Further structural information regarding Craigflower Farmhouse was found in Peter Cotton’s report prepared to provide readers with an insight into the restoration process. Mr. Cotton’s report contains valuable information that will help future guides working at this site understand more thoroughly the original architectural details of the farmhouse that were found and preserved during the 1967 restoration. The following review of Peter Cotton’s report contains some of the main points that should assist guides relating this information to the general public.
Peter Cotton was engaged by the Deputy Provincial Secretary and the Provincial Librarian & Archivist on 16th October 1967 to submit proposals for restoring Craigflower Farmhouse to a condition that it might have been in during Kenneth McKenzie’s 1856-1866 Occupancy. A working date of 1860 was selected. Besides restoring the Farmhouse, a proposal was also submitted for a curator’s residence to be built on the property. Work for this project was to be paid from a special warrant. Time became an important factor as the money allotted was to be dispersed by 31st March 1968. Subsequently, arrangements were made and the time period was extended and the house opened to the general public, with some furnishing still to be completed, on 20 June 1969.
Photography of the Manor took place immediately as evidence of its "as found" condition. The exterior was photographed in black and white and the interior was photographed in colour with stereoscopic views of the major rooms. Carolyn Case, Curator of History at the Provincial Museum and Mrs. Thompson prepared an inventory of all furnishings in the house. Mrs. Thompson was supposed to have recorded on tape her knowledge of all the furnishings in the farmhouse as she and Miss Case prepared the inventory. However, this tape has never been found. Carolyn Case and Peter Cotton studied the existing furnishings and chose items that were appropriate to return after the restoration and noted other furnishing that were inappropriate from the point of view of age, design, or economic level of the McKenzies.
Removal of these furnishings was made 6 December 1967. Carpets were removed professionally and cleaned before going to storage. Small items of hardware and miscellaneous memorabilia were taken to the Provincial Museum by Miss Case.
Peter Cotton was given an archive’s photograph dated 1863 of the Farmhouse taken from the west showing a small outbuilding attached to the main house and instructed to use this as the control photograph for the restoration. This "annex" shown in the control photograph is referred to as "the scullery" throughout Peter Cotton’s report.
Working drawings containing "as found" information made of the site and house were used as a base for the restoration. Demolition work to be done was also recorded. Examination of structural conditions exposed during the demolition led to further decisions which were noted on the working drawings prepared by Cotton. For example, walls that had been removed, fireplaces that had been boarded shut, and wooden shutters removed or closed-off were found during this examination. Many of the original features were discovered and restored. Demolition work also included removing the modern plumbing that had been installed when the Farmhouse was used as an annex to the Discovery Motel.
Cotton’s biggest complaint about this restoration project was the lack of photographs showing the house from all four sides. If these additional photographs had been available, a lot of guess work would have been eliminated. However, Cotton and his crew photographed their restoration work in detail and a full index of photographs is included with their report. All negatives for these photographs were given to the Provincial Archives.
Craigflower Farmhouse was leased out to a series of tenants after McKenzie’s contract terminated. Minor structural alterations were made by some of these people to the house until 1922 when the Hudson’s Bay Company altered it for use as a social; centre for its employees. An article in the Beaver, issue for February 1923, p. 205, reports that "changes in the interior will be made so that the house will be more suitable for club rooms". The farmhouse was reverted to lease again until it was sold to Mr. Christie in 1937 who made numerous changes -- the installation of five bathrooms, plus further alterations to the rooms in order to be used as an annex to Mr. Christie’s motel. In 1965 the farmhouse was purchased by the Thompsons who later sold it to the government.
Cotton states that "Craigflower Farmhouse is a unique asset" to British Columbia as it’s our "earliest standing example of a house type whose roots go back to the 17th Century". This house type became more common in North America in the latter half of the 18th Century but the closest comparable example to Craigflower is in Oregon. Yet the American structures are different because of the addition of dormers in the roof. So, Craigflower is unique in a second sense. Craigflower Farmhouse was built with Gothic Revival details such as the fanlight over the entrance, larder windows, and upstairs fireplace surrounds in the two large bedrooms off the landing.
