Wilson TenancyFamilyStrategy 1998

Tenancy as a Family Strategy in Mid-Nineteenth Century Ontario
Author(s): Catharine Anne Wilson

Source: Journal of Social History, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Summer, 1998), pp. 875-896
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3789305
Accessed: 02-10-2023 06:17 +00:00
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of Social History
This content downloaded from 132.174.253.222 on Mon, 02 Oct 2023 06:17:06 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
TENANCY AS A FAMILY STRATEGY IN MID-NINETEENTH
CENTURY ONTARIO
By Catharine Anne Wilson University of Guelph
INTRODUCTION
The scholarly discussion of tenancy focuses, for the most part, on issue
systems and their political context, agricultural efficiency, econom
ment, and class relations. While such issues are of utmost importanc
standing tenancy, why and how individual farm families might use
their own family-related goals, has been largely overlooked. I would
at tenancy, therefore, from the perspective of the family historian. T
goes beyond the general explanations usually advanced by economi
why tenancy exists, such as the agricultural ladder, transaction cost
sharing, and takes into account the family economy. Here rather tha
that one rents out a farm or becomes a tenant farmer based solely
term, rational, profit-oriented reasons, such factors as responsibility t
balancing the needs of family members and maintaining the family
the generations will be considered. This paper, therefore, examine
families?both owners and tenants?used renting as a "family strategy
vival and economic advancement.1 In revealing how tenancy was us
life course transitions of individuals and the collective needs of the
at different stages in its life cycle, a deeper understanding ofthe rol
is revealed.
Several useful theories and models exist, within the framework
tional economic theory which argue that tenancy emerges as indiv
tivated by profit logically respond to the market forces of supply
Scholars using these models argue that owners opt for renting out
when the transaction costs of supervising, paying and getting labour
our their contract becomes too high, and tenancy becomes a more
arrangement.2 Either landlords profit from the rental income or, actin
lators, they have their tenants improve the land and then sell it as th
land escalates. Other economic models such as risk sharing and the a
ladder have been advanced that help shed light on tenancy from t
perspective. It is often argued that in agricultural systems where
yields and prices are high, farmer owners and/or tenants will opt to sh
through a tenancy arrangement.3 Related to risk sharing, the agricu
posits that settlers, especially young farmers and immigrants, use t
rung on the agricultural ladder between labouring and ownership, an
ing makes economic sense until such time as they acquire the requ
and knowledge of land and farming techniques to make ownership a
and more viable enterprise.4
These economic models, however, do not fully explain the existen
ity of tenancy. Several anomalies exist that are not adequately explain
876 journal of social history summer 1998
purely economic context. For one thing, a few American studi
Diller, Winters, Pederson, and Salamon and O'Reilly, have fou
were often ordinary retired farmers who were related to th
findings imply that the motives farm owners had for renting ou
have been more complex, encompassing not just economic con
variety of concerns intimately related to the needs ofthe fam
and its individual members. Second, the model ofthe agricultu
tered a lively debate on whether or not tenants actually climbed
debate has focused discussion on economic motives and meas
one age cohort of tenants?the young. Lost in the discussion
motives and the fact that, while the young may have been
in the tenant population, families at various stages of the de
resorted to tenancy?not just young farmers. Many families w
have children, but others were near maturity or retired. Can
experiences still be explained by the agricultural ladder? Cli
moreover, was sometimes not possible in one generation but
three generations to achieve. In the meantime, how did tenan
their careers on the land and provide for the next generation? M
these anomalies by placing them within a family context.
The literature on tenancy in Canada is still in its infancy, an
wish to address in this paper have not been explored. Very little
about tenancy in Canada save for Prince Edward Island wher
foreign absentee landlords has received recent attention.7 The
owing to an ingrained animus toward tenancy and its coroll
of the freeholding yeomanry. Such an attitude was pervasive
century and buttressed by the folk tradition of landlord/tenant
and European immigrants brought with them to the New W
have generally accepted this attitude and have assumed that,
where the seigneurial system operated and Prince Edward Isla
English landlords owned extensive estates, tenancy was unus
and unsuccessful.8 Those writing about Ontario have been co
land ownership while in fact even a cursory examination ofth
that tenancy was common, and therefore, needs to be taken
Occasionally scholars of land speculation in Ontario discuss t
emphasis is on the speculators (ie the owners) and not the tenan
has attention been focused specifically on tenants, and a mor
been presented. William Marr has demonstrated that in cert
agricultural ladder was in operation, and he has tested the i
agricultural ladder, risk sharing and transaction costs on tenanc
nineteenth century. My own work on landlords and tenants
has shown how the Irish system of tenancy was transplanted
served the economic and family interests of both landlords an
works, however, have examined tenancy from a largely econo
This paper focuses on tenancy as a family strategy of survi
advancement. In doing so it explores the topic in three ways.
how owners became landlords renting out their farm in order
crises and hold their patrimony together for the succeeding
it explains how tenant families used renting and especially le
TENANCY AS A FAMILY STRATEGY 877
step on the agricultural ladder but as a way of l

achieving long-term family goals of supporting t
ations on the land. Finally it examines how the l
often an intergenerational arrangement existing
and playing a central role in father-son successi
TENANCY IN NINETEENTH CENTURY ONTARIO
The first systematic counting of tenancy in Ontario begins with t

