More About The Bulmers From Various Sources

We descend from the Bulmer family through Ida Bulmer, who married William Rutherford Junior. She was the daughter of John Bulmer, who was born in Quebec (Trois Rivieres) in 1836.  John was the son of Thomas Bulmer, who immigrated from England to Quebec with his family in 1832.  The original connection between the Bulmers and the Rutherfords was probably through business, as John Bulmer was a building contractor in Montreal, where the Rutherfords owned a lumber factory.  It is also possible that there was a connection between William Rutherford Jr. and John Rutherford's older brother Henry, who were both involved in Montreal politics. Here are a few miscellaneous bits of information about the Bulmer family. 

Marjorie Bulmer's recently published (2000) book Bulmer Genealogy agrees with other sources in stating that  Thomas Bulmer and Mary Bowling were originally from Hatfield, England.  


"Hatfield, York Co., England, Montreal, Canada.
Thomas Bulmer b. ca. 1793 m. 2 July 1816 Mary Bowling b. 1792 in St. Lawrence Church, Hatfield, Yorkshire.  They came to Canada in 1832 with four children born and baptised in Hatfield.  [They would be Thomas Jr., William, Henry, and the first John, who died young.] They settled first in Quebec P.Q. where 4th son John died and a daughter Mary was born.  The next move was to Three Rivers, P.Q. where a son John was born, Thomas was listed as a bricklayer in the parish records. Later they moved to Montreal P.Q. where they finally settled..."


Thomas Bulmer would have been about 39 years old when he brought his family to Canada.  He  appears to have worked as a bricklayer throughout his life, which was a long one.  His daughter Mary's Quebec birth record refers to him as a "bricklayer and plasterer".  His death record from the St. George Anglican Church of Montreal register reads:  "Thomas Bulmer died on the twenty-fifth day of April One Thousand Eight Hundred and Eighty-one and was buried on the twenty-seventh day of the same month and year.  Aged eighty-seven years and seven months."  

I also found a death notice for Thomas Bulmer in, surprisingly, the True Witness and Catholic Chronicle newspaper of April 27, 1881.  On page it reads "Yesterday morning Mr. Thomas Bulmer, while ascending a ladder, lost his balance and fell to the ground a distance of some twenty feet.  He was at once conveyed to his home and Dr. McCallum summoned.  Despite the exertions of the doctor, Mr. Bulmer never recovered, dying yesterday afternoon from the effects of the injuries." 

I'm curious about what a man of roughly 87 years was doing twenty feet up a ladder away from home.  Was he still involved in construction?  He must have had remarkable stamina.

Here is the death record for Mary Bowling, age 90, 1882.  Thomas Bulmer predeceased her by just under a year.  This is from St. George Anglican Church, Montreal.

Her death notice in the Montreal Gazette on June 12, 1882, reads:

"Bulmer.  At the residence of her daughter, No. 40 Catheart street, on the 10th instant, Mary Bowling, relict of Thomas Bulmer, aged 90 years.  The funeral will take place from No. 40 Catheart street, this (Monday) afternoon, the 12th inst., at 2:30 o'clock.  Friends will please accept this intimation."

Thomas Campbell Bulmer, their grandson (he was the son of Thomas Bulmer Jr. and Emma Phoebe Fearon), was a successful businessman in Montreal before he ended his own life (see previous post). Here is a brief biography of Thomas from the book  Montreal 1535-1914 Vol. 3 by William H. Atherton,  p. 398-99.

"THOMAS CAMPBELL BULMER.  The attractive suburb of Westmount is largely the monument to the business enterprise and progressive methods of Thomas Campbell Bulmer, now deceased, who was almost a lifelong resident of Montreal, and for a long period an active factor in its business circles.  He was born at Three Rivers, Quebec, in 1846, and was educated in the public schools there and in Montreal, being brought to the latter city when a youth of ten years by his father, Thomas Bulmer, who was a native of Yorkshire, England, and on coming to Canada settled at Three Rivers, but in 1856 removed to Montreal, where for many years he was active as a contractor and builder. He married Anna Phoebe Fearon, [sic--her name was Emma Pheobe Fearon and she was  actually T.C. Bulmer's  mother] also a native of England.

When his school days were over, Thomas Campbell Bulmer served an apprenticeship to the book binding trade, became proficient as a workman and in 1868 joined Henry Morton and Charles Phillips in a partnership under the style of Morton, Phillips and Bulmer.  The business developed and grew until until the firm occupied a prominent position among stationers, blank book makers and printers.  A few years prior to this death Mr. Bulmer withdrew from that connection, in which he had realized a handsome profit, to engage in the real-estate business at Westmount.  He was recognized as the father of that beautiful suburb, having been one of the first men to foresee the value of that section as a residential district.  He was actively engaged to the time of his death in its improvement, development and upbringing and made it one of the most beautiful suburban districts of Montreal.

Mr. Bulmer passed away on April 7th, 1902.  For many years he had been an exemplary representative of the Masonic fraternity and had been equally faithful as a member of the Anglican church.  Sterling motives and high principals guided him in all of his relations and made him an upright man, so that he left behind him not only the substantial rewards of earnest, persistent labor, but also that good name which is to be chosen in preference to great riches."  

An advertising calendar from the firm Norton Phillips & Bulmer, 1883.

Thomas and Mary's son John Bulmer (our ancestor) married Elizabeth Ladd,  the daughter of Calvin Palmer Ladd and Polly Harmon, and grand-daughter of the explorer Daniel Williams Harmon and his half-native wife Lisette.  Here is a copy of John and Elizabeth's marriage record:

I love this record, because it has so many family signatures on it:  not just John and Elizabeth, the newlyweds, but also Calvin Palmer (C.P.) Ladd, Henry Bulmer, a member of the Maxwell family (Henry Bulmer's wife was Jane Maxwell), and lastly, a Harmon signature.  Too bad it's only initials--I wonder if it could be the signature of Abby Maria Harmon, who would be Elizabeth Ladd's aunt?

Sarah Dolphin, Home Child

Home Children on a Canadian Stamp

In 1901, the census tells us, William Jr. and Ida (Bulmer) Rutherford had a 14-year-old domestic servant, a girl named Sarah Dolphin who was born in England.  Further investigation at Library and Archives Canada reveals that Sarah was a Home Child.  This is what I can discover about her story.

Sarah and her family appear on the 1891 census of England, living in the St. Martin district of Liverpool, Lancashire.  Her parents are Richard Dolphin, age 34, and Rachel Dolphin, age 26.  Sarah is 4 years old on this census, and she has three siblings:  Mary A. Dolphin, age 8, Esther Dolphin, age 6, and James Dolphin, age 5 months.  They live at 13 Court (Street?), in a two-room house.  Her father is a Carter by occupation;  it is evidently a working-class neighbourhood as their fellow street-dwellers have occupations such as Fish Hawker, Clothes Gatherer, Basket Girl, Charwoman, and Dock Laborer.   The oldest girl in the Dolphin family, Mary, attends school, the others are presumably too young.  The father, Richard Dolphin, is probably illiterate as he signed his marriage record with an X (Rachel was able to sign her maiden name, Rachel Hayes Wright). The whole family, including Richard and Rachel, were born in Liverpool.  Richard and Rachel's fathers were both Carters by occupation as well.