Another unique feature about the farmhouse is its overall construction. After thorough examination, it was found to have the frame construction typical of the Hudson’s Bay Company’s "En Colummbage". This consists of horizontal squared logs with tenoned ends set into grooved uprights, also square logs but larger. This is the type of construction discovered on the ground floor. The upper storey was found to be medieval frame construction with great vertical studs mortised and tenoned to their beams. One informant who assisted Cotton’s restoration team reported that all floors in this upper storey are made from half logs finished on the top side.
Reference is made on several occasions in Cotton’s report to the "Craigflower Farmhouse". Also, throughout Kenneth McKenzie’s ledgers/account books in the Archive’s holding, McKenzie refers to the "Craigflower Farmhouse". Newspaper articles in local papers also refer to "Craigflower Farmhouse" up until 1965 when "Manor" suddenly appears. This confirms my view that the term "Manor" is misleading.
Primary sources at the Provincial Archives were examined by Peter Cotton. Copies of all photographs relating to Craigflower farm were obtained and a cursory examination of McKenzie’s papers was done prior to any restoration work. Photographs that the Native Sons & Daughters had on display in Craigflower Schoolhouse of the farm that differed from those in the Archives were also copied and included in Cotton’s files. The farmhouse itself became a primary source of information.
Secondary sources examined by Cotton consisted of: Oregon Historical Center (Society) in Portland. Files that contained photographs, measured drawings, etc., of similar buildings were studied. Eight of some fifty were similar to Craigflower and three buildings recorded in these files were still standing which Cotton visited, photographed and examined structural details. The three buildings similar to Craigflower in Oregon were: Pacific College at Forest Groves (20 miles West of Portland) which has exterior window heads on the ground floor similar to Craigflower’s, The Howell-Bybee house on Sauvie Island, North-west of Portland, which was built in the 1850s, and the McLaughlin House, built in 1846. One reference considered most valuable by Cotton for this restoration project was the "Encyclopaedia of Cottage, Farm & Villa Architecture" by J.W. Loudon, Frederick Warne & Co., London (1377 pages).
Examination of the Farmhouse roof showed its frame to be spaced with horizontal sheathing of 1" x 6" sawn fir which indicated to the restoration crew that Craigflower’s original roof was most likely shingles. Interior supports were not found that would carry the weight of slate and no slate shards were found in the soil around the perimeter of the house where the soil had been disturbed by the original drain. Cotton suggested shingles were used rather than shakes as the appearance of shingles more closely resembles slate and shingles were considered the best type of roofing at the time Craigflower Farmhouse was built. (When studying McKenzie’s account books for the 1850s, I found orders for shingles. Further proof that shingles were being used at Craigflower appears in McKenzie’s account book, which contains entries recording the construction of the Schoolhouse. For example, on the 2nd October 1854, 29 lbs. of shingles nails and 10,000 shingles were delivered to Craigflower Schoolhouse and on the 10th October 1854, 6000 shingles are recorded as being delivered to the school site.)
Cotton believed that the original foundations were stone. The footings were found to be cased on the outside by 1/4 plywood, and, in some places, shingles -- probably to cut the wind under the house. When this casing was removed, piers of concrete brick with small areas of undisturbed stone was discovered. These piers were believed to have been installed in 1937 during Mr. Christie’s alterations. Stone of similar colour and size was found in the retaining wall to the S.E. of the house around the old motel parking lot. There was enough left to "mine" this wall to rebuild the footings. The mason cut back the faces of the concrete brick piers and laid new stone across the face to conceal the presence of the bricks rather than completely remove the brick piers.
Chimney footings were reinforced and voids in their stonework were filled with concrete before the stone was laid across. Stone was also used as a facing to the concrete wall under the new annex. A trap door was cut to the crawl space under the main house in the closet under the staircase. A second trap door was cut in the electric room off the scullery annex to provide access to that section of the house. A brick drain was discovered running approximately parallel to the north wall of the main house and 3’ 0" from it during the archaeological dig of the site. New concrete footings were held back from this drain so future explorations could be made if required.
Main structural members under the house were found to be in fairly sound condition. Apparently, only a section of the larder frame and the beam under the front door had to be replaced. All existing work was painted with insecticide. Two extra longitudinal beams were added on concrete piers preloaded by jacks and the crawl space was cleaned of all debris, levelled and sealed with 6 mil. Polyethylene covered in coarse sand. Minor voids were left in the perimeter stone work to provide ventilation and excess moisture drained by the new perimeter drain which, according to Cotton, should prevent dry rot.