census. In Ontario that year, the tenancy rate was 15% rising to
23% around Lake Ontario, and increasing there as the century progr
Reliable statistics do not always exist for the early part ofthe century, b
was likely more prevalent. The government began leasing out land a
1799, long before the free grant era ended in 1827.12 Various local s
landholding covering the period from the 1820s to the 1850s sugges
quarter to a half ofthe farming population rented their land.13 Accord
aggregate figures for the 1848 census, 43% of the rural population i
were classified as tenants.14 In the first half ofthe nineteenth century,
tenant farmers likely represented a quarter to a half of the farming p
While freehold was the most common form of landholding and th
most immigrants, tenancy was popular because it had economic rele
many cash-poor immigrants. Most writers advised immigrants to ren
would have enough money left over to farm productively and buy go
stock, and implements, which could be taken with them or sold when th
on. Otherwise the interest on a mortgage, which could amount to from
fifteen shillings per acre, was actually a heavy cost in addition to the
price. Renting was also recommended as an important way to learn abou
and to check out land before buying. It was sensible to rent partially c
close to town rather than travel into the backwoods to purchase land
help, social amenities, markets and transportation routes. In short, re
an economically rational strategy for many farmers.
A wide range of rental arrangements existed in Ontario. In the olde
districts and close to towns, cash rents were common. In the backwoo
farming and markets were more uncertain, the rent was usually paid a
of the crop or sometimes by clearing a specified number of acres per y
with these various modes of payment were several gradations of secu
least secure were tenants "at will" who were subject upon notice to qui
at any time, and following them were yearly tenants who were subject t
at the end of the year. More secure were tenants who held leases for
number of years anywhere from 1 to 999, for life or in perpetuity.
a geographic pattern can be observed. In 1840 leases were uncommon
newly settled districts such as Bathurst and Brock, whereas in the old
areas along the Great Lakes and inland water routes the short lease o
years predominated.16
This variety of arrangements created a hierarchy within the tenant
self. Those at the bottom had the least security and faced the great
rackrenting, distraint, and eviction. Those at the top with long leas
much security as owners of heavily mortgaged property so that the line
tenancy and ownership were blurred. As long as those with lo
rents, and these had been established at the signing of the lea
be evicted.
Generally the longest leases offered were those on Crown an
Under the Constitutional Act of 1791 which brought Upper
into existence, each township was surveyed before settleme
one-seventh ofthe land was set aside as Crown reserves and o
aside as clergy reserves.17 By 183 7,361,000 acres of clergy reser
leased representing some 1,805 leases.18 The lease for Crown a
was for twenty-one years and the rent was pre-set to rise at sev
Rents were deliberately low and leases long so as to be attractive
the free grant era, to ensure their loyalty to the state, and t
improvement ofthe land and, thus, increase government reve
rent and increasing land values. Not surprisingly such leases
best rental arrangements to be had in the settled areas and we
after. Indeed lessees often found it much more advantageous t
lease ran out rather than purchase land.19
Of central importance in understanding tenancy in this tim
fact that tenants with long leases had a legal interest in the pro
actual ownership. Indeed, one could say that the landlord and
owners?the first ofthe freehold and the second ofthe lease.20
the right to the rent and to the legal title to take back the l
expired. The tenant had the right to the use, management, p
security, capital, and transmissibility of the property. Further
between tenancy and ownership was the little known practi
lease, which could take many forms but in its broadest sense
tenant was able to sell his interest in the property to the inco
Very little is known about the practise of tenants selling the
does not factor into economic models. It figures largely in thi
because of its critical role in assisting tenant families in th
to maintain themselves on the land and eventually become o
practise was rarely recorded except on government reserves, and
tently, a precise estimate ofthe frequency of selling is imposs
from surviving records, however, that tenants on valuable lots n
or main roads behaved much like speculators and tended to
after five or ten years to new tenants. Other tenants furthe
interest less frequently?tending to keep it within the family
times generations, and selling it only when a specific need arose
being sold in the transaction was sometimes difficult to disce
monetary terms. Sometimes tenants with leases on reserves or
the remaining years in their lease, acquiring some ofthe future
be expected if agricultural prices rose while rents remained t
cases involving long leases, such as occurred on Amherst Isla
sold for near the fee simple of the property itself, and the pric
discrepancy between the actual rents and what the landlord m
given current land values.23 On clergy reserves, starting in 18
opened for sale, the value of a leasehold interest increased. At
acquired the "favour" (not the legal right) of preemption whic
had the first opportunity, before all other applic

the property when their lease expired, if and
sell. As such their leasehold interest increased
only their improvements and other rights but
Of more widespread importance was the fact
holders or not, could sell their unexhausted im
land, the seed, manure and labour applied to th
buildings and livestock in which they had inves
nineteenth century, the most valuable of these
tant in terms of the process of capitai creation
land, with buildings being in second place. It
the capitai value of a farm, not cash crops or fa
acres could take over thirty years to make, bu
and upward social mobility.25 This was true not
tenants whose improvements were their most
by them or, in the case of leaseholders, transf
spite the strict legal claim that all fixtures and
property and, hence, belonged to the landlords
and clearings and other improvements were so
tenant. This was the case because often the set
valuable than the land itself in its wild state, a
sell their improvements was believed by settle
unduly harsh, and detrimental to advancing t
of the country.26
Whatever interests tenants were selling, the
recognized that selling this interest in the land
of capitai to tenants who were thereby able to use
avert family crises, set up a business, or purcha
Tenancy, it is clear, was common in mid-nine
the economic realities of the era and the needs
were trying to establish and maintain themselv
With such a wide variety of rental arrangeme
selling one's interest, farm owners and tenants
that would best suit their needs.
CRAMAHE TOWNSHIP
The aims of this article have been met by using evidence from archiva
pertaining to farms across the province and especially through the use
case study. Aggregate statistics do not capture the relationships betw
ple, let alone over the generations and, therefore, have little to say abo
tenancy was used in the life course transitions of individuals and the c
needs of the family unit at different stages in its life cycle. Furthermo
vidual cases gathered from across the province are useful but withou
context. Cramahe township, in Northumberland County, Newcastle D
was, therefore, chosen as the case study for this paper. It is one of onl
townships in Ontario where the 1842 and 1848 censuses (the first to no
ancy) have survived and were carefully filled out. The census taker in
noted tenants' rental arrangements, their landlords, their agr
and family characteristics. Furthermore, an unusually comp
census and assessment data for Cramahe survive for nearly every
until the beginning ofthe decennial censuses in 1852. Cramah
vides a rare opportunity to reconstruct the lives of individua
over the generations and to reveal how renting fit into and sh
life experience within a specific set of local circumstances.
Cramahe Township is situated on Lake Ontario between
cities of Cobourg and Brighton. It is well-watered with numer
that irrigate the soil and provide water power, and the soil is
loam. Settlers from the United States and the British Isles fir
Cramahe in the early 1790s. Since the township was easily acce
or steam boat, the village and port of Colborne soon develop
entry point for other immigrants entering the township.28
1850s, Cramahe, like many other areas in Ontario, experienced
characterized by a rising population, settlement and land clear
it was considered to be one of 75 townships that could be classif
having a population of over 2,000 people with over 5,000 acre
In 1842,3,043 people lived there, and 15,380 acres were cultiv
farm size was 116 acres with an average of 38 cultivated acr
wheat were the principal products of its inhabitants.31 With t
railroad in the 1850s, population growth slowed, agriculture
growth became more intensive in nature.32
In many respects tenancy in Cramahe was typical of tenancy
townships throughout the province. In the first place, it was
53% of the landholders in Cramahe were tenants; by the 184
the occupiers of land who farmed were tenants; and by the
percentage had declined to 29%.33 Second, as one would e
township, cash rents were more common than share rents. In
farm tenants had share arrangements, whereas 47% held the
yearly, or short leases, and 34% held long leases of usually twe
The profile of landlords was also similar to that elsewhere
province, excluding the government reserves and a few landlo
tial holdings, landlords were generally ordinary farmers, often
residing in the area and disinterested or unable to farm the land
Cramahe township in 1842,36 out of 97 tenant farmers, or ove
tenants, held leases directly from the Crown and clergy reserv
tenants ofthe leaseholders.35 Two-thirds or 62.9% of tenants ren
individuals. Of these fifty private landlords, only two could b
landholders as they rented out over 600 acres and had seven
each. The rest were mostly farmers who owned on average 1
only one tenant each. Of the fifty landlords only forty-one c
with specific lands. Of these forty-one landlords, 51 % owned th
17% had mortgages, 19% owned and leased additional land, a
own at all but were tenants themselves.36 Landlords, therefor
farming folk whose own security on the land was often somew
As has been noted elsewhere, especially in the American mid
landlords and tenants, and their family connec

