26 EUKAL LIFE IN CAl^ADA 



When the situation in Ontario is thoroughly can- 

 vassed we find that of the 526 townships in Ontario, 

 exclusive of the immigration area — Algoma, IS'ipissing, 

 Thunder Bay, and Kainy River — ^there has been a 

 decrease of population in 423; and that of the 75 

 census districts containing rural as well as urban popu- 

 lation, 60 suffered decrease in their rural population. 

 If, again, we except the five districts in the New North, 

 we find that in ten districts only is there growth of 

 rural population. 



We may perhaps realize the contrast more vividly 

 still by placing rural loss over against urban gain in 

 certain counties. Carlton lost 2,561 in rural population 

 and gained 6,587 in urban; in Elgin the respective loss 

 and gain were 3,302 and 4,128 ; in Grey, 10,782 and 

 7,083 ; in Haldimand 1,139 and 1,468 ; in West Hast- 

 ings, 1,586 and 1,063 ; in Kent, 2,701 and 1,502. West 

 Lambton's rural loss of 2,594 stands over against an 

 urban gain of 1,980; South Lanark's loss of 1,460 over 

 against a gain of 1,215. Leeds suffered a rural loss of 

 2,150, but with an offset in urban gain of 1,118 ; On- 

 tario — the county of that name — met with a rural loss 

 of 2,091, but had an urban increase of 2,689 ; in Parry 

 Sound the respective loss and gain were 1,970 and 

 3,581; in Perth, 3,792 and 3,013; in Renfrew, 2,724 

 and 1,961. Russell lost 1,204 in rural population ; Wel- 

 lington, 4,189 ; and Simcoe, 5,431 while gaining respec- 

 tively 5,472, 3,035, and 5,472 in urban growth. 



The census summary informs us that the rural 

 decrease in Ontario is 52,184. This is 4.19 per cent. 

 But the rural gain in the five new districts is 44,940. 

 Therefore the rural loss in Old Ontario was 97,124, or 

 8.36 per cent. And the rural gain in the ten growing 



