villages. In effect, the railway had undermined water- based urbanization. Unquestionably, transportation has shaped the course of urbanization in Ontario. Yet, the accepted view of the railway's impact on established patterns of urbanization, presented in generalized terns of immediate and negative consequences, requires further investigation. As Cashmere's experience reveals, a decidedly more complex and uncertain situation existed prior to the economic isolation and decline of water-based villages. Further, this thesis demonstrates that entrepreneurship was the dominant force behind early water-based urbanization during the first half of the nineteenth-century, and that deficiencies in transportation could be overcome by local entrepreneurs who were determined 177
to found an urban centre. Granted, however, this
individualistic approach did not endure beyond the mid-1850s, when the advent of railways fundamentally altered the established order of urban development. PUBLISHED SOURCES
Articles
Armstrong, Frederick H. and Daniel J. Brock, The Rise of London : A Study of Urban Evolution in Nineteenth-Century Southwestern OntasiorW in Frederick HI Armstrong, H-A- Stevenson and J.D. Wilson, eds., Asnects of Nineteenth- Centurv- Ontario (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 1974) , pp, 80-100,
Breithaupt, W ,H, The Railways of Ontario, Ontario Historical Society --andr XXV (1929): pp. 12 -25, Brock, Daniel J. ItRyerse (Ryerson), Samuel, Dictionam of Canadian Bioara~hv,V: pp- 732-735, Careless, J.M,S. "Frontierism, Metropolitanism, and Canadian History," The Cao~istorical Review, XXXV, no. 1 (March 1954) : pp. 1-21. Careless, J.M.S. I1Metropolis and Region: The Interplay Between City and Region in Canadian History Before 1914. l1 storv Review, no. 3-78 (1979): pp. 99-118. Careless, J-MS. I1Some Aspects of Urbanization in Nineteenth-Century Ontario, " in Frederick H. Armstrong, H.A. Stevenson and 3.D- Wilson, eds., -. Nineteenth Centurv Ontario (Toronto, Ontario: university of Toronto Press, 1974) : pp . 65-79 - Dahms, Fred A. "The Evolution of Settlement Systems: A Canadian Example, 1851-1970, Journal of Urban Bistorv, 7, no. 2 (February 1981): pp. 169-183. Davis, Donald F. "The 'Metropolitan Thesis1 and the Writing of Canadian Urban History, It Urban History Review, XfV, no. 2 (October 1985) : pp. 95-113. Douglas, W .A. B . ItMarryat, Frederick." Dictionam of an Riom,VII: pp. 585-586.
Ferris, Terry. IvRailways of ~ritishNorth America, l1 Ontario Historical Society aa,RecoIII (1946): pp. 31-42, Fischer, Lewis R. "An wine, Yet Moderaterr: James Peake, Entrepreneurial ~ehaGiourand the Shipping Industry of Nineteenth Century Prince Edward Island,I1 in Lewis. .R- Fischer and ~ricW. Sager, eds., The Bnternr~smg Canadians : Entre~reneurs and Economic Develonment in EL914 (St- John s , Newfoundland : Maritime History Group, Memorial University, 1979), pp. 99-118.
Hamil, Fred Coyne. "Early Shipping and Land Transportation on the Lower Thames, If Ontario ~istoricalSociety pa~ersand Records, XXXIV (1942): pp. 46-62.
Hamil, Fred Coyne- The Gardiners and the Village of Cashmere, " -tern Ontario ~istoricalNot-, VII, no . 4 (December 1949) : pp. 30-36.
" Juson, Richard, It pictionam of Hm,I : pp . 111-112,
"Kerr, Archibald, " Dictionary of Hamilton Bin- , 1: PP- 115-116, Owram, Douglas. "'Management by Enthusiasm1: The First Board of Works of the Province of Canada, 18414846," Qntario Historv, LXX, no. 31 (September 1978) : pp. 171-188-
Seidl, Christian. Ir Joseph Alois Schumpeter: Character, Life and Particulars of his Graz Period, in Christian SeidL, ed., LectW on Sc (Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1984) : pp. 187-205. Smith, Russell D, The Early Years of the Great Western Railway, 1833-1857," pnt- Histom, LX, no. 4 (December 1968) : pp. 205-227. St-Denis, Guy. "An Erie Canal for Western Upper Canada: A Forgotten- Episode- inOntariotsTransportation E~olution,~~ Ontario Hj,storv, WUN, no. 3 (~eptember1993) : pp. 232- 250, Stelter, Gilbert A, llA Sense of Time and Place: The Historianfs Approach to Canada1s Urban Past, in Gilbert A. Stelter and Alan F. J. Artibise, eds., The Canadia Citv: Essa~in Urban Histoq, The Carleton Library, no. 109 (Toronto, Ontario : McClelland and Stewart, ~1977),
Taylor, Robert R. IfMerritton, Ontario: The Rise and Decline of an Industrial Corridor, It Scientia Canadensig, XIV, nos. 1-2 (1990): pp. 90-113. "The Talbot Settlement and Buffalo in 86, Ontario Historical Society Paners and Records, I (1899) : pp. 139-140.
