Chapter One
Free Grant Fever
The shades of night were falling as we reached Bracebridge. The moon rose above the great pine trees, and made a wide pathway of silver across the dark waters. Near the landing-stage, a mass of blazing pine-logs revealed the black shadows of the surrounding woods, and flecked the waters below with red and gold. [1]
— Charles Marshall, The Canadian Dominion
As the steamer Wenonah slid toward the Bracebridge wharf on the evening of September 14, 1870, the townspeople gathered to greet their distinguished guests with blazing bonfires and three resounding cheers, for this was no ordinary party of passengers. Aboard the side-wheel paddle steamer was a delegation of dignitaries who had travelled more than one hundred miles north of Toronto to Muskoka to see Ontario’s free grant district firsthand. Among them were John Sandfield Macdonald, the premier and attorney general of Ontario; John Carling, commissioner of public works and brewing mogul; Stephen Richards, commissioner of Crown lands; Thomas McMurray, local reeve, businessman, and avid Muskoka booster; and A.P. Cockburn, Muskoka navigation pioneer and politician. Joining this party of “celebrities,” as McMurray later referred to them, were two guests from England: Charles Marshall, an author and journalist; and the Reverend A. Styleman Herring, the vicar of a poor parish in East End London, an emigration enthusiast, and free grant advocate. The rousing welcome these gentlemen received in this little town in the Muskoka bush was just the kick-off to an evening of self-congratulatory merriment.
The gentlemen disembarked the Wenonah and headed toward the village centre by way of Manitoba Street, past the roaring waters of the Bracebridge Falls. They were sure to have savoured the indescribably intoxicating scent of Muskoka, redolent of pine and lichen, and, in mid-September, the tangy aroma of autumn as leaves began to change colour, foretelling of wintry nights ahead. With the help of a second bonfire lighting up the main street, they would perceive a scattering of small dwellings and commercial properties — harbingers of Bracebridge’s potential. The men finally reached the Dominion House, a welcome sight after their long journey by rail, steamer, and stage wagon. The party poured through the hotel doors for a banquet prepared for fifty to sixty people. Thomas McMurray diligently recorded the proceedings for his newspaper, the Northern Advocate, and later published them in his Free Grant Lands of Canada guide to the district. Thanks to McMurray, we are able to join the revellers as they gathered on this fine Muskoka evening. Throughout the festivities, while sampling the free-flowing supply of ale and wine, this very masculine gathering toasted all and sundry: they raised their glasses to Queen Victoria; the governor general and lieutenant governors of the Dominion of Canada; the army and navy; the Ontario government; the emigration societies of “old England”; the Toronto, Simcoe and Muskoka Junction Railway; the free grant district; and last but not least, they exuberantly toasted one another.
John Teviotdale, a local reeve, storekeeper, and postmaster, chaired the occasion, and, as Charles Marshall observed, “speeches, patriotic, and humorous, and explanatory, and promissory” were made.[2] One by one, hosts and guests alike rose and addressed the room. First to speak was Premier John Sandfield Macdonald, who headed up a Liberal-Conservative coalition government that had introduced the opening of the free grant district just two years before. He assured his listeners that his party’s interest in the free grant lands was not political, but rather, driven by its dedication to the people themselves, and implied that funds were to be made available to further Muskoka’s chance at prosperity. Next, Stephen Richards, the main architect of the free grant scheme, and the Conservative representing the riding of Niagara, somewhat pompously apologized for not having previously visited Muskoka — “his duties, public and private, were so enormous that he found it impossible to get away.”[3] Richards’s short speech was followed by Styleman Herring’s, the vicar of St. Paul’s, Clerkenwell, in London, who responded to the toast to England’s emigration societies with a wish that the overcrowded population of England could find prosperity in Canada. After more tributes, Thomas McMurray thanked the government for improvements that had been made in the district since his arrival in 1861, while boldly reminding those present there were still issues to be solved. He suggested that settlers should not have to pay a duty to the government on timber they had felled, that settlers who had purchased land prior to the free grant policy should not be held in arrears if they could not pay debts, and that new registry offices were needed in Bracebridge. Speeches carried on throughout the long evening, with Charles Marshall assuring the assembly that he believed Canada had a great future. The final toast was made to “our American Cousins,” responded to by a Mr. Barker, correspondent for the Springfield Republican. The celebration concluded with patriotic zeal. “God Save the Queen” was sung, followed by three cheers for Her Majesty Queen Victoria. The Dominion House had obviously served the government’s guests well: the festivities didn’t wind down until two o’clock in the morning.
