Kerr, William, M.A., Q.C., LL.D., Barrister, Cobourg, Ontario, was born in the township of Ameliasburg, in the county of Prince Edward. He is a son of the late Francis Kerr, formerly of Enniskillen, in the county of Fermanagh, Ireland, who for some years taught school in Prince Edward, and afterwards removed to the county of Hastings. After the death of his father and mother, which occurred when he was a child, Mr. Kerr removed with his half-sister and her husband to the township of Clarke, where he worked on their farm and went to school. He prepared for college under Dr. William Ormiston, now of the Collegiate Reformed (Dutch) Church, New York, who at that time was the Presbyterian minister at Newtonville, and kept a private academy. He entered Victoria College at Cobourg as a senior matriculant in 1852, and graduated in the arts department in 1855. The class consisted of four, all now living, viz., Dr. Carman, senior superintendent of the Methodist church; Dr. Moses Aikins, the well-known physician in the county of Peel; Dr. E. B. Ryckman, ex-president of the London Conference; and the subject of this sketch. He studied law in the office of Smith and Armour at Cobourg, and began the practice of his profession in the town of Cobourg, September, 1858. His brother, John W. Kerr, who was appointed county attorney and clerk of the peace in 1877, on the elevation of Mr. Armour to the bench, joined him in 1860. They have the largest practice in the united counties of Northumberland and Durham. He entered the town council in 1862, and served as a councillor for five years. In 1867 he was elected mayor, and was elected five times in succession by acclamation to the same office. On presenting himself for the sixth time he was opposed, but, after a hot contest, in which he was supported by the leaders of both political parties, he was re-elected by 175 majority. Although frequently urged to enter into political life, it was not until 1874, on Mr. Armour’s (now Mr. Justice Armour) refusing the Liberal nomination for the House of Commons, that he consented to do so, when he entered the field about three weeks before the election, and defeated the Hon. James Cockburn, the Speaker of the House of Commons, by 231 majority. He was unseated, however, on petition, but was re-elected over the Hon. Sidney Smith, ex-postmaster-general, by 155 majority. He was an unsuccessful candidate in 1878, 1882, and 1885, being defeated by narrow majorities, owing to the influence of the so-called national policy and the opportune building of government works in his constituency, in the years 1882 and 1885. In politics he is a strong Liberal, and a warm admirer of the Hon. Edward Blake. For many years past he has been one of the most active Liberals in the united counties of Northumberland and Durham, taking part in all election contests in West Northumberland, and lending a helping hand whenever occasion required in the neighboring ridings. He was president of the Liberal Association of West Northumberland from 1878 to 1882, and is vice-chancellor of Victoria University, to which position he has been twice elected by the almost unanimous vote of the graduates. He married Myra, third daughter of the late John Field, a well known and highly respected merchant of Cobourg, and sister of John C. Field, ex-M.P.P., and C. C. Field, M.P.P. Has seven children, four sons and three daughters.
David, Laurent Olivier, Barrister, Montreal, M.P.P. for Montreal East, was born at Sault-au-Récollet, county of Hochelaga, near Montreal, on the 24th of March, 1840. His father was Major Stanislas David, of Sault-au-Récollet. Young David was educated at the Seminary of Ste. Thérèse, in which institution he underwent a thorough course of classical studies. On his leaving college he entered the law office of Mousseau & Labelle, and was admitted to practice at the bar of the province of Quebec, in August, 1864. Like the majority of the French Canadian youths who leave college possessing high class and interesting lore, but totally unfit for the battle of life, Mr. David had to fight his way through the world without help. As he had a natural penchant for writing, and a facile pen, he soon made his way to the press and was an able and welcome contributor to the daily newspapers and periodicals of the time. In 1870, when George E. Desbarats, a son of the Queen’s printer, founded L’Opinion Publique, a twelve-page pictorial weekly, he was chosen as chief editor of the publication, and a better choice could hardly be made. The paper was published until 1884, when it collapsed, owing to various causes, after having reached a subscription list of over fifteen thousand. It may be said that the newspaper failed on account of having received too much