Mad Flight?: The Quebec Emigration to the Coffee Plantations of Brazil 9780773554115

Citation preview

MAD F L I G H T ?

McGill-Queen’s Studies in Ethnic History Series One: Donald Harman Akenson, Editor

1 Irish Migrants in the Canadas A New Approach Bruce S. Elliott (Second edition, 2004)

10 Vancouver’s Chinatown Racial Discourse in Canada, 1875–1980 Kay J. Anderson

2 Critical Years in Immigration Canada and Australia Compared Freda Hawkins (Second edition, 1991)

11 Best Left as Indians Native-White Relations in the Yukon Territory, 1840–1973 Ken Coates

3 Italians in Toronto Development of a National Identity, 1875–1935 John E. Zucchi

12 Such Hardworking People Italian Immigrants in Postwar Toronto Franca Iacovetta

4 Linguistics and Poetics of Latvian Folk Songs Essays in Honour of the Sesquicentennial of the Birth of Kr. Barons Vaira Vikis-Freibergs

13 The Little Slaves of the Harp Italian Child Street Musicians in Nineteenth-Century Paris, London, and New York John E. Zucchi

5 Johan Schroder’s Travels in Canada, 1863 Orm Overland 6 Class, Ethnicity, and Social Inequality Christopher McAll 7 The Victorian Interpretation of Racial Conflict The Maori, the British, and the New Zealand Wars James Belich 8 White Canada Forever Popular Attitudes and Public Policy toward Orientals in British Columbia W. Peter Ward (Third edition, 2002) 9 The People of Glengarry Highlanders in Transition, 1745–1820 Marianne McLean

14 The Light of Nature and the Law of God Antislavery in Ontario, 1833–1877 Allen P. Stouffer 15 Drum Songs Glimpses of Dene History Kerry Abel 16 Canada’s Jews (Reprint of 1939 original) Louis Rosenberg Edited by Morton Weinfeld 17 A New Lease on Life Landlords, Tenants, and Immigrants in Ireland and Canada Catharine Anne Wilson 18 In Search of Paradise The Odyssey of an Italian Family Susan Gabori 19 Ethnicity in the Mainstream Three Studies of English Canadian Culture in Ontario Pauline Greenhill

20 Patriots and Proletarians The Politicization of Hungarian Immigrants in Canada, 1923–1939 Carmela Patrias

4 With Scarcely a Ripple Anglo-Canadian Migration into the United States and Western Canada, 1880–1920 Randy William Widdis

21 The Four Quarters of the Night The Life-Journey of an Emigrant Sikh Tara Singh Bains and Hugh Johnston

5 Creating Societies Immigrant Lives in Canada Dirk Hoerder

22 Cultural Power, Resistance, and Pluralism Colonial Guyana, 1838–1900 Brian L. Moore 23 Search Out the Land The Jews and the Growth of Equality in British Colonial America, 1740–1867 Sheldon J. Godfrey and Judith C. Godfrey 24 The Development of Elites in Acadian New Brunswick, 1861–1881 Sheila M. Andrew 25 Journey to Vaja Reconstructing the World of a Hungarian-Jewish Family Elaine Kalman Naves

McGill-Queen’s Studies in Ethnic History Series Two: John Zucchi, Editor 1 Inside Ethnic Families Three Generations of PortugueseCanadians Edite Noivo 2 A House of Words Jewish Writing, Identity, and Memory Norman Ravvin 3 Oatmeal and the Catechism Scottish Gaelic Settlers in Quebec Margaret Bennett

6 Social Discredit Anti-Semitism, Social Credit, and the Jewish Response Janine Stingel 7 Coalescence of Styles The Ethnic Heritage of St John River Valley Regional Furniture, 1763–1851 Jane L. Cook 8 Brigh an Orain / A Story in Every Song The Songs and Tales of Lauchie MacLellan Translated and edited by John Shaw 9 Demography, State and Society Irish Migration to Britain, 1921–1971 Enda Delaney 10 The West Indians of Costa Rica Race, Class, and the Integration of an Ethnic Minority Ronald N. Harpelle 11 Canada and the Ukrainian Question, 1939–1945 Bohdan S. Kordan 12 Tortillas and Tomatoes Transmigrant Mexican Harvesters in Canada Tanya Basok 13 Old and New World Highland Bagpiping John G. Gibson