Death records for Lancashire show that Rachel Dolphin was buried on 22 September 1896 at age 31  in Ford Cemetery. I can find no death record for Richard. 

In the 1901 census of England, James Dolphin appears living at St. George Industrial School in Everton, Lancashire.  This is an all-boys boarding school for orphans and destitute children and at ten years of age he appears to be one of the younger students.

On September 21, 1896, the day before their mother's burial, Sarah, Mary and Esther Dolphin arrived in Montreal on the ship Sardinian.  The ship had left England on September 10th.  They were with a group of 32 children going to Montreal under the protection of Miss Yates of the Liverpool Catholic Children's Protection Society.     The words "from workhouses" appears beside the children's names.  Sarah is ten years old, Esther is twelve, and Mary is fourteen.

Ship's Passenger List Recording Sarah, Mary and Esther Dolphin's Arrival in Canada.

The girls travelled to Canada together, but by 1901 they were separated;  probably they were separated shortly after their arrival.  The 1901 census finds Esther living as a domestic servant with the family of Robert and Mary Duclos and their six children, also in Westmount. Mary does not appear on the census at all.  In 1901, Sarah, although she is only 14 years old, is not attending school.  The 1901 census says that she can read, write, and can speak English and French, but at what level we don't know. By the 1911 census Sarah has left the Rutherford household and Esther has left the Duclos household.  Where did they go?

Sarah Dolphin and her sisters drop off the Montreal records after 1901.  They were three of approximately 118,000 children sent to Canada under the Child Immigration Scheme which began in 1863 and, astonishingly,  did not completely end until 1939.  Under this program British children from poor families  were brought in to Canada to serve as unpaid domestic and farm labour.   They were required to remain with the families they were placed with until they turned eighteen, while these families had no obligation to educate them or even treat them well. Historians now believe that very few of these children were true orphans, rather, their families had been either temporarily or permanently  incapacitated by poverty in a society which had no government supported social safety net as we know it today.   According to the British Home Children Advocacy and Research Association and many other sources, often British families without other resources would place their children in the care of charitable aid societies for what they hoped was a short period.  Once the children were shipped to Canada without the parent's knowledge or consent, they would be impossible for the family left behind to locate.  No effort was made to minimize the trauma of being uprooted from family by at least keeping siblings together, as evidenced by the case of the four Dolphin siblings.  It makes me truly sick to think that Sarah was the age my youngest child is right now when she crossed the ocean and entered the Rutherford household in service, all alone.  I hope they were kind to her. I wonder where she ended up.

A Clue!

Elizabeth Jackson married William Rutherford Senior on May 30, 1856, and together they founded a large and socially active family.  Although the Rutherford roots are quite well documented, I've been able to find out very little about Elizabeth Jackson and where she came from.  The only pieces of information I have found before this week were on their marriage register, which was witnessed by a Thomas Jackson (although the relationship was not stated) and her recently found obituary, which stated that she was born in Biggar, Scotland, and came to Canada as a child with her parents.  I've done an unsuccessful search for Elizabeth in the 1851 census, and indeed I've been unable to find any Jackson family in that census which lived in Montreal but came from Scotland.  Now I have one more piece of information to add to the hope of tracking down Elizabeth's family;  this week I tracked down a copy of the Montreal Gazette which had a short wedding announcement for the couple.

"In this city on the 30th ultimo, Mr. William Rutherford, to Elizabeth, eldest daughter of Mr. Thomas Jackson, all of Montreal."  (June 2, 1856, p. 2).

This is great!  Now I can confirm that the Thomas Jackson at Elizabeth and William's wedding was indeed her father and not a brother or cousin.  It also appears that Elizabeth had younger siblings, probably sisters. Her mother is not mentioned, but knowing the name of her father will definitely help find her birth family.  I wonder if he was in the construction trade?  

Obituary for William Rutherford Jr.

From the Montreal Gazette, February 29, 1932.  Page 4.

"WESTMOUNT LOSES PROMINENT CITIZEN IN W. RUTHERFORD / Former Mayor and Alderman of Suburban City Dies in 68th Year / LEADING INDUSTRIALIST / Was Director of Lumber Business Bearing Family Name--Had Various Sporting Associations.

Over the city hall of Westmount a flag flew at half mast yesterday.  It signified that the municipality is  mourning one of its most distinguished sons--William Rutherford, ex-alderman, former mayor, and widely known business man, who died on Saturday evening at his home, 458 Mount Stephen avenue.  He was 67 years of age and had been ill for a long time.

Always interested in civic affairs, Mr. Rutherford was elected by acclamation to the highest post the municipality could offer, that of chief magistrate.  He occupied the mayoral chair for the term of 1911-12 and previous to that had been an alderman for three years.

His business activities were centred in the Rutherford Lumber Company, formerly known as the William Rutherford and Sons, Company, Limited.  This firm was founded by Mr. Rutherford's father.  At the time of his death he was a director of this firm having served for many years as treasurer.  

Mr. Rutherford had wide business interests and was called upon to serve on the board of many business associations.  He was a past president of the Quebec branch of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, a past president of the mechanics institute and a former councillor of the Montreal Board of Trade.  

Following his term as mayor of the city of Westmount he was elected chairman of  the board of school commissioners of the municipality, a post he filled with distinction for many years.

Keenly interested in sports, Mr. Rutherford was a life member of the Montreal Athletic Association, and, as a younger man, he belonged to many curling and bowling clubs.  

He was a lifelong member of St. Andrews Church, Westmount. 

BORN IN MONTREAL.

William Rutherford was born in Montreal on April 22, 1864.  His father, William, was a native of Scotland, locating here in 1852, and he established his lumber business in 1856.  He was one of the pioneers in the development of the Province of Quebec, and was of that famous old Scotch and Presbyterian strain which produced many of the sturdy men of Canada.  His mother was Elizabeth (Jackson) Rutherford, also a native of Scotland.

Mr. Rutherford received his education in the high schools of the city, later taking a course at the private school of the late Professor Edward Springrice.

He is survived by his wife, formerly Miss Ida Bulmer;  three sons,  William Jackson, John Bulmer and Andrew Scott Rutherford;  two daughters, Mrs. H.G.D. Ross of Larchmount, New York, and Mrs. R.H. Wallace, of Shawinigan Falls;  four brothers,  Andrew Rutherford and Stewart S. Rutherford of Montreal, Forest Rutherford of New York, and Gordon S. Rutherford, of Painesville, Ohio, and two sisters, Mrs. William Dunlop of Ottawa, and Mrs. Thomas McIntosh, of Montreal.  

The funeral service will be held at 2:30 o'clock in St. Andrews United Church, Westmount.  Internment will be made in the Mount Royal Cemetery."  