ofthe cases the landlord/tenant relationship
Landlords in Cramahe, not surprisingly, ten
tenants, as they had acquired ownership thr
experience and accumulated savings. Those o
29% of the landlords in Cramahe, whereas o
in Cramahe were headed by men over the age
landlord and tenant shared the same last name
In these cases the rental contract was one in
security in their old age and the younger ge
Finally when one looks at the careers of indiv
became owners and sometimes even landlord
had often been tenants at the beginning of
at various times throughout their lives. Thi
Cramahe in 1842, for example, eventually b
the landlords in Cramahe in 1842 had started
reserves. The important role tenancy played
owners and tenants?will now be examined.
FARM-OWNING FAMILIES AND TENANCY
Farm owners rented out their farms for several reasons. They were not
looking for a speculative venture or short-term profit but to maintain a caree
the land for their families over the generations. For some the decision to b
landlords was precipitated by a family or financial crisis and renting helpe
the family over. Others rented out the homestead when they were disinter
or unable to farm it themselves but wanted to retain ownership for the sec
it would provide in times of trouble or old age. Still others used renting as
to finance their retirement.
Renting out one's land was often resorted to by families who had purcha
property but owing to heavy mortgages and other debts ran into serious finan
difficulty. John and Margaret Ianson of Reach Township, for example, had
settled in Greenbank since 1835 and over the decades had become the larg
farm operators in the area. By 1861, however, after several suits in Chan
greatly reduced their standing and strained their financial resources, they dec
to rent out 270 acres rather than sell their 370 acre farm. By renting they ma
to maintain their equity, raise some income, and hold the estate together
such time as they divided the land between their sons.37
It was also common for widowed farm women to rent out their farm especi
if no sons were able or willing to work it. In fact, studies have shown th
women landowners were more dependent on rental income than men.38
widow Margaret Fowlie of Usborne Township in Huron County, for exam
decided to rent out the home farm in 1865 when her only son took up tea
instead of farming as a career. Meanwhile her sister-in-law, who was wido
and left with four boys between the ages of five and twelve, thought that re
out her farm was a good idea until her sons reached the age when they c
farm the place productively.39 When Alexander Leask of Reach Township
in 1872, Ieaving his wife of 42 years of age with six children
tend, Mrs Leask found tenants for the various farms and hel
together for ten years until her son James inherited it.40
The decision to rent out one's farm was not always precipita
or family crisis. The case of William and James Ianson, of Gre
how farmers might rent out their land at various times in the
themselves, always holding onto the estate itself as the best a
rainy day or support for their old age. William and James Ian
father's farm in Reach Township and farmed it rather begrud
mother died. Finally released from what to them was an oblig
the homestead, they rented out the place while they tried the
business ventures. In 1893 they resumed farming, and then w
age sixty-three and seventy respectively and could no longe
productively themselves, they rented it out again, retaining par
to support themselves.41
Renting out one's farm was a sensible way of bridging time un
their heirs wanted to farm the property themselves. The you
Dougall, for example, of Usborne Township, Huron District r
farm and lived with his brother for a while. With the proc
thrashing he was able to build a new house on his property, so
he married in June 1865 and the tenant left, the newlyweds
own farm.42 Likewise, the Stewarts of Douro, near Peterboro
farm to a Scotsman in the 1840s who looked after it for a few
son William had finished school and was able to take possessio
out one's farm as a way of bridging between the generations
amongst the non-farm population too. A frequent writer for
wrote in 1872, that too often mechanics and tradesmen bough
and, finding they lacked the skill or capital to farm it, rented
or on a lease. Such property was sometimes just a speculative
times it was their way of establishing children on the land?an
were able to farm it themselves, renting made sense.44
Renting out one's farm was also a very important way to fin
Francis A. Evans in The Emigrants Guide to Obtain Lands and Eff
the Canadas (1833) reported that often the elderly, who eithe
or had settled them already, made their old age comfortable
farms.45 In 1847 at the age of sixty-nine, for example, James
present day Etobicoke) had three of his sons settled on farms
one daughter married. He rented out the home farm to his r
namesake who was only two years married. He said the farm
a stranger for ?80, but that he wanted his son to "have it che
Reid reported to his relatives back in Ayrshire, Scotland, tha
were living very comfortably because of this arrangement. N
son had moved on, and James Reid and his wife were renting
non-family for three times the rent. Thus James Reid and hi
live comfortably on their own farm in old age as well as help
sooner and more cheaply in money terms than had the young
family assistance. Clearly, in such a situation, the short term
have been had by entering the land market we

goals of estabiishing family members.46
The cases presented above illustrate how th
rented out their farms in response to financ
maintained their equity, raised some income,
luck elsewhere, retained their status as lando
until such time as they chose to sell or han
They rented out their farms as a means of k
between the periods when one generation fin
Finally, farm owners used tenancy as a way of
old age.
TENANT FARM FAMILIES
Just as tenancy proved to be a useful strategy for farm owners it also resp
to the needs of tenant families in their quest to support and improve them
Using tenancy as a means of moving up the agricultural ladder to ownership
common and viable strategy used by Cramahe farmers. Thirty-two percent
tenants in Cramahe in 1842 became owners of property there within the
lifetime.47 Fully 61% of these purchased the property they had been renting
thus, were able to keep the farm they had built and improved within the f
Those who continued to rent all their lives found tenancy useful in attain
wide variety of family goals such as securing continuity on the land and m
the needs of various members of the family over several generations.
Using the land to attain long-term family goals is usually considered
the preserve of the landowning class. In contrast, the tenant class is vie
as transient and having only a short term interest in the land and its p
potential. Indeed it is usually assumed that tenants had no property to tr
or will. In most cases this was true of tenants who held yearly, at will or had
leases, but in mid-nineteenth-century Ontario the reverse was true of te
who held long leases from private landlords or the Crown and clergy rese
Long leases gave tenants a significant long-term interest in their property
greater independence from their landlords. As a result of both of these fa
tenants were able to use leased land in their strategies to achieve long t
family goals in much the same way owners did. Tenants assigned or sublet
interest in leased land to deal with financial and family troubles. They als
the land to support the next generation through pre-death transfers ofth
and willing the lease. They even on occasion employed their leased lots fo
purpose of maintenance agreements to support the elderly.
It was possible to use one's leasehold interest to assist families through p
of financial trouble. Ebenezer Sammis, for example, signed the lease and
the patent fees for a twenty-one year lease on 200 acres of Cramahe wild l
1832. Despite having seven small children, over the next twelve years, h
his wife managed to clear fifty acres and build a log house. In 1839, aft
first seven-year term of their lease, the rent increased. Too financially p
to meet the increase, Ebenezer assigned, in a very quaint document, twent
acres south of the "Crick" to William Kelly for the price of half the re
then gave the possession of the north half to his son, Ebenez
1850s Ebenezer Sr died and William Kelly assigned his twent
to another son of the late Ebenezer, Silvester Sammis. By 1
boys, Silvester and Ebenezer, had regained title to the 200 ac
sold their rights to the lease and became freeholders nearby.4
interest in the lease to another, Ebenezer Sr had avoided failin
mounting arrears, salvaged the family farm, and put his boys
to someday owning land of their own. In this case and others
sold their rights to the uncleared portion of the lot and ke
property which had benefitted directly from their labour an
"the working farm." In such a manner, it was possible to kee
and one's improvements, weather a tough period, recoup, and
when one's family entered the ranks of freeholders.
In much the same manner as freeholders, therefore, leaseho
hand over the rights and responsibilities invested in their pro
generation in various pre-death transfers. Evidence of ten s
survived for Cramahe Township spanning the period 1826-1
mid 1840s the transfer ofa lease between generations usually
Thereafter various formal legal instruments were used such
quit claims. Five formal pre-death transfers of a lease exist
the son purchased the lease from his father who was in his s
imal price of anywhere from 2%?18% of the assessed value
Like freeholders, therefore, leaseholders were able to hand ov
ities of active farming to their children within their own lif
them benefit from and build upon the improvements they
land.
In the case of the Dickinson family, one leased lot was transferred down
three generations, with each generation benefitting from the labour of their
predecessors. The Dickinsons first appeared on clergy reserve lot 31 in the third
concession of Cramahe in 1817 when Jeremiah and his family unsuccessfully
applied for the lease of 200 acres. The family remained on the lot as squatters
and nine years later Jeremiah informally transferred his interest in the lot?and
what was now fifty cultivated acres?to his son, Theron. Over the next several
years the farm supported Theron and his growing family and his two aged parents.
Together they cultivated another fifteen acres and built a one and a half storey
frame house. By 1830 Theron was successful in getting a lease for the property,
and eight years later when he died, he bequeathed the lease in a formal will
to his eldest son, Erastus. By then the leasehold property was described as an
"excellent farm" with improvements worth ?195 including a house and barn and
120 cleared acres.49
In several cases this passing on of the leasehold interest, improvements and
moveable goods from one generation to the next constituted a successful long
term strategy for eventual ownership. In 1829, David and Catharine Reddick
acquired the lease ofa well-located Crown reserve close to the main road through
Cramahe and the market town of Colborne. In 1840, some eleven years later,
when a survey was done ofthe lot for King's College, David and Catharine were
in their late forties with seven children. Together they had built a log barn and
cleared sixty acres on their 100 acre farm. The