14 Nationalism from the Margins The Negotiation of Nationalism and Ethnic Identities among Italian Immigrants in Alberta and British Columbia Patricia Wood 15 Colonization and Community The Vancouver Island Coalfield and the Making of the British Columbia Working Class John Douglas Belshaw 16 Enemy Aliens, Prisoners of War Internment in Canada during the Great War Bohdan S. Kordan 17 Like Our Mountains A History of Armenians in Canada Isabel Kaprielian-Churchill 18 Exiles and Islanders The Irish Settlers of Prince Edward Island Brendan O’Grady 19 Ethnic Relations in Canada Institutional Dynamics Raymond Breton Edited by Jeffrey G. Reitz 20 A Kingdom of the Mind The Scots’ Impact on the Development of Canada Edited by Peter Rider and Heather McNabb 21 Vikings to U-Boats The German Experience in Newfoundland and Labrador Gerhard P. Bassler 22 Being Arab Ethnic and Religious Identity Building among Second Generation Youth in Montreal Paul Eid

23 From Peasants to Labourers Ukrainian and Belarusan Immigration from the Russian Empire to Canada Vadim Kukushkin 24 Emigrant Worlds and Transatlantic Communities Migration to Upper Canada in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century Elizabeth Jane Errington 25 Jerusalem on the Amur Birobidzhan and the Canadian Jewish Communist Movement, 1924–1951 Henry Felix Srebrnik 26 Irish Nationalism in Canada Edited by David A. Wilson 27 Managing the Canadian Mosaic in Wartime Shaping Citizenship Policy, 1939–1945 Ivana Caccia 28 Jewish Roots, Canadian Soil Yiddish Culture in Montreal, 1905–1945 Rebecca Margolis 29 Imposing Their Will An Organizational History of Jewish Toronto, 1933–1948 Jack Lipinsky 30 Ireland, Sweden, and the Great European Migration, 1815–1914 Donald H. Akenson 31 The Punjabis in British Columbia Location, Labour, First Nations, and Multiculturalism Kamala Elizabeth Nayar 32 Growing Up Canadian Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists Edited by Peter Beyer and Rubina Ramji

33 Between Raid and Rebellion The Irish in Buffalo and Toronto, 1867–1916 William Jenkins 34 Unpacking the Kists The Scots in New Zealand Brad Patterson, Tom Brooking, and Jim McAloon 35 Building Nations from Diversity Canadian and American Experience Compared Garth Stevenson 36 Hurrah Revolutionaries The Polish Canadian Communist Movement, 1918–1948 Patryk Polec 37 Alice in Shandehland Scandal and Scorn in the Edelson/Horwitz Murder Case Monda Halpern 38 Creating Kashubia History, Memory, and Identity in Canada’s First Polish Community Joshua C. Blank 39 No Free Man Canada, the Great War, and the Enemy Alien Experience Bohdan S. Kordan 40 Between Dispersion and Belonging Global Approaches to Diaspora in Practice Edited by Amitava Chowdhury and Donald Harman Akenson 41 Running on Empty Canada and the Indochinese Refugees, 1975–1980 Michael J. Molloy, Peter Duschinsky, Kurt F. Jensen, and Robert J. Shalka

42 Twenty-First-Century Immigration to North America Newcomers in Turbulent Times Edited by Victoria M. Esses and Donald E. Abelson 43 Gaelic Cape Breton Step-Dancing An Historical and Ethnographic Perspective John G. Gibson 44 Witness to Loss Race, Culpability, and Memory in the Dispossession of Japanese Canadians Edited by Jordan Stanger-Ross and Pamela Sugiman 45 Mad Flight? The Quebec Emigration to the Coffee Plantations of Brazil John Zucchi