The more I read about William Jr., the more I picture him as a vigorous, active and successful man, comfortable with leadership, and interested in making a mark on his city, which he certainly seems to have done.  I'm still trying unsuccessfully to find out more about his mother, Elizabeth Jackson, and her family.  Hopefully I'll get a breakthrough soon.

"His Record Was As White and Pure As Snow": The Career of Mr. Henry Bulmer, or, Fame, Scandal, and Interesting Connections

Mr. Henry Bulmer, circa. 1880.  McCord Museum Collection.

I started looking into the career of Henry Bulmer for a post I have been preparing on the Bulmer family of Montreal, but there's so much available on him that I'm giving  him his very own post--he's making the Bulmer post awkwardly long.  Henry Bulmer was born in 1822 in Hatfield, England, to our ancestors Thomas Bulmer and Mary Bowling.  He, his parents and three siblings immigrated to Quebec in 1832, where they eventually settled in Montreal.  Thomas Bulmer, his father,  was a bricklayer and plasterer, but his son would expand those horizons considerably.  Henry was the older brother of John Bulmer, from whom we descend.  He married Jane Maxwell in 1848, and he died in 1912.  Upon his death the Montreal Gazette printed a biographical news article about him.

Montreal Gazette.  October 2, 1912.p. 5.

"Index to the News (front page):  Page 5.  Death of Mr. Henry Bulmer at age of 92."
"Mr. Henry Bulmer Died Yesterday / Former Chairman of Harbor Board and Noted Figure in City's Affairs / Resident Here 75 Years / Death Recalls Some Incidents Which Form Part of History of City.

Mr. Henry Bulmer, who for over a half century was identified with the business growth of Montreal and who had reached the advanced age of ninety-two years, passed away yesterday at his residence, 330 Mackay street.  Mr. Bulmer's death was very sudden.  He resided with his two sisters and he died almost in the act of reading to them a letter which he had just received from his son in New York.

Mr. Bulmer leaves two sons, Messrs F.T. Bulmer of New York and John A. Bulmer of this city. Three sisters also survive him, Miss Bulmer, Mrs. J.B. Bond of Montreal, and Mrs. Tiplin of Newark, N.J.

For many years, Mr. Bulmer was active in public life.  After long service in the City Council he was selected to run against the late John Louis Beaudry for the office of mayor.  He was for a long period a member and at one time chairman of the Montreal Harbor Board and was an outstanding figure among conservatives in federal politics.  He lived under five British sovereigns and was sworn in as magistrate under the last three rulers of the British Empire. 

 Mr. Bulmer, who was born in Hatfield, Yorkshire, England, came to Canada with his father, Mr. Thomas Bulmer, when ten years of age and after reaching manhood was for many years engaged in the building trade.  His career as a member of the Montreal City Council beginning as far back as fifty-six, was a marked one, several people now living recalling the advanced position taken by Mr. Bulmer in the discussion of all matters concerning the welfare of this city.  In 1883 when a strong feeling arose throughout the city against the continuous occupancy of the mayor's chair by the late John Louis Beaudry a number of leading French-Canadians united with the English party and invited Mr. Bulmer to stand for the position of chief magistrate.  Already an Irish candidate in the person of the late Judge Marcus Doherty had endeavored in vain to dislodge Mr. Beaudry, who, although a strong man and a good administrator appeared to believe that he had a perpetual lease of the position of chief magistrate. Mr. Bulmer made a good fight and polled a large French vote,  but he was defeated by a section of his own co-religionists who either voted against him or remained away from the polls.  When a tombstone was erected to the memory of Hackett, the victim of the so-called Orange riots in this city some imprudent people had caused the following words to be inscribed;  'murdered by an Irish Catholic mob,' which was removed by Mr. Bulmer then a member of the Mount Royal Cemetery directorate and this act so it was ascribed at the time caused several hundred ultra-Protestants to remain away from the polls.

IN NOTABLE POLITICAL FIGHT 

For years Mr. Bulmer held a prominent place in the direction of the Conservative party in this city, and when Mr. M.H. Gault...in 1878 expressed a desire to retire Henry Bulmer was chosen as the conservative standard bearer at the federal election of 1882, Sir John MacDonald having decided to go to the country a year before the five years had expired.  Unfortunately, however, at that time the party was split into two factions, the second supporting Lieut.-Col. 'Sandy' Stevenson for the seat, formerly held by Mr. Gault.  As both Mr. Bulmer and the Colonel were personal friends of the Prime Minister he declined to interfere and the fight went on, friendly at first, but finally more or less feeling developed.  The party then decided to select seven Bulmer men and seven Stevenson supporters and they went into caucus...and they fought it out for two sittings without being able to reach anything but a deadlock in the party nomination.  At a third meeting it was agreed to have a thirteenth member, Hon. John Hamilton, to act as chairman, and if necessary cast a deciding vote.  Meantime A.P. Macdonald... decided to break the deadlock and put in a blank ballot, giving seven for Stevenson and six for Bulmer, thus obviating a ruling on the part of the chairman.  Col. Stevenson was thus in the field, but Mr. Bulmer's host of friends throughout the city did not go to work as the leaders of the party hoped for.  As a last resource a little band of the faithful who saw the danger of going to the polls in so feeble a manner repaired to Mr. M.H. Gault's house the day before the official nomination and following an extended interview the ex-M.P. consented to again enter the field. Mr. Gault was returned by 1,700 majority although he had defeated his Liberal opponent four years before by 2,500, the split in the party being, no doubt, responsible for the drop in the ministerial majority.

CHAIRMAN OF HARBOR BOARD

Later Mr. Bulmer became chairman of the Montreal Harbor Board...When Sir Wilfrid Laurier came to power in 1896 and when the business of the harbor (was at a later period turned over to his command?) Mr. Bulmer never lost interest in the affairs of the port and he was ever ready to give his advice on matters with which he had been for so many years familiar.     

Mr. Henry Bulmer lived under five British sovereigns, viz. George IV, William IV, Victoria, Edward VII, and George V, and he was sworn in as magistrate under England's three last rulers.  Mr. Bulmer was a Britisher first, last and always, and a very patriotic Canadian.  In religion he belonged to the Anglican communion, being one of the oldest members of St. George's Church, attending regularly the services up to a few months ago.  He was a warm personal friend of the late Bishop Bond and the late Bishop Carmichael and enjoyed to a marked degree the esteem of all races and creeds in the community in which he had lived and labored for three-quarters of a century.  He was at different periods chairman of the Mechanic's Institute governing board, president of St. George's Society, and was captain in early life of the Montreal Foot Artillery.  During the past two years deceased [sic] did not come down town frequently, but when he did a warm welcome was always accorded him on St. James street, and apparently one of the happiest days of his life was his visit to the down town sections the morning following the triumph of his political party a little over a year ago.  'I always had faith', he said, 'in my fellow countrymen, and they have not disappointed me' was the old man's cheery remark to those who grasped his hand."