Examination of the lower floor revealed thicker walls than the upper storey walls. Two exceptions were at the main entrance and the back door. When the curator’s annex was demolished, evidence of earlier annexes for the house were expected to be found. However, only clapboard was discovered on the north wall of a date subsequent to the original. Even though there was no physical evidence of earlier annexes, archival photographs indicated there was indeed a scullery attached to the rear of the house. Removal of the clapboard disclosed the lower floor to be framed with heavy timbers typical of Hudson’s Bay Company’s technique. Part of this timber framing was left exposed in the new annex. To the left of this framing the original lath and plaster keys of the kitchen wall were also left exposed. What might have been intended to be a window was found to the right of the framing. At some point a doorway had been cut into this section which was sealed during the restoration Siding removed from this north facade was used to replace and patch damaged siding on other facades. The only original siding on this face was in the gable at the junction between the original and the 1968 new siding. Peter Cotton located a mill that would rip-saw new siding with an old circular blade only 2" difference in diameter from the original (24" vs 26"). New boards were placed in the original coursing as paint on the corner boards had left clear marks of the original position of each boards.
Major exterior patches were required where three bathroom windows had been added on the upper level. Additional holes that required patching were near the main entrance where gas and electric meters had once been placed and where plumbing equipment had been installed. Minor repairs were made to slivered or rotted boards and to tighten up voids and gaps of warped members. The larder, as found, was sheathed in shingles. A relocated small gothic window was exposed by removal of these shingles which was returned to its original position and the siding was restored on the western side.
The restoration crew scraped away at the paint on exterior surfaces of the farmhouse but evidence of a change in colour was not found. The original paint had been white and red. Modern paints were purchased that looked very similar to the original colour. Window sashes were originally painted with an enamel which Cotton thought had been a white that yellows with age. Therefore, a tint of ochre was added to the new paint.
Interior walls "as found" were in good condition for the age of the house and the bulk of plaster surfaces was retained. However, new plaster work was required in several places where bathroom windows were blocked up, where repair to chimneys meant damage to the original plaster, where a doorway had once been cut between two rooms. and where original partitions had to be reconstructed in the downstairs room to subdivide it into four rooms again -- kitchen, morning room, office and pantry.
Removal of wallpaper in the house showed that the old plaster was badly cracked. After the old wallpaper was steamed off, a collection of samples was kept, some 60 different examples. The old plaster was then cleaned very carefully. Large holes were patched with gyproc and/or expanded metal lath (for holes such as those left by electric outlets.). Nail holes from picture rails and picture hooks were filled plus all cracks. This work was then sanded to a smooth surface. Reference in McKenzie’s papers indicated plastering was done at Craigflower -- "21 May 1855 - hair for plaster from Nisqually". Restored wall surfaces were hung with a liner cloth, sized cotton, and painted with an acrylic primer coat. This provided a smooth, tight surface unlikely to crack and should also be good for hanging and stripping paper for years to come.
Ceilings were painted white in most rooms. Wall surfaces not prepared in the above manner are those areas where original wallpaper was left exposed and covered in clear acrylic plastic. The ceiling beams added to the downstairs rooms by Mr. Christie in 1937 damaged the original ceiling plaster when they were removed causing large areas of the original plaster to fall. It was then decided that a good way to introduce electric heat from cables was through the ceiling of the downstairs rooms. Parts of the ceiling plaster were found to be reinforced by expanded metal possibly done when HBC used the building as a recreation centre. These patches were removed and two long slots in the lath work were discovered which, from the lime marks and from the spikes in the joists above the lath, indicated the position of original partitions. Two modern sections of lath were noticed crossing the width of the room implying a cross partition. Their suspicions were confirmed when the 1923 edge grain fir floor was removed and clear marks on the original floor of congealed dirt under the baseboards removed at the time were exposed. Recesses cut into the floor to receive the plinths () to the architrave (*)around the door between rooms numbered 1c and 1d (check blueprints in archives) showed the position and the width of the door. Traffic patterns, but no plinth marks, indicated the entrance to the panty. However, the transverse partition was confusing as ceiling marks and floor marks aligned seemed to head directly into the fireplace. It was decided that a new hearth had to have been built since the original and the corner of the chimney breast replastered so any real evidence of how that partition had terminated had been destroyed. The decision, after much discussion, was that if the wall between rooms 4 & 5 (master bedroom & girl’s bedroom) was angled to miss a fireplace then this wall too probably originally had a bend.
