|
Coming to the old County of Lanark. Let me first remark that the Province of Manitoba owes much
to the old county. Many of the early settlers of Manitoba came from there. The county was
represented amongst the soldiers that came in Lord Wolseley's little army to quell the
First Riel Rebellion in 1869/70. The late Dr. C.N. Bell, who died a short time ago, was
one of these. Then the first Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba, Hon. Alex. Morris,
came from Perth. He was Lieutenant-Governor from 1872 to 1876. The first
Lieutenant-Governor between the Great Lakes and the Rocky Mountains. That is, the first
that got here and actually functioned. The Honorable Mr. McDougall turned back at
Pembina. Then in the 1870's and early 80's a great many settlers from Lanark County came to
Manitoba. So much so, that it was a common saying that "every third man you met on the streets
of Winnipeg, came from Lanark". The others probably coming from Bruce or Gray. |
|
As at present constituted the County consists of four towns:
Perth, with a population of 4,000;
Smiths Falls with a population of 8,000;
Carleton Place with a population of 4,000; and
Almonte with a population of 2,500;
and the Townships of Bathurst, Beckwick [sic], North Burgess, Dalhousie, Darling, Drummond,
North Elmsley, Lanark, Lavant, Montague, North Sherbrooke, Pakenham, Ramsay and South
Sherbrooke. The County contains 1200 square miles, or 766,000 acres within its boundaries. It is
bounded on the East by the County of Carleton; on the North by the County of Renfrew; on the
West by the County of Frontenac; and on the South by the County of Leeds. All pretty much as
they were originally surveyed and subdivided. |
|
By way of introduction, I may say, that the settlement of Lanark County really begain in 1815.
In that year "the Settlement forming on the Rideau River" as it was officially referred to (and
which soon became known as "Perth Military Settlement") began to function under Military
direction. Several townships were surveyed to facilitate the location of farms for military and
other settlers; and the site of the future Town of Perth, which had been chosen as the
headquarters of the Military Establishment was surveyed in 1816. The military regime lasted
until 1824, when settlers were granted municipal rights, i.e., 'the right of self
government'. |
|
For many years Perth was the military, judicial, political and social capital, not only of the
County of Lanark, but of the whole of the Ottawa Valley, north and west, until owing to the
construction of the Rideau Canal, and the development of the lumber industry further north and
west along the Ottawa, it finally was eclipsed by the town called "Bytown" -- the present
City of Ottawa, the Capital of the Dominion. But for many years the people of the town of
Bytown, while it was still 'Bytown' had to come to Perth for their law and justice, for the law
courts of the whole great district were located there. |
|
The first official reference in regard to the settlement of Lanark County (that is found) is a
letter from the Adjutant General's Office dated, Quebec, Aug. 15, 1815, and referred to the
appointment of Staff Surgeon Thom, "to take the Medical Charge of the Establishment
forming on the Rideau". |
|
This was just after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo -- and just after our own Canadian
people had defeated the second attempt of the United States to forceably annex Canada --
the period of Queenston Heights, Lundy's Lane and Chrysler's Farm. |
|
That year 1815, and subsequent years, saw great activities in the survey of the boundaries of
Lanark County, and the surveying of the county into townships, and the townships into what they
called "concessions" and the concessions into lots. |
|
For the county was not surveyed into ranges, townships, sections and quarter-sections as
was later done here in the West. The boundaries of a county having been fixed, the county was
divided into townships -- the townships were not always the same size -- having
surveyed main roads and cross-roads through them. The main roads were placed so far apart
as to leave room between them for lots or farms. The main roads through the townships were those
upon which the farms were to face; and ran north and south, or east and west, or as the
circumstances dictated. The land between the roads was called "concessions". |
|
The concession was then bisected lengthwise, and the land on each side of this middle line was
surveyed into lots or farms -- so that each lot or farm had a frontage on a main highway or
road -- the lots facing on two different highways being back to back, one row of lots
facing on Road No. 1, and the other row of lots facing on Road No. 2, with the back of the lots
joining one another along the middle line of each concession. The lots usually contained 100
acres, and were what a settler could get for a homestead or farm. At least that is the way it
has been described to me. |
|
The townships as well as the counties were named, but lots and concessions were numbered. The
lots being numbered '1, 2, 3', etc; and the concessions were also numbered in another way as,
'first, second, third', etc. The names given to the counties and townships were usually those of