Henry did seem to have a personal relationship, or at least a very cordial and familiar business relationship,  with Sir John A. MacDonald.  Library and Archives Canada has extensive correspondence between the two posted online.  Here are some examples:

This one's a bit hard to read.  It's an early letter, from 1884, and is a bit more formal in tone than later correspondence.  Here is my transcription:

"Montreal 22 Dec./84
My dear Sir John, 
Amidst the many congratulations you are receiving on your safe return and the many honors you have received and so well deserved will you kindly allow me to offer you my sincere congratulations and confess the pleasure I felt after reading the report of your great speech in Toronto at the convention there.  It was worthy of you and the occasion.  Through storm and sunshine I have always had an abiding faith in your genius and ability to guide us onward, and I trust you will long be spared to do so.  Be good enough to accept the best wishes of your humble and faithful admirer,
Henry Bulmer." 

Again, congratulations, this time in telegraph form:

Congratulatory telegram from Henry Bulmer to Sir John on the occasion of his
winning the 1891 election.  "Glad at your personal victory and general success yesterday.  Henry Bulmer"

Here Henry is strictly business:

Letter to Sir John A. MacDonald regarding the Montreal Harbor.
Henry asks Sir John to use his "all powerful influence" on his behalf.

But wait!  What's the meaning of this third letter?  

This mysterious letter is dated 18 July 1882 and says:

"My dear Sir John,
I rec'd your very kind letter and want to thank you for it.  I am glad to know that you are satisfied with my action in my late troubles here.  
I remain, 
Your most (?) servant, 
Henry Bulmer"

I'm guessing that the troubles had to do with his failed  fight for the conservative candidacy opposite Col. Stevenson, which was referred to in his obituary.  The Quebec Daily Telegraph is rather uncomplimentary about the skirmish:

"TWO CONSERVATIVES ON THE WAR PATH / Government patronage is worth something and we have no question of doubt the split in the Conservative ranks in Montreal, is due to a division over the spoils.  It is not due to patriotism, for there is a lack of it when two great men are ready to draw swords on each other, and fight as rebels against their chiefs.  Mr. Bulmer and Col. Stevenson are prominent men and are ready to quarrel, over the choice of persons for one of the divisions of Montreal, at a time, singular to say, when the seat is secured.  The conservatives held a meeting and it appears that both gentlemen received the nomination and are in the field..."     
Whatever troubles Henry experienced in 1882, they must have been nothing compared to the scandal which broke out around him in 1884, having to do with a questionable banking transaction of his in 1883.  It made front-page headlines in The Toronto Daily Mail, June 5, 1884:

"DOINGS IN MONTREAL / ANOTHER SCANDAL IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXCHANGE BANK / EX-DIRECTORS CHARGED WITH CONSPIRACY...

From our own correspondent.  Montreal, June 4--A sensation was created here this afternoon on it becoming known that Messrs. Alexander Buntin, paper manufacturer, and Henry Bulmer, senior contractor, ex-directors of the Exchange bank, had been arrested on a charge of conspiracy in connection with Thomas Craig, the absconding president, in accepting a preference over the creditors of the bank after the failure of the institution.  The amount drawn out by Mr. Buntin was ten thousand dollars, which he has refunded since, and the charge against Mr. Bulmer is for giving his cheque against his deposit for five hundred dollars, to meet a note  which he had endorsed for a friend, and to help the latter to meet his engagement.  The Banking Act makes the acceptance of a preference by a director or official of a bank a misdemeanor under the... circumstances. The accused entered into bail at once, and it is understood the matter will go to the assizes.  The prosecutor...is Mr. A. Davis, superintendent of the North Shore railway, who is a depositor of $18,000.  The proceedings have been expected, as the prosecutor notified the defendants to that effect through a lawyer some time ago. 
  


The Quebec Daily Telegraph, on July 23, 1884, is rather tart in its appraisal of the situation:

"MR BULMER AND THE EXCHANGE BANK /  We are sorry that some of our people should be so anxious to become directors of banks without first ascertaining their true character and position.  When Mr. Bulmer became director of the Exchange Bank, it was when it was rotten to the core.  He had a right as director to make himself au fait with all the affairs of the institution, but he erred on this point and is now made to suffer.  But he is not unlike many others of the same type.  They do not care what position the Bank is in, so long as they can borrow for their own ends.  In this city, we know a couple of directors who have borrowed until they could get no more funds out of the institution.  Do they strengthen the bank?  Do they, by this means, help to build up their institution?  We certainly say no.  Such men are a mockery to our banks, and a disgrace to the cashier.  To make a bank healthy and powerful, directors must be independent men, possessed of capital and ability, and at any time capable of silencing any person who would commit a wrong act.  Was it so with Mr. Craig?  It seems not and for this reason Mr. Bulmer had no right to accept the position as director.  There must be some kind of fraud shown or strongly presumed in order to make the case solid against Mr. Bulmer, and this was wholly wanting.  If there had been any bad faith or desire on Mr. Bulmer's part on September 22nd to use his position as director to obtain undue preferences, would he not have applied the whole amount of his deposit to the payment of the note due instead of merely $500.  Of course, this is his defense, but it is the court that will declare as to his innocence or guilt."

On August 12, 1884, Henry Bulmer was found guilty as charged.  Not only that, but the magistrate complained of "annoying" attempts to influence his decision from "people of very high standing".  I wonder who they were.  Perhaps Sir John A. himself?  

Here is the report in the Montreal Daily Witness for August 12, 1844, p. 4:

"THE EXCHANGE BANK / SHAREHOLDER AND DIRECTOR /  THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION IN THE BULMER CASE

This afternoon Mr. Desnoyes, the police magistrate, rendered judgement on the charge against Mr. Henry Bulmer, of having, when a director the Exchange bank [sic], given himself an undue preference.  In giving judgement he said that this action had been taken under a section of the Banking Act which declares that any bank director president or official giving any person an undue preference after the suspension of a bank was guilty of a misdemeanor...It was pleaded that Mr. Bulmer was a depositor in the Exchange Bank and a debtor of the bank as well, and that he had a right to set off his debt by his credit.  It was proved that, on the 22nd of September last Mr. Bulmer was a director of the Exchange Bank, and that on the 15th September the Exchange Bank closed its doors and never resumed payment.  It was likewise proven that on the 22nd September a note of $5,000, signed by Mr. Bulmer, came due, and at that time he had a deposit of $1,084 in the bank.  This note was taken up by a cheque for $500 and $4,500 in cash, the cheque being charged against Mr. Bulmer's account so as to reduce it to $584.  It was pleaded that this was but setting off a debt by a credit, and that this could not be considered an undue preference.  Had the note in question never left the possession of the Exchange Bank this might have applied;  but it was proved that on the 25th of June the note in question was re-discounted to the Quebec Bank.  At this time Mr. Bulmer was a director of the bank, and had free access to its archives and books, not only could he easily discover what had become of his note, but it was his duty to know.    


