Families in Transition: Industry and Population in Nineteenth-Century Saint-Hyacynthe 9780773567825

Citation preview

Families in Transition

STUDIES ON THE HISTORY OF QUEBEC/ ETUDES D'HISTOIRE DU QUEBEC John Dickinson and Brian Young Series Editors/Directeurs de la collection Habitants and Merchants in Seventeenth-Century Montreal Louise Dechene Crofters and Habitants Setter Society, Economy, and Culture in a Quebec Township, 1848-1881 /./. Little The Christie Seigneuries Estate Management and Settlement in the Upper Richelieu Valley, 1760—1859 Francoise Noel La Prairie en Nouvelle-France, 1647—1760 Louis Lavallee The Politics of Codification The Lower Canadian Civil Code of 1866 Brian Young Arvida au Saguenay Naissance d'une ville industrielle Jose E. Igartua State and Society in Transition The Politics of Institutional Reform in the Eastern Townships, 1838-1852

//. Little Vingt ans apres Habitants et marchands, Lectures de 1'histoire des xviie et xviiie siecles canadiens Habitants et marchands, Twenty Years Later Reading the History of Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Canada Edited by Sylvie Depatie, Catherine Desbarats, Danielle Gauvreau, Mario Lalancette, Thomas Wien Families in Transition Industry and Population in Nineteenth-Century Saint-Hyacinthe Peter Gossage

Families in Transition Industry and Population in Nineteenth-Century Saint-Hyacinthe PETER G O S S A G E

McGill-Queen's University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Ithaca

McGill-Queen's University Press 1999 ISBN 0-7735-1847-9 Legal deposit third quarter 1999 Bibliotheque nationale du Quebec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Financial support has also been received from the Universite de Sherbrooke via the Fonds d'appui aux activites de creation et d'edition savante. McGill-Queen's University Press acknowledges the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Book Publishing Industry Development Program (BPIDP) for its activities. We also acknowledge the support of the Canada Council for the Arts for our publishing program.

Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data Gossage, Peter, 1956Families in transition : industry and population in nineteenth-century Saint-Hyacinthe (Studies on the history of Quebec - etudes d'histoire du Quebec) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-7735-1847-9 i. Saint-Hyacinthe (Quebec) - Population - History 19th century, i. Tide. ii. Series: Studies on the history of Quebec HNI 10.332068 1999 304.6'o9714'523 099-900497-2 Typeset in 10/12 Baskerville by Acappella

For Annmarie

This page intentionally left blank

Contents

Tables ix Figures xiii Preface xv Abbreviations xix Illustrations after pages 10, 78, and 114 Introduction 3 1

Saint-Hyacinthe in Context 11

2

Genesis of an Industrial Town 36

3

To Have and to Hold: Marriage and Family Formation in Nineteenth-Century Saint-Hyacinthe 79

4

Families at the Threshold: Newlyweds, Household Structure, and Proximity to Kin 115

5

Interesting Conditions: Fertility and Family Size in Transition 139

6

Conclusion: The Art of the Possible 177 Appendix Family Formation in Focus: An Essay on Methods 183 Notes 213 Bibliography 269 Index 293

This page intentionally left blank

Tables

1-1 Population, Catholic population, and number of households in municipalities in the Saint-Hyacinthe area: 1851—1901 / 22 1-2 Catholic population, baptisms, burials, natural increase, total increase, and net migration for Parish of SaintHyacinthe-le-Confesseur: 1861—1901 / 24 1-3 Birth, marriage, and death rates for Catholic population of the Parish of Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur: 1861— 1901 / 25 2-1 Industrial establishments in Saint-Hyacinthe, 1871: Number of shops, number of workers, and average number of workers per shop, by productive sector / 47 2-2 Occupational structure: Saint-Hyacinthe, 1861 and 1891 56 2-3 Occupational structure: Saint-Hyacinthe men, 1861 and 1891/57-8 2-4 Occupational structure: Saint-Hyacinthe women, 1861 and 1891 / 60 3-1 Occupations of husbands in the three marriage cohorts /8l-2

3-2 Occupations: Fathers of wives in the three cohorts / 85

x Tables 3-3 Social and occupational endogamy / 86 3-4 Distribution of husbands and wives by place of residence (Parish of Saint-Hyacinthe or other) / 88 3-5 Resident and non-resident husbands, by occupational group / 90 3-6 Distribution of couples by the civil status of each spouse /92

3-7 Signature rates / 93 3-8 Men's age at first marriage, Parish of Saint-Hyacinthe / 100 3-9 Singulate mean age at first marriage for men: Quebec (total), Montreal, and the Saguenay region, 1852—1891 / 101 3-10 Men's age at first marriage by occupational category / 101 3-11 Women's age at first marriage, Parish of Saint-Hyacinthe / 105 3-12 Singulate mean age at first marriage for women: Quebec (total), Montreal, and the Saguenay region, 1852—1891 / 105 3-13 Women's age at first marriage by father's occupational category/ 107 3-14 Mean difference between husband's and wife's marriage age / 1 1 1 4-1 Portrait of conjugal families linked to census lists, by cohort / 121 4-2 Household structure: Intact couples linked to subsequent census, by cohort / 123 4-3 Household structure by occupational category: Three cohorts combined / 128 4-4 Household structure by geographic zone: Three cohorts combined / 130 4-5 Type of house occupied and presence of kin in contiguous households, by cohort / 132

xi Tables 5-1 Age-specific marital fertility rates / 144 5- 2 Age-specific marital fertility rates: Three Saint-Hyacinthe marriage cohorts and eight other populations / 146 5-3 Age-specific marital fertility rates, by wife's age at marriage / 148 5-4 Infant and child mortality / 153 5-5 Four estimates of average family size, by cohort / 154 5-6 Fertility rates by husband's occupation / 156 5-7 Marital fertility rates, wives of three categories of urbanmanual workers / 162 5-8 Family size estimates, with infant and child mortality quotients, by occupational group / 166 A-I Analysis of migratory itineraries, by cohort / 204 A-2 Distribution of family reconstitution files by mobility codes and Henry codes / 205 A-3 Women and "woman-years" observed in the 15 to 44 age group, by cohort and mobility code, by cohort / 21 0 A~4 Women and "woman-years" observed, by cohort and age category / 210

This page intentionally left blank

Figures

1-1 Saint-Hyacinthe in the Montreal plain / 13 1-2 Saint-Hyacinthe at mid-century / 17 1-3 The quartiers of Saint-Hyacinthe / 19 1-4 The parishes of Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur and Notre-Dame-du-Saint-Rosaire / 21 1-5 Baptisms, marriages, and burials, Parish of SaintHyacinthe-le-Confesseur, 1854-1924/ 26 3-1 Geographic origins of non-resident husbands, three cohorts combined / 89 3-2 Distribution of marriages in the year, by cohort / 96 5-1 Fertility decline in Saint-Hyacinthe / 144 5-2 Age-specific marital fertility rates: Saint-Hyacinthe 1884—1891 and four other populations / 147 5-3 Age-specific marital fertility rates (MFR) by wife's marriage age / 149 5-4 Age and occupationally specific marital fertility rates, three-cohort aggregates (labourers excluded) / 158 5-5 Age-specific marital fertility rates by occupational group and cohort/ 159 A-I Birth years: Children born to all couples in Cohorts A, B, and C / 202

This page intentionally left blank

h

This book began life in the late 19805 as an idea for a doctoral dissertation about the linkages between two major historical transitions. Teachers such as Brian Young and Richard Rice had taught me to place the transition to industrial capitalism at the centre of any project designed to advance an understanding of social change in the nineteenth century. That lesson was not forgotten. But I was also drawn to the "demographic transition," a dramatic shift in population patterns which saw traditional, high-fertility regimes yield to others, usually referred to as "modern." Teachers such as Jean-Claude Robert, Jose Igartua, and Louise Dechene helped me to learn the careful, plodding methods of historical demography and to ask good questions about past populations. I have not forgotten those lessons cither. These two transitions have much in common. For one thing, they are among the most sweeping changes to have affected Western societies since the eighteenth century. For another, they seem often to have gone hand in hand. Take France, Britain, and the United States - countries in which industrial capitalism profoundly reshaped social relations in the nineteenth century and in which very significant demographic changes have occurred. In fact, the Whiggish generalizations seem to write themselves: "Industrialization, urbanization, and modern values led to declines in birth rates, while medical progress increased infant survival and life expectancy," and so on. But such simple versions of this complex story fail to explain why or how industrial capitalism created the necessary conditions for the