Webster, Rev. Thomas. "Early Scenes in Canadian Life," New Dominion Monthly (April 1871) : pp. 205-227.
Whebell, Charles F .J. "Corridors : A Theory of Urban Systems, " Annals of the Association of American Geoara~her~,59, no. 1 (March 1969), pp. 1-26.
Wightman, W.R. "The Evolving Upper Canadian Stezm Packet Service, 1816-1850fIf Qntario Wo~e,no. 37 (1991), pp. 23-38.
Books
(Toronto, Upper Canada:
Aitken, Hugh G.J. Emlorations in Enternrise (Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 1967) . Baby, William L . of the Past, 2nd ed- (Windsor, Ontario: William L. Baby, 1896) .
Beaven, James. ons of a Lona- Vacation (Toronto, Canada: H, and W. Rowsell, 1846.
Beer, Donald R. S5 r Allan [email protected] Mac&& (Hamilton, Ontario: Dictionary of Hamilton Biography, 1984) .
Bradstreet's Re~ortSof the Dominion of Canada (New York, New York: Bradstreet Press, Feb. 1876) .
Canada Directom for 1857 - 58 (Montreal, Canada East : John Lovell, 1857.
Careless, J.M.S. BBof,2 vols. (Toronto, Ontario: Macmillan Company of Canada, 1959) . Careless, J.MS - Careless at Work: Selected Canadian Historical Studies {Toronto, Ontario: Dundum Press, 1990) . Careless, J-M,S, Frontier and Metro~olis: Reaions, Cltzes,. . and Identities in Canada before 1914, The Donald G- Creighton Lectures, 1987 (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, ~1989).
Careless, J.M,S, The Rie of Cztres. . in C- Before 1914 (Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Historical Association Booklets, 1978), no- 32.
Careless, J.M-S, on of the Canadas, The Canadian Centenary Series (Toronto, Ontario : McClelland and Stewart, ~1967).
Cauthom, Robert C. Contributions to a enrv of Entre~reneurship (New York, New York: Garland Publishing, 1989).
Citv of London and Countv- of Mid~esexJ&rectorvfor 1871-72 (Strathroy, Ontario : C .K. Mackintosh and Company, 1871) . C ity of London and County of Mi- Directorv for 3 883 (London, Ontario : London Publishing Company, 1883 ) . Commemorative Biocrxa~hical Record of the Colintv of Kent* Ontario (Toronto, Ontario : J.H. Beers and Company, 1904).
Countv of Middlesex Gazetteer and General and Busmess Directorv. for 1864-5 (London, Canada West: John Cameron, 1864).
Coyne, James H., ed. The,2 pts. (Ottawa, Ontario: Royal Society of Canada, 1909). Craig, Gerald M. ner Canada: The Formative Years, 1784- 1841 (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and Stewart, 1963) - Easterbrook, W.T. and Hugh G.J. Aitken. Clanaa Rconomf c Histoq (Toronto, Ontario : Macmillan Company of Canada, 1956) . Fisher, Sidney Thornson. e Merch Vallev: A Studv of the Rarw Rconomv of Canada (Toronto, Ontario: NC Press, 1985) . Foster's London Citv and Middlesex Countv Directorv. 1900 (Toronto, Ontario: J,G, Foster and Company, 1900) . Fraser, Alexander, Twentv - Second Re~ortof the De~artmentof Public Records and Archives of Ontario. 1933 (Toronto, Ontario: Kingts Printer, 1934) - Gates, Lillian FI Land Policies of UDQ~~Canada, Canadian Studies in History and Government (Toronto, Ontario: University of oro onto Press, ~1968). Gourlay,-Robert. Statistical Account of U~nerCanada, vol. 1 (London, England: Simpkin ad Marshall, 1822).