over twice as much as the property itself. Davi
like to purchase the lot eventually, but at th
It must have been with a certain amount of p
assigned in 1853, and later bequeathed, to his s
was by then eighty cleared acres. The inspect
1879 commented favourably that Wellington ap
Such a clearing allowed Wellington the opportu
livestock to provide for his family and eventu
in 1879.
In many, but not all, of these pre-death tra
old couple to reside with the new leaseholder
up the next generation but also provided for t
One surviving transfer even included a maint
died, David Bradd Sr. of Cramahe made out an
leasehold to his youngest son and namesake, Da
to pay ?50 for the leasehold and promise to sup
died in 1857, David paid his mother a lump sum
the farm, and sold half ofthe lot to his Brother
families continued to farm side-by-side for de
of land between generations have been proven
means for farm owners to keep the family on t
maintain continuity.52 Clearly leaseholders on
were able to achieve the same kind of continu
Indeed the family found it possible to operat
careers in agriculture and was able to use rentin
ends. For three generations the Cox family use
to support their farming careers. In this family
wills of leases were employed, but rather a gre
properties. Tenancy is usually associated with
not a fruitless moving about that resulted in
social mobility. Essentially the Cox family create
farms?one on the waterfront near Colborne and the second further inland. As
the needs of individual branches of the family changed, they moved between
these properties and thus kept their improvements within the family. At various
times in the first and second generation, their leased and rented land supported
the current and future interests of several different branches of the Cox family.
By the second and third generation they had become landowners.
William Cox Sr. and his family first rented a partially cleared waterfront lot
in 1825 from Joseph Keeler, landowner and speculator in several properties. As
William's sons reached maturity, he rented adjoining lots from Keeler to expand
his holdings so that by 1832 he had 211 acres in a prime location, sixty-five acres
of which he cultivated.53 By that time some of his sons had started out on their
own on rented or leased farms. Edward moved to a neighbouring clergy reserve
lot and William Jr. journeyed north to a rather remote lot on the fifth concession
where he and his new wife created the hub ofa new inland Cox settlement. They
rented a partially cleared lot from Willet Casey until 1836 when William Jr. got
an opportunity to buy the lease ofa 100 acre Crown reserve j
It had fewer acres cultivated, but with fifteen years left in t
greater security and the possibility of eventual ownership.54
moved onto this lot, and his father, nearing or over the age
past the point of clearing land, rented the cleared west half
farm. His brother Aaron rented the east half of the Willet f
the task of clearing. Even another brother, George, rented the
short while in 1837.55 In this manner, William Jr's improvem
the family and enlarged.
Meanwhile back on the waterfront settlement, Edward fo
buy his clergy reserve, and so he moved closer to Colbome
lot where he worked as a shoemaker and farmed on the side.
who was recently married, took over Edward's clergy reserve
for eight years. Meanwhile Edward, the shoemaker, perhaps
the time when his own son would need land, purchased the
100 acres of wild land on a clergy reserve lot on the third
to the inland Cox settlement. This also proved to be a usefu
his brother George, for while Edward made shoes in Colborn
young family settled on the lot. George gradually cleared fiftee
to support his own family and at the same time improve the va
leasehold.56 From the late 1830s to the mid 1840s then, the
acres in the neighbourhood ofthe third and fifth concessions,
various times supported the current and future interests of at l
branches of the family. John, who had stayed on the highly
eventually purchased a fine farm on the first concession.57
The next generation of Coxes continued the tradition of re
Cox families to appear in the Assessment of 1869 were all tenant
(the third) was renting Edward's old clergy reserve lot on l
concession, having doubled the cultivated acres. During the ne
William (the third) and Henry became land owners on land
the old inland Cox settlement, and Edward inherited his fath
on the waterfront.58
By shifting back and forth on the same and adjoining prop
were able to keep their improvements in the family and giv
families the opportunity of farming. The risks associated wit
unfamiliar environment?where a landlord of unknown charac
them, where the capabilities ofthe soil were unknown, and th
fences etc. might have been run down by previous tenants?
incentive to keep the farm in good repair and make improv
for the family would benefit in the end either by passing on th
to the next generation or selling them. Some branches of the
faced failure but others had the satisfaction of seeing their o
landowners.
Tenant families were able to use renting and especially lea
step on the agricultural ladder but as an effective means for me
goals of maintaining a career on the land, weathering family a
and supporting the needs of the old and new generations.
TENANCY AND FATHER-SON SUCCESSION
So far this paper has examined the family circumstances of landlo