Existing doors in the house appeared to be original except the doors to the 1937 bathrooms. This also included the larder door which had been converted to a bathroom. New doors were made according to the old pattern to go between: Morning room & office, Kitchen & hall, Hall & larder, Scullery & porch, Scullery & "woodshed". Properly aged wood was not available nor was there time in which to age new wood when building these new doors. Consequently, some splitting of panels from shrinkage in the office door and kitchen door occurred. It was difficult to get the mill to supply the work and the men to work with knotty wood in character with that used on the original doors. Staining and finishing of the new doors was done to match the original patina on the old doors. Most doors had their original hand-made hinges and a Danish blacksmith in Victoria made duplicates for new ones required. Main downstairs doors originally had mortise locks but the handles, roses and key-hole plates had been changed. Marks left on the doors showed the position and size of the originals and from an assortment of old knobs and roses purchased by Peter Cotton in England, a reasonable substitution was made.
Upper floor doors originally had large 4" x 6" box type locks and only one remained in Room 8 (nursery). Cotton took this example to England to try and match others from demolition work. There was not enough time to thoroughly check around. A price of $100.00 per box-type lock was quoted from a Pennsylvania firm for original replacements of these locks. It was decided that they could be installed at a subsequent date. Newer hardware on other doors was removed and all holes patched.
The front door lock proved to be original and only required new keys being made and workings overhauled by Price Key Co. A wood cased lock had been added to the back door, which appeared in the Craigflower Inventory but the source not determined.
Upper floor windows are identified as older style casements. Peter Cotton states ground floor windows are double-hung in what was know as "in the modern style, with sashes hung in lines, weights and pulleys, etc". All window sash appeared to be original and in good condition. McKenzie’s accounts listed purchases from San Francisco for window sash and Peter wondered if the "as found" sash were the original ones as they are well made and appeared to be mill-made rather than made on the premises.
Damaged window glass was also found in the house. The replacement glass installed was old glass that matched the quality of the original. One window of the double hung style was operable. Others had been painted shut over the years and Peter Cotton did not want to do any damage by trying to dislodge the windows so they were left as found. All double hung windows had originally been fitted with sliding shutters. These were to protect the house from sun, cold, wind, and burglars.
Examination of the windows proved that over the years most of the sliding shutters had been nailed in place and pockets sealed off with weather-stripping. The construction of these shutters actually provided no protection from wind as once the pocket is emptied of the shutter, great drafts billow through the opening. This is probably why they had been permanently closed off. Only shutters in the kitchen were operable and have been left to demonstrate their use to visitors.
During the restoration all upper floor windows were curtained alike. Mrs. Kinnis of Victoria was contracted to make these hand woven curtains from an old "huck" pattern. A lighter weight version was chosen to allow more light into the rooms. (Note: Very few of these hand woven curtains now remain as Mrs. Thompson cleaned them in her washing machine which practically tore the curtains into shreds. Her replacement curtains are made from a polyester cotton, most inappropriate as period curtain fabric.)
Window sashes and surrounds on this floor were found to have numerous small holes indicating a variety of curtain rods and fixing had been used over the years. These upper floor windows were found to be fitted with old, handmade brass catches and iron knobs as well as some modern hardware. Repairs were done to some of the older hardware and the modern fittings were removed. Evidence of plaster damage caused from rainwater penetration was found below several windows, notably in the Master bedroom. Peter Cotton designed the curtain rods for these casement windows. He tried to produce a rod similar to what a blacksmith would have made and came up with a simple rod having bent ends and a pigtail loop. Hardware on lower floor windows was intact except for a few knobs. Mr. Cotton purchased a couple of these knobs in England and had others required made up from new pulls of the same shape. Scullery window hardware was left "as found".
Seven fireplaces were found in the farmhouse. Three of these fireplaces were invisible in 1968 having been previously blocked up. Three other fireplaces were modified and one appeared mutilated. The mutilated-looking fireplace was in the Master bedroom. It had been wedged in the corner of the room between the center partition and the wall of the 1937 bathroom. Part of the surround appeared to have been cut off. However, removal of this wall showed the surround to be intact. The wall had been scribed to fit around it. House paint was removed from the surround and it appeared to have green stain or paint as its original finish. This surround was removed for cleaning and repair and examination of its material, appearance of the back, and general fixing, indicated it was original. The fireplace grate in this room was also found to be an original fixture.
