"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."