xvi Preface

demographic transition, and vice versa. Indeed, whereas these two transitions are undoubtedly part of the same story, attempts to explain their interconnectedness have often fallen short of the mark. Families in Transition may, or may not, go some way toward clarifying this extremely complex relationship. Its readers must judge. Along the way, however, they will be asked to think about whether or not industrial capitalism affected other aspects of family life in the nineteenth century: when and with whom people married, for example; and whether they lived on their own, in "nuclear" families, or with large groups of kin, boarders, and domestic servants. The industrial and demographic transitions are also similar in that they were both vast structural shifts which took place in the longue duree. Nevertheless, if we are to make any sense of the past the behaviour of individual men and women must be related to these transitions as well. They are processes, moreover, which occurred in Quebec on a timetable broadly similar to that of other Western societies. While that position may mark this study as a work of unreconstructed "revisionism," to use the vocabulary set out in Ronald Rudin's important and controversial analysis of recent Quebec historiography,1 it is a label I can live with. That is, as long as it refers to a kind of history that assumes that people in Quebec experienced the same structural changes as those reshaping other Western societies, and that they responded to those changes in particular, sometimes original, and at times conventional, ways. Families in Transition will probably not please those who champion an essentially political history, designed to instill national sentiment by celebrating the public accomplishments of our forefathers, whether Canadian or quebecois.* This is as it must be. I have always found the greatest pleasure and stimulation in the kind of history that teaches us about those whom we usually call "ordinary" women and men, their challenges and struggles, their victories and defeats. If this book accomplishes anything, I hope it will make its readers think about what was really important to people in the past. They were, after all, just like us. In effect, most were more concerned with their communities, their jobs, and especially, I would argue, their children, than with long dead politicians and national identity. There is also an unfashionable emphasis in this book on quantitative analysis which, to be frank, might not be as strong were I to begin this study anew in today's postmodern era. But numbers are a necessary part of any study of past populations. Moreover, quantitative history does not have to be boring. My hope is that readers of this book will look beyond the tables and graphs to the people whose lives they represent. I have tried to encourage this by presenting individual

xvii Preface

examples to further illustrate the patterns revealed by the rates, proportions, and central tendencies. After all, population history, is, and must be understood to be, about people. I could not have written this book without the help and support of many individuals. When it was still a dissertation, this study benefited from the financial support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and La Fondation de 1'Universite du Quebec a Montreal, both of which provided doctoral fellowships. This assistance was, and is, greatly appreciated. I have already mentioned my Ph.D. supervisors, Jean-Claude Robert, Louise Dechene, and Jose Igartua, all of whom helped me through many decisions and many drafts. Once again they have my thanks. Many people discussed various aspects of the project with me, and at various stages. Annmarie Adams, Gerard Bouchard, Danielle Gauvreau, Yves Landry, Yolande Lavoie, Marvin Mclnnis, Francine Mayer, Sherry Olson, Joy Parr, and Marc St-Hilaire all generously shared of their time and insights. I have also had the good fortune to work with Helene Langlois of the Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM) computing centre, as well as with Yves Otis, upon whom, like so many Quebec historians, I have come to rely for his impeccable work with computer graphics. As well, in recent months, Chantal Goyette has helped me to prepare the tests of statistical significance that were absent from earlier drafts. All these people helped to make this a better book than it might otherwise have been. I thank them sincerely. It would be impossible to name all the librarians and archivists who helped me along the way. But I must express my gratitude to the pastor of Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur parish, Mgr Andre Beaule, who gave me virtually unlimited access to his parish registers, although I am afraid I may have overstayed my welcome in his parloir. My thanks also go to Jean-Noel Dion, archivist for both the Seminaire de Saint-Hyacinthe and the Societe d'histoire regionale de SaintHyacinthe (and an accomplished regional historian in his own right); without his help, I am convinced that nobody could write anything sensible about the history of the town. I know I could not. The work of Ann Gossage, who had the difficult task of typing all the tables for the dissertation, was, and is, much appreciated. Although the tables have been greatly revised and reformatted since then, her initial work has served me well. As well, I thank, Julien Breard, who provided research assistance for a recent revision, establishing record links from my family reconstitution files to nominative lists from the 1901 manuscript census. Although the work was done in aid of this book, it also serves as part of a wider investigation of

xviii Preface

fertility decline in Quebec now underway under the direction of Danielle Gauvreau and myself. I thank Danielle for her openness to this sharing of data, for her good counsel as a research collaborator, and for her understanding of the regular absences from our joint venture that constituted my pattern in recent months as I attempted to finish this book. I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends in the Departement d'histoire et de sciences politiques at the Universite de Sherbrooke for providing the atmosphere of collegiality, support, and respect that has helped make it possible to bring this project to fruition. Bettina Bradbury and Brian Young both read the penultimate draft in its entirety. I thank them for their generosity, their insights, and their comments. I also appreciate the contributions of the three anonymous reviewers who volunteered their services to McGillQueen's University Press and to the Humanities and Social Sciences Federation of Canada. Along with Bettina and Brian, these readers challenged me to improve the study in numerous ways; I only hope they will find that their efforts have been rewarded. The people at McGill-Queen's also deserve my sincere thanks. Peter Blaney, Philip Cercone, and Aurele Parisien have all lent strong support to the project, providing the right advice at the right time and helping me over various hurdles in the publication process. The efforts of editors Wendy Dayton and Joan McGilvray to help me write a readable book of population history are also sincerely appreciated. Except where otherwise indicated, translations in this book were prepared by the author, with the able assistance of Natahsa Dagenais. She has my thanks Although the members of my extended family have grown in number during this project's long gestation period, they have remained constant in their love and support. Thanks for everything go to Audrey, Bill, Dave, Linda, Hannah, Henry, Mary, Steve, Joe, Lewis, Thom, Isabelle, Ann, Mike, Michael, Luke, Bill Sr, Barb, Kaye, Jack, Peter, Mary Helen, Burke, Allison, Paul, Mary Ann, Colin, Jamie, and Hayden. Thanks, too, go to Brenda Lockwood, who is more like family than anything else, and whose help in recent months has been truly indispensable. Finally, I owe my deepest debt of gratitude to Annmarie Adams and Charles David Adams-Gossage. The best thing I ever did was to marry Annmarie, whose love and encouragement sustain me and who has given me joy, serenity, and the marvel that is Charlie. This book, paper clips and all, is for her. Knowlton, Quebec July 1998

Abbreviations

ADH AESC AESH ANQM APJSH APSHC ASHRSH ASSH CHA CHR HP Hs/SH INED IQRC JFH L/LT MQUP MS NA PUL PUM PUQ RCHTQ RhAf Rs UTP

Annales de demographic historique Annales: economies, societes, civilisations Archives de 1'eveche de Saint-Hyacinthe Archives nationales du Quebec, Montreal Archives du Palais de justice de Saint-Hyacinthe Archives de la paroisse de Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur Archives de la Societe d'histoire regionale de Saint-Hyacinthe Archives du Seminaire de Saint-Hyacinthe Canadian Historical Association Canadian Historical Review Historical Papers Histoire sociale / Social History Institut national d'etudes demographiques (Paris) Institut quebecois de recherche sur la culture Journal of Family History Labour / Le Travail McGill-Queen's University Press McClelland and Stewart National Archives of Canada Presses de 1'Universite Laval Presses de 1'Universite de Montreal Presses de 1'Universite du Quebec Regroupement des chercheurs-chercheures en histoire des travailleurs et travailleuses du Quebec Revue d'histoire de I'Ameriquefrancaise Recherches sociographiques University of Toronto Press

This page intentionally left blank

Families in Transition

This page intentionally left blank

Introduction

In the second half of the nineteenth century, Quebec society experienced an unprecedented set of transitions. Industrial capitalism reshaped the workplace, transformed social relations, and fuelled urban growth and institutional change. Factories drew thousands of families from rural areas, contributing to the growth of one major city, Montreal, and of such smaller ones as Quebec, Hull, Sherbrooke, Valleyfield, and Saint-Hyacinthe. A new railway network provided the steel framework for the industrial economy, carving out new patterns of regional economic differentiation in the process. The state became larger, more complex, and more powerful, even as the Roman Catholic Church expanded its influence. Church and state struggled for hegemony over a vast network of new social and educational institutions, designed both to impose order on the popular classes and to fill an ever-growing range of urgent social needs. Sharpening class differences found expression in industrial disputes, as labouring men and women organized to defend their interests against those of capital. And social distinctions were etched into the new urban geography, as the wealthy moved into distinct and exclusive bourgeois areas such as Montreal's "Golden Square Mile," and the working class built equally distinct if less opulent neighbourhoods of their own.1 The impact of industrial capitalism on one of the most basic human activities, work, is well documented in the Quebec context. By the turn of the twentieth century, much more work was being done in large units organized and controlled by capital than had been the

4 Introduction

case 50 years earlier. Factory work was fundamentally different from farm and craft production for a number of reasons, besides the scale of operations and the level of mechanization. Perhaps most significant was the unprecedented degree of separation between home and workplace, or between "family time" and "industrial time," to use Tamara Hareven's phrase. Structuring these new dichotomies was the wage relationship, as an increasingly large proportion of Quebecers either exchanged their labour power for a wage, or depended on wages earned by family members. Wage dependence created a new kind of household, characterized, on the one hand, by the fragility of its economic foundations and, on the other, by its resourcefulness and ability to adapt to the new industrial setting.2 Other major consequences of the industrial capitalist transition for Quebec society have only been hinted at or assumed. Surprisingly little is known, for instance, about the impact of industry on family formation and reproduction. Other periods of Quebec's demographic history - the French regime, for example — are much better documented.3 Historical demographers and others working on population patterns in the later nineteenth century have mainly focused on rural regions and on the important question of migration.4 Relatively little attention has been paid to Quebec communities where industrial development did occur, or to whether that development affected patterns of family formation and reproduction in a significant way.5 But if urban Quebec in the late nineteenth century has received relatively little attention from those interested in family and population, it is fair to say that urban places other than Montreal have received virtually none at all.6 Interest in these issues, however, is real and substantial. It has been stimulated by the vast international literature on family life and, more particularly, on the relationship between economic and demographic regimes. Researchers have focused on the changes and continuities in the role of family in periods of economic transition, both in historic Europe and in the developing world today.7 This focus highlights the role of family at the intersection of economic and demographic regimes, articulating systems of production and reproduction to each other.8 Certain studies have emphasized the important continuities that linked rural, pre-industrial settings with the urban, industrial ones.9 But the suggestion that individuals and families often adopted new marital, residential, and reproductive strategies in response to dramatically altered economic situations persists. Indeed, this kind of argument is made strongly in many of the best studies in family history.10 An interest in the dynamic relationships between economic structure and demographic behaviour has informed the research for

