Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

many Indians camped at Grape Island, since the dwellings were not yet up, and these were visited by two itinerants and two interpreters. Jacob Peter, with William Beaver, taught them the Lord's Prayer, also the Ten Commandments. The tribe numbered some 130 persons, ninety of them being adults. From the Kingston band some forty arrived in May that spring. A school and meeting house was erected in July, 1827, 30 feet long by 25 feet in width. William Smith was the first teacher and he instructed thirty scholars in the day school. These grew to fifty for the Sabbath School. (See Canniff's "History of the Settlement of Upper Canada," pp. 325-7.) The Report of the Methodist Episcopal Missionary Society of the United States for 1829 says that "Fifty children are taught in the schools." This would imply at least that another school had been added to the mission. Lorenzo Dow, visiting there in 1829, writes under July 29th regarding the good conduct of the children.

PETERBOROUGH. The pioneer school of Peterborough was called the Union School. It was commenced in 1826 and was a log structure with shingled roof. Tradition has it that the Rev. Samuel Armour taught the pupils. (Poole's "Town and County of Peterborough, 1867.")

1827.

HAMILTON. John Law taught the district school here in 1827. It was at this school the future head of Ontario's Educational activities received a part of his education. (Durand's "Reminiscences.")

(Durand's

RICE LAKE AND MUD LAKE MISSIONS. Burwash, in his life of Egerton Ryerson, states that in 1827 the missionary was appointed to Cobourg Circuit, but that, "the Indian work at the Rice Lake and Mud Lake Missions was an object of his care." We may feel certain that the word "care" covered instruction to children, especially when associated with so energetic a nature as Dr. Ryerson's.

BAY OF QUINTE. Dr. Oronhyateka, in his Address to the National Education Association, in Toronto, 1891, says: "The Government established a school for the Six Nations Indians at Bay Quinte, 1827. (Page 235, Proceedings.)

CROWNHILL. William Crae was the first to teach in a log school erected here about 1827. The structure was erected on lot 10, on the Oro side. (Hunter's "History of Simcoe County," Vol. I, p. 285.)

1828.

LONDON. A Mr. Van Every opened the first school in the new town after its survey and establishment as the capital of the district. This school was maintained in the temporary jail and courthouse. (Ermatinger's

"Talbot Regime.")

1830.

SCARBORO. The increase of population led to the erection of an additional schoolhouse. This was constructed of logs, on lot 25, concession 3, and its first teacher was James Little. (Boyle's "Scarboro.")

1832.

WEST GWILLIMBURY. John Garbutt taught the first school on the eighth line of this township, and was succeeded by Eli Hough. (Hunter's "Simcoe," I, p. 282.)

DUNDAS. Benjamin Meade was one of the early teachers of Dundas. His school was in Dumfries, and it was here he first began to teach, while his last school was old Number Eleven in Williamsburg, 1871.

1833.

SCARBORO. The first school to be opened in School Section number seven was located on the Fishery Road. It was an ordinary square building, constructed of plank, built in 1832, and its first teacher was John Wilson, an Englishman from Yorkshire.

[ocr errors]

LONDON. London had an early private school which was taught by a Mr. Taylor. He was a very poorly educated man, scarce able to master the simple rudiments known as the three "R's," likewise a very unhealthy person. He was assisted by his wife, whom Sheriff Glass has described for us as a tough, wiry little woman with less education, but more energy than her husband, with whom she also shared her labours when he was making lath, a business which they combined with teaching. The Sheriff tells us further that, "The schools were opened by the persons themselves as a private enterprise, without government or municipal aid." (Ermatinger's "Talbot Regime," p. 286.)

WOLFE ISLAND. This township is a portion of Frontenac County to-day and lies to the south of the mainland, and at the foot of Lake Ontario. Some twenty-one miles in length and seven in breadth at one point, it constitutes one of the several large islands situated in the headwaters of the St. Lawrence River. Mr. R. M. Spankie, in a paper read in Queen's Convocation Hall on the History of the Island, says, "In 1833, the first school was opened in a house situated at the foot of Lambert's Hill, named after an early resident, about half a mile from the village. It was a log structure, without a floor at first; the only furniture consisted of a few wooden benches without backs, with a particularly high bench for writing on, at which the pupils would stand or kneel as best fitted their size. Ten years later a school was opened for the foot of the Island. Such was the state of travel that parents were known to accompany their children to school in the morning and upon their return homeward to blaze a trail for the youngsters to follow at night."

It is evident from all of the foregoing that the pioneers of Upper Canada were almost unanimous in adopting measures for the education of their children. That a common school education was the just and perfect right of all, had become a settled point in their plans for establishing the institutions of a great and free nation. The government of the country would require men of sound intelligence and executive ability, the exercise of which became the duty of all for the common good.

XV.

GENEALOGICAL TABLES AND THEIR RIGHT USES IN

HISTORY.*

BY A. F. HUNTER. M.A.

Fully sixty per cent. of the papers that reach the Ontario Historical Society, as in many similar societies, relate to our grandfathers-who they were, what they told us, or what their times were like. As topics having the genealogical trend, therefore, and all matters pertaining to them, bear such a preponderant interest and importance in the aggregate, it may be profitable to spend some time in examining the general principles that underlie genealogy, glancing at the same time at social systems founded upon them.