MAD FLIGHT? The Quebec Emigration to the Coffee Plantations of Brazil

john zucchi

McGill-Queen’s University Press Montreal & Kingston • London • Chicago

© McGill-Queen’s University Press 2018 isbn 978-0-7735-5358-3 (cloth) isbn 978-0-7735-5359-0 (paper) isbn 978-0-7735-5411-5 (epdf) isbn 978-0-7735-5412-2 (epub) Legal deposit second quarter 2018 Bibliothèque nationale du Québec Printed in Canada on acid-free paper that is 100% ancient forest free (100% post-consumer recycled), processed chlorine free This book has been published with the help of a grant from the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, through the Awards to Scholarly Publications Program, using funds provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

We acknowledge the support of the Canada Council for the Arts, which last year invested $153 million to bring the arts to Canadians throughout the country. Nous remercions le Conseil des arts du Canada de son soutien. L’an dernier, le Conseil a investi 153 millions de dollars pour mettre de l’art dans la vie des Canadiennes et des Canadiens de tout le pays. Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Zucchi, John E., 1955–, author Mad flight? : the Quebec emigration to the coffee plantations of Brazil / John Zucchi. (McGill-Queen’s studies in ethnic history. Series two ; 45) Includes bibliographical references and index. Issued in print and electronic formats. isbn 978-0-7735-5358-3 (cloth). – isbn 978-0-7735-5359-0 (paper). isbn 978-0-7735-5411-5 (epdf). – isbn 978-0-7735-5412-2 (epub) 1. Québec (Province) – Emigration and immigration – History – 19th century. 2. Brazil – Emigration and immigration – History – 19th century. 3. Immigrants – Brazil – History – 19th century. 4. Quebeckers – Brazil – History – 19th century. 5. Coffee plantations – Brazil – São Paulo (State) – History – 19th century. I. Title. II. Series: McGill-Queen’s studies in ethnic history. Series two ; 45 fc2908.3.z83 2018

304.8'81071409034

c2018-900503-3 c2018-900504-1

This book was designed and typeset by studio oneonone in Sabon 10.5/13

For Thomas, who has always loved history

Contents

Preface | xiii

1

Introduction | 3

2

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil | 20

3

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure | 43

4

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement | 70

5

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis | 100

6

Conclusion | 123

Appendix 1: List of Emigrants Who Sailed to Santos from Montreal | 131 Appendix 2: List of Emigrants Who Subscribed but Did Not Sail on the Moravia | 153 Notes | 167 Bibliography | 189 Index | 201

Preface

Have you ever been tempted by an offer that is too good to be true? An offer that promises the moon but might be a scam? Have you ever fallen for what seemed to be a genuine article on the internet and then discovered it was simply a knockoff? This book tells the story of 480-odd emigrants who did just that – they fell for a story that turned out too good to be true. These women, men, and children left Montreal in September 1896, lured by the offer of free passage, a house, good wages, and the possibility of some farming independence and set out on an adventure that would take them to the coffee plantations of São Paulo, Brazil. On the one hand, they were treated in cavalier fashion by transportation companies and agents who were out to make a profit by conveying them from their homes to their destination in South America, in the same way that “connections men” handle desperate economic migrants from West Africa nowadays. On the other hand, these emigrants, unlike their counterparts from Italy, Austria-Hungary, or later, Japan, were unable to adapt to the diet, climate, work regime, and way of life in the coffee fazendas (plantations). They were forced to abandon their migration plans and so they are considered failed migrants. This book asks a few simple questions: was their emigration a mad flight, utterly unreasonable? Or was it a calculated risk, an understandable action given the dire economic circumstances in North America in the mid-1890s? Why would these people leave Montreal and not stay home? Why not migrate to local destinations as did their fellow citizens in similar circumstances? Such an inquiry takes us into the twilight zone of human motivation. As social historians we can gather all sorts of quantitative and qualitative data on these actors of the past. The deep psychological and existential motives of these migrants might be approximated but will also