tenants separately, but to fully understand the relationship as it frequen
they need to be looked at together. For one-third of the tenants in
Township in 1842 the landlord/tenant relationship was a family arr
and played a central role in father-son succession. As owners aged the
out their farm to their son or sold the property to him and became t
it themselves. In this manner the older generation attained security in
age and the younger generation access to the land.
Farm owners in their fifties and sixties had reached the age when t
no longer farm their properties efficiently using their own labour, bu
the efforts of the younger generation who could maximize the produ
thus the income potential of the farm from which everyone could
efit. Few had any savings tucked away for their old age or for settin
children but depended on the productive capacity of the land itself to
them or the power that property could yield in securing the help of
short, the time had come to transfer the responsibilities of active farmi
younger generation and ensure security for old age. At the heart of th
was the transfer of land. Property rights and other durable assets acc
over a lifetime were now traded for welfare services in old age. The t
inter-generational transfers often occurred when the farmer, owing t
physical inability brought on by age, could no longer extract the pr
worth from the land, pay his debts and support himself. The precise
the transfer could also be influenced by the marriage of an heir, or his r
or desire to set up elsewhere. In effect, the property was used to serv
erations in important but different ways?it allowed the elderly to re
productive work with financial security and enhanced the economic
of the younger generation.59
The elderly used their ownership and control of property as leverag
quiring the support of children. The most common strategy was the
inheritance upon the death of parents that served as an inducement t
to assist their parents in old age. But such arrangements trusted a lot t
will of both parties and while waiting for the older generation to die,
was not always kept in good operation, and probate or other court cos
steep. The best inheritance strategies were those where both generati
benefit within their lifetime with the farm maintained as a going conce
ers used a variety of pre-death transfers of land to accomplish these e
of which concerned renting.
Father-son succession generally occurred in several stages rather th
transfer of authority, and in the process, renting played an importan
first stage was a testing period where the father owned or rented th
made all the decisions and the son contributed his labour. In the sec
the son often established his independence on land he rented elsewh
third stage occurred when the father retired and the son rented the w
from him. The father contributed his labour but the operational co
now in the hands of the son. Finally the son might inherit the farm
cases that follow illustrate, no one process prevailed, and par
came to a variety of arrangements.
Renting one's farm to a son with the promise or expectati
handing over ownership was one method employed by lando
the needs of both generations. In the early 1840s, Nathan Go
rented out all 150 acres of the home farm to his youngest so
twenty-six at the time and married with three children. Burr
annually for the cleared acreage when cleared land in the are
for $1.0O-$2.40 per acre. The expectation, though not stipul
will drawn up at the same time, was that Nathan and his wi
live with Burr's young family, and that if he paid the rent and
that Burr would inherit the whole farm. These intergenerati
were quite common but not always satisfactory to either party.
resented the arrangement and was dissatisfied with his father's
his growing restlessness, his father sold him 100 acres ofthe
hesitant to relinquish all of his leverage in the relationship,
the last fifty acres and only bequeathed these to Burr after bo
had died. Finally released from his obligation, Burr left and a
his own liking elsewhere.61
Such arrangements meant that the old couple gave up the r
farming and in exchange acquired a retirement income. They k
in the relationship by retaining ownership and the power of b
they had no legal right or guarantee of being properly look
were also somewhat vulnerable in these arrangements. They co
farming earlier than they would have without parental assista
no guarantee of eventual ownership.
The Gleesons of March Township, near Ottawa, learned of
sociated with such arrangements the hard way. Prior to 1875
in an unregistered agreement, turned over his land to his son
charge. Joseph soon fell badly in arrears and Michael refused
property to him. The whole affair had to be settled in Chan
lowing the suit, their situation was rectified so that Michael acq
his old age and Joseph acquired possession of the property th
instruments. First the father sold his son the property and t
mortgage with him, then the son leased his father two acres
farm for what was essentially a life lease.62 A lawyer in Ha
in 1888 noted that such life leases were a "very common occ
farmers-In this way both are sure-The son is sure to get th
the father and mother are sure to get their support and main
Life leases demonstrate the role tenancy could play in the l
owners. Tenancy was not only useful in the starting up stag
winding down stage. In Cramahe Township at mid-century, ni
formally recorded and entered in the land registry books. In th
farm owner, usually in his sixties, sold his property to a son
day the son took his parents on as tenants for the rest of t
on all or part of the property. These legal instruments mark
property responsibilities to the younger generation who paid
usually at a reduced price, and then became the legal owners. A
although the older generation had given up t

and being legally responsible for suits agains
use of the land and its produce, and were g
the rest of their lives. Such arrangements w
couple who still wanted to farm actively bu
their physical capabilities, while their sons
The life lease was also useful for the couple w
and who no longer wanted the fvill responsi
idea of being fully dependent on non-family
it was also useful to have such legal expedien
were strained and a legal agreement was nec
their interests. These life leases then, rathe
the promise of future inheritance or the old
power, placed inter-generational understand
young generation acquired legal title to the
stay on it, and conflict was reduced as expe
detailed as to be inflexible.64
Elderly farm owners ended up as tenants in t
but as part ofa carefully planned retirement st
according more to individual family circum
market in any given year. In three cases eld
handing over the freehold to their farm, w
nearly equal to, or on occasion, exceeding th
In one case the property was virtually a gif
elderly farm couples were more demanding
return paid an insignificant rent of one shillin
making the agreement.66
Covenants in life leases illustrated the prior
relations over financial concerns. In the 1840
guaranteed the elderly lessees quiet possessio
stipulating that the younger generation wou
claims against them. As the problems asso
became apparent, the rights of both parties
year-old John Crandell of Cramahe, for exa
50 acres and then the sons gave him a life l
to peaceful possession, John Crandell made
troubled, or fined in any way if he let the
efficiently.67 The life lease that Richard an
John, in 1862, was even more specific. For
annually the elderly couple insisted that Joh
and clothing out of the farm's profits. Altho
of the property for a small sum, they had r
The lease clearly stipulated, however, that Jo
and was eventually to inherit it. In the mea
on the land was considered to be John's with
of his parents.68
It is interesting to note that the Haynes ha
ancy as a way of moving up the agricultural
became tenants once again in their old age. Their story and
this section highiight the inadequacy of economic models s
tural ladder for fully explaining the existence and utility of te
an important strategy used by families not only for starting
down their careers on the land. Moreover, for at least one-th
in Cramahe, tenancy was not so much a business relationsh
erational arrangement, one that existed outside the usual lan
that played an essential role in father-son succession.
CONCLUSION
Tenancy, therefore, was common in the first half of nineteenth ce

tario not only because ofthe economic realities ofthe era but also bec
useful in meeting the needs of farm families?both owners and tenan
struggled to maintain their careers on the land over successive gener
such, tenancy played an important role not only in the lives of people
ily passing through the countryside but also in creating a permanent
on the land. By renting out their farms, farm owners, facing family or
crises, were able to raise some income and hold onto their equity until
able to return to farming or their children took it up. Tenant farmer
concerned about establishing a secure life on the land for the curren
ceeding generations. Acquiring freehold status was not always possi
one generation, but making valuable improvements and keeping th
family, using one's leasehold interest to weather hard times, and passi
improvements and interest to the next generation could be a successf
for eventual ownership. Finally tenancy was important in the vario
of father-son succession. In these cases, the landlord/tenant relation
much a family arrangement as a business relationship that served the
needs of two generations and in the process promised continuity on t
short, tenancy was an essential part ofthe strategies used by individu
to maintain and improve their life on the land, and hence, it played a
role in the development of the province.
By the 1871 census the proportion of tenants had declined from mi
highs of 25% to 50%, to only 15% of the farming population. Tenan
never again attain the same prevalence or be used by families in quit
manner. In part, the decline can be explained by the wider range of em
opportunities and the opening up of land in the West which lessened
on Ontario farm land to provide careers for the current and future g
Furthermore, as the frontier ended in Ontario, government and private
found it unnecessary to use long leases to attract settlers. The issuing of
on clergy reserves ended as early as 1833. As old leases ran out on the
and private property, and the land was settled and cleared, the practis
one's interest slowly died too. Farm owners would continue to rent
farm in times of crisis and parents would still set up their sons with ad
rental terms, but the short-term rental contracts that now prevailed
most landlords and tenants did not confer on tenants the right to tra
property or sell their interest. Thus, the usefulness of tenancy in family
for establishing the next generation or accumulating capital declined
The findings in this article have significanc