places in the Old Country, or persons of prominence there or here. For example, the County of
Lanark was named for the County of Lanarkshire, in Scotland. The Town of Perth after the Town of
Perth in Scotland, The Township of Bathurst was named after the the Earl of Bathurst, for a long
time His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies; and under whose especial patronage, the
first Scotch Colony of settlers was organized; and through whose influence at Court the interest
of the Prince Regent was secured and orders issued whereby these immigrants obtained from the
British Government -- not only free passages and land grants, but also free rations for the
first year, and free tools and implements with which to start life in the bush. |
|
The Township of Burgess was named after the Earl of Burgess. The Township of Drummond was named
after Sir Gordon Drummond, an officer who had attained great military distinction. And
the name of the Township of Elmsley is said to be a corruption of the name "Helmsley" -- a
village in Essex, England. They apparently dropped their "aitches" in those days also. |
|
In 1815 and 1816, and for some time after, the rush of settlers was so great that the surveyors
could not keep up with the work of providing surveyed lots quickly enough for the settlers; and
many of them had to go into the bush and pick out locations and, as we say, "squat" on them,
with the hope that they would afterwards find that they were on lots. There is a letter on
record, dated Pike River, Apl 27, 1816, from one Alex. McDonald to Sir Sidney
Beckwick [sic], a high official in the Foriegn Office, London, England, regarding the
survey, (it is easy to see where the Township of Beckwick [sic] got its name). [Correct name
is "Beckwith" -- Ed.] Pike River was the original name of the river upon which the
Town of Perth is situated, but the Scottish settlers did not allow that name to remain long. And
three weeks later, another letter was sent from the same Alex. McDonald to the
Quarter-Master General at Quebec, and is dated from Perth on the Tay; the town and river
having received their new names from the Scottish settlers. |
|
The first Scottish settlers came in 1816. Amongst those who settled in the first concession of
the Township of Bathurst, were: James Miller; John Simpson; Wm. Spalding
(one of whose descendants is the present Post Master at Perth); John Hay, John
Ferguson; William Holderness; James Bryce; Francis Allan; Thos.
Cuddie; James Fraser; John McNee; John McLaren; John McLeod;
Thos. Scott; Thos. Barry; and John Ritchie. No wonder it was called the
"Scotch Line"! Others settled in the Townships of Burgess and Elmsley. |
|
Closely following these Scotch settlers, came the Irish Protestant settlers, who settled in the
Townships of Drummond, North Elmsley and South Sherbrooke, and spread over into the Counties of
Carleton and Lennox. These Irish settlers were of a hardy vigorous people and counted much in
clearing the land and breaking up the soil for cultivation, and conquering the natural
stubborness of a land where rocks, swamps and a wonderful growth of trees -- hemlock,
maple, oak, birch, pine, etc. -- met them at the start. They generally brought their Orange
affiliations with them; and as a body belonged to the Anglican Church. But owing to the scarcity
of Anglican clergymen, much of the advantages of, and opportunities for, religious worship was
supplied to these settlers by preachers of the Methodist denomination, and a great many of them
became permanent members of the Methodist Church. |
|
I must not forget to mention that in the year 1816 also came the "Perth Military Colony" --
a name given to a body of soldiers, who having been honorably discharged from military service,
were sent in to take up land in Lanark County. They settled chiefly in the Township of Drummond.
Amongst them were: Ensign Gould, of the Veterans; J. Balderson of the 76th. Foot
Regiment (after whom Balderson's Corners was named); Thos. Bright; Henry McDonald;
T. McCaffery; John G. Malloch (afterwards Judge Malloch); James
McGarry; Peter Campbell; Donald Campbell; and Peter
McLaren. |
|
Many of these early settlers lived in tents, or bark huts during their first summer, until the
trees could be felled and hewed into logs and built into cabins against the cold of
winter. |
|
For some time the only yoke of oxen in the district belonged to James Bryce on Lot 12, of
the first concession of Bathurst. Most of the supplies, except those sent in by the Government
for rations etc., had to be carried in by the settlers on their backs from the nearest
settlements -- which were 20 miles away to the south, (towards) the St. Lawrence. Some idea
of the state of the settlers can be gathered from the fact that the first assessment made in
1817 showed but one cow in the Township of Bathurst. Almost unbelievable! |
|
In a word, up to the early years of the last century the County of Lanark, as the whole of the
Province of Ontario to the west and north of it -- was uninhabited -- except for bands
of Indians, few in number. There was neither city, town of village in it. No church or school
house, or dwelling house or farm. No cattle or horses, or cultivated fields; nor a made road.