At this point the plot thickens, as Mr. Buntin becomes rather suspiciously involved:

 How did this note get back to the Exchange Bank?  It was evidently Mr. Buntin's interest to have it brought back, and from the evidence it was plain that the $4,500 cash received from Mr. Bulmer was used for the redemption of this note, the Quebec Bank receiving a cheque of $5,000 upon the account of the Exchange Bank with that institution to directly pay for it.  This left no doubt that the note was the property of the Quebec Bank, and therefore that Mr. Bulmer was in the same position as was Mr. Bunting [sic] or any other depositor in the bank, and he had no right to set off his credit against such a debit.  At the time the affair took place it was proved that everybody believed that the bank would recover its position, or at least pay its depositors in full;  therefore much could be said as to the good faith with which Mr. Bulmer had acted.  But this was a matter which a jury must decide, not a magistrate.   

And here comes the complaint of attempted influence:

In closing his remarks Mr. Desnoyers said that speaking both for himself and Mr. Dugas he must refer to a somewhat delicate matter.  While this case and that of Mr. Buntin had been en delibere, they had been approached by a number of persons of very high standing upon this subject.  While they were quite positive that these people were acting under the most benevolent feelings this was extremely annoying.  As magistrates they had a duty, however painful, to perform and the responsibility placed upon them, which they could not allow to be violated, was very great indeed.  Mr. Bulmer then pleaded 'not guilty' to the charge, and was admitted to bail upon his own recognizance for $400, to appear before the next session of the Court of Queen's Bench."     

 Ultimately Henry beat the rap.  The Toronto Daily Mail on September 10, 1884 was almost fawning in its report of his exoneration:

"THE EXCHANGE BANK / INDICTMENT AGAINST MR. BULMER IGNORED BY THE GRAND JURY  / PUBLIC SYMPATHY WITH THE DEFENDANT 

From our own correspondent.  Montreal, September 9--The Grand Jury at the assizes today rejected the bill of indictment which was sent up at the instance of Mr. Davis against Mr. Hy. Bulmer for obtaining a preference from the Exchange Bank, thus showing that in the minds of the members of the grand panel there was a great difference between the case of Mr. Buntin, who drew ten thousand in gold, and that of Mr. Bulmer, who merely gave a cheque on his deposit, believing it to be legal, for $500 to meet a note he had maturing in the bank, but which turned out to have been discounted without his knowledge in the Quebec Bank.  It, no doubt, was taken into consideration by the jury that when Mr. Bulmer gave the cheque it was thoroughly understood, in the opinion of the lawyers of the bank itself, that any one had the right to meet his indebtedness by drawing on the deposits he had in the insolvent institution.  From the first there was sympathy for Mr. Bulmer, who, as already shown in THE MAIL, was in no way compromised by the terrible wreck of the bank, for as is well-known the getting of the heavy loans and the discounting of the prime notes in other banks held by the Exchange commenced long before he was roped in by false representations of the bank's standing to be a member of the board.  He has paid dearly out of his own pocket for his confidence in the representations of others.  There is another feature which is greatly to his credit, and that is he / STOOD UP MANFULLY / after he became aware of the ruin that had been perpetrated on all alike by the management, to get removed as speedily as possible the old regime, and to replace them by new and independent liquidators.  He did all this amid a great deal of obloquy from those holding the balance of power at the time;  but it was his action, nevertheless, that compelled his conferes to resign.  The sympathy, thererfore, of nearly all outsiders and people interested has been with Bulmer throughout, and the general wish was that he would not be forced on a mere technicality to go through the ordeal of a public trial, for no man of high spirit and integrity like Mr. Bulmer but would feel the indignity of being arraigned in a criminal court, although his record was as white and pure as snow.  The accused gentleman has passed many decades of life in Montreal, has raised a numerous family, and made a competence for himself if not for those after him, but his sons are all self-dependent, and he has accomplished this by his intelligent industry, perseverance, and integrity, the later unassaid until the action was taken, as most independent and unbiased people think and so express themselves, injudiciously, to use a mild term, by Mr. Davis, the prosecutor. The congratulations of citizens of all conditions and  degrees of influence here, after the bill was ignored, manifested plainly that popular opinion on both sides of politics cordially endorsed the ruling of the grand jury, which was largely composed of French-Canadians, as is always the case at the Queen's bench trials here.  So far as Mr. Bulmer is concerned the matter is triumphantly settled.  Mr. Bulmer has repudiated, as his friends knew he would, the insinuation that he used influence through certain persons to get the jury to throw out the indictment.  It is needless to say that not a particle of evidence direct or indirect to the effect mentioned has been produced."   

Mr. Buntin wasn't quite as fortunate.  He was sentenced to ten days in jail for his part in the shenanigans.  His sentence made The New York Times because it was so unusual for a wealthy man to be jailed for a crime of this nature.

The New York Times, December 3, 1884:

"A MILLIONAIRE SENT TO JAIL / MR. BUNTIN, OF MONTREAL, TO INHABIT A CELL FOR TEN DAYS

Montreal, December 2--Sentence was given today in the case of the liquidators of the Exchange Bank, which failed some time ago, against Mr. Alexander Buntin...Mr Buntin, on appearing in court, was accompanied by several friends, and the court room was very crowded, the proceedings having excited very great interest...from the fact that Buntin is a millionaire, and one of the wealthiest men in the Dominion.  Judge Monk, in passing sentence, said he did not wish to disguise the regret he felt at the duty imposed on him....For the offense the statute prescribed imprisonment in jail for any period not exceeding two years.  No fine was allowable.  Otherwise he might have imposed one.  But the court was disposed, in view of the fact that restitution of the money with interest had been made, to be lenient, and would consequently limit the term of imprisonment as much as possible.  The sentence would therefore be imprisonment in the common jail of this district for the period of 10 days.  Mr. Buntin was then removed to the jail, where, as he will be allowed to furnish his own bed, bedding, and food, the millionaire convict will not be so badly off.  Before being taken to jail Mr. Buntin was condoled by the Hon. A.W. Ogilvie, Henry Bulmer, and E.K. Green, all ex-Directors of the defunct bank, and the Rev. R. Campbell, a Presbyterian divine.  In conversation he said he felt he had done nothing to be ashamed of, but he would bow to the law, which last remark was certainly making a virtue of necessity."       

Henry Bulmer's name appears in the news again in 1890 in conjunction with a much more celebrated civic event, the visit of Prince George of Wales, later King George V.  Prince George had joined the Royal Navy at age 12 and came to Canada with the navy.  The Dominion Illustrated of September 20, 1890 describes the visit on page 4:

VISIT OF PRINCE GEORGE OF WALES... Prince George of Wales was born on the third of June, 1865, and at an early age entered the Royal Navy.  During the present year he was promoted to the command of the Thrush, a screw gun boat recently built, of 1,200 horse power...During the forenoon of Tuesday, September 9, the wharves of this city presented an aspect of unusual bustle and expectancy.  A multitude of loyal citizens had assembled to witness the arrival of the H.M.S. Thrush with her royal commander on board, accompanied by the gunboat Canada.  The vessels in the neighbourhood of the Victoria Wharf had run up their showiest bunting, the battery on St. Helen's Island had run up its flag of welcome, and from the top of the City Hall and the Harbour Commissioner's building flags floated gaily on the breeze. ...As the Canada cast anchor the Thrush hove in sight away down the river, and at 1:30 she was moored close to the stern of the Canada, the crowd extending a hearty welcome to her royal commander, which Prince George...acknowledged by raising his hat...as he passed along every head was uncovered and cheering was the order of the day....Whilst the Prince was on board the Canada,  Mr. H. Bulmer, Mr. Richard White, and Captain Howard, representing the Harbour Commissioners,  were shown into the presence of His Royal Highness and Admiral Watson, to whom they extended a cordial welcome to the city..."