5 Introduction this book since its inception. How can we characterize the familial and demographic behaviour of families who lived through Quebec's industrial capitalist transition in the second half of the nineteenth century? How, if at all, did the new economic realities affect patterns of family formation and reproduction? Did people develop new approaches to marriage, household composition, and fertility - the three broadly demographic aspects of family life that will be examined in detail here - as industrial capitalism transformed other aspects of their lives? And in the urban places, where factory work and wage labour took hold, were the new patterns of privilege and dispossession, which can be read so clearly in the labour history and the urban geography of this period, reflected as well in its historical demography? In the case-study traditions of both historical demography and social history, I explore these themes for a single community, one which experienced considerable industrial development in the second half of the nineteenth century. The town of Saint-Hyacinthe is located on the Yamaska River some 50 kilometres east of Montreal, in the heart of Quebec's Monteregie area (see Figure 1-1). Beginning in the i86os, Saint-Hyacinthe developed a significant manufacturing sector, with industrial capitalist production concentrated in the leather goods and textile sectors. These highly mechanized industries, many of which received municipal aid in the form of bonuses and tax relief, drew on large local reserves of relatively unskilled labourers who could be induced into factory work for very low wages indeed. The town, in short, developed on a "light industry" model often considered to be typical of the Quebec manufacturing sector in this period. This book asks whether the presence of boot-and-shoe and knit-goods factories in this modest industrial town, the availability of wage labour for men, women, and children in those factories, and the concomitant emergence of a "family wage economy" made a difference to young people - particularly as they decided if, when, and with whom to marry; where and how to establish their households; and how many children to bring into the world. We might assume at the outset that they did. But detailed demographic analysis is necessary in order to determine exactly what that difference was. For this study I have chosen to apply, in a modified version, one of the most powerful techniques of historical demography. Known to specialists as "family reconstitution," the method - akin to a kind of community genealogy - involves the piecing together of individual family histories from local records of births, marriages, and deaths. It was developed for use in French rural parishes where population sizes and geographic mobility were relatively low and where parish

6 Introduction registers were the only, or almost the only, population records of any value.11 Thanks in large part to collective research initiatives that have led to the creation of two major population databases, the technique has been widely applied in Quebec, mainly for the pre-Conquest era and for the population of the Saguenay region in the period since i84o.12 But it has only rarely been applied to urban settings in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Quebec.13 The main reason for this gap in usage is methodological. High levels of geographic mobility- particularly the mobility of working families who moved from place to place in search of a job, a better wage, or more suitable lodgings — make it very difficult to reconstruct family histories in urban, industrial contexts. This study represents an attempt to help fill this gap, by applying the family reconstitution technique to the population of Saint-Hyacinthe in the second half of the nineteenth century. It relies, therefore, on a set of methods that will, in their broad outlines, be familiar to historical demographers and to family historians acquainted with quantitative approaches, but that will, for more general readers, require some explanation.14 The family reconstitution method involves the careful reconstruction of the reproductive behaviour of large groups of individual families. When enough family files, or fiches de famille, have been compiled, statistics can be generated about marriage age, fertility, birth spacing, infant mortality, widowhood and remarriage, and a range of related issues. When the fiches are completed with information from manuscript-census returns, as is possible and desirable for Quebec populations in the later nineteenth century, further information, especially about household structure and geographic and social mobility, can be added.15 In urban settings, however, the labour-intensive character of family reconstitution means that certain limits on data collection must be imposed. It is especially necessary to work within well-defined geographic limits, even though, in the case of nineteenth-century Quebec, this raises such issues as the lack of uniformity between parish and municipal boundaries, die tendency of both to evolve over time, and the inclination of individuals to move back and forth across them.16 The issue of religious diversity must also be dealt with, since Quebec's records of birth, marriage, and death were kept by religious, rather than civil, officials. One option is to simplify matters by restricting attention to the Catholic population of a given territory. For Saint-Hyacinthe, this is a viable strategy, since at most census dates in the later nineteenth century, French-speaking Roman

7 Introduction

Catholics made up about 98% of the local population.17 Clearly, different approaches would have to be adopted for a study of Montreal or Sherbrooke, cities with substantial non-Catholic and Englishspeaking populations. Restricting attention to the Catholic population of a clearly and consistently defined territory was the first set of limits on the familyreconstitution study reported in this book. A second set involved the adoption of a selective, rather than an exhaustive, approach to the creation offiches defamille. In this study, then, attention is focused on a single Saint-Hyacinthe parish, the one that contained the bulk of the urban population throughout the period under review. And rather than all the information being collected from its registers of baptisms, marriages, and burials, only those acts pertaining to three cohorts of married couples were identified, assembled into fiches de famille, cross-referenced with census information, and analyzed. The parish selected for study was Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur, also known as la paroisse de la Cathedrak because it was created, in 1852, as the episcopal see for the new diocese of Saint-Hyacinthe. Although it always contained a rural minority, the parish was established to serve the town of Saint-Hyacinthe. Its boundaries were drawn in the 18505 to include the town in its entirety, as well as some more thinly settled tracts of land on either bank of the Yamaska, downstream from Saint-Hyacinthe.18 Studying the parishioners of the cathedral, then, provides a rather good approximation of the demography of the town of Saint-Hyacinthe. It also offers the advantage of incorporating a small agricultural population, which can be referred to as a point of comparison. The Catholic population of Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur parish increased from just under 4,500 in 1861 to almost 7,000 30 years later (see Table 1-1). An exhaustive family-reconstitution study for a population of this size would have been impossible to complete within any reasonable time frame. I therefore chose to narrow the focus still further, by concentrating on couples who married at three different stages of the town's development. The reproductive lives of the 289 couples married from 1854 to 1861, the 277 couples married from 1864 to 1871, and 340 of the 450 couples married from 1884 to 1891 were thus reconstituted.19 This method yielded fiches for 912 couples, whose married lives are the focus of this book. An important nuance needs to be added here, however; namely, that the method adopted did not involve tracing families outside the study region. It focused instead on these three sets of couples to the extent that their familial and reproductive lives could be observed within Saint-Hyacinthe. As shown in chapter 3, some couples never

8 Introduction established residences in the town or its immediate vicinity. Daughters of Saint-Hyacinthe families who married young men from the surrounding region and settled outside the parish provide the most obvious example. Others who married at the cathedral spent only limited parts of their married lives in the area.*0 Such couples nonetheless fall within the scope of some of the analyses presented here. One implication of this methodological choice is that, for the most part, this book is about the family lives of couples who married in Saint-Hyacinthe, established households there, and remained in town long enough to be picked up in at least one census enumeration. This means, for example, that out of 675 previously unmarried men in the three cohorts, 399 — or 59% - were included in the analysis of men's age at first marriage (compare Tables 3-6 and 3-8). It means that of the 912 couples, 386 (42%) were included in the analysis of household structure (Table 4-1). It also means that of the 912 brides in the three marriage cohorts, 386 could be included in the fertility analysis (Table A~3). Are these numbers large enough? And do these variously constituted subsets of the three marriage cohorts serve as a "representative sample" of the population of Saint-Hyacinthe in the later nineteenth century? These are fair questions, and ones given serious thought. The answer to the first, I believe, is yes. The answer to the second is that without reconstituting the entire population of Saint-Hyacinthe - including people who lived there for only a year or two, or who grew up there but moved away as young adults - it is impossible to know. Perhaps couples who married in town and remained there for significant portions of their adult lives were exceptional in some way. Did they marry earlier? Were they likelier, as newlyweds, to live with parents or other kin? Did they have larger families? Any number of systematic biases may have been introduced by the exclusion of the most geographically mobile elements of the local population from the analysis. On the other hand, the deliberate selection of three sedentary fragments of the local population can yield certain interpretive benefits. Since the intention of this study was to explore the various ways in which families responded to local economic conditions and to a particular type of capitalist industrialization, it is not an unreasonable strategy to focus squarely on several hundred couples who lived under those local conditions for relatively substantial periods of time. And whereas a pure cliometrician might argue that the sampling errors introduced by matrimonial exchange, geographic mobility, and other sources of lost information are serious, I prefer to think of this particular cup as half-full rather than half-empty. Indeed, it is an