An impressive evening, indeed. But as in all public relations events, the veneer is what counts; the inner truth can be less palatable. This boisterous banquet was not merely a celebration of the free grant lands of Muskoka, but a wholesale effort by the Canadian contingent to counter criticism of a land settlement scheme that showed early signs of fraying at the edges. The Canadian hosts were savvy operators. There was no record of disgruntled settlers among the guests; perhaps a few were lurking in the shadows outside, barred from this likely invitation-only event. It was in the hosts’ interest to woo Marshall and Herring. The former went on to write a glowing account of the free grant lands in his book The Canadian Dominion, published the following year; the latter would focus on Muskoka as a destination for the members of his London emigration society. Muskoka would have been relatively easy to sell as an agricultural destination — an almost virgin landscape of pine and deciduous forests, glittering lakes, impressive waterfalls — a virtual paradise for aspiring settlers. But there was a serpent in this alleged Garden of Eden, one that Muskoka boosters strove hard to downplay — rock. Located on the Canadian Shield, Muskoka is replete with Precambrian outcrops, some encrusted with thin, acidic soil, others boldly exposed to the elements. During the evening’s banquet — according to McMurray’s account, that is — nothing was said about this obvious roadblock to the district’s agricultural success. The sublime landscape, coupled with the Canadians’ enthusiastic endorsements of Muskoka, clouded the judgement of both Herring and Marshall, and the myth of the free grant scheme’s viability was perpetuated for the time being. Did Macdonald or Richards, McMurray or Cockburn, have any misgivings for perhaps pulling the wool over these men’s eyes? Unfortunately, the architects of the free grant scheme could not plead ignorance — the suitability of land on the Canadian Shield for agricultural settlement had been the subject of fierce debate for the past several decades.
Free land grants, or offers of cheap land, were not a new phenomenon. They have been used throughout history as a means of fulfilling a country’s “manifest destiny,” whether within a country, as in the United States, or as a means to successfully colonize far-flung regions, as was the case in Great Britain. However, such schemes have frequently had dire results. Decades before Ontario’s free grant legislation, Western Australia’s Swan River colony, founded in 1829 by British naval captain James Stirling, was colonized — partly in order to prevent France from claiming the land for itself. The settlement, which was soon christened Perth, was billed as an agrarian paradise for settlers, but the emigrants who arrived at the colony hoping for cheap land found poor soil and an inhospitable climate. As a result, the extra land granted to settlers who brought extended family and servants proved insufficient for sustaining large numbers of people. Perhaps bitter at the failure of the settlement, Stirling, in the same spirit as many Muskoka free grant advocates, blamed the settlers themselves for the colony’s failure, claiming they were unsuccessful because they were inefficient farmers with unrealistic expectations. Eventually, over the next decades, convict labour boosted the population, and with the discovery of gold in Western Australia, the economy gradually grew.
The architects of empire and nation building, however, rarely learn from past experience. Many years after the Swan River fiasco, settlers in the United States were enticed by Abraham Lincoln’s Homestead Act of 1862, blithely heading west to farm the vast prairies, where poor soil, drought, extreme weather, and plagues of locusts discouraged many. In a move to equalize opportunity, the Act specified that land grants should be 160 acres each, yet these small parcels of land were inadequate to support the farmers who settled them, and prosperity was elusive. When the transcontinental railway reached the west coast in 1869, a measure of prosperity was achieved, as settlers could enjoy the boost in the economy brought on by improved transportation. However, in the initial years of these American and Australian settlements, the settlers bore the brunt of hardship as they carved out a living in a frequently hostile environment. As well, the Aboriginal populations suffered as they were supplanted from their own land, sometimes violently. Ironically, the Indigenous people were much better equipped for survival on the land that had sustained them for generations.
If free grant schemes from the past were not very successful, what possessed legislators to copy the idea in Muskoka?