 Here's a picture of Prince George of Wales during the time he was in command of the Thrush:

 

So it seems that Henry bounced back from scandal to resume his successful and rather prestigious  career.  There are several portraits of him in the McCord Museum collection, and they all show a  happy and prosperous-looking fellow.  He seems also to have been very well respected within his family, as he appears as witness in many family baptismal and marriage documents.  Here's a final biography of him, found in The Canadian Men and Women of the Time:  A Handbook of Canadian Biography (Toronto:  W. Briggs, 1898). 


"Bulmer, Henry, contractor and builder, was b. in England, and came to Canada, 1832. He settled in Montreal, 1841, and since then has run a long and successful business career.  Elected to the City Council 1856, he became an ald. 1859. Among other positions filled by him from time to time have been the following:  Presdt. Mech. Inst., Presdt. St. George's Soc., Chairman Bd. of Arts and Manf., Chairman Bd. of Harbour Commrs.  He served as a capt. in the Montreal Foot Arty,[sic]  at the time of the "Oregon" difficulty, and was on the directorate of the defunct Exchange Bank.  He is a Freemason, a Prot., and a Con. [Protestant and Conservative].  He m., early in life, Miss Jane Maxwell (she died 1892).  52 Mackay Street, Montreal."  

Biography of William Rutherford Jr., or, Don't These Men Ever Sleep?

This biographical sketch is from Montreal 1535-1914 Vol. 3 by William H. Atherton.  The S.J. Clark Publishing Company, Montreal, 1914. p. 245.  It summarizes the life of an extraordinarily busy man!  I also like that it gives us some extra information about William Sr. as well. 

"WILLIAM RUTHERFORD.  The steps in the orderly progression of William Rutherford whereby he has reached his present advanced position in business circles of Montreal are easily discernible and each forward step has brought him a broader outlook and wider opportunities.  Born in Montreal, April 22, 1964, he is a son of William and Elizabeth (Jackson) Rutherford, both of whom are of Scotch birth, the former coming from Jedburgh, Roxburghshire, and the latter from Biggar, Lanarkshire.  They were representatives of the excellent Scotch type that has done so much for Canada and its substantial upbuilding.  The father was a member of the first council of Cote St. Antoine, which afterward became Westmount.  He was an enthusiastic curler and greatly enjoyed other outdoor sports.  His interests, however, were largely concentrated on the development and management of important business interests.  He founded the lumber firm of William Rutherford and Sons in 1852 and was largely instrumental in developing it into one of the most extensive lumber enterprises in Canada.  

In the acquirement of his education William Rutherford attended successively the schools of Cote St. Antoine, the high school of Montreal and the private school conducted by Hon. E.H. Springrice.  He crossed the threshold of the business world as a junior clerk with Gillespie, Moffat & Company, general merchants, and subsequently became a clerk for the Pillow Hersey Manufacturing Company, owners of rolling mills, etc.  Subsequently he entered the firm of William Rutherford & Sons of Montreal and upon incorporation of the company became its treasurer.  The business is conducted today under the style of William Rutherford & Sons Company, Ltd., dealers in and manufacturers of lumber and timber.  The business is now one of mammoth proportions and in his official capacity William Rutherford of this review is bending his energies to administrative direction and executive control.  Into other fields he has also extended his efforts and his business interests are now of considerable volume and importance, placing him among the prominent representatives of commercial and industrial activity in the province.  He is now the president of the Dominion Box Company, Ltd., of the Grier Timber Company and of the Dominion Park Realty Company, Ltd.

On the 16th of May 1894, in Montreal, Mr. Rutherford married Miss Ida Bulmer, a daughter of John Bulmer and a representative of a well known Montreal family.  Their children are William J., John B., Jean, Andrew S. and Marjory.  Presbyterian in religious faith, the family hold membership in St. Andrew's Church of Westmount.  Mr. Rutherford is a liberal in politics, conversant with the leading questions and issues of the day.  He has filled a number of local offices, having been elected alderman of Westmount in 1908, while in 1910 he was chosen mayor of the city.  In 1913 he was made school commissioner of the city and in 1912-13 was a member of the executive committee of the Canadian Manufacturing Association.  He is also a member of the committee of St. Andrew's Society, while along more strictly social lines his membership is in the Canada, Engineers, Manitou, and North Lake  fish and game clubs.  His success permits him that leisure which enables him to enjoy hunting, fishing and other outdoor and indoor sports, but he is preeminently a business man and one whose successful methods might be studied by all who wish to gain prosperity within the legitimate line of business."      

His success permits him leisure??? You've got to be kidding me!  He's president of three companies and treasurer of a third!  And involved in city politics!  And raising a family of five!  And goes to church on Sundays!

Here is a sketch of William Jr. from the 1900 book Canadians As We See 'Em, by the Canada Newspaper Cartoonists Association.  

William Rutherford Jr., every inch the successful businessman. 

Mrs. William Rutherford Receives On Wednesdays

No telephones, no e-mail--how did ladies manage their social lives during the 1800s?  Anyone who's ever read Jane Austen can tell you--it's all about the "at home" or receiving day and the visiting card.  There was a whole etiquette around women visiting each other at home, which in urban settings involved a social directory such as Dau's Society Blue Book.  Published biannually for many urban centres in Canada and the United States, the primary job of the Dau's Society Blue Book or other social registers was to indicate the "at home" day for the local ladies of a certain class.  Here is the Montreal Blue Book entry for Mrs. William Rutherford Jr. and Mrs. William Rutherford Sr. for the year 1898:

Dau's Society Blue Book for Montreal, Rutherford Listings.

The entry reads:
"Rutherford, Mr. and Mrs. Wm., 61 Rosemount Avenue, Wednesday.
Rutherford, Mr. and Mrs. Wm., 35 Staynor Avenue, Westmount, Wednesday." 

My husband, who is familiar with the etiquette for this period, was able to explain the system to me.  First of all, the listings are by subscription, which means that families must pay to have their name entered.  Although husband and wife are both named in the listings, it would be the wife who would receive at home on the listed day.  Children would only be included in the directory if they were of age, or if the young ladies of the house had "come out" to society.  These were adult, not family, social calls. 

The visits made during someone's receiving day were supposed to be brief, about fifteen minutes long, especially if one was visiting an acquaintance rather than a close friend.  Receiving days were not about extended conversation--a long visit, if desired,  could be arranged on another day.  They were more about establishing and maintaining social ties. Since visitors would be introduced to each other,  the system also allowed women to extend their social circle.