9 Introduction

arguable point whether the four hundred or so couples for whom it has been possible to assemble relatively complete fiches de famille constitute a sample at all. It is at least possible to argue that they do not: that their lives are worth examining in their own right rather than as a formal statistical sample - representative or otherwise - of a larger population.81 Such, then, are the methodological principles that underlie this study and that define its possibilities and limitations. As we have seen, the general idea is to use the methods of historical demography to study the impact of a particular kind of industrial capitalist development on patterns of family formation and reproduction in SaintHyacinthe. The heart of this book can thus be found in the results of the family-reconstitution study, which are reported in chapters 3, 4, and 5. But before turning to that analysis, it is necessary to lay some groundwork, by examining the economic and social setting in which these relationships are to be examined. Accordingly, chapter i describes Saint-Hyacinthe's physical setting and early settlement history, sketches in the broad contours of its population history in the later nineteenth century, and attempts to situate the town within the wider context of Quebec's urban and industrial development after 1850. This discussion serves as a platform for the more detailed analysis of local economic change which is to be found in chapter 2. SaintHyacinthe underwent an important series of transformations in the nineteenth century, driven first by the arrival of the railway in 1848 and, second, from the i86os, by the emergence of an industrialcapitalist manufacturing sector, dominated by labour-intensive light industries. These changes constituted the shifting ground on which Saint-Hyacinthe's men and women built their material and familial lives. Hence they are deserving of sustained attention. The story of industrial development in this community serves as the essential context for the demographic analyses contained in the subsequent chapters. Chapter 3 contains a detailed portrait of the three cohorts of couples who married in Saint-Hyacinthe between 1854 and 1891, and whose reproductive lives are studied throughout the rest of the book. Most importantly, this chapter documents the emergence of a socially differentiated pattern in the timing of family formation. The age at which young men and women married, in particular, was sensitive to the changing structure of economic opportunity associated with the transition to industrial capitalism. From marriage, the discussion turns, in chapter 4, to household and residential strategies, particularly those used by newly formed families. In this chapter, however, the emphasis is on continuity rather than change. In Saint-Hyacinthe, most young couples established

i o Introduction independent, nuclear households soon after their weddings - a pattern that remained intact as the local economy became more industrial in character. Young married couples only very rarely shared accommodations with non-kin; moreover, only a very few lived as dependents in households headed by their parents or other relatives. Finally, chapter 5 focuses on reproduction and on patterns of marital fertility in industrializing Saint-Hyacinthe. The analysishere is inspired by current debates over the nature of the long-term fertility transition that has transformed family life in most Western societies over the past two centuries. It paints a picture of a socially differentiated fertility decline among Saint-Hyacinthe's francophone, Catholic women, even at this relatively early date. Marriage patterns, household composition, and fertility: these are the components of family life that will receive detailed attention in the ensuing pages, once the broad framework of significant social and economic change has been established. As we shall see, new demographic patterns emerged as the town became larger and more fully industrialized. These patterns echoed the increasing social distance between a privileged bourgeoisie and a struggling industrial working class. The emergence of socially differentiated models of marriage and reproduction in Saint-Hyacinthe demonstrates the importance of industrial capitalist development in the reorganization of family life in the later nineteenth century. It also illustrates the importance of these new forces within a French-speaking, Catholic population whose demographic and familial behaviour has most often been portrayed as monolithic and resistant to change. At the same time, the stories of transition lived by these Saint-Hyacinthe families underline the complexity of what some have called the "demo-economic system," the dangers of mechanistic interpretations, and the need to integrate a wide range of factors - personal, social, ideological, and cultural as well as economic - into a balanced account of demographic and familial change during industrialization.

i Saint-Hyacinthe in 1837, as sketched from the opposite bank of the Yamaska River by the surveyor L.P. Renault-Blanchard. (ASSH, section A, series 17, dossier 18)

2 Saint-Hyacinthe market and seigneurial manor, as sketched by Blanchard in 1837. (ASSH, section A, series 17, dossier 18)

3 Saint-Hyacinthe owed much of its nineteenth-century economic development to its favourable position with respect to railways. This turn-of-the-century photograph shows the Saint-Hyacinthe station of the Grand Trunk Railway. (ASHRSH, Collection Helene Nichols (BFG 44); E.H. Richer et fils, Saint-Hyacinthe, ca. 1908)

4 Saint-Hyacinthe continued to serve as the market town for an important agricultural region, even as its manufacturing sector developed. The central market was an important local institution, as this turn-of-the-century photograph suggests. (ASHRSH, Collection Helene Nichols (BFG 44); Pinsonneault, edit., Trois-Rivieres)

5 Cascades Street was the town's principal commercial artery, with its concentration of small and large retail shops. This photograph, taken about 1900, looks northwestward from the corner of Cascades and Mondor streets. (ASHRSH, Collection Helene Nichols (BFG 44); Emile Solis, Libraire-Importateur, Saint-Hyacinthe, ca. 1900)

6 Saint-Hyacinthe in 1874. This winter scene shows the area around the Barsalou Bridge, the town's main manufacturing site, and institutional development on the ridge. The church on the left is Notre-Dame-du-Saint-Rosaire. The large factory on the right is the McMartin-Hamel shoe factory, a business which would fail the next year. (ASHRSH, section B, series 14, album 4)

7 The Cote brothers' boot-and-shoe factory, the descendant of Saint-Hyacinthe's first industrial concern, was still in operation at the turn of the century. It had moved to new premises on the river front, at the foot of Saint-Simon Street. This building is still standing. (ASHRSH, Collection Helene Nichols (BFG 44); U. Fournier, Saint-Hyacinthe, ca. 1906)

8 Louis Cote: Inventor, municipal politician, industrial capitalist. His boot-andshoe factory, founded in 1865, was a fixture of the local economy for the rest of the century. (ASHRSH, section B, series 14, album 2)

9 A member of the seigneurial family, Georges-Casimir Desssaules was a prominent local manufacturer and financier. As mayor in his prime and as a senator later in life - he lived to be 102 years old - Dessaulles was a major player in the social and political life of Saint-Hyacinthe. He was also the father of journalist Henriette Dessaulles, whose youthful diaries provide a precious glimpse into bourgeois life in the 18705. The house where they lived is pictured in Illustration 25. (ASSH, section A, series 17, dossier 5)

10 Founded in 1864, the Ouvroir Sainte-Genevieve provided employment to destitute women in the production of woollen cloth and soap. Inmates were paid little: only 40 cents per week in the 18705. The ouvroiralso seems to have had a daycare function similar to that documented by Micheline Dumont for the salles d'asile of Montreal. (Saint-Hyacinthe Illustre. Edifices publics, religieuxet industriels [1909], 28)

11 The Duclos-Payan tannery was an important industrial concern in SaintHyacinthe during the period covered by this book. It was established in 1874, with the help of a lo-year exemption from municipal taxes. The engraving shown here appeared in an elaborate 1886 album promoting the town as an industrial site. (St. Hyacinthe Illustre/Rlustrated [1886], 13)

12 Saint-Hyacinthe was ravaged by fire in 1876 and 1903. By one account, the fire of 3 September 1876, the aftermath of which is depicted here, destroyed as many as 600 houses in the lower town. (Canadian Illustrated News, 16 September 1876)

i Saint-Hyacinthe in Context

What kind of a place was nineteenth-century Saint-Hyacinthe? In the early part of the century, it was a small village at the heart of a thriving agricultural region in one of the more recently settled parts of Quebec's seigneurial heartland. At mid-century, the railway transformed this community as much as any other in Quebec, giving it a role it had not known before - that of regional entrepot and service centre - and fuelling rapid, but ultimately limited, demographic growth. In the final decades of the century, industrial capitalist enterprise reshaped the town again. With the aid of a sympathetic municipal council and, after 1879, of a protected domestic market, industrial capitalists such as Louis Cote, Georges-Casimir Dessaulles, and others established a series of labour-intensive manufacturing establishments in the city. In so doing, they encouraged further population growth by employing hundreds of men, women, and children in the mass, mechanized production of consumer articles such as socks, underwear, and shoes. Above all, then, nineteenth-century Saint-Hyacinthe was a place that underwent a series of profound transitions. To understand the full scope of these transitions is to place this community and its families in several contexts. Chapter 2 will document in some detail the restructuring of the local economy in the second half of the nineteenth century, with special attention given to the emergence of capitalist industry and its consequences for the local labour market. Before examining these crucial shifts, however, it is useful to provide certain notions of local geography; of early settlement patterns; of local demographic trends in the later nineteenth century; and, in

12 Families in Transition

particular, of the place of Saint-Hyacinthe within Quebec's expanding urban network in the decades after 1850. A B E N D IN THE R I V E R

The Yamaska is a sinuous river whose several branches have their headwaters in the Eastern Townships. Flowing first east and then north, these streams converge to follow a course that runs parallel to the Richelieu, before draining into Lake St. Pierre about 12 kilometres east of Sorel. At a sharp bend in the river, about 50 kilometres upstream from Lake St. Pierre, is Saint-Hyacinthe (see Figure 1-1). The townsite has three main geographic features, the first of which is the Yamaska itself. The river turns nearly due east a few kilometres above Saint-Hyacinthe, only to resume its northward course at the point early settlers named la cascade. Into this elbow in the river juts a low-lying plain, which flooded frequently before the rapids that gave the site its name were dammed in 1822. This alluvial plain is bounded by a ridge that runs first toward the northeast and then almost due north, veering away and then converging with the course of the river, and delineating the zones of low and high ground that became the upper and lower parts of the town of Saint-Hyacinthe.1 The course of the Yamaska is not only sinuous but turbulent. Frequent falls and rapids mark its northward course from the lakes of the Townships to the St. Lawrence. Unlike the more easily navigated Richelieu, the Yamaska was a poor avenue into the interior for eighteenth-century colonists. As a result, settlement came relatively late. In 1765, when Chambly on the Richelieu was already a community of 544, the village of Saint-Hyacinthe did not yet exist.2 But the potential for agricultural development in the lower Yamaska region was great. Saint-Hyacinthe, after all, is situated in the heart of the Monteregie. that unique region named for the rocky outcroppings - Mont Saint-Hilaire, Mont Saint-Bruno, Rougemont, and others - that here punctuate the broad, flat expanse of the Montreal plain. These hills, however, are exceptional. Most of the bedrock in the area remains buried beneath anywhere from six to 55 metres of clay soils, left behind after the retreat of the postglacial Champlain Sea. A rich legacy to Quebec farmers, these soils were especially well suited to agriculture, once cleared of their dense forest cover.3 EARLY SETTLEMENT AND VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT

The seigneurie of Saint-Hyacinthe was granted by the French Crown in 1748 to Francois Pierre de Rigaud de Vaudreuil. Christian

13 Saint-Hyacinthe in Context

Figure 1-1 Saint-Hyacinthe in the Montreal plain. Sources: Courville et al., Paroisses et municipalites de la region tie Montreal; Canada: Atlas toponymitftu!