Such schemes had been attempted in Upper Canada, as well as in Atlantic Canada, as early as the eighteenth century. In Upper Canada, these early settlement schemes were initiated in order to reward military personnel and newly arrived United Empire Loyalists, who had travelled north from the United States, preferring to live in a Crown colony rather than a newly independent republic. At this time, the grants were located in the less-rugged parts of southern Ontario, while the northern expanses of the province were intended to be reserved for the Aboriginal population. These land grants were often not successfully farmed, however, and merely held in speculation. As a result, the land was not worked agriculturally as intended, but held till rising land values could be exploited and a profit made. When these early schemes failed to encourage settlement, the government abandoned the concept for the next few decades.
Settlement schemes were not just conducted by the government in Ontario’s early years. Two notable projects had some similarities, although they were initiated in opposite ends of the province. Thomas Talbot, an Anglo-Irish military man, was private secretary to John Graves Simcoe, Upper Canada’s first lieutenant governor, from 1792 to 1794. After spending a few years in Britain, he returned to Canada, and, in 1803, was granted land in southwestern Ontario for purposes of founding a settlement. Talbot’s settlers began arriving a few years after, and they were promised legal possession of their land if they actually cleared and cultivated it, and built a house. Initially, Talbot’s settlement was quite successful: among his achievements was to encourage settlers to build roads throughout the district, most notably, the Talbot Road, and to encourage the land’s cultivation by suppressing land speculation. However, Talbot’s powers eventually diminished: the province wished to take over the running of the settlement, partly due to Talbot’s eccentricities and rather despotic attitude toward his settlers. As well, there was a growing backlash against the Family Compact, the wealthy, well-entrenched Anglican establishment that had administered the province for the past decades, and with whom Talbot highly identified.
Despotic tendencies led to the downfall of Archibald McNab, as well. As chief of the clan McNab in his native Scotland, he came in 1822 to Canada to escape debts, and soon after founded a settlement on the Ottawa River. Scottish settlers arrived soon after, but again, power went to McNab’s head, and he ran his community as if it were a sort of feudal kingdom. Settlers rebelled for years, until in the 1840s, the government stepped in and McNab was removed from his own settlement. Both Talbot’s and McNab’s endeavours demonstrated that emigration schemes such as theirs were unlikely to survive when left to the whims of leaders with little accountability.
By the mid-1800s, southern Ontario had seen a rapid population growth: prosperous towns were enjoying a healthy economy, and, as agricultural land had long been under cultivation, vacant land was scarce and established farms were expensive for those with little capital. Immigration was being promoted as a means to further expand the country’s population, and these new citizens would need a place to settle. In 1852, William Lyon Mackenzie and Joseph Hartman (members of the Reform Party, founded in 1832) addressed the Legislative Assembly, requesting surveys be made into the Ottawa-Huron tract, in the hope of settling the district for young Canadians and emigrants. Their plea was not in vain, for shortly after, a network of colonization roads was initiated in northeastern Ontario. The first was the Ottawa-Opeongo, begun in the early 1850s. The road snaked west from the Ottawa region but was never completed; it failed even to reach Lake Opeongo, about halfway to its intended destination of Georgian Bay. Settlers, many of them emigrants from Great Britain, were granted one hundred acres of land adjacent to the road. But there were those who conceded that the area may not be everyone’s cup of tea. An 1857 Department of Agriculture emigration pamphlet contained some unusually frank advice for the emigrant accustomed to the relatively tamer topography of Britain. “The Canadian Government [has] … no desire to encourage emigration to this Colony by sanctioning fancy sketches of rural felicity, or by permitting hopes of prosperity that cannot be completely realised to be held out.… [The settlers] must not estimate the value of land here by the standard that obtains in the parent kingdom.”[4] Although couched in rather twee Victorian prose, the pamphlet certainly hit the nail on the head. The Opeongo Road was hardly a region of “rural felicity”: it was isolated in the extreme, with a rugged terrain and harsh winter weather conditions — not exactly the Sussex countryside. By the early 1860s, these early free grant schemes, however shaky, came into direct competition with the British-based Canadian Land and Emigration Company, which was selling land cheaply in the Haliburton area, which is situated just east of Muskoka. The company’s settlers were rather disconcerted that free land was being offered in other parts of Ontario, and they petitioned the government — unsuccessfully, as it turned out — for compensation.