encouragement, because in the province of Quebec as elsewhere, a great number seem to think that when they have subscribed for a newspaper, it does not matter much to the publisher and editor whether the subscription is paid or not. Among the collaborateurs to L’Opinion Publique may be more especially mentioned the Hon. J. A. Chapleau, the late Hon. Justice Mousseau, A. C. DeCelles, the present chief librarian of parliament, C. A. Dansereau, the brilliant and gifted editor of La Presse, and many others. In 1874, Mr. David, in conjunction with Mr. Beausoleil, founded Le Bien Public, a daily paper published in the interests of the Liberal party, taking the place of Le Pays, the organ of the advanced liberals of the province of Quebec, which had been founded on the ruins of L’Avenir, the first Liberal paper of note in Canada, published by Messrs. Dorion, and having on its staff at different periods, N. Aubin, L. A. Dessaulles, Joseph Doutre, and a score of other Liberal writers. Le Bien Public was in turn superseded by Le National, founded by the late Hon. M. Laframboise, who lost both his money and his health in the enterprise, and was finally rewarded by his party with an appointment to the bench a few years before his death. La Patrie was the next journalistic Liberal venture, in 1879, and, for a wonder, it proved a financial success under the energetic and able management of Honoré Beaugrand. Le Temps also came out as an exponent of liberal views in 1881, but the shareholders having fallen into the same error as their predecessors, placed a man totally unfit for the position at its head; and as a natural consequence the paper lived only a few months. A fearless exponent of the Liberal programme, La Patrie probably did more to advance the cause of liberalism in the province of Quebec than any other newspaper. Mr. Beaugrand, who is not only an able financier, but also a judge of literary merits, grouped together the young writers of the new school, led by Buies and Fréchette. In their ranks were found Arthur Globensky, the graceful poet; the late T. H. Bienvenu, the profound political writer; Ernest Tremblay (now editor of L’Union, St. Hyacinthe); J. E. Robidoux, M.P.P. for Chateauguay, and a score of others. Mr. David, who is an uncompromising Liberal, and who never faltered in his political principles, was a more or less frequent contributor to most of these newspapers. Besides his contributions to the press he found time to publish a volume entitled “Biographies et Portraits de nos principaux Canadiens-Français,” and another entitled “Patriotes de 1837-38.” The mantle of the greatest and most popular tribune whom French Canada will forever honor and remember, Papineau, who contributed more than any other to preserve intact the rights and privileges guaranteed to the conquered race by the Treaty of Utrecht, may be said to have fallen on the shoulders of Mr. David; no national fête, no popular demonstration is complete without him; and since 1864 he has taken an active part in all the national movements. He is considered in the province of Quebec as the standard-bearer of national ideas; yet he is ever willing and ready to grant to other races the rights he asks for his own race. His pen and voice (he is a fluent and agreeable speaker) have always been employed in the defence of right and to elevate the standard of public opinion among his countrymen, and to convince them that true and effective patriotism, national and religious strength consist more of deeds than of words and noisy affirmations and declarations, and he often said boldly on public platforms that he would not encourage injustice towards other nationalities to please his countrymen, even should the madness of a few irresponsible penny-a-liners, who are paid to carry on their nefarious work, goad them to reprisals. In 1886, Mr. David presented himself to the suffrages of the voters of Montreal East, and carried the day against two formidable opponents, the Hon. L. O. Taillon, premier of the province, probably the most influential man the Conservatives could bring forward, and Adélard Gravel, the nominee of the Labor party, who polled the entire labor vote of the constituency. The Reformers, however, rallied around their standard-bearer, and by presenting a united front, succeeded in electing him by a handsome majority. Mr. David was a partner in the law firm of Longpré and David. Mr. Longpré was appointed September, 1887, prothonotary of the Superior Court for the district of Montreal by the Mercier administration. In religion he is a Roman Catholic of broad views. He married, in 1868, Albina Chenet, a daughter of Pierre Chenet. She died in August, 1887. He is the father of eleven children, one son and ten daughters.