Dessureault has identified several stages in its early settlement history.4 An initial phase, from 1748 to 1755, saw minimal development; Rigaud de Vaudreuil took no steps to encourage settlement and in 1753 sold the seigneurie - then known as 'Maska- to Jacques-Hyacinthe Simon Delorme dit Lapointe for 4,000 livres. Delorme was a military entrepreneur, based in Quebec City, who was attracted by the region's forest resources, and particularly by its rich pine and oak stands, so coveted by the Royal Marine. Settlement got under way in earnest in the years from 1756 to 1779. By 1758, Delorme had established his residence and initiated timber-cutting and saw-milling activities at rapide-plat, some six kilometres downstream from la cascade, on the right bank of the river.

14 Families in Transition

These operations required an on-site labour force, and the first land concessions in the seigneurie were made in the early 17605 to the defricheurs-bucherons working at this location. Settlement of the rest of the seigneurie proceeded very slowly; a total of only 87 concession deeds were signed in the period prior to 1778. The population of the seigneurie expanded significantly between 1780 and 1794, and particularly in the early 17808. In the four years from 1780 to 1784, the area of conceded land quadrupled, with the total number of concessions increasing to at least 415. These years also saw the spatial redistribution of the regional population. As settlement proceeded along the Yamaska toward the southeast, rapideplatlost its central position. La cascade-well located between the river concessions and others situated to the west - became the focal point of the seigneurie. The years around the turn of the nineteenth century saw a second wave of territorial and demographic expansion. Over 150 new land deeds were signed in the last five years of the eighteenth century. Meanwhile, the number of communicants in the parish of SaintHyacinthe - its territory at this time was identical to that of the seigneurie - grew from 930 in 1793 to 1,500 in 1798. Expansion accelerated further after 1800. Almost 400 new deeds were signed in the first five years of the new century, and the number of communicants doubled between 1798 and 1806. With a steady stream of colonists arriving each year and high rates of natural increase, the seigneurial population increased from 1,360 in 1791 to 10,051 in 1821, and 14,098 in 1831. Most of these settlers, as in other parts of the St. Lawrence Valley, were grain farmers; indeed, about two-thirds of the household heads enumerated in 1831 declared themselves to be cultivateurs. As Dessurealt points out, Saint-Hyacinthe farmers were better positioned than most to face the challenges of Lower Canadian agriculture in the mid-nineteenth century: Cette seigneurie ... est 1'un des terroirs les plus fertiles du Quebec. Les terres sablo-argileuses des pourtours de la riviere Yamaska sont particulierernent favorables aux cultures cerealieres qui dominent le paysage agraire durant le premier tiers du XIXe siecle. Certes, la qualite des sols n'est pas totalement uniforme. Ainsi, a La Presentation, les paysans de la riviere Salvail et des Etangs disposent de terres plutot humides, parsemees de petits marecages qui conviennent davantage a 1'exploitation de prairies naturelles qu'aux cultures cerealieres. Neanmoins, le type de sols de la plaine maskoutaine, commun aux cinq paroisses de la seigneurie, devrait plutot favoriser 1'essor economique de la paysannerie.5

15 Saint-Hyacinthe in Context

The village of Saint-Hyacinthe emerged in this context of agricultural settlement and seigneurial development. By the 17705, authorities had already indicated their belief in the future of la cascade as a village site. In 1771, a cemetery was established on the ridge overlooking the alluvial plain. The next year, the seigneur built a new mill at the foot of the rapids, a location with clear advantages in water power over rapide-plat. Delorme's decision to locate the seigneurial gristmill at the cascade site was crucial. From this point on, Catholic authorities were clear in their intention of building a parish church and presbytery there, a project that was completed in 1780. Decisions made by seigneurs and clerics in the 17703 certainly influenced the early development of the village of Saint-Hyacinthe. But only the demographic expansion of the late 17905 and early 18005 could ensure any degree of sustained development. In 1778, in anticipation of this type of growth, Delorme created a second seigneurial domain, measuring about 62 hectares and encompassing most of the alluvial plain. In the later 17903, the seigneur began to concede lots measuring 669 square metres each on the territory. The nucleus of the village of Saint-Hyacinthe was formed between 1794 and 1805, during which time the first 68 concession deeds, covering some 134 lots, were signed. By the latter date, the village of SaintHyacinthe had some 89 houses, mostly strung along the road leading to Saint-Denis (later Bourdages Street) and the Chemin du Roi (later Girouard Street). It was home to 72 families, 56 unmarried men, 60 widows and single women, and 111 children.6 It was also the site of a new manor (1798), a new stone church (1797), and an extensive new seigneurial mill (i8oo). 7 By about 1805, then, the village of Saint-Hyacinthe was well established. With its population of several hundred, many of whom were professionals, merchants, and artisans who served the agricultural population of the surrounding region, it was not unlike scores of other Lower Canadian villages and bourgs, the expansion of which in this period has been so well documented by Serge Courville.8 Demographically, it was comparable to Saint-Denis on the Richelieu. But because of its peripheral position in the Lower Canadian communications network, it had nowhere near the same economic importance. In this particular village, growth in the early nineteenth century was modest; it was also two-tiered. A grid of streets emerged from southwest to northeast in the lower town, as the plain filled up with residences, a public market, several inns, and various artisans' shops. Institutional development, on the other hand, occurred almost exclusively on the ridge, as convents, schools, a courthouse, and a

16 Families in Transition

hospital took up positions on high ground, near the parish church and the seigneurial manor.9 As just suggested, commercial development in the early part of the century was hindered by poor communications. Because the Yamaska River below Saint-Hyacinthe is shallow and unnavigable, grain intended for the urban and export markets had to be transported over land to Saint-Denis on the Richelieu and then loaded onto river vessels bound for Montreal. For this reason, Saint-Denis more than Sain t-Hyacin the profited from the agricultural development of the Yamaska region during this period. As late as 1840, as Rudin points out, Saint-Hyacinthe was an unincorporated village that functioned, in commercial terms, "exclusively as a collection point for grain merchants operating out of... Saint-Denis."10 Despite its unfavourable position with respect to navigation, the ascendancy of Saint-Hyacinthe in the lower Yamaska region was assured in the 18405. Part of the reason may have been that some SaintDenis merchants moved their operations to Saint-Hyacinthe in the wake of the rebellions.'' But surely the arrival of the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railway in 1848 was the crucial factor. This rail link allowed Saint-Hyacinthe merchants to ship grain directly to Montreal, just as it improved their access to merchandise for retail and wholesale distribution in the region. Demographic growth followed. In 1845, the village already had some 2,500 inhabitants; three years after the arrival of the railway, in 1851, the population had increased to almost 3,200. By mid-century, Saint-Hyacinthe had emerged as the principal commercial centre for an agricultural region that encompassed most of Bagot, Rouville, and Saint-Hyacinthe counties.1!J Cereal-based agriculture was thriving in this region of Lower Canada in the mid-nineteenth century. In 1861, farms in Saint-Hyacinthe county were prosperous. Slightly larger than the provincial average (36.8 hectares, compared to 35.6), they were also more extensively cultivated: 71 % of the occupied land in the county was improved, compared to 46% for Lower Canada as a whole.'3 Although the shift from the wheat "staple" to other cereals was well underway, wheat had not entirely fallen by the wayside, as it had in older areas. SaintHyacinthe county's farmers (about 2,000 in number) produced almost 75,000 minots of wheat in 1861. On average, they devoted 1.7 hectares of land to wheat production - not very much, perhaps, but more than twice the provincial level. Other grains, however, such as rye, barley, and particularly oats, had become even more important to the rural economy. The county produced over 360,000 minots of oats in 1861, for example, and the average farmer devoted 5.7 hectares of