The bedroom fireplace on the opposite of the Master bedroom had its opening bricked-up and a bricked-in thimble was found where a stove pipe once entered the stack. This material was removed and the gothic arch from that in the Master bedroom was duplicated for this twin opening. The wood was stained brown to match the woodwork. A blacksmith duplicated the fireplace grate in the Master bedroom for this opening.
Corner fireplaces were also found in the upper storey rooms at the north end -- the nursery and the boy’s room. Both of these fireplaces were found to be blocked-up. A bathroom had been added to the nursery room, and the fireplace opening was concealed behind tiling of a 1937 shower in this bathroom. When all the debris was cleared away from this fireplace, clear evidence remained of the original size of its opening, the line of the parging around the opening, the height, thickness and width of the mantel and the original brick hearth.
Examination of its mate in the boy’s room confirmed some of the findings. New surrounds were made based on the door trim details. The nursery surround was stained to match the woodwork and the boy’s room surround was painted to match the wallpaper. The reason for this was to avoid repetition and to show alternate possibilities. These fireplaces sit back to back with the kitchen flue going up between.
Upper storey fireplaces were found to have originally been plastered on their breasts directly to the brick. The sides were lathed on studs touching the stack’s brick work. This was considered dangerous so new studs of U-shaped galvanised iron made to the exact dimensions of each wood stud were installed and expanded metal lath was fixed in place with sheet metal screws then plastered over. Duplicate or re-used corner beading was wired to the expanded lath.
Modifications had also been made to the parlour fireplace. The new construction dating about 1937 was angled across the corner of the room. Joiner marks and pressed bricks were found. The mantel was removed. Where the center partition in the corner of the room met the chimney, the groove in original plaster work showed the width, thickness, edge profile, and height above the floor of the original mantel. The original fireplace would have faced the fall door and not have been angled.
Confirmation of the parlour fireplace’s position was found after layers of paper removed from the corner bead showed it to be severely charred. After more paper was stripped, the sloped facet of the chimney breast showed that the original corner bricks had been chopped off and a new surface applied. The entire stack was rebuilt according to the proportions of the nursery’s and boy’s room fireplaces.
A new surround was designed and console brackets to support the mantel were made based on the existing bracket in the dining room.
A fireplace grate identified as the "original grate from Craigflower" was acquired from the Provincial Archives after the parlour fireplace had been rebuilt. If the grate had been obtained earlier, the opening could have been made an inch wider to accommodate it, but Peter Cotton thought it would have looked gross in the parlour fireplace. Instead, this original grate was fitted into the kitchen fireplace.
The restoration crew felt that the dining room fireplace would have originally matched or been very similar to the parlour’s fireplace. However, the dining room fireplace had been modified and angled to the corner at an earlier date than the parlour’s. The bricks appeared to be handmade and the surround was an old pattern what might have been common in the 1860s. Rather than duplicate the parlour opening, it was decided to clean-up and refix the old surround. The "wings" which extended from the wall were rebuilt as they were in a state of collapse. Once these wings were removed, old mortar, dust, ashes and soil tumbled out indicating the voids had been packed full of rubbish -- possibly as a safety measure.
The kitchen fireplace had been redone by Mr. Christie in what Peter Cotton calls "Merrie Englande" style with heavy posts and beams and shaped brackets to the mantel. A replica of sorts had been made of the Archive’s grate which sat in the center of the opening on a raised concrete hearth between two cubes of brick, the same height as the grate. An extra thickness of brick lined the fireplace sides. All of this was removed in order to examine the construction of the fireplace more thoroughly and return it to its original state.
Arrangements were made for the building inspector and fire marshall to study all fireplaces before any restoration work on them was started. They asked that the two chimneys be completely rebuilt to modern standards, if they were to be used. Cotton tried to appeal this request. It was finally agreed that all flues would be lined with clay flue liners. These liners were inserted by the mason and the brick was replaced in such a way that preserved the chimneys and defy detection.
Heating the farmhouse was one of the major considerations. Seven flues would draw off a lot of heat so, each fireplace was fitted with a damper when the chimneys were being rebuilt. While this restoration of the chimneys was being done, the crew discovered that the large room had originally been four small rooms. The kitchen fireplace turned out to be another corner fireplace like all the other fireplaces in the farmhouse.