During these visits, ladies would leave their visiting or calling card.  Visiting cards would usually have the person's own receiving day inscribed along with their name.  This allowed women to keep track of who had visited, since not returning a visit would be considered impolite.

The convention of the receiving day was restricted to ladies of the leisure class.  As you can see,  the title page for the Blue Book emphasizes that it is for "elite" families:

Dau's Society Blue Book Title Page, 1898 ed.

Also, the preface defends itself from possible criticisms around the inclusion of "names which may seem unneccesary":

Dau's Society Blue Book for Montreal, Preface.

While the bulk of a social directory consisted of individual listings, at the back there would normally be a section devoted to club membership within the city.  Masculine as well as feminine clubs were listed equally. For example, the 1905-6 Montreal Dau's Blue Book tells us that A.H. Scott, another ancestor,  was a member of the Montreal City Club. 

The convention of receiving days began to fall out of favour during and after World War I, so the Wm. Rutherfords were among the last generation to use social registers and "at home" days to anchor their social lives.  The Blue Book really fills a gap--it's nice to have some material evidence of how the females in our family line lived.  Now, at least, we know what they were doing on Wednesdays!

Is This Arthur H. Scott?

These photographs in the McCord Museum collection are entitled "A.H. Scott, Montreal, QC, 1891".  They were taken by Wm. Notman and Son, photographers.  Are they of Arthur H. Scott?  The timing is just the slightest bit off--in 1891 Arthur is, according to the census, living in his parent's home in Toronto, and working as a Tea Broker there.  Arthur married Minnie Davis in April of 1892 and they move to Montreal by March of 1893, when their first child Howard Elliot Scott was born.   Still, the dates are so close--I'll put the portraits out there in case anyone recognizes him.

This one's reaching even further afield--it's entitled "Mrs.Scott in her Wedding Dress, 1891", again taken by Wm. Notman and Sons.  I'm not so sure this is Minnie Davis--why would she get a wedding portrait taken in Montreal?  Arthur and Minnie married in Aylmer, Ontario, where she grew up.  However, the year matches the portrait of A.H. Davis--perhaps she got her gown made in Montreal?

William Rutherford and Sons at the National Archives of Quebec

Every other province in Canada has a provincial archive, but not Quebec...search around for the Quebec provincial archives and you'll find something called Archives Nationales du Quebec.   It is a very nice website, I must admit.  And it has a snazzy blue online engraving of the industrial headquarters of Wm. Rutherford and Sons, the company that made William Rutherford Senior a minor baron of Montreal industry!  Here it is:

Dated 1894, it comes from a publication called Montreal Illustrated 1894, published by the Consolidated Illustrating Co.  I find it a rather spartan building, especially for the time period.  I'd love to know if it still stands.

I think this is text from the same publication.

It's not easy to read online, so I'll transcribe the significant parts.

"This is the house conducted by Messrs. Wm. Rutherford & Sons, manufacturers of sashes, blinds, stair-work, and general mill-work, and hardwood finish of every description, occupying the site, No. 85 to 95 Atwater avenue.  This flourishing concern was originally established by the present head of the firm, Mr. William Rutherford, some forty years ago.  His operations were primarily of a comparatively modest character:  year after year, however, widening the scope of his endeavors until to-day the house ranks as one of the leading industrial establishments of its type in the province of Quebec.  Mr. Rutherford's first efforts were restricted to the business of contractor and lumber merchant:  in 1880 the trading title became William Rutherford & Co., and in 1887, being joined by his sons, Messrs. Thomas J., William Rutherford Jr., and Andrew Rutherford, the present firm style was assumed.  The spacious premises occupied (which, by the way, are about to be enlarged in the spring of 1894, in order to meet the demands of an increasing trade connection) cover a ground area of 338 x130 feet, with lumber yards on the canal bank, having dimensions of 800 x120 feet. The working plant consists of mills, drying kilns and storage sheds.  The mills for sawing, planing and general wood working are abundantly supplied with the newest and best machinery in use, operated by a steam engine of one hundred horse power.  The kilns have a holding capacity of 60,000 feet of lumber, and a force of from ninety to one hundred skilled workmen is employed in the various departments of the business.  The range of manufacture embraces an extended range of wood work, including, as it does, sashes, doors and blinds, stair-work and turning, prepared lumber of all descriptions,  packing cases and boxes, besides many specialties in hardwood finish and interior work peculiar to this house.  These are produced in great quantity and variety....Noted for its enterprise, probity and business integrity, the firm of Messrs. William Rutherford and Sons possesses most deservedly the confidence of Montreal's leading commercial and financial circles in the highest degree."  

The article also mentions that William Rutherford Sr. was a member and ex-president of the Mechanics' Institute of Montreal.     

Identifying the Rutherfords from the McCord Museum Collection

The McCord Museum of Montreal has a truly magnificent archival collection of photographs and images, and even better, they are searchable online!  If you search on the name "Rutherford" you will find a number of images, some of them donated by a Mr. Andy Rutherford, and some of them purchased by the archives.  The problem is, it's sometimes hard to identify which Rutherfords are "ours", especially when it comes to the women (who are usually unhelpfully identified as "Mrs. Rutherford" or "Miss Rutherford").  I'm going to try to identify the relatives I can, and hope someone else out there can identify the others.

Please note, the images below are all copyright images.  If you would like to copy them, please see the McCord's copyright page.  Reproductions can also be purchased through the McCord Museum.

First of all, let's remind ourselves of the Rutherfords in our immediate family line.  William Rutherford Sr., born circa 1831, came to Montreal in 1852, married Elizabeth Jackson there in 1856, and had 12 children.

Thomas Jackson Rutherford, born 1858
Helen Paton Rutherford, born 1860 (married William MacEwan Dunlop of New York, 1893)
Margaret Brown (Maggie) Rutherford, born 1862 (married Thomas McIntosh of Toronto, 1892)
William Rutherford Jr., born 1864
Andrew Rutherford, born 1865
Arthur James and Edward (Land or Lamb?) Rutherford, twins, born 1868 (Arthur d. 1869 age 11 months)
Forest Rutherford, born 1871
Elizabeth Jackson (Bessie) Rutherford, born 1872, died 1895, age 23, unmarried
Anne Paton (Annie) Rutherford, born 1874
Stewart Rutherford, born circa 1876
Gordon Rutherford, born circa 1876 (twins) 

William Rutherford Jr., the son we descend from, married Ida Bulmer in 1893 and had five children.

William Jackson Rutherford,
John Bulmer Rutherford, born 1897
Jean Rutherford
Andrew Scott Rutherford (probably donor of photographs)
Marjorie Rutherford


Image 1:

This photograph is entitled William Rutherford, about 1850.  It is a daguerreotype measuring 8 x 7 cm. and was a gift of Mr. Andy Rutherford, whom my mother-in-law believes would be her Uncle Andy (my brother-in-law Andrew is named after him).  Our William Rutherford Senior, however, didn't arrive in Montreal until 1852.  This image could have been taken in Scotland, or it could be dated slightly later than the McCord is estimating.