17 Saint-Hyacinthe in Context

Figure 1-2 Saint-Hyacinthe at mid-century. Source: NA, RenaultBlanchard, "Plan des limites du village de Saint-Hyacinthe"

land to its cultivation. As with wheat, this was more than the provincial average of 2.4 hectares.'4 With its new economic importance and size and its strong position at the heart of a thriving agricultural region, the village of Saint-Hyacinthe took on a new municipal structure and a new set

i8 Families in Transition

of administrative and service functions at mid-century. Although the parish of Saint-Hyacinthe was recognized as a municipality in i835/5 the village itself was not incorporated until August of 1850.1(l The municipality, divided into four numbered wards or quartiers, had its status upgraded from village to town in 1853 and from town to city in i857.17 This, it seems, was a community with ambitions. At no time during this period did the population of the village approach its northwestern limits/8 However, municipal authorities saw fit to include in the town charter of 1853 a proviso for the annexation of land located directly upstream from the southwestern boundary at Bourdages Street. This proviso was repeated in the city charter of 1857, but not acted upon until 1888, when Quartier 5 was annexed to the original four (Figure i~3). 19 In addition to its new municipal status, Saint-Hyacinthe took on new religious and judicial functions in the 18505. In 1852, it was chosen as the episcopal see for a vast new Catholic diocese covering some 21 seigneuries in the Richelieu-Yamaska area and, until the creation of the Sherbrooke diocese in 1874, most of the Eastern Townships.ao This confirmed the religious vocation of Saint-Hyacinthe, already the site of several important Catholic institutions, including a classical college (founded in 1811), the convent of the Soeurs de la Congregation de Notre-Dame (1816), and the Hotel-Dieu hospital (established by the Grey Nuns in 1840). The judicial role of the village, which had had a courthouse since 1835, was also confirmed and expanded in the 18505. The judicial district of Saint-Hyacinthe was created in 1858, with the newly chartered city as its chef-lieu?1 DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS,

1851-1901

The growth of an important commercial and service centre at the heart of this prosperous agricultural area accelerated as the century progressed. The town of Saint-Hyacinthe grew substantially in the second half of the nineteenth century, and particularly after 1871. Positive migratory balances were fostered by industrial development and by the inability of rural areas in the region to absorb further demographic growth, particularly as a new, more specialized, marketoriented agriculture emerged.'" In effect, Saint-Hyacinthe's population tripled in the 50 years after 1851, exceeding 9,000 by 1901. In the same interval, the general population of the province of Quebec barely doubled.23 More detailed demographic analysis will help convey the contours of Saint-Hyacinthe-s urban growth in the later nineteenth century.

ig Saint-Hyacinthe in Context

Figure 1-3 The quartiers of Saint-Hyacinthe. Source: ASRSH, "Plan de la Cite de Saint-Hyacinthe"

But the institutional developments of the 18505, which had an impact on local geographic boundaries, must be assessed before the population trends can be understood. Two events were particularly important: the incorporation of the Village of Saint-Hyacinthe in 1850; and the subdivision, or demembrement, of the Catholic parish in 1853. One consequence of the municipal incorporation in 1850 is that the town's population could now be clearly distinguished from that of the parish in published census returns. Prior to this date, the village population had been subsumed within that of the parish in these records, making comparisons between the earlier and later periods tricky.24 Comparing population figures for Saint-Hyacinthe before and after the annexation of Quartier 5 in 1888 presents a similar problem.25 The creation of the diocese of Saint-Hyacinthe also affected local territorial boundaries, resulting as it did in the formation of two new parishes where there had been only one. The circumstances surrounding the splitting of the parish require some explanation. Although its

2o Families in Transition

registers had been open since 1777, Saint-Hyacinthe was only recognized as a parish in 1832, when it was erected canonically as SaintHyacinthe-le-Confesseur. Its territory, about nine by 13 kilometres, included the village and a portion of the surrounding countryside. The municipality of the Parish of Saint-Hyacinthe, established in 1835, had identical boundaries to those of the Catholic parish.26 When the diocese was created in 1852, however, new parish boundaries were needed. The first bishop, Mgr Jean-Charles Prince, intended to establish his episcopal palace in the local presbytery and to take over the parish church as his cathedral. But his application to the Legislative Council of the Province of Canada for the ratification of this arrangement was refused. Mgr Prince therefore used his episcopal authority to divide the parish in two. Accordingly, the brand new parish of Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur was detached from the original parish of the same name in October of 1853, becoming the episcopal see of the new diocese. Its cathedral - its registers opened in January 1854 - was intended to serve the devotional needs of the village of Saint-Hyacinthe, of three rangs located downstream from Saint-Hyacinthe, and of the tiny village of Saint-Joseph, directly across the river. The territory that remained of the old parish — renamed Notre-Dame-du-Saint-Rosaire — was located directly to the east, on both sides of the river. Easily twice the area of Saint-Hyacinthe-leConfesseur, it had about the same number of inhabitants (See Figure 1-4 and Table i-i). 27 As a result of these gymnastics, the territory of Saint-Hyacinthe seigneurie, which since 1835 had been a single municipality and a single parish, was divided into two municipalities in 1850 and into two parishes in 1853. Such a situation would be simple enough if the religious and civil boundaries coincided exactly. But, as we have seen, part of the new parish of Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur lay outside the limits of the village. The municipal status of this territory, which had a population of about 800 in the 18505, was still unresolved. In 1855, it was annexed for civil purposes to the municipality of NotreDame-du-Rosaire.28 In May of 1861, however, the pertinent section of the 1855 Act was repealed and the territory that lay "without the present limits of the city of Saint-Hyacinthe" but "within the present limits of the parish of Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur" received its own separate civil status as the municipality of the Parish of Saint-Hyacinthe-leConfesseur.29 This type of institutional and territorial change is custom-made to confound students of historical demography, who must rely on consistent definitions of geographic boundaries. This book simplifies the situation somewhat by focusing primarily on the demographic behaviour of the cathedral parish (Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur) in the

21 Saint-Hyacinthe in Context

Figure 1-4 The parishes of Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur and NotreDame-du-Saint-Rosaire. Sources: Hopkins, Atlas of the. City and County of St. Hyacinth?, ASHRSH, Decret canonique de la Paroisse de SaintHyacinthe-le-Confesseur; AESH, litgistre des Rnquetes, series i, vol. i, 21-3

period after 1850. This Catholic parish encompassed the town of Saint-Hyacinthe in its entirety until 1888, when the new Quartier^-w^s annexed (to the municipality, but not to the parish).30 It also included the rural municipality of Saint-Hyacinthe-le-Confesseur, whose agricultural families will provide a recurrent point of comparison to the urban population that is of primary interest here.

22 Families in Transition Table 1-1 Population, Catholic Population, and Number of Households in Municipalities in the Saint-Hyacinthe Area: 1851-1901 Year

Pojtulation

Catholics

Households

A. VILLAGE - TOWN - CITY OF SAINT-HYACINTHE

1851 1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

3,195 3,695 3,746 5,321 7,016 9,210

3,621 3,689 5,156 6,901 9,040

1,068 1,274 1,714

B. MUNICIPALITY OF SAINT-HYACINTHE-LE-CONFESSEUR 1861 790a

1871 1881 1891 1901

788 935 940 673

785 928 939 671

201 132 132

C. MUNICIPALITY OF NOTRE-DAME-DE-SAINT-HYACINTHE 1851 3,313b

1861 1871 1881 1891 1901

2,846 223n. 2; and marriage

age, 102; and marriage calendar, 96-7; poultry farming, 38; soil quality, 12, 14; specialization, 18, 37-8. See also farmers Allard, Hilaire, 116, 118 Allard, Marie Eulalie Eva, 116 Allard, Regina, 182 Ames-Holden shoe company, 54 Anderson, Michael, 117 Arpin,Joseph, 82, 87, 90, HQ artisanal production, 45-6, 49, 62-3, 70, 161-2, 226n. 57 Bachand, Regina, 150 banks, 44 Banque de SaintHyacinthe, 44 barbers, 43 Bardet, Jean-Pierre, 95, 110 Barsalou, Joseph, 50 Bartels, F., 43 Beauchamp, Joseph Alexandre Aime, 104, 114

Beauregard, Jacques Octave, 107 Berkner, Lutz, 117 Bernier, Alfred, 128 Bernier, Esdras, 126 Bernier, Rosina, 164-5, 174 Berthiaume, Eliza, 128 Bienvenu, Victor, 133 birth control. See family limitation, family size, fertility birth rates, 25. See also fertility birth spacing, 150-1, 160, 209, 267n. 53 Blanchard, Joseph, 161, 163-4 Blanchard, Victor Albani, 163 Blanchette, Alphonsine, 67 boarding - boardinghouses, 43, 122, 128. See aho household structure Boas, Ferdinand, 52, 232n.131 Boas, Maurice, 52, 64, 67-9, 232n. 131

294 Index Boivin, Leopoldine, 92, 104 boosterism. See municipal bonuses boot-and-shoe industry; 46-8, 50-4, 55, 58-9, 69-77, 102, 162-3, 192; labour conflict in, 70-1, 76; labour process in, 73-7; in Montreal, 70, 73-4; in Quebec City, 28 Bouchard, Gerard, 142, 203 Bouchard, Jean-Baptiste, 42 Boucher de la Bruere, Pierre, 51 Bourgeois, Eusebe, 83, 106 Bourgeois, Sophronie, 121 bourgeoisie, 3, 23, 54, 57-8, 83, 85-6, 94, 179, 188-9; fertility and family size, 157-60, 167-70, 171-6; household structure, 127-9; housing, 132, 135, 137; marriage age, 103-4, 106-10, 113 Bradbury, Bettina, 128, 136, 142, 196-8 Bray, D.S., 43 Brien dit Desroches, Octave, 83 Brodeur, Alfred, 150 Brodeur, Malvina, 83 Brouillard, Cedonie, 126 Buckley, Helene Elizabeth (Lizzie), 155 Burgess, Joanne, 69, 73-5 Cadoret, Francois, 41 Cadoret, Noe, 83 Caldwell.John, 172, 174 Canadian Woollen Mills. See knit-goods industry carriage-making shops, 48,6!