The land was in many places rough, rocky, and swampy, and in many places covered with the
primeval forest. Just in the state that nature had made it and left it. |
|
Then immigration began. The County of Lanark was settled by people from the British Isles. They
came to the land that I have just described -- without wealth -- with very little
except their courageous hearts and determined spirits and their desire and ambition to become
the owners of land -- freehold land -- upon which they could build homes for
themselves and their families, and out of which they could get a free and independent living for
themselves and their families. |
|
The Picture -- the description of these early settlers; of their voyage across the ocean,
which sometimes took months; of their arrival in Quebec; of their journey to the County of
Lanark; of their reception there; of their search for land not yet taken up; of their selecting
and obtaining their locations; of their subsequent vicissitudes; of their labor; their
inconveniences; their hardships; their successes and their failures; their joys and their
sorrows -- has been painted many times, much better than I can attempt to do, or would have
time to do tonight. Suffice it to say, that tree by tree they hewed down the forest, they
cleared the land, they built themselves homes, they planted grain, they raised cattle and
horses, they built villages and towns and churches and school houses and roads. They organized
themselves into municipal organizations, into County organizations, and into a Province; and
they introduced British law and justice. |
|
In a word, they made the uninhabited wilderness a place of habitation, and where only wild
animals had roamed, the laughter of children was heard. These settlers came, men and women, from
a civilized well-settled country, with all its conveniences, and took possession of the
wilderness and conquered it. |
|
It was a wonderful thing that these old settlers did, as wonderful a thing as has been done in
the world. I do not say that it was more wonderful, for in other parts of Ontario, other
settlers from the British Isles were going through the same experiences. But it was as wonderful
as anything that has been done. And we are descendants of these people. |
|
It may be of some use for us to ask ourselves: Are we worthy descendants of these people? Or
have we deteriorated? Do we lack their courage? Do we lack their determination? Do we lack their
intelligence? Do we lack their desire and ambition to make free and independant homes for
ourselves? Are we facing the vicissitudes and difficulties of our lives in our times and
circumstances as we ought? |
|
We are living in times and circumstances which are vastly changed from theirs. |
|
If I were asked: "What is the greatest difficulty that we have to face today (that is with
reference to material things as distinguished from spiritual or moral things)? What is the
greatest issue with regard to these material things? What is it about them that is the greatest
cause of unrest and discontent amongst our people?" |
|
I would answer those questions by saying: "The unjustly, unnecessarily, unequal distribution of
the wealth of our country amongst our people." |
|
NOTE: I say, "unjustly unequal distribution" -- for there is and always has been, and
always will be a "justly unequal distribution". That cannot be prevented so long as human beings
are what they are and Providence rules the earth. |
|
But there is an unjustly, unnecessarily, unequal division. Can we descendants of such a people
as I have described, face our difficulties as they faced their difficulties, and overcome them
as they overcame theirs? Have we the courage, the determination and chiefly the intelligence to
do so? |
|
Our fight is not one of physical force against the forces of nature. The trouble is that we have
harnessed the forces of nature -- water power, steam power, gasoline power from oil drawn
from the depths of the earth; and electric power drawn from the air, or from who knows where
-- and we have invented so many labor-saving devices, and we have set all this power
and these devices to do our work for us, and have put ourselves out of work. |
|
Our scientific progress has far exceeded our sociological progress and we are floundering around
in a state of affairs that we do not yet understand. Have we sufficient intelligence to overcome
the situation? |
|
As far as the unjustly unnecessarily unequal division of the wealth is concerned, the British
people have found a partial way out. It is by the people, the common people themselves, going
into business on a huge scale on their own behalf, managed and directed by themselves; not by
their financial magnates, or party politicians, but by the common people themselves. |
|
Over eighty years ago there began in Great Britain a movement called "The Consumers'
Co-operative Society" movement. It has grown until today one half of the people of Great
Britain are members of the Society. It grew not as a political thing. It grew without the aid of
party politicians. In fact, it grew in the face of their opposition, as well as the opposition
of commercial and financial magnates. |
|
Why? |
|
Because the people, the common people of Great Britain went into business on their own behalf
-- not as a political party -- not as Liberal, Conservative, Labour or Communist
-- but as a business -- a purely business affair -- to be conducted on business
principles and free of and apart from party political agitations, prejudices and
strifes. |
|
The growth and existence of the Consumers' Co-operative movement in Great Britain is the most
dramatic social, economic, financial and commercial incident of the 19th. and 20th.
centuries. |
|
And do we hear any of our party politicians, political leaders or party newspapers in this
country explaining it to our people or advocating its adoption in our country? No. Why? Because
it would destroy the prestige of those leaders and newspapers, if the common people were to get
away from their control, even to that extent. |
|
If the Members of this Association have an hour and a half, or two hours to spare some evening,
I would be glad to speak to you about the Consumers' Co-operative movement in Great Britain, and
suggest to you how it could be introduced to Canada. |
| J.G. Harvey, K.C. |
| Winnipeg, Man. Oct. 23rd. 1936 |