However, the competition was short-lived. Haliburton proved to be isolated and infertile, and the Canadian Land and Emigration Company struggled with its settlement for years to come. Considering the failure of these early settlement schemes, the government was perhaps even more determined that Muskoka would be a success. In 1856, the district was opened for settlement, and construction of the Muskoka Road began shortly after. By 1859, free grants of one hundred acres adjacent to the road were offered to prospective settlers. A stipulation required these settlers to contribute labour for the road’s upkeep. And yet, before long, warnings that the district may not be ideal for agriculture were expressed. In a report on the Muskoka Road in 1862, land agent R.J. (Richard Jose) Oliver noted, “The race now existing between the United States and ourselves for securing the tide of Emigration demands our most serious attention … care must be taken that discouraging accounts shall not be sent home to those of their friends who intend to follow.”[5] His words were proof that “discouraging reports” were rampant long before the Free Grants Act was passed, but the government chose largely to ignore them.
On January 9, 1868, two years prior to the Dominion House banquet in Bracebridge, members of the provincial Parliament took their seats at three in the afternoon in the old Ontario Legislature building on Toronto’s Front Street, between John and Simcoe. Top of the agenda that day was the government’s proposal to offer free grants to settlers across the Ottawa-Huron tract, most specifically in the Muskoka district.[6] The ensuing debate was passionate: those endorsing free grants were convinced that mistakes of the past would not be repeated; the detractors perhaps had more knowledge of those failed schemes and were equally adamant that this present scheme should be abandoned, or at least altered for the benefit of the settlers.
The government was, however, optimistic that with firm stipulations against speculation in place, success was guaranteed. In its favour, Muskoka had the advantage of being relatively easier to access than other regions of the Ottawa-Huron tract, and a rudimentary transportation network — road, water, and rail — was already in the works. As well, a good deal of money had already been spent on surveying the land. To gain a firm understanding of the optimism, and of the skepticism, that was voiced that day, we will join these honourable members as they take their seats and the debate over the free grants begins.[7]
Minutes after the commencement of the three o’clock session, John Charles Rykert, the Conservative party member for Lincoln County, addressed John Stevenson, the Speaker of the House, demanding that the government of the day, John Sandfield Macdonald’s Liberal-Conservative coalition, be a little more forthcoming about its intention to open the “wild lands” of Ontario for free grant agricultural settlement. He reminded the House that in the past decade emigrants had been induced to wild lands in other parts of the province, which also lay on the Canadian Shield, with disastrous results. “If [an 1863] report could be believed,” the Globe quoted him, “much of the land on which emigrants had settled was totally unfit — a good deal of suffering and hardship, if not of starvation, had been endured by some — and the tide of emigration had long ago turned from their shores to the United States.” Rykert was concerned that the Ottawa-Huron tract was once again to be opened up for free grant settlement, and was anxious that prior mistakes were not repeated, as many earlier settlers on poor land had abandoned their homes. He demanded that the government report on exactly how much arable land there was in these newly proposed free grant lands. A particular concern was that the Macdonald government was proposing that settlers could not sell the lumber they cleared on their land, but must relinquish it to the government or pay the same dues that actual lumber companies paid. They could, however, keep the timber that was felled strictly for clearing purposes — that is, with the intent of cultivation — for fuel, and for the erection of buildings and fences.
Rykert’s concerns sparked a heated debate that day in the House. Premier John Sandfield Macdonald, the Conservative member for Cornwall, was quick to jump into the fray, countering Rykert’s accusation that the free grant district was unfit for agriculture. He explained that it was impossible to calculate how much land was arable, and that the settlers who had abandoned their homes in the past had not been “actual” settlers; they had only taken residence for the time it took to cut and sell the lumber on their land. Frederick William Cumberland, Conservative member for Algoma, found it difficult to believe that Macdonald couldn’t calculate the amount of arable land in the free grant district; he reminded the government of the considerable expense that both pre- and post-Confederation governments had spent on surveyors over the past several years. Macdonald shot back that it would take years to go over the land “lot by lot, and acre by acre,” but did agree that earlier free grant schemes had been complete failures. As for the timber issue, he suggested that by relinquishing their rights to the...