Gras, Noman S.B. Introduction to Economic Histoq (New York, New Yorkr Harper and Brothers, 1922) . Great Western Railroad. proceedings of the Annual General t of the Directors (Hamilton, Canada West : Spectator Off ice, 1852 ) . Hamil, Fred Coyne. Lake Erie Baron: e Storv of Colonel Thomas Talbm (Toronto, Ontario : Mamillan - Company of Canada, 1955) . Hamil, Fred Coyne. The Vallev of the Lower Tharnes, 1640 - 1850 (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 1951) .
Historv of the Countv of Mjddlesex- Cau(Toronto, and London, Ontario : W .A. and C .L . Goodspeed, 1889 ; reprint ed . , Belleville, Ontario : Mika Studio, 1972 ) . Histom of Oakland Countv. Michiaan (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: L, H. Everts and Company, 1877).
Illustrated Historical Atlas of the Counties of Esex and Kent (Toronto, Ontario : H. Belden and Company, 1880 -1881 ; reprint ed . , Owen Sound, Ontario : Richardson, Bond, and Wright, 1973) ,
Indian Treaties and Surrenders, 3 vols . (Ottawa, Ontario : Queen1s Printer, 1891) . Industries of Canada: Hi,stnrical and Commercial Sketch= (Toronto, Ontario: M.G. Bixby and Company, 1886).
Jackson, John N. The Welland Canals and Their Commun~tles. . : Fnaineerigcr.- - Indust-. and Urban Transformation (Toronto, Ontario : University of Toronto Press, ~1997). Johnston, C-M. The Head of the Lake: A Historv of Wentworth Countv (Hamilton, Ontario: Wentworth County Council, 1958) . Jones, Robert L. -Jture f in Ontario. 1617-1880 (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, 1946) .
[Judson, William] , A Tour of the Thame~(London, Ontario : Advertiser Steam Presses, 1881) . Lauriston, Victor. Lambton s Hundred Years, 1849-1949 (Sarnia, Ontario: Haines ~rontierPrinting Company, 1949) , Lauriston, Victor. Romantic Kent: More than Three Centuries of Historv, 1626-1952 (Chatham, Ontario : Shepherd Printing, 1952) ,
London Citv- and Middlesex Coutv Direetorv. 1880- 81 (London, Ontario: Advertiser Steam Presses, 1880).
Mackenzie, William tches of Cwda and the United States ( London England: Bffingham Wilson, 1833).
Marryat, [Frederick]. - cg, 2 pts. (Paris, France: A. and W. Galignani and Company, 1840).
McCalla, Douglas. plant j n? the Province : e Econom.~c
History of urn- Cm&a l 1784-1 870, The Ontario Historical Studies Series (Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, ~1993). McCalla, Douglas . me er wdaTrade* 3.834-1.877: A Study of the Buchanas Business (Toronto, Ontario : University of Toronto Press, ~1979)- McClelland, David C . The ~cbievin_cr_Societv (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, ~1961). McIntyre, J.H., editor. oneer Davs n Aldborouuh Dedicated jn Affecti-te Memory to Our Pioneers bv thg Aldborouqh Old Boys' Association (Rodney, Ontario: Mercury Sun, s. 1934) - Mercantile A9encv Reference Rook, Cdn- ed. (Montreal, Quebec: Dun, Wiman and Company, Jan. 1876) . Middleton, Jesse E. and Fred Landon. ThgProvince of Ontari~ --A Historv. 1615-1927, 5 vols . (Toronto, Ontario : Dominion Publishing Company, cl92 7 -
Miller, Orlo. Centurn of Western Ontari~(Toronto, 0ntario : Ryerson Press, ~1949). Mitchell, Brian, ed. Irish Passencrer Lists. 1803-1806 (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Company, ~1995)-
Owram, Douglas. dina for Canadians: A Histom of the De~artmentof Public Works, 1840-1960 (Ottawa, Ontario: Public Works Canada, 1979) , Pickering, Joseph. les of an Emiaxant, new ed. (London, England: Effingham Wilson, 1831). Read, Colin and Ronald J. Stagg, eds. The Rebellion of 1837 ~n mer Canada: A-lection of Docum em(Toronto, Ontario: Champlain Society/Ontario Heritage Foundation, 1985) . Re~ortupon the Merits of the Great Western RaLlroad. Canaa West : Ry a Committee of its American Friends (Boston, Massachusetts : Eastbum1s Press, 1851) - Ryerson, Egerton. The Jlova.lists of wrica and Their Ti- From 1620 - 1816 , 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Toronto, Ontario: William Briggs, 1880 ) . Schurnpeter, Joseph A. The Theory of Economic Devo~ment, Harvard Economic Studies, vol. XLI, trans. Redvers Opie (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1934) . Spelt, Jacob. wban Develoggnent in South - Central Ontario, The Carleton Library, no. 57 (Toronto, Ontario: McClelland and Stewart, 1972). Stevens, George R. Canadian National Railwavs, 2 vols - (Toronto, Ontario : Clarke, Irwin and Company, 1960) , vol. I.