iight the limitations of understanding tenan
conventional economic theory. Profit, while
part of a broader range of motives that enco
ing a career on the land, providing security i
generation. Indeed in many cases, especially t
lationship was a family affair, tenurial agreem
circumstances and on the carefui balancing o
than on market forces.
Department of History
Guelph, Ontario, CanadaNIG 2W1
ENDNOTES
Sources frequently cited have been identified by the following abbreviations: C = M
script Census for Cramahe Township; A = Assessment for Cramahe Township; C
Census and Assessment for Cramahe, as in some years these were taken together
three sources above are available at the Archives of Ontario, RG1 Newcastle Dis
Census and Assessment (1803-1850) MS 16 Reels 2 & 3. The Census of 1842 for Cr
is available at the University of Guelph, Reel C-1344. AID = Abstract Index to D
Cramahe Township, Archives of Ontario, GS.4727, Reels 1 & 2.
I gratefully acknowiedge the assistance of a grant from the Social Sciences and
manities Research Council of Canada in the research of this paper which is part
larger project currently in progress. I also thank the following people for their assi
and helpful suggestions: Marty Pullin, Jamie Snell, Bill Marr, and Kris Inwood.
1. Tenant is defined as one who rents all the land they farm. Where farmers ow
rent land at the same time, they have been classified as owners. For a discussion on "fa
strategy" see L. R Moch et al., "Family Strategy: A Dialogue," Historical Methods
(Summer 1987): 113-125.
2. See for example: R. Higgs, "Patterns of Farm Rental in the Georgia Cotton B
1880-1900," The Journal of Economic History 34 (1974): 469-470; L. J. Alston a
Higgs, "Contractual Mix in Southern Agriculture since the Civil War," The Jour
Economic History 42 (1982): 327-354; and L. J. Alston, "Tenure Choice in Sou
Agriculture, 1930-1960," Explorations in Economic History 18 (1981): 211-232.
3. Cheung and Reid and others have written extensively on risk, see for exa
Steven N. S. Cheung, The Theory of Share Tenancy (Chicago, 1969); idem, "Trans
Costs, Risk Aversion, and the Choices of Contractual Arrangements," The Journal
and Economies 12 (1969): 23-42; and J. D. Reid, "Sharecropping as an Understan
Market Response: The Post Bellum South," The Journal ofEconomic History 33 (
106-130; idem, "Sharecropping and Agricultural Uncertainty," Economic Develop
and Cultural Change 24 (April 1976): 549-76; idem, "Sharecropping and Tenan
American History," in J. A. Roumasset, J. Boussard, and in Singh, eds, Risk, Uncer
and Agricultural Development (New York, 1979).
4. The first person to posit the theory of the agricultural ladder was Richard T
"Landed Property as an Economic Concept and as a Field of Research," American Eco
Review 7 (1917): 18-35. Since then several scholars have elaborated on his work
for example, A. G. Bogue, From Prairie to Cornbek (Chicago, 1963); Jeremy Atack,
Agricultural Ladder Revisited," Agricultural History 63, 1 (Winter 1989): 1-25; D
Winters, Farmers Without Farms (Westport, CT, 1978); idem, "The Agricultural Lad
Southern Agriculture: Tennessee, 1850-1870,"AgrzcuIturaIHistor7 61,3 (Summer
36-52; and recently C. F. Heller Jr. and J. T. Houdek, "Farm Tenan
Nineteenth-Century Southern Michigan," Agricultural History 70
625.
5. Robert Diller, Farm Ownership, Tenancy, and Land Use in a Ne

(New York, 1979), 52-53; Winters, Farmers Without Farms, 18-19, 7
erson, Between Memory and Reality: Family and Community in Rural
(Madison, 1992), 29-30, 265; and Sonja Salamon and Shirley M. O'R
and Developmental Cycles Among Illinois Farmers," Rural Sociobg
6. For a review of this debate see: D. L. Winters, "Agricultural Te

teenth-Century Middle West: The Historiographical Debate," Indiana
29 (June 1982): 128-153.
7. Ian Ross Robertson, The Tenant League of Prince Edward Island

1996).
8. The following books give surprisingly little attention to tenancy: Douglas McCalla,
Planting the Province: The Economic History of Upper Canada 1784-1870 (Toronto, 1993);
Peter Russell, Attitudes to Social Structure & Mobility in Upper Canada 1815-1840 (Lewis-
ton, NY, 1990); and Gordon Darroch and Lee Soltow, Property and Inequality in Victorian
Ontario (Toronto, 1994).
9. See R. W. Widdis, "A Perspective on Land Tenure in Upper Canada: A Study of

Elizabethtown Township, 1790-1840," M. A. Thesis, McMaster University, 1977; Leo
A. Johnson, "The State of Agricultural Development in the Western District to 1851,"
and John Clarke, "Geographical Aspects of Land Speculation in Essex County to 1825,"
both in K. G. Pryke and L. L. Kulisck, eds., The Western District (Windsor Ont., 1983).
10. William Marr, "Tenant vs Owner Occupied Farms in York County," in Canadian
Papers in Rural History 4 (1984): 50-70; idem, "The Distribution of Tenant Agriculture:
Ontario, Canada, 1871," Social Science History 11, 2 (1987): 169-186; and idem, "Nine?
teenth Century Tenancy Rates in Ontario's Counties, 1881 and 1891," Journal of Social
History 21 (1988): 753-764; and Catharine Anne Wilson, A New Lease on Life: Landlords,
Tenants and Immigrants in Ireland and Canada (Kingston/Montreal, 1994).
11. Census of Canada 1870-71 3 (Ottawa, 1875); and Marr, "Tenant vs Owner Occupied
Farms," 51.
12. Edward A. Talbot, Five Years Residence in the Canadas (London, 1824), 179.
13. Clarke, "Geographical Aspects of Land Speculation," 93; Widdis, "Perspective on