Casavant organ factory, 45.51 Casavant, Ozias, 103, 114 Catholicism: and fertility, 171-2, 175; and marriage calendar, 95-7- 1ii census: and fertility analysis, 206; and household structure, 116-17, 196-201; industrial schedules of 1871, 46-9; and marriage age, 194-6; and marriage rates, 98; occupations in, 55-61, 64-77 Chagnon, Albina, 83 Chagnon, Augustin, 46, 51.83 Chambly (village), 12 Champagne, Henri, 107 Champigny, Johnny, 102 child care: in families, 121, 173, 181; institutional, 49 Choquette, C.P., 50, 51 Chudacoff, Howard, 117, 125, 127, 200 city directories: manufacturing industries in, 45-6. 49-55; retail and service shops in, 40-4, 223n.19 clothing stores, 41-2 Cloutier,Jeremie, 162-3, 182,191-2 Comeau, Anna, 134 Comeau, Emma, 134 Comeau, Louis, 134 Comeau, Thomas, 134 commerce: railway and, 16; small businesses, 40-4; specialization in, 40-4- 78 Compagnie de. I'at/ueduc, 152 Compagnie Manufacturiere de Saint-Hyacinthe, la,

5 0 .52,53.59 completed families, 151, 154, 209, 2ii,257n. 37, 267n. 45

contraception. See family limitation, family size, fertility Cordeau, Hormisdas, 67 Cote, Abel, 134 Cote, Corinne, 72 Cote, Joseph, 75 Cote, Louis, 11, 46, 48, 51, 72, 152; patented inventions, 70-1, 233n- 143 Cote shoe factory, 46-7, 50,51,52,53,54, 70—7, 102 Cote, Victor, 46, 48, 50, 51, 83, 226n. 50 Courrier de Saint-Hyacinthe,

k, 48, 51 Courtois, Emerance, 116 Courville, Serge, 15

Danylewycz, Marta, 175 Darroch, Gordon, 196-8 data collection; in manuscript census, 185-6; in parish registers, 184-5 David, M.O. & Co., 42 Delage, Octave, 73, 76 Delorme rfzYLapointe, Jacqu es-Hyacin th e Simon, 13, 15 demographic transition, ix, 139, 141-2, 177, 253n. 10, 253n. 11. See also fertility depression of 1873-79, 5L77 Desgranges, Philomene, 64 Desjardins, Alphonse, 126 Desjardins, Charles Emile, 126-7 Desjardins, Delima, 126-7 Desjardins, Rosalie, 126 Deslauriers, Marie, 135, 137 Desmarais, Narcisse, 103 Desmarais, Theophile, 103 Dessaulles, Alice, 115 Dessaulles, Arthur, 115

295 Index Dessaulles, Fanny Rosalie, 1*5 Dessaulles, GeorgesCasimir, 11, 48, 50, 83, 115, 179, 180, 2z6n. 53 Dessaulles, Henriette, 115, 171, 173, 175, 244.11. 2, 26in. 2 Dessaulles, LouisAntoine, 45 Dessureault, Christian, 13-M Dion, Marcellin, 82 domestic servants, 60-1, 128-9 dressmaking, 61, 108-9 Duclos, A.F., 41 Duclos, Silas, 50 Duclos-Payan tannery, 50, 5 i > 5 2 , i?4 Dufort, Catherine, 160 Dufresne, Arthur, 109, 150 Dufresne, Omer, 102 Dumaine, Wilfrid, 109 Dupont, Theophile, 83 Eastern Townships Corset Company, 53 Eddy, Ezra Butler, 29 factories. Seeboot-andshoe industry, industrial capitalism, knitgoods industry, light industry, manufacturing industry, mills, textile industries, waged labour family economy, 4-5, 69, 76-7, 109, 139, 180, 24on. 50; and fertility, 172-6, 26on.76 family files, 6, 186-7, 201-11, 2i6n. 15 family formation, 4, 79-80, 87, 104, 112-4, 127, 136, 177-80, 24on. 50; class and occupational differences, 178; in con-

temporary society, 182; and urban life, 179. See also fertility, household structure, marriage family life cycle, 117, 136 family limitation, 147, 150, 159-60, 170, 256n. 28. See also fertility, family size family size, 151, 153-5, 256n. 29, 257n. 40; class and occupational differences, 165-70; methods for calculating, 209, 211. See also family limitation, fertility family-reconstitution method, 5-9, 99, 183-211, 2i6n. 13 farmers, 80-1, 85-6, 94; fertility and family size, 156-7, 165-6, 168-70; household structure, 127; marriage age, 101-2, 104, 106, no; marriage age of daughters, 106-9, 113; proximity to kin, 135. See also agriculture Ferland, Jacques, 28, 47, 76 Ferland, Paul, 134, 137 fertility, 10, 139-76, 181-2; in Britain, 145-6; and Catholicism, 171-2, 175; class and occupational differences, 140-1, 155-76; control of, 147-8, 150-1, 160, 165, 167, 169, 170-6, 253n. 9, 253n. 11; cultural models, 142-3, 171-6; economic models, 141-3, 171-6, 254n. 13, 26on. 76; in Europe, 254n. 12; and gender relations, 174-6, 26on. 76; infant mortality effect, 153, 179; marital fertility

rates, 145-9, 155-60, 206-9, 25in. 3, 255n. 21, 266n. 44; and marriage age, 148-50; and maternal health, 175; methodology, 201-11; in New France, 145-6; in Quebec, 140, 145-7, 181-2, 25in. 3, 252n. 4, 254n. 15; theories of, 141-2 fiches defamille. See family files firewood and lumber dealers, 42 forest industries, 28-30 Fortier, Alexandre, 107 Francoeur,Jean, 51 Frechette, Isaie, 47 Gagan, David, 196 Gagnon, Zoe, 82 Gait, Alexander, 32-3, 222n. 73 Gauthier, Euphemie, 167-8, 172 Gauthier, Nazaire, 167 Gauthier, Zotique, 133 gender roles, 55-61, 62, 65,69,76-7, 192-3; and fertility, 174-6, 26on.76 geographic mobility. See migration Girard, Marguerite, 82, 87, 119 Girouard, Henri, 135 Girouard, Noe, 135, 137 Goody, Jack, 141 Gosselin, Camille, 164-5 Gosselin, Ignace, 51 Gosselin, Victoria, 133 Goyet, Norbert, 82 Granite Mills. See knitgoods industry Greer, Allan, 93 Grey Nuns, 18, 48 grocery stores, 41, 224n. 24 Guerin, Ferdinand, 109 Hajnal.John, 105

296 Index Hardy, Rene, 30 Hareven, Tamara, 117, 176 Harnois, Octavie, 82 Helbronner, Jules, 68, 73, 232n. 131 Henripin, Jacques, 140, 142, 146 Henry, Louis, 187, 204, 207 Henry, Sophronie, 163-4 Henry, Zephirin, 155 Henshaw, George, 43 Hogue, Alma, 1 30 home workers. See outwork hosiery industry. See knitgoods industry hotels, 43, 167-8 household economics. See family economy household structure, 9-10, 115-38; boarders and lodgers, 128-9, 196, 137; categories, 199-201, a65n. 34; class and occupational differences, 127-9, *37; extended-family,

125-7, 130, 137-8,

26sn. 33; by geographic zone, 129-30; historiography of, 1 16-7, 196—8; methods for studying, 118, 196-201; in Montreal, 124, 196-8; among newlyweds, 122-31; simple family, 122-5, 256n. 32. See also boarding - boardinghouses, housing, rents housing, 124, 131-8, 25on. 58 Hull, 29, 181 industrial capitalism, ix, 3-4,9, 11,36,44-78, 111, 137, 139, 141, 175-6, 177, 180, 2i3n. i . See aho boot-and-

shoe industry, knitgoods industry, light industry, manufacturing industry, mills, textile industries, waged labour infant and child mortality, 25-6, 152-4, 168-70, 179, 211; class and occupational differences, 168; and fertility, 153, 179; method of calculation, 257n. 41; in Montreal, 152, 2i5n. 5, 257n. 42; and water supply, 152. See also mortality institutions, 15-16, 18, 38-40, 48-9 insurance agencies, 43-4 intergensic intervals. See birth spacing Juneau, Alphonsine, 134, J 37 Juneau, Cleophas, 134 Juneau, Jean-Baptiste, 134 Katz, Michael, 196 Kerouack, Marie, 128, 226n. 50 Kerouack, Philomene, 182, 226n. 50 kin: as co-residents, 115, 122-31, 199; proximity to, 117, 131, 134-8, 201 Knights of Saint Crispin, 7i knit-goods industry, 50, 52,53-4. 59.6l -62-9; in Britain, 62-3; labour conflict in, 67-9; labour process in, 64-9; in Paris, Ontario, 62, 66; in Sherbrooke, 62 labour market, 55-61, 69, 77, 177. See also waged labour, working class Laflamme, Albina, 83