Stuart, Charles B. ort on the Great western Ra wav, Canada West. to the President and Directors (Hamilton [?I, Canada West, 1847).
Talman , James J . &ovaljst Narrativw from UDD~~Canada, (Toronto, Ontario : The Champlain Society, 1946) . Taylor, Thomas. Pe~orts of Cases Decided in the Court of KinorCanada, 2nd ed. (Toronto, Canada West : Henry Rowsell, 1862) . Thompson, Norman and J.H. Edgar. Canadian Railway D v rn Times (Toronto, Ontario : Macmillan Company of Canada, 1933) - [Tyrrell, John F .I . The Oil Districts of Canada (New York, New York: American News Company, 1865) . Van Vleck, George W- c of 1857 (New York, New York: Columbia University Press, 1943 ) - Vernonrs Citv of London, . .Directory for the Years 1908 - 1909 (Hamilton, Ontario: Henry Vernon, 1909)-
Government Publications
Canada- Legislative Assembly, Joiirnal ADD^^, 1843, 1847- Canada. Sessional Papers, 1902 . Canada- Statutes, 1845, 18494850, 1854- United States of America. Statutes, 1798- Upper Canada. House of Assembly, Journal, 18354836. Upper Canada- House of Assembly, A~nendix, 1830, 1836. Upper Canada. Legislative Council, Journal, 1835-183 6. Upper Canada. Statutes, 1827, 1828, 1834, 1836.
Newspapers
Advance (Dutton, Ontario) , 1899, 1905 - Bothwell Times, 1882-1883, 1885-1887, 1893-1894, 1896, 1898, 1900 - British Coloa (Toronto, Canada West) , 1844- Chatham Gleaner, 1844, 1847. Chatham Journal, 1844. Chatham Planet, 1854, 1861, 1864-1866, 1872, 1880, 1905. Colonial Advocate (Queenston/York, Upper Canada) , 1824-1826, 1830- Glencoe Tranacru, 1895-1896, 1899. Globe (Toronto, Canada West) , 1847, 1858, 18604864, 1866- 1867. Hamilton Gazette, 1853-1854, London Advertiser, 1865, 1876, 1901. London Free Press, 1857, 1860-1862, 1864-1867, 1874, 1876, 1925, 1927, 1929-1930, 1937, 1969, 1971. London Herala, 1843 . London Inguirex, 1842 - 1843 . London Times, 1848. Monarch (Woodstock, Canada West), 1844. Montreal Gazette, 1823, 1834. New York Commercial Advertj ser, 1805. New York Dailv Tim-, 1857. Sarnia observe^, 1861, 1863, 1865-1866. Umer Canada Gazette (York, Upper Canada), 1834. -atch (St. Thomas, Ontario), 1873. Western Herald (Sandwich, Canada West) , 1842 - Western Planet (Chatham, Canada West) , 1852 -
ITNPUBLI SE3ED SOURCES
Archives of Ontario
Gawman, Thomas. "Pioneer Life in Upper CanadaM (MU 233O), vol. I. Mosa Township Abstract Book (GS, 624) , vol . 1. 1823. Off ice of the Registrar General of Ontario (RG 80 -8) , Death Registrations (MS 9371, 1873. Records of the London District, Minutes of the Quarter Sessions of the Peace, 1823, 1840 - Township Papers (RG 1, C-IV) , Mosa Township, 1849.
British Museum
Manuscript Collection, Hardwicke Papers, vol . DWUCIV, Passengers from Ireland to America, William and Jane, September 12, 1804.
Dutchess County, New York State, Clerk's Office Mortgages, 1812 .
Energy, Mines and Resources Canada Records of the Canadia Permanent Committee on Geographical Names, James White Letters, 1906.
Kent County, Ontario, Land Registry Office Instruments, 1860-1861, 1864. Registered Plans, 1856.