Examination of the kitchen fireplace revealed that it still had the original iron bar built in the throat of the chimney from which cooking pots would have been hung. Introduction of a damper in this fireplace meant a minor relocation of the iron bar.
Stripping the chimney breast of the kitchen fireplace exposed a small thimble near the ceiling and a larger one below, both of uncertain date, but indicating that kitcheners had been installed at some earlier date. Another thimble was found on the west side of the chimney, office room side, which appeared to be original, too. This opening probable served a stove for heating the office and the morning room.
The existence of the iron bar in the kitchen fireplace implied that some open fire cooking had once been done. Furthermore, cast iron kitchen ranges, originally called "kitcheners", were in common use during the time of the McKenzies’ occupancy. Two types, open and closed, were intend to be built into fireplace recesses such as that found in the farmhouse.
To show the different cultural background of Craigflower, Peter Cotton chose to incorporate a range. Two were located in England and one was purchased and installed. The original grate returned to Craigflower from the Archives was combined with this range to show a closed range and an open fire.
The small annex on the north end of the farmhouse was thought to have been the scullery and the lean-to appended to it a woodshed. After studying two photographs of Craigflower, the crew was able to establish the roof line of the scullery annex against the wall of the main house, length of the annex, size and location of the windows. Another old photograph assisted in determining the vertical board cladding. Entry to the scullery would assumable have been via the kitchen but no plan arrangement could be ascertained. The only door was the existing back door off the kitchen. It was also found that the eave line was so low that the scullery floor must have been lower than the house floor. Headroom for steps to make this change of level was critical.
A decision on the above was not made until the existing 1968 annex which Thompsons used as their kitchen and bedroom area was demolished. This annex, in which the Thompsons lived, was attached directly to the house and occupied the same space as the restored scullery and woodshed. Demolition of the 1968 annex provided no further clues. An archive’s photograph showed that three different annexes had existed during the life of the house and that at one time there had been no annex.
The Provincial Archaeologist and two assistants were present when the annex floor was removed. They went over the ground checking for evidence of original footings for the original annex. A variety of pottery shards and metallic objects were found and saved. Peter Cotton’s "as found" drawings show a plan for footings that were found. Too many conflicting signs of bricks and stones were present for any original pattern to show. A brick drain was unearthed with remains of an iron pipe entering it at one point. This could have coincided with the west wall of the proposed scullery if a sink had existed in the corner of the scullery. It was on this evidence that the scullery was positioned.
Completion of the final structure was to include public toilets, a cleaning sink and a place for electric distribution. The woodshed just off the scullery was chosen as the area for these services. The floor level in these rooms was dropped to provide headroom. Exhaust fans were ducted through the wall to void where stones had been omitted in the footings for venting the toilets. Plumbing stacks were vented up through the roof. The flashing was reversed to go down into the pipe, cutting off at the roof line and making the stacks inconspicuous.
The electric hot water tank was placed in the crawl space below the woodshed floor as space was limited. A hatchway provides access to the crawl space. Electric service and telephone lines were installed in the building underground. The junction box at ground level is the only visible item to the use of the woodshed.
The finished condition of the annex was made to match the control photograph looking from the West. Siding on the woodshed was not painted so it would look more rustic as it aged. However, the annex looking from the east is conjecture as no photographs exist showing this angle.
A sloped rebate was found in one of the second floor studs above the back door implying there could have been a housed roof rafter. Close examination proved this incorrect. Finally, it was decided to build an open porch with steps leading the kitchen door to the scullery door. The handrail was made from a piece of the 1937 kitchen ceiling beam (unfortunately, this handrail was broken this summer by a visitor, 1983). The two limestone blocks placed as steps for the porch were salvaged from the Empress Hotel laundry demolition.
Two windows removed from the demolished annex that were of the right size were re-used on the west wall of the annex. This was done for economy purposes. And, two sash from the 1937 bathrooms were reused on the east wall.
Discovery of the Red River framing of Craigflower Farmhouse and the decision to use the scullery as a display area for memorabilia prompted the crew to leave the log work exposed. A door was added for access to public toilets and wall space made for display fittings. The original flooring material was not found so the scullery floor was made to match the size and grade of that used in the house. The scullery ceiling was made level with the collar ties giving maximum headroom and exposure to Craigflower’s framing.