prefac e

remain elusive. We are like Brother Juniper in Thornton Wilder’s 1927 classic, The Bridge of San Luis Rey, who for six years amasses hordes of evidence to understand why it is that certain interrelated people happened to be on a rope bridge in Peru whose collapse he witnessed on 20 July 1714. Why them and not others? In the end, his reasons move out of the quantitative and the positivistic and into the elusive realm of destiny. In this study I try to account for why these migrants left for a faraway unknown land against the counsels of many relatives, citizens, and neighbours. Like Brother Juniper, I can confess that the reams of evidence I have collected on these migrants do not give us definitive answers. They do, however, help us to advance some hypotheses. The research on this book would not have been possible without the help of individuals and institutions. I am especially grateful to my two research assistants, Benjamin Gordon and Lara Lavelle, for their invaluable help, and for the assistance of Alexandre Dumas and Daniel Lachapelle-Lemire. The staffs at various archives and libraries were most courteous and generous in their advice: the Arquivo Público do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil; the National Archives in Kew, uk; the West Yorkshire Archive Service in Bradford, uk; Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa; the Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères at Nantes and at La Corneuve, France; the Archives de la Chancellerie de l’Archevêché de Montréal; the Archives de la Chancellerie de l’Archevêché de Rimouski; the Archivio Segreto Vaticano, and McLennan Library, McGill University. Dr Ana Lydia Sawaya was most generous in hosting me for the Brazilian leg of my research, while Professor Biagio d’Angelo generously assisted in the Palacio Itamaraty archival research. I have left the original French or Brazilian Portuguese passages from documents or newspapers in the footnotes and have provided translations in the text, unless otherwise indicated. I am most grateful for the insightful comments, corrections, and suggestions of the two anonymous readers of the original manuscript, and for the generous guidance of mqup editor, Dr Kyla Madden. It was a pleasure to work with her on this project. I also appreciate the guidance of Dr Colleen Gray who saved me from a number of embarrassing errors with her excellent copy-editing. The research was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council’s Insight Development Grant, a McGill University Internal Social Sciences and Humanities research start-up grant, and an xiv

preface

Arts Undergraduate Internship Summer Grant from McGill University’s Faculty of Arts. I am grateful to this agency and to my university for their support. I could not have undertaken this work without the moral support and delightful companionship of my wife, Cecilia Grava, who not only had to listen to me ramble on and on about the project but who also read the manuscript in various stages.

xv

MAD F L I G H T ?

Cover page of the register of emigrants on the Moravia. “Report of the emigrants who leave today on board the steamer Moravia from this port, embarking with Mr. Gustavo Gavotti destined for the Port of Santos for the respected Government of the State of São Paulo, according to the Contract of 7 March 1896. Montreal, 15 September 1896.” Francesco Gualco signed the document. (Courtesy of Arquivo Público do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil)

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Sarah Moody and her husband, John Poley, must have awakened well before dawn on 15 September 1896. John, an English-born Anglican, living in Montreal by 1891, was a machinist in Saint Henri. Five years later he was listed as residing on Saint John Street in the old town. Sarah and John had five children, aged two months to eight years. The seven members of this family left their home that morning to travel to the port of Montreal carrying their worldly belongings with them, for they were off to a new land, as migrants to the Brazilian coffee plantations. We are not sure where another emigrant family comprising David Fecteau, a native Quebecer, Catholic, aged forty-three, and his wife, Eliza Paul, thirty-four, had slept the previous night with their five children, aged four to thirteen. They had made their way to Montreal at some point from Sorel, where David, who unlike John, was illiterate, worked as a farm day labourer. The family had survived on peas, cabbage, and boiled potatoes for months.1 We also do not know where Louis Leclercq, a former soldier who had served under General Charles Bourbaki in the Franco-Prussian War, spent his last evening in Canada. He had emigrated from France to Canada. Settling in Sorel in 1873, he soon married Marie Martin from Quebec, became a master plumber and had nine children, all born in Quebec, where he was naturalized. A cousin of his who had left France at the same time struck it rich in Brazil. It is perhaps for this reason that he felt confident in emigrating to that country. He continued to correspond with his cousin.2 Louis was fifty-one years of age and Marie was three years his junior, although the ship’s register recorded them each as four years younger than they actually were. Six of their nine children accompanied them on this voyage. Also from Sorel were Elian Louteff, his wife, and two young children. He had arrived from Egypt two years earlier and, like Leclercq, he married

mad fligh t?