The rapid growth of societies, also, in which membership is confined to some line of descent-societies based upon a particular nativity, for example, or the sons or the daughters of some other class whose descent can be circumscribed by genealogical limits and the spread in recent years of Eugenics and Euthenics, all create a need for some wider diffusion of knowledge of the first principles of genealogy. As a regular subject of pursuit, genealogy has received more attention in various countries than hitherto in Ontario, obviously on account of the youthfulness of this province and the plebeian character of many of its settlers; but as the years pass, this branch of research with us will doubtless gain a larger number of devotees.

The proposed undertaking will necessarily lead us to regard history in its relations with the single individual-history on its biographical side. The personal factor has always been important in history-equally as much as the group. But whether we adopt the greatman directorship of affairs, as followed by older historians, or restrict history to the all-essential factor of social and political institutions and the records of groups, as its proper sphere, thus adopting the limitation that is fast gaining ground especially in modern writers, or use a combination of the two methods, it is unlikely that historians will discard altogether the hero-idea in history for some time, but will maintain a place for it and for the extensive influence of leadership in human affairs.

The first feature that will demand our attention in this investigation will be the construction and use of proper genealogical tables.

I.

Nearly everyone bears in mind the fact that he had four grandparents; very few persons, however, recognize the further fact at all times, without having their attention drawn particularly to it, that everyone also had

*A paper forwarded by the author and read at the joint meeting of this Society and the Historical Section of the Ontario Educational Association held in Toronto, April 15th, 1903, with the title "How to Study our Grandfathers."

[blocks in formation]

family tree diverge at such a rapid rate that we have to go backward for only about 250 years (allowing, as Herodotus did, three generations in a century) to find that each of us had 256 grandparents. In other words, 256 persons living in the time of Oliver Cromwell and the first effectual attempts at colonizing and settling this new continent, are to be claimed by each of us as our ancestors.

To go still further backward to a date say three thousand years ago, everyone now living can claim as his ancestors of that day, not a single pair, but nearly the whole of the human race living on the earth at the time. The only circumstance that operates against the rapid divergence of the lines of descent is the marriage of cousins or other near relatives, which occasionally happens; but this has the effect of only partly retarding the divergence, and as a rule is only occasional, not operating usually for more than one generation. In such a case the individual descendants might have three pairs of great grandparents instead of four. Preceding lines of descent for the same individual go on diverging, and in no case do the lines converge.

This system of defining one's descent may be called a Natural, or Analytic genealogy. It gives, in fact, the roots of what is more commonly

[blocks in formation]

Father

Gr. Mother

eight great grandparents, sixteen great great grandparents, and so on, increasing in a twofold ratio with each step backward into the past. The accompanying diagram will help to make this clear. The roots of the

-The Individual.

-Mother

known as the family tree-that part of the tree which is underground in more senses than one-and is too frequently treated in a fallacious way, if treated at all. The system deserves the name Analytic to distinguish it from the Synthetic specimens of genealogy with which we are so familiar, especially those of royalty in school histories. This latter kind, often reduced to a garbled or artificial form, is prepared for the purpose of showing the relationships of the crown-wearers. Other synthetic or eclectic specimens are also to be found in great numbers in the Peerage volumes (Burke, Debrett, Dodd, Lodge, etc.), sometimes in family trees in publications of the Societies for Eugenics and Euthenics, and in genealogies. People have grown so accustomed to these synthetic genealogies that they forget there is a complete analytic family tree for every person. Accordingly, there are two sorts of family tree, the one analytic and proceeding backward as described above; the other synthetic and branching forward, giving (when complete) the record of actual descent of the progeny.

It is a trite saying that we all include our ancestors-it has been explained by scientific men, sung by the poets. The statement that a person had two parents, four grandparents, and so on, is merely an application of numbers to the course of nature, and it is liable to suffer from fallacious treatment, so that caution is necessary to avoid mistakes. Its proper arithmetical treatment always affords some useful knowledge, but errors have to be guarded against.*

The net outcome of this analytic mode of enquiry is to teach us that one person has just about as good ancestry as another person. There is very little real foundation for pride of ancestry. Every pedigree has, in the ultimate analysis, about the same percentage of creditable folks and the same percentage of the opposite kinds, as other pedigrees contain, viz., about half of each. Very idle are boasts, therefore, about superiority of descent, and about being long-descended "from some fine old family." Every one of us is descended from myriads of families, and good citizenship calls for no pride of ancient descent.

Our historical literature is lamentably corrupted with boasts of descent from ancient and illustrious families. The descent of every individual is of equal antiquity with the descent of every other individual. And if some particular pair of one's ancestors was once illustrious, it could have had very little effect upon the descendant of three or four generations later. It is almost needless to cite examples, but the subject is so important that a few may help to emphasize the point. So valuable a writer as Samuel Smiles makes this vague and confused statement in "Self Help," p. 261:

"Warren Hastings' family was ancient and illustrious; but their loyalty in the cause of the Stuarts brought them to poverty, and the family estate, of which they had been lords of the manor for hundreds of years, at length passed from their hands." (Here the family meant is evidently the line of primogeniture.)

*Herbert Spencer, in "Facts and Comments," (p. 210), opens one of his chapters with a discussion of this subject under the title of the converse ancestral tree," and proceeds along lines similar to those which the present writer adopted in this article. His use, however, of the principle is subordinate, as he proceeds from this organic example to inorganic sequences. A. K. Venning also contributed a letter to the "Scientific American" of May 22, 1909, in which he also treated the subject from the analytical point of view.

« AnteriorContinuar »