- 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.