Image 2:

The McCord calls this Rutherford Group, About 1900.  It is also a gift of Mr. Andy Rutherford.  Handily, someone has annotated the faces in this collection. 

The man on the far left, T.J. Rutherford, would be William Sr.'s oldest son Thomas Jackson Rutherford, born 1858, which would make him around 42 in 1900.  To the right of him, on top is Forest Rutherford, the youngest son, born in 1871 (so around 30 years old at this time).  The gentleman underneath him, S. F. Rutherford, is Stewart Rutherford, around 24 years old, and his twin Gordon is on the same level, to the right of William Sr.  They look like identical twins to me, from what I can see here.  

In the centre of the collection is the family patriarch, William Sr., who would be about 69 years old in 1900.  I think I can see some resemblance with the 1850 image...or am I just imagining things?  

To the right of William Sr. are Andrew Rutherford (on top), the family's second son, born 1865. Then, at the very left hand side, we have William Rutherford Jr., born 1864 (age 36), through which our family line descends. 

Do you notice that there are no women in this picture?  This grouping includes all the Rutherford men except for Arthur and Edward.  We know Arthur died young, and I suspect Edward did too, as he does not show up on any census records.  These are all very formal, posed shots.  In fact, Forest, Gordon and S. F. look like they may be wearing commencement gowns.  All in all, this is a handsome group of confident-looking men.    

Image 3:

Image 3 is also a gift of Mr. Andy Rutherford.  It is entitled James Rutherford, about 1855.  If the dating is right, this was taken about 3 years after William immigrated to Canada.  From the setting, it's hard to place this photograph in terms of country of origin.  James is the name of William Rutherford's oldest brother, born in 1829, who as far as I know stayed in Scotland.  If this is the same James, he would be around 26 years old in the photo (that looks about right to me).  This might have been brought with William when he left home, or sent to him later from Scotland.

What I notice about this photograph is that was not taken in a photographer's studio, as most of these other pictures were.  James seems to have been posing against a residential building, possibly his own home.  The lone plant looks a little forlorn!  I considered the possibility that the photograph may have been taken on a visit to William in Canada, but I think in that case they would have posed together, don't you?  

Image 4:  

This portrait, also part of the Andy Rutherford donation, is entitled Mrs. William Rutherford, about 1900.  This would be Elizabeth (Jackson) Rutherford, and she would have been around 64 years old in 1900.  I like how clearly you can see her face and expression.  Although this is a formal portrait, I think a lot of her personality comes through.  

Image 5:  

Now this image is interesting.  The final portrait in the Andy Rutherford donation, it is entitled Rutherford Family, About 1900.  It is the largest portrait in the collection, measuring 25 by 32 centimetres.  The fun is going to be in identifying everyone!  Clearly the matriarch in the centre with the baby on her lap is Elizabeth (Jackson) Rutherford, wife of William Sr.  Could this be a portrait of her with her grandchildren?  Some of them seem to be young adults (especially the young lady directly behind Mrs. Rutherford).  Although this is certainly a formal studio portrait, I like how Mrs. Rutherford is not only holding the youngest child on her lap but also holding the hand of the young boy next to her.  I wonder if this was a gesture of affection, or a ploy to keep him from fidgeting?  You'll notice that his brother (or cousin) beside him seems to have an arm around him, and his sister (or cousin) behind him has a hand on his shoulder.  My suspicion is that this young man is being gently corralled.  

Now we get to images which are more difficult to identify as being part of our line of Rutherfords.  These photographs were all purchased by the McCord museum, so their provenance offers no clue as to family ties.  They were taken by William Notman, a prominent Montreal portrait photographer who took pictures of a great many Montrealers during the course of his career.  I'm thinking that these photographs may be proofs or duplicate copies, and that the originals may be in the hands of descendents. 

Image 6:  

This portrait is entitled Mr. Rutherford, Montreal, QC., 1882.  It was taken February 11, 1882 by Notman  and Sandham, and measures 10 x 15 centimetres.  I don't think it could be William Sr., who would have been around 51 years old at this time.  William Jr. would have been 18 years old, which doesn't seem right either.  Could this have been one of William Sr.'s older sons?  I'm looking at the Image 2 composite photograph and I can't decide. 

Image 7:

This one is called W.H. Rutherford, Montreal, QC, 1886.  (Didn't Oscar Wilde write a story called "The Portrait of Mr. W.H."?)  

Image 8:

Image 8 is another pose of the young Mr. W.H.Rutherford in 1886.  

Image 9:  

Image 9 is G.E. Rutherford, Montreal, QC, 1868. 

Image 10:  

Again, G.E. Rutherford, Montreal, QC, 1868.  This looks like the same sitting. 

Image 11:

Image 11 is called J.K. Rutherford, Montreal, QC, 1880. 

Image 12:

This one is called Robert Rutherford, Montreal, QC, 1866.

Image 13:

George Rutherford,Montreal, QC, 1868.  I have to say that George Rutherford looks a little gone to seed. Maybe it's the greasy hair and the eyebrows.  

Image 14:

Image 14 is entitled Mrs. Rutherford, Montreal, QC, 1863.  

Image 15:

  

   

And image 15 is Mrs. Rutherford, Montreal, QC, 1865.  I'm pretty sure this is the same person.  But which Mrs. Rutherford is she?  Elizabeth (Jackson) Rutherford would have been 29 years old in 1865, which  fits the age of the portrait sitter, I think.  But is she the same woman as in images 4 and 5 (which are much later dates?), or is she an unconnected Mrs. Rutherford?  

Image 16: 

This is James Rutherford, Montreal, QC, 1867.  I don't have a clue who he could be.  

Image 17:

Miss Rutherford, Montreal, QC, 1868.  Image 18 is of Miss Rutherford at the same sitting. 

Image 18:

Image 19:  

Master I. and Missie M. Rutherford, Montreal, QC, 1865.  These two are real sweethearts--I hope they're some of "our" Rutherfords!

Image 20:

Image 20 might be impossible to identify, unless someone recognizes the horses or sleigh! It's entitled Mrs. Rutherford Horses and Sleigh, University Street, Montreal, QC, 1896.  The title does not mention the man standing up at the back of the sleigh with the whip and the big fur coat, so perhaps he's a servant.  

Image 21:

Image 21 is Mrs. Rutherford's Baby on a Horse, Montreal, QC, 1896.  This shot is interesting.  It's not taken in the studio but probably on family property.  Who are the two men?  The one holding the horse looks very butler-ish.  The one holding the baby is dressed more casually.  Are they both servants?  Or is the man holding the baby the baby's father?  It's funny that of all the elements (building, two men, horse, trees) the one hardest to see is the child who is the subject of the photo.  Even though this is not a studio portrait, it and image 20 are still attributed to Notman.  

There are several other images at the McCord archives relating to the Rutherford family, mostly landscapes from Scotland, which I will post separately.  For now, I'd be happy to figure out more about these portraits. Do any Rutherford cousins/aunts/uncles have any similar portraits in their possession which would help in identifying these?