a local woman, Vitalian Claprood.3 Also headed for the same destination were Pascal De Mars, a thirty-five-year-old Italian–born Catholic day labourer living in the Saint Jacques Ward, and his wife, Marie Levieux, twenty-three. On the morning of their departure they left their home on 15 Marie-Louise Street with six-year-old Anna, four-year-old Rosanna, two-year-old Angelo, and baby Carmela. These 28 people were among 481 emigrants who left Montreal at half past twelve in the afternoon on 15 September 1896 on the steamship Moravia to try their luck in the coffee plantations of Brazil. The ship had been hired by a Genoese shipping company, La Ligure Brasiliana, which was contracted by a Brazilian immigration agency. The agency, in turn, had entered a contract with an office of the state government of São Paulo to transport 10,000 immigrants to the coffee country from the province of Quebec. At first it appeared that the venture would be successful as many families signed on for what was supposed to be the first of a number of voyages from Montreal to the South American continent. Almost 800 people had prepared to board the steamer in the port of Montreal headed for Santos, the main port of São Paulo. The ship list of emigrants informs us that 776 men, women, and children had registered for the trip, and that 6 more enlisted on the day of departure.4 A crowd of a few thousand – estimates went from a few hundred to 10,000 – pleaded with passengers not to sail.5 Every time someone came down the gangplank and abandoned ship, the crowd broke into a loud cheer. People waved their handkerchiefs “and the shouts of both encouragement and derision from the hundreds assembled on the wharf, greeted the eyes and ears of the voyagers.”6 Some of the original recruits had backed off from the adventure weeks before sailing, others only in the days leading up to the departure. Yet others decided to stay home just as the ship was about to sail. This apparently was “one of the most exciting scenes ever witnessed on the wharf.”7 The special immigration commissioner sent by the São Paulo government to Montreal, Américo de Campos Sobrinho (who also happened to be the son of the former governor of the state of São Paulo) spoke of “all sorts of violence being committed” under the seemingly respectful gaze of the local police.8 Many individuals were convinced to get off the boat. In the end, 481 migrants departed on the long journey to South America, meaning that 300 people had a change of plans at the last moment.9 The migration experience was a total fail4

Introduction

ure. Some of the immigrants died on board the ship, others in Brazil. Some became indigent labourers on coffee plantations, while others were not so fortunate and were reduced to begging.10 The vast majority were sent back to Canada or Britain with the help of British consular representatives or they made their way back on their own, within a couple of years. The story of this migration is largely unknown, a mere footnote in history. Indeed, I first came across it in a footnote in 1985 while reading Thomas Holloway’s excellent study of immigrants in the São Paulo fazendas. At the time, unable to understand how such a migration was possible, I made a mental note of it intending to explore the mystery at a later date. In recent years, interest in the migration has surfaced. Rosana Barbosa and Yves Frenette have discussed the migration in a couple of articles. Duncan McDowall also referred to the episode in his study of the Brazilian Traction, Light, and Power Company, as did J.C.M. Ogelsby in his book on Canadian-Latin American relations.11 But why study a mere footnote? Why should the failed expedition of a few hundred immigrants who were either foolhardy, desperate, adventurous, mad, enterprising, or perhaps a combination of all of these, matter to us? What can an historian draw from such a curious episode? What is the point of rescuing this story from the past when for a century it did not garner more than a few lines in academic monographs? And why was it forgotten? This migration is interesting on a number of levels. First and foremost is the human dimension. The narrative of this migration relates a tragic episode in which families and individuals were deeply scarred. The voyage involved loss of life, loss of livelihood, the humiliation of begging in a foreign country with no knowledge of the language and customs, and the shame of returning to Canada after experiencing failure abroad. It was an example of a failed migration from a dominion of the British Empire. However, while there is something to be said for telling an unknown tale, and in the process rescuing a few hundred labourers and farmers from obscurity, there are also other reasons to probe the lives of these people who, as some contemporaries suggested, might have been the dupes of other more powerful forces. It is striking how seemingly disconnected individuals, currents, and movements converged in the story of these migrants. An Italian soldier of fortune, the family of the governor of the 5

mad fligh t?