Lafleur, Joseph, 103, 114 Laframboise, Francois Jules, 155 Lagace, Lumina, 115, 118 Languirand, Emilie, 106 Languirand, Pierre, 106 Lapierre, Amedee, 65 Laporte, Isidore, 42 Lariviere, Joseph, 48, 51 Laroque, Zoe, 128 Laslett, Peter, 116, 196, 200 laundry services, 43, 224n. 30 Lauzon, Gilles, 197-8 leather trades, 50-1, 162-3. See a^° bootand-shoe industry Leduc, Adeline, 83, 106 Lee, Jonas, 62 Leman, Frances Louise (Fanny), 115, 26in. 2 Leman, Honorine Papineau, 116 Lemieux, Denise, 175 Lemoine, Hermine, 67 Leonard, Virginie, 174 light industry, 5, 28, 34-5, 61-77. See also bootand-shoe industry, industrial capitalism, knit-goods industry, manufacturing industry, textile industries, waged labour literacy, 92-4, 112, 189, 238n. 36 Lorange, Albina, 67 Loranger, Levi, 101 Lussier, Camille, 48, 51, 128,226n. 50 Lussier, Joseph, 161 Lussier, Josephte, 128 Lussier, Melanie, 134 Lussier, Rose, 121 manufacturing industry, 23, 27-36,44-78. See also boot-and-shoe industry, industrial capitalism, knit-goods industry, light industry,

297 Index mills, textile industries, waged labour Maranda, Joseph, 41 Marchessault, Alida, 126 Marchessault, Eugenie, 104 Marchessault, Judith, 126 Marcil, Angele, 134 marriage, 25-6, 79-114; civil status of husband and wife, 91-2; crude marriage rates, 25-6, 98, 24in. 55; endogamy, 84-7, 236n. 19, 23&n. 20; episcopal dispensations for, 91, 237n. 27; geographic origins of husband and wife, 87-91; matrimonial exchange networks, 88-91, 119; rehabilitations, 91, 23711. 31; timing in the week, 95, 111; timing in the year, 95-7, m.See aho age at marriage, marriage-cohorts method, remarriage marriage-cohorts method, 7, 80, 184-7, 2i7n.19 Mathieu, Hilaire, 83 Mathieu, Marie Elmina, 104 Mclnnis, Marvin, 98, 140, 142 McMartin-Hamel shoe company, 50, 51 Meldrum, W.H.,4i Mercier, Honore,' 8s, \j' 02, *y ' 7

104,

120, l8o

Mercier, Lucie, 175 Messier, Auglore, 107 metallurgical industries, 45-6. 47. 5°> 5 1 : in Sherbrooke, 33-4 Meunier dit Lapierre, Prosper, 104 migration: and fertility analysis, 202-11; itineraries of married

couples, 203-4; and population growth, 23-4, 44, 50; and sampling method, 8 Millette, Pierre, 106 Millier, Amedee, 122 Millier, Rose, 122 mills, 15, 48, 50 mobility. See migration Modell.John, 117 Monet, Abraham, 121 Mongeau, Corine, 155 Monk, S., 45 Montreal: in historiography, 27; household structure in, 124, 196-8; as husband's residence, 89; infant mortality in, 152, 2i5n. 5, 257n. 42; marriage ratios in, 98; shoe production in, 70, 73-4; urban development, 27 Morin, L.P., 51 Morin, Levi, 103 mortality: crude mortality rates, 25-6; epidemics, 26, 152; of newlyweds, 120; and water supply, 152. &*; aho infant and child mortality municipal bonuses, 50-4 National Policy tariff, 28, 32 natural increase, 24-6 New France, 4, 12-13; fertility in, 145-6 Notre-Dame-de-SaintHyacinthe (municipality): population, 22; territory, 21 Notre-Dame-du-SaintRosaire (parish): boundaries, 21; creation of, 20 nuptiality. See marriage occupations: categories, 188, 22gn. 95, 258n. 50; in census lists,

55-61, 190, 22gn. 95; and fertility analysis, 1 55-7> ig1-^. 25811. 50; of husbands in marriage cohorts, 80-3, 90, 190; of husbands traced from marriage acts to census, 119, 190-1; methodology, 187-93; occupational mobility, 161-2, 191-2; and social class, 188-9; of wives in marriage cohorts, 83-4; of wives' fathers in marriage cohorts, 84, 190 ORACLE (relational database), 186-7 Ornstein, Michael, 196-8 outwork: in the knit-goods industry, 64; in shoe production, 70, 74 Ouvroir Sainte-Genevieve, 48-9, 23on. 102 Pagnuelo, Hector, 104, 107, 114 Palardy, Leon, 42 Pallardy, Amadee, 68-9 Papineau, Augustin, 50 Paquet-Godbout door and sash company, 54 parish registers. See familyreconstitution method Parr, Joy, 62, 64-6 Paton, Andrew, 33 Payan, Paul, 50 Peloquin, Charles, 41 Penman, John, 62 Penmans of Canada. See knit-goods industry Petit, Emery, 130 Phlibotte, Exilda, 103 Plamondon, Rosa, 72-3, 173 Prince, Mgr Jean-Charles, 20 proto-industry, 97-8, 113, 239n. 48 Proulx, Julie, 107 Proulx, Olivier, 107

298 Index public markets, 37, 38-40, 78

Saint-Denis (village), 15-16 Saint-Hyacinthe, county: agricultural trends, 37; Quebec City, 27-9 marriage ratios, 98 Quebec Factories Act Saint-Hyacinthe, diocese, (1885), 72 18, 20, 2ign. 20 Saint-Hyacinthe, judicial railways, 11; Canadian district, 18 Pacific, 38; and comSaint-Hyacinthe, merce, 16, 38, 78; Grand Trunk, 38, 177, seigneurie: early settlement, 12-14; 181; Intercolonial, 38; population growth, Quebec Central, 34; Quebec Southern, 38; *4 Saint-Hyacinthe, St. Lawrence and Attown/city: boundaries, lantic, 16, 34, 38, 18-19; fire of 1876, 25, 2i8n. 12; United 39, 46, 51; institutions, Counties, 38; Vermont 18; municipal charters, Central, 38 18; population trends, record linkage, 184-7 Reeves, Eva, 167 11, 16, 18, 22-6, 53-4, 2ign. 25 Reeves, Jeanne, 167 Saint-Hyacinthe, village: Reeves, Prosper, 83, 167, early development, 179 15-18; geography, Reeves, Rosalie, 167 remarriage, 92, 99, 121, 12-13, 17; incorporation, 19; 132-3. 135. 180-1, population, 2ign, 24 24in. 59, 247n. 22, Saint-Hyacinth e-le26in. 2 Confesseur, municiRenaud, Arthur, 102, 114 pality, 82; boundaries, rents, 124, 134. See also 21; creation of, 20; housing population, 22 reproduction. See fertility Saint-Hyacinthe-lerestaurants, 43 Confesseur, parish: as retail shops, 40-4 cathedral parish, 91; Rigaud de Vaudreuil, division of, 20; migraFrancois Pierre, 12-13 tion rates, 23-4; popuRobidoux, Cyprien, 64, lation, 7; selection for 124 family-reconstitution Robitaille, Albina, 107 study, 184; territory, 7, Rouleau, Clement & fils, 20-1 42 Saint-Jacques, Romuald, Roy, Eugenie, 91 Royal Commission on 5° saloons, 43 Relations of Capital Scott, Amanda, 157, 166 and Labour, 64-77, Scott, Andre, 115, 182 124,174 Scott, Antoine, 115, 118 Rudin, Ronald, x, 16, 23, Scott, Joan, 97 33. 38, 5°. 52, 53 Scott, Obeline, 102 Saguenay region, 25, 100, Seguin, Normand, 30 Seguin-Lalime shoe 142, 146, 2i4n. 4

factory, 52, 53, 54, 71-7, 102 Sherbrooke, 32-4, 53, 62, 89, 181 shoe factories. See bootand-shoe industry Sicotte, Blanche, 104, 107 Sicotte, Louis Victor, 104 Sinotte, Andre, 41 Sinotte, Benjamin, 122 Sinotte, Josephine, 122 St-Denis, Marie Virginie, 92 Tanguay, Alfred, 116 Tanguay, Emerance, 116 Tanguay, Josephine, 116, 118 technology: in boot-andshoe production, 69-77; in the knitgoods industry, 63-9 textile industries, 48-50, 52, 53, 59; in the Eastern Townships, 32-3, 62; labour relations in, 31; in Quebec, 31-2; in Valleyfield, 31. See also knit-goods industry Thompson, E.P., 62 Tilly, Charles, 87 Tilly, Louise, 97 Tremblay, Adolphe, 103 Tremblay, Arzelie, 109 Tremblay, Sophronie, 109, 150, 160, 167, 173, 182 Tremblay, Victoria, 109 Trois-Rivieres, 29-30, 181 Turcot, Gaspard Hyacinthe, 160 Valleyfield, 30-1, 181 Viens, Ferdinand, 157 Vigeant, Florentin, 91 Vincent, Odette, 29 waged labour: children's, 29,31,46-8,65,68-9, 71, 72, 75; and fertility control, 160-5, 173-4; men's, 55-9, 63-77,

agg Index 80—3; women's, 29, 31, 48~9. 55. 59-69. 72-7, 108-9, 243n- 79- See also family economy, gender roles, industrial capitalism, wages, working class wages, 46, 48-50, 63, 64, 65, 67, 68-9, 72-3, 75-7, 164, 2280. 74

widowhood, 92, 99, 109, 122, 132-3, 135, 180-1 working class, 3-4, 27, 49. 55-78, 82-3, 87, 112, 188-9; fertility and family size, 156-65, 166-70, 171-6; housing, 124, 132-6, 196-8;

marriage age, 102-3, 106-10, 113-14. See. also labour market, waged labour Wrigley, E.A., 187 Yamaska River, 12, 225n. 4°