Middlesex County [East], Ontario, Land Registry Office
London District Copybooks (old series), Iostruments, 1819, 1821, 1824. Registered Plans, 18 65 . Registered Plans, 1856, 1865 -
Mosa Township, Ontario, Clerk's Office Assessment Roll, 1907 - Collector' s Roll, 1902 ,
National Archives of Canada
Board of Works Papers (RG 11, 821, Correspondence, 1843- 1844. Board of Works Papers (RG 11, Al) , Instruction Book for Engineers, 1842-1843. Buchanan Papers (MG 24, D16) , vol . 2 8, Evidence of George J, Goodhue. Census, Canada (RG 31) , Mosa Township, - Middlesex County, Canada West, 1851-1861 Census, Canada (RG 31) , Mosa Township, Middlesex County, Ontario, 1901, IndianAffairs, Superintendency Records, Western (Sarnia) Superintendency, J,B . Clench Papers, 1812 - 1854 (RG 10, vol. 441) , 1840, 1849. Indian Affairs, Superintendency Records (RG 10, vol . 449) , Western ( Sarnia) Superintendency Correspondence, F, Talfourd (A to 0), 1855-1864, 1860. Provincial Secretary West Correspondence (RG 5, Cl), 1843 -1845. Records of the Post Off ice (RG 3, B4 , Correspondence from the Secretary to Post Office Inspectors, 1856- Records of the Post Off ice (RG 3, D3) , Divisional Inspectors Reports, History Record Cards. Records Relating to the ~ebellionof 1837-1838, London District Treason Trials (RG 5, B36) , Case Files. R.G. Dun Papers (MG 28, 111, 106), Canada, vol- 19, 1862- 1863. Upper Canada Land Books (RG 1, L1) , 1821, 1834. Upper Canada Land Petitions (RG 1, L3) , 181% 1821, 1834. Upper Canada Sundries (RG 5, Al) , 1819, 1821-1824, 1832, 1834, 1838.
Ontario Department of Lands and Forests
Report and Field Notes, Diary of Mahlon Burwell, It Indian Settlements at the Moravian Grant in the Townships of Zone and Orford, and on the River Thames in the Township of Carradoc,..," 1829-1830, no. 666. Putnam County, New York State, Registry of Deeds Mortgages, 1812-1813.
Guy St-Denis, London, Ontario Heath Family Papers, c. 18764880.
Talman [The J. J-1 Regional Collection, The D.B. Weldon Library, University of Western Ontario Coyne [James H, ] Papers, Diaries, 1869 - Coyne [James H, I Papers, MS , William Coyne, !I Pioneer Reminiscences of West Elgin, c. 1875. Harris Papers, London District Rebellion Losses Claims, Minutes of Commissioners, vol. 1, 1843. Harris Papers, MS, Amelia Harris, RAccount of Capt. Samuel Ryerse at Long Point, ** [c. 18591 . London District and Middlesex County Council-Minutes, 1845, 1856-1857. London District Quarter Sessions, Minutes, 1823, 1840, 1843. London District Quarter Sessions, Road Records, 1843- 1844, 1848. McMillan, - - - - - . of the Oil. Recrions . j n the Vicinitv of Bothwell, C.W., 1865-1866. Middlesex County Chancery Court, 1863-1864. Middlesex County Surrogate Court, Copybooks, 1865. Middlesex County West Land Registry, Copybooks, 1852- 1856, 1862, 1865-1867, 1872, 1875-1877, 1880, 1885, 1887, 1910-1911. Mosa Township Assessment Rolls, 1826-1900. Mosa Township, Minutes of Town Meetings, 1845-1846. Postal Inspectorsf Report Letterbook, 1856. Returns of Shop, Tavern and Still Licenses in Middlesex County, 1831-1833. Tavern Licenses for the London District, 1831-1834. Talbot [Colonel Thomas] Papers, Correspondence, 1816.
Theses
Aitchison, James H. "The Development of Local Government in Upper Canada, 1783-1850, I* 2 pts. (Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, 1953).
Cam, Robert W. "History of the Great Western Railway1*(M.A. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1947) . Hill, Bruce E, !#The Grand River Navigation Company1f(M -A - thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1964) -
Hives, Christopher L, "Flooding and Flood Control : Local Attitudes in London, Ontario, 1790-1952 (M-A. thesis, London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario, 1981).
Overton, David JOB. "An Examination of Models of Port Development : Lake Erie North Shore, 1784-1870 (M -A. thesis, University of Western Ontario, London. Ontario. 1970) -
Phelps, Edward, lcJohnHenry Fairbank of Petrolia (1831-1914): A Canadian (M.Ao thesis, University of Entrepreneurfc- - Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1965) . Taylor. Robert S. The Historical Development of the Four Welland Canals, 1824-1933tr (M.A, thesis, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, 1950 1 .
Miscellaneous
Mosa Township, Gardiner Cemetery
Tombstones : Singleton Gardiner, 1834 ; Mary (Gardiner) Gibb, 1860 ; William Gardiner, 1865.