Land Tenure," 96; Johnson, "State of Agricultural Development," 130; and David Gagan,
Hopeful Travellers (Toronto, 1981), 34, 36.
14. Table V, Censuses of Canada 1665-1871 4 (Ottawa, 1876). How "tenant" was defined
in 1848 is unclear. The aggregate version ofthe census lists "owners" and "tenants." The
manuscript version of the 1848 census had no such category as "tenant" but called those
not owning their land "non-proprietors." Non-proprietor included tenants as I have
defined them in this paper, plus squatters, and perhaps others as well. Each census taker
seems to have interpreted the category as he saw fit and no specific guidelines have
survived.
15. The prices in this paper, unless in dollars, are given in Haiifax currency. The dollar
was made the official currency on 1 January 1858. In 1853 $4 = ?1 sterling, ?1 ster-
ling * ?1/4/4 Haiifax currency. Completed Emigration Questionnaire 1840-41, National
Archives, RG5, B21, vol. 1, Newcastle District (hereafter Questionnaire 1840-41); W.
H. Smith, Canada: Past, Present and Future II (reprint, Belleville 1974; original, 1851),
522-3; TheCanadaFarmer 4 (15 April 1867): 121-2; C

196; Journal and Transactions ofthe Board of Agricult
328.
16. Questionnaire 1840-41; J. F. W. Johnston, Not

275; George Easton, Travels in America (Glasgow
April 1867): 121-22; and 1 (15 Sept 1864): 270.
17. What we call southern Ontario today was know

nineteenth century. At Confederation in 1867 it
will be used here.
18. Alan Wilson, The Clergy Reserves of Upper C

Gates, Land Policies of Upper Canada ( Toronto, 19
Reserves" by R. B. Sullivan, Commissioner of Crow
to John Joseph Esq., the Civil Secretary, copy encl
Lord Glenelg, 24 April 1837, Colonial Office Pape
437, Reel B 341 (hereafter Sullivan Report 1837),
19. Wilson, Clergy Reserves, 31-34,42,44; and Donal

A Study in Rural History (Kingston/Montreal, 1984
20. Conventional wisdom holds that the person to w

end of a lease is the "owner" but usually no single o
of "ownership" at all. Andrew Reeve, Property (New
21. Selling one's interest in rented property, or "te

Ireland and England, has recently received the at
E. Vaughan, Landlords, and Tenants in MidAfictorian
Guinnane and Ronald I. Miller, "Bonds without Bond
Century Ireland," The Journal ofEconomic History
New Lease on Life; and William Dowling, "Tenant R
tional Agriculture in Rural Ulster 1600-1850," Unpu
of Wisconsin, 1994.
22. See for example, Cramahe Township Papers, C

tario, RG1, A-IV, Reel MS658.
23. Wilson, A New Lease on Life ,214-15.
24. Sullivan to His Excellency, 14 Sept 1839; Cle

01006-8; and Wilson, Clergy Reserves, 249. In ord
had to submit an application to purchase, prove tha
by presenting the lease or an assignment or othe
rent, and have made substantial improvements. In A
Contest for Land on the Northeastern Frontier, 17
46, 1 (1989): 3-26, settlers' improvements were ofte
to prove title to the land.
25. McCalla, Planting the Province, 28-9; and Pete

Man's Country? Some Statistical Evidence," Canad
130, 136-8.
26. Even when a tenant purchased the freehold of h

ment, his improvements were not included in the p
440; and R. B. Sullivan to His Excellency the Gove
1839, Clergy Reserve Legislation and Sales, Crown
RG1, A-I-7, vol. 3, env. 2, Reel MS 892 #1, 010
Canadian Agriculturalist 14 (Nov. 1862): 647, where selling improvem
ered part of a tenant's farm capital.
27. Sullivan Report 1837, 437-54; and Wilson, A New Lease on Uf
28. In 1851 Cramahe was divided into two townships. For the pu
Cramahe Township consists ofthe post-1851 description namely lots
sions Broken Front to the tenth. For a description of it at mid-centu
Fifteen Years in Canada (Edinburgh, 1850), 20; lllustrated Historical A
Northumberland and Durham (Toronto, 1878, reprint Belleville, 197
GazetteerandDirectoryforNorthu'd&Durham, 1865-6 (Woodstock,
Star, 21 July 1841; and 3 and 17 Sept 1845.
29. Peter A. Russell, "Upper Canada: A Poor Man's Country?" 130
30. C1842; and Appendix to the Third Volume of the Journals of the Le
the Province of Canada (Kingston, 1844), Appendix DD, Table 13.
31. Questionnaire 1840-41; and Henry Ruttan, Sheriff of Newcastl

to Lord Sydenham's Circular Letter, 1840, Trent University Archive
32. The pattern of Cramahe's growth was typical of Ontario in th

Plantingthe Province, 3-4, 218.
33. These figures for Cramahe are for farm tenants and do not incl
The 1820 figure was calculated by matching the 1820 Assessment
Index to Deeds. C1848; and Census of Canada 1870-71 3 (Ottawa, 1
34. Some notable exceptions come to mind such as Archibald, laird

in Renfrew County and the Earl of Mountcashel's estate on Amhe
one contemporary commented on how landlords were usually ordinar
Farms," The Canada Farmer 2 (15 Feb 1865): 57-8. Robert Diller
tenancy "functional" as opposed to tenancy resulting from "functio
farm property" brought on by depression etc, Diller, Farm Ownersh
35. C1842; "Return of Inspection, Newcastle District 1844 Clergy

Land Papers, Archives of Ontario, RG1, A-VI-8, vol. 16 (hereafte
and "Land Survey of 1840 Newcastle District," Office ofthe Chief Ac
of Toronto Archives, A68-0010,1, Group B, 1, vol. 129.
36. Compiled from C1842; A1842; and AID.
37. W. H. Graham, Greenbank (Peterborough, 1988), 164,179.
38. Anne B. Effland, Denise M. Rogers and Valerie Grim, "Wom

Landowners: What Do We Know About Them," Agricultural History
250.
39. Margaret Fowlie to Brother, 7 May 1865, and 21 August 1865, Do

University of Guelph Archives.
40. Graham, Greenbank, 291.
41. Graham, Greenbank, 191-2.
42. Dougall Family Papers, 15 January 1857,22 March 1864,2 June