Consideration of wallpaper did not occur until various parts of the house were being demolished and dismantled. Suddenly they became aware of a variety of wallpapers that had been applied over the years. Peter Cotton began to explore these papers and kept samples. Some were easily identifiable but others were difficult to date. The only clue to their age was from the sequence of application. All wallpaper was stripped off to repair the plaster and prepare the surfaces for new paper. The sequence of layers of paper in the rooms varied. One reason for this was that loose paper from earlier layers had been removed before the new paper was hung. Therefore, the sequence of wallpaper samples in Peter Cotton’s book is only as correct as the remaining evidence would allow.
The large room that had been four small rooms at the time of restoration contained the greatest variety and confusion of wallpapers. Until the discovery that it had been four rooms during McKenzie’s occupancy, the confusion remained. One question arose after the collection of wallpaper samples was assembled -- whether the bottom layer had actually been the original paper. Carolyn Case (Smyly) felt that a limewash finish would have been appropriate. So, the small room (storage/linen closet) off the upper landing was finished that way. Evidence of an earlier finish did not show once the walls were stripped of paper. Only the colour wash on the kitchen walls, ochre on the upper walls above an umber dado, was found. A second opinion was obtained. Colour slides and small wallpaper samples were sent to Cooper Union in New York to determine the age of the various wallpapers.
Cooper Union is a branch of the Smithsonian Institute that specialises in the decorative arts. The wallpapers were not familiar to them but they agreed the earliest layers probably were original. Cooper Union’s opinions were based on the type of paper stock on which the design had been printed, the printing technique, number and choice of colours as well as the design. (From correspondence I have studied between Peter Cotton and Cooper Union, they were extremely interested in these wallpapers and requested a sample collection for their files -- earliest wallpapers dated by them is 1850).
Arrangements to have one of two wallpaper firms in New York reproduce the old papers were attempted by Peter Cotton. Apparently, they supply, for free, reproduction papers to the restorers in return for the right to use the pattern in their line. Due to the exorbitant cost to the manufacturers, Cooper Union, and delays it would have created, this arrangement was turned down.
Instead, an architect student at UBC, Vin Rickard, whose hobby was silk-screening, was contracted to do the wallpapers. He started by working on the parlour wallpaper. Vin Rickard traced a large patch that was still intact, about four feet square, before it was protected with plexi-glass. Colours were separated into three screens. A roller was used to apply the background colour to unprinted liner paper. The screens were then hand cut and the pattern adjusted to match horizontally and vertically. The original parlour wallpaper was found to have been hung upside down, so the same application was done with the new paper. They were so pleased with the result that Vin Rickard continued reproducing all original papers selected.
A narrow border of blue and white with maroon flocking originally was applied in the parlour. Ninety yards of similar border was purchased from a London antique store. Instead of being blue and white this was gold and green with black flocking. Since these colours duplicated the carpet installed, it was considered an excellent match.
Peter Cotton visited London, England in November 1968 to study the 19th Century collections of wallpaper at the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Bethnall Green Museum. Old pattern books of various wallpaper manufacturers and a set of job books belonging to a decorating firm dating to 1830 were studied at the Victoria & Albert Museum. One paper was found to resemble that in Craigflower’s entrance hall. Time was spent with Elizabeth Aslin, author of "19th Century English Furniture" discussing wallpapers and furniture.
On Peter Cotton’s return from England he visited Cooper Union in New York. Vin Richard had shipped out the samples of wallpapers he had reproduced for Craigflower Farmhouse. They were shown to two wallpaper firms, Brunschwig & Fils and Scalamandre, for comments. They were quite impressed and Cooper Union contacted Vin Richard to do a commission for them. (Some people have doubted whether or not the farmhouse was ever wallpapered during McKenzies occupancy. After a second examination of Kenneth McKenzie’s farmhouse accounts, an entry for wallpaper appears in 1860 indeed proving wallpaper was installed. Earlier records will be rechecked also.)