Mountcastle, Clara H. (“Caris Sima”), Clinton, Ontario, is the third surviving daughter, and seventh child of the late Sydney Harman Mountcastle, and Frances Laura, his wife, and was born in Clinton, Ontario, on the 26th of November, 1837. She is descended on her father’s side from James, eldest son of Lord Claude Hamilton, who was created Baron of Mountcastle and Kilpatrick on the 10th July, 1606; and on her mother’s side from an eminent civil engineer, who died in the year 1811, aged 92, and was buried at Preston, East Lothian, Scotland, where the following lines are inscribed on his tombstone:—“To the memory of Andrew Meikle, who steadily pursued the example of his ancestors, and by inventing and bringing to perfection a machine for separating corn from straw, constructed on the principle of velocity, rendered to the agriculturists of Britain and other nations a more beneficial service than any hitherto recorded in the annals of ancient or modern science.” Her maternal grandfather, James Meikle, held a prominent position in his Majesty’s Ordnance Department, with headquarters in the Tower of London, and was frequently consulted by the Duke of Wellington upon the defences of the country during the Peninsular campaign. And we can well imagine, from the massive intellect displayed in a portrait of this gentleman now in possession of Miss Mountcastle, that the “Iron Duke” had no mean adviser. Mr. Mountcastle, father of the subject of our sketch, was born in London, England, on the 12th of January, 1803, and came to Canada in 1832, bringing with him his wife, who still survives, and two children, who died shortly after his arrival. Having a small capital he purchased land on the Huron Road, county of Huron, Ontario, and erected two dwellings, at different periods, on the same. The latest of these is the childhood’s home of “Caris Sima,” a small picture of which, executed in oil, now hangs on the wall of her studio in Clinton, and represents a low hewn log dwelling, with gables to the road, as described in her poem, “Lost,” and literally embowered in trees and flowers. We clip the following from an obituary notice that appeared in a local paper at the time of her father’s death. Alluding to him, the writer says, “He made a good clearing on his land, and erected a comfortable dwelling, which in later years, as his young family grew up, became a seat of refined and cordial hospitality, the remembrance of which will be long retained by the many friends who were privileged to enjoy it.” Miss Mountcastle received the chief portion of her education at home, under the direct supervision of her parents. When a child she was dreamy and reflective, rarely rousing from a state of abstraction unless to defend anyone whom she thought injured or oppressed, or to comfort her pets when in pain or trouble. Her sympathy with the dumb creatures of the universe was intense. If she discovered a caterpillar on her clothes, she would try to think where it came from, and would walk a long distance to restore it to its “afflicted family.” Oftentimes would she carry tiny toads in her little pinafore, and would take them in her hands to warm them, saying “They were so cold, poor things.” And when a trap was set to catch mice, she would listen for the click, then silently release the little prisoner. In winter her chief pleasure seemed to be found in gazing at the glowing embers in the wide, open fireplace, and she seldom joined in the romps of the other children. She did not care for study in these days. At twelve years of age she knew little more than her letters, and was dubbed “the dunce of the family.” This roused in her a desire to excel, and from that time she acquired the rudiments of knowledge with remarkable rapidity. Long ere this she showed a decided talent for drawing, which was carefully fostered by her father and mother, both of whom possessed considerable artistic taste—her mother being a good amateur artist, and her father an excellent judge of a picture. Yet they were not qualified to bring forth the latent powers of their child, else her name had been known long before 1870, when she exhibited at the Provincial Exhibition at Toronto, carrying off five prizes for paintings in water colors. From this time she made art her profession, being utterly unconscious of a still greater talent yet to be developed, and which her devotion to art as a means of livelihood seems for a time to have entirely obscured. Though her father knew her ability, and tried to induce her to write, yet her natural diffidence prevented her, and it was not until 1879 that, through the urgent entreaties of her sister Ellen, she turned her attention to literature. Miss Mountcastle is, in every sense, what is termed “a late ripe.” Not only was she backward in her studies as a child, but she remained a child for an unprecedentedly long period of time. At the age of twenty she was an unformed girl, and continued growing in stature for some years afterwards. As an artist, we would say that her sketches are masterly, and embrace almost every conceivable subject, but she has not yet attained that high finish which only study under the best masters can give. It is in the field of letters where she excels. The power, the pathos, and passion of her writings bespeak for her a high place in the literature of this and the future ages. Her first work, “The Mission of Love,” published by Hunter, Rose and Co., Toronto, is well described by J. E. Collins, in “The Life and Times of Sir John A. Macdonald,” as “a garden in which there are several unseemly weeds growing side by side with a number of delightful flowers.” These weeds were an error in judgment. Many poets have erred in the same way, and afterwards tried to suppress their early work, but the flowers are imperishable. As in art, so also in literature, Miss Mountcastle’s genius is peculiarly versatile. No poet living or dead ever wrote in such varied style. Hear the music in “The Voice of the Waters.” Mark the light debonair tone in “See that he be virtuously brought up,” and yet how full of feeling and reverence; while the airy grace of her lyrics (valentines), combined with rare delicacy of feeling, is inimitable, and shows the writer entertains higher views of love than are likely ever to be realized in this mundane sphere. And what exquisite delicacy of thought is apparent in “Reflections on a Faded Rose,” “At the Falling of the Leaf,” “Day Dreaming,” “Art Thou Thinking of Me?” etc. While what depth of pathos is felt in the wailing of “Hope Deferred.” But it is in her unpublished work, some of which we have seen, that her genius becomes more apparent. Unsurpassed by modern poet is the verse wherein she reproaches the sea for causing the death of Sappho, the celebrated Greek poetess:
Oh, sea, had’st thou no power to save,
Could’st thou not raise that glorious face;
Nor let thy suffocating breath,
That heaven-born life of song erase;