1866.
43. Letter 12 October 1840, in Frances Browne

1902), 166.
44. "Leasing Small Farms," The Canada Farmer 4 (January 1872): 19.
45. Francis A. Evans, The Emigrants Guide to Obtain Lands and Effect a Settlement in the
Canadas (Dublin, 1833), 78.
46. James Reid Papers, letters 1 March 1847 and 20 September 1856, Archives of On?
tario, MU 2382. Liam Kennedy examines the assets and costs for heir and donor, see
"Farm Succession in Modern Ireland: Elements of a Theory of Inheritance," Economic
History Review 44, 3 (1991): 478-9; M. Friedberger in his study of inheritance in the
cornbelt 1870-1950 argues that real estate was heavily discounted for intra-familial pur?
poses: "The Family Farm and the Inheritance Process," Agricultural History 57 (1983):
12.
47. Another 42% of tenant families in 1842 moved out of the area and whether they
eventually owned or not is uncertain. Twenty-five percent left their rented farms because
of old age or death.
48. "Inspection 1844," lot 20, concession 8; and Cramahe Township Papers, Crown Land
Papers, Archives of Ontario, RG1, A-IV, Reel MS-658, (hereafter: Township Papers),
#1062-1073.
49. "Reports on Leases No 2 1823-57," RG1, A-II-1, vol. 5; C&A1826 and 1830;
"Dockets of Leases of Clergy Reserves, 1802-1835," Crown Land Papers: Leases: Misc
Records, Archives of Ontario RG1, C-II-3, vol. 1; and "Inspection 1844."
50. Office of the Chief Accountant, University of Toronto Archives, A68-0010, Sec?
tion III, Group B, Cramahe Township, lot 21, concession 1; and "Land Survey of 1840
Newcastle District," Office ofthe Chief Accountant, A68-0010, Section I, Group B, 1,
vol. 129.
51. Township Papers, lot 15, concession 1, #78-90, #99; and AID Lot 15, concession 1.
52. David Friedberger, Farm Families and Change in Twentieth Century America (Lexing-
ton, 1988), 82; and Diller, Farm Ownership, 136.
53. A1825, C1842, and C&A 1832.
54. Edward: C&A 1827. William Jr., C&A 1831; and Office ofthe Chief Accountant,
A68-0010, III, B, lot 24, concession 4.
55. C&A 1836 and 1837; A1840.
56. Edward: "Inspection and Valuation reports, Newcastle District 1831-37," Crown
Land Papers, Archives of Ontario, RG1 A-VI-8, vol. 4, Cramahe, 1833; A1839; and
"Inspection 1844." John: C1842. George: C&A 1837 and A1844.
57. A1869; and AID lot 28, concession 1.
58. lllustrated Historical Atlas, 81-82, and AID lot 23 and 24, concession 2, and lot 28,
concession 1 and Broken Front.
59. The following two articles are very useful in understanding inter-generational trans?
fers: James G. Snell, "Maintenance Agreements for the Elderly: Canada, 1900-1951,"
Journal ofthe Canadian Historical Association New Series, 3 (1992): 197-216; and Kennedy,
"Farm Succession," 477-499.
60. Sonya Salamon, Kathleen M. Gengengacher, and Dwight J. P
tors Affecting the Intergenerational Succession to Farming," Human
(1986): 29-30.
61. Will of Nathan Gould, Cramahe Copybooks, Archives of Onta

Instrument 171, Reel GS-4730; C1842; AID lot 19 conc. 2; Townsh
and obituary of Seth Burr Gould, 1894, Scrapbook, Colborne Public
62. Bruce S. Elliott, Irish Migrants in the Canadas (Kingston/Mont

though the parties involved are called landlord and tenant, and th
right to take back the land when the lease expires as in regular landl
the life lease is not legally considered to create a "tenancy" but is con
conveyance of land.
63. Fish vs Leary, 1888, Court of Common Pleas, Court Records?

Northumberland and Durham, Trent University Archives, 84-020/88
64. Maintenance agreements usually only concerned food and shelter

into disrepute in the twentieth century in Europe and America whe
were found to be too rigid. Better results, in Wisconsin, resulted fr
were contingent upon the transfer of land, such as those being discus
however, the land registration process made no specific provision fo
such land-based maintenance agreements. As a result, many agre
registered, or appear as agreements, bonds, trust deeds, and life l
Friedberger, Farm Families, 74-75; Elliott, Irish Migrants, 211-12.
65. Deed Book A, Instruments 14, 56, 291, Reel GS 4730; Deed Boo
624-626, 206 and 560, Reel GS 4731; Deed Book C, Instrument 51,
66. Deed Book A, Instruments 372 and 373, Reel GS 4730; and Dee
ment 498, Reel GS 4732.
67. Deed Book B, Instrument 626, Reel GS 4731.
68. Deed Book C, Instrument 498, Reel GS 4732.

Wilson TenancyFamilyStrategy 1998

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wilson TenancyFamilyStrategy 1998

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tenancy as a Family Strategy in Mid-Nineteenth Century Ontario

Author(s): Catharine Anne Wilson

By Catharine Anne Wilson University of Guelph

step on the agricultural ladder but as a way of l

TENANCY IN NINETEENTH CENTURY ONTARIO

The first systematic counting of tenancy in Ontario begins with t

had the first opportunity, before all other applic

landlords and tenants, and their family connec

FARM-OWNING FAMILIES AND TENANCY

have been had by entering the land market we

TENANT FARM FAMILIES

cleared sixty acres on their 100 acre farm. The

TENANCY AND FATHER-SON SUCCESSION

So far this paper has examined the family circumstances of landlo

although the older generation had given up t

Tenancy, therefore, was common in the first half of nineteenth ce

The findings in this article have significanc

5. Robert Diller, Farm Ownership, Tenancy, and Land Use in a Ne

6. For a review of this debate see: D. L. Winters, "Agricultural Te

7. Ian Ross Robertson, The Tenant League of Prince Edward Island

9. See R. W. Widdis, "A Perspective on Land Tenure in Upper Canada: A Study of

13. Clarke, "Geographical Aspects of Land Speculation," 93; Widdis, "Perspective on

522-3; TheCanadaFarmer 4 (15 April 1867): 121-2; C

16. Questionnaire 1840-41; J. F. W. Johnston, Not

17. What we call southern Ontario today was know

18. Alan Wilson, The Clergy Reserves of Upper C

19. Wilson, Clergy Reserves, 31-34,42,44; and Donal

20. Conventional wisdom holds that the person to w

21. Selling one's interest in rented property, or "te

22. See for example, Cramahe Township Papers, C

23. Wilson, A New Lease on Life ,214-15.

24. Sullivan to His Excellency, 14 Sept 1839; Cle

25. McCalla, Planting the Province, 28-9; and Pete

26. Even when a tenant purchased the freehold of h

27. Sullivan Report 1837, 437-54; and Wilson, A New Lease on Uf

29. Peter A. Russell, "Upper Canada: A Poor Man's Country?" 130

31. Questionnaire 1840-41; and Henry Ruttan, Sheriff of Newcastl

32. The pattern of Cramahe's growth was typical of Ontario in th

34. Some notable exceptions come to mind such as Archibald, laird

35. C1842; "Return of Inspection, Newcastle District 1844 Clergy

36. Compiled from C1842; A1842; and AID.

37. W. H. Graham, Greenbank (Peterborough, 1988), 164,179.

38. Anne B. Effland, Denise M. Rogers and Valerie Grim, "Wom

39. Margaret Fowlie to Brother, 7 May 1865, and 21 August 1865, Do

40. Graham, Greenbank, 291.

41. Graham, Greenbank, 191-2.

42. Dougall Family Papers, 15 January 1857,22 March 1864,2 June

43. Letter 12 October 1840, in Frances Browne

53. A1825, C1842, and C&A 1832.

55. C&A 1836 and 1837; A1840.

57. A1869; and AID lot 28, concession 1.

61. Will of Nathan Gould, Cramahe Copybooks, Archives of Onta

62. Bruce S. Elliott, Irish Migrants in the Canadas (Kingston/Mont

63. Fish vs Leary, 1888, Court of Common Pleas, Court Records?

64. Maintenance agreements usually only concerned food and shelter

67. Deed Book B, Instrument 626, Reel GS 4731.

68. Deed Book C, Instrument 498, Reel GS 4732.

You might also like