Modifications had been done to the larder by Mr. Christie in 1937 that converted it into a bathroom. Removal of his work exposed the original whitewashed boards with clear markings of shelves and their bearers. Mouse and rat holes were found in the corner boards and several of their skeletons were found in the walls. The larder roof was sloped but earlier photographs showed a flat roof. Once the new roof was removed the original roof was found to have remains of a lead-lined tank. The lead had been cut out, edges turned in between the walls --its cap gave the thickness. The tank did not have a inlet or outlet for water so it would just have held rain water that evaporated and kept the room below cool. The lead was replaced but is difficult to maintain in a leakproof condition. The Gothic windows originally barred against pilferage, can still be opened to allow a cross breeze through the larder even today.
The Public Work’s office prepared the landscape designs for Craigflower Farm which Peter Cotton was to approve before any work was started. He deleted some details and tried to simplify grades. A paddock was put in to have a few sheep grazing. An enclosure was suggested for the front door as shown in early photographs but no agreement for it was reached. The paddock was located away from footings of an auxiliary building originally located outside the back door. This would allow for the footings to be explored and the structure rebuilt.
Uncompleted restoration work as of March 1970 consisted of the servant’s room and the kitchen. Peter Cotton states "The kitchen needs more cupboards and a tall kitchen dresser". If nothing could be found, he felt it should be made as there are good drawings and descriptions in Loudon’s book. The range needed to be bricked into the kitchen fireplace and required a hot water tank fitted behind the brass spigot. Decisions still had to be made on the use of the scullery.
Correspondence between Peter Cotton and the Deputy Provincial Secretary provides us with plans submitted for landscaping Craigflower Farm. Peter Cotton wanted the environment to be appropriate for the 1860 period and compatible with the work already completed. Information from archival photographs was recommended as source material It appears Mr. Cotton wanted to add the enclosure shown in front of the house but some other landscape architect was disagreeing with him about its location. So, it was recommended that the location of this enclosure be determined by the photo-grammetric branch of the survey department in the Land Ministry office.
Plantings added to the grounds were to be native to Craigflower and the Provincial Botanist was recommended as a consultant. Trees and shrubs were also to be more natural rather than set out in formal avenues as suggest in one plan. Public Works Department ended up doing the landscaping against Peter Cotton’s wishes -- experts were not contacted.
A letter dated 15 January 1970 to P. Cotton asking for submission of his final restoration report states that the kitchen and scullery were to remain as they were as additional funds for furnishing them were not being made available. They hoped donations would be made that would prove suitable for these rooms. This is probably the reason why these furnishings are not in Craigflower Farmhouse. For example, appropriate hold-backs were recommended for the 1860 drapes in the farmhouse but were not installed. In one of Peter Cotton’s files two illustrations are shown for hanging curtains plus hold-backs and wall brackets. A note stating "mahogany paterae-turned on red velvet holdbacks" was suggested for the dining room.
In place of these brackets, reproduction embroidered braid was installed to serve as holdbacks for all the drapes throughout the downstairs rooms. This braid is held in place with a minute brass, floral patterned, tack! Several of these tacks are missing and those still remaining are not strong enough to hold the weight of the drapers fabric -- the tacks keep falling out of the wall.
Also, all curtains in the farmhouse were supposed to have been lined in muslin, but once again this was not done. If the lining had been installed the present drapes would not have so much sun damage. And, the silk morning room drapes that are rotting and breaking down due to lack of protection from the sun, could have survived for another 10 years but now will have to be replaced in a couple of years.
The restoration of Craigflower Farmhouse is unique but requires considerable maintenance to preserve the original restored structure. Furnishings collected and arranged in the house mainly date mid-late 19th Century. None of these furnishings are known for certain to be original nor have any been authenticated as McKenzie’s possessions. Replacements should be made whenever possible to improve our interpretation.
Several minor improvements could be made immediately that would greatly enhance the restoration -- hang all pictures according to the 1850s-1860s and not the 20th Century as now is the case. Recommendations are also included for the hanging of pictures according to the 1850s & 1860s in Cotton’s files. And, all existing pull blinds ca. 1970 should be removed and period blinds installed. Half of the pull blinds are damaged and need repairing or replacing so it would be an excellent time to install appropriate pull blinds throughout the downstairs rooms.
Further information regarding original structural features and restoration work of Craigflower Farmhouse can be obtained by studying the "as found" blueprints in the Peter Cotton collection preserved by the B.C. Provincial Archives.
Prepared by Theresa Molinaro
Curator
Craigflower Farmhouse
TM/ch