state of São Paulo and later finance minister of Brazil, a defrocked priest formerly involved in the colonization movement in Quebec (organized to settle new agricultural lands in the outlying regions of the province), the Canadian minister of the Interior, a few of the major plantation owners in São Paulo, a Genoese shipping company, a Brazilian agent, a French emigration agent responsible for settling francophone emigrants in Quebec and the Canadian West, British and French consular representatives, and workers’ unions – all of these persons, companies, institutions, or movements somehow connected with these eight hundred people who either left or intended to leave for South America in 1896. This book will tell their story and show how they were drawn into networks of economic and political power that impacted them in such a way that they would make a decision they would regret for many years. Failed migrations are, according to English professor Tamara S. Wagner, “an uncomfortable subject.” Though her own book on the matter is a literary and cultural study of literatures of failed migrations in settler societies, we can say the same thing generally about such movements from Britain or the dominions to other lands in the late nineteenth century: scholars do not tend to study them because they do not easily fit into our normal frameworks. That Canadians should opt to leave for Brazil is problematic when we consider Canada as a country of immigration in the late nineteenth century. That they failed also raises the question of why they failed where French-Canadian or other migrants to the United States did not. While the Quebec migration over the border to the south might be deplored by nationalists who hoped to keep the French-Canadian population in Canada, the general response to the unsuccessful migration to Brazil was more along the lines of reproach: in other words, they should have known better. This episode was an uncomfortable subject in the 1890s and perhaps it still is today for it does not easily fit into our normal way of looking at migration in retrospect, even in the midst of so many contemporary dramatic and tragic stories of migrants making their way from war-torn areas only to founder in the Mediterranean on their way to Europe.12 There is thus a third reason to study this group and this migration from the more specific perspective of immigration history. This story opens up to an important research question that has never been investigated: why do some people migrate en masse on impulse and begin a 6

Introduction

journey that will, at least in the eyes of others, almost predictably end up in failure? In earlier books I have examined how migration occupational chains developed from towns in nineteenth-century Italy. These studies and many others by historians of immigration have shown how the decision to migrate was based on information gathered by immigrants and their families through their contacts. Migration was a way to meet short- and long-term goals, and since families carefully planned the decisions of any of their members to leave for another country, the migration project was normally successful in that it allowed individuals and families to meet those goals, whether they returned home or stayed in their adopted lands. Historical studies on migration normally account for successful outcomes in migration but never consider why some immigrant experiences seem destined to failure.13 There are many examples of migrants who took calculated risks but encountered bad luck along the way, whether it was a sudden economic downturn, illness or injury, or theft.14 But there are fewer examples of groups of migrants who decided not to seek the advice of kin, or perhaps not to heed the guidance of neighbours and friends, and then left for a new land with little more than vague promises from less than honest agents. Almost by intuition we can understand that poverty might be an important reason for the migration. Certainly this Montreal–São Paulo episode took place in a period of economic depression and high unemployment, and involved many unskilled and skilled workers. But not all the migrants were unemployed or in difficult financial circumstances. Did other factors beyond poverty influence their decision to migrate? This book will use this case study to try and understand why these families chose to leave Montreal and take part in a journey that many Montrealers predicted would not end well. In the twenty-sixth canto of the Inferno, Dante describes Ulysses’s “mad flight” beyond the Pillars of Hercules and into the unknown with his companions. Need and desire may have goaded them on that adventure but they lacked the means to navigate beyond the Mare Nostrum, or the Mediterranean, that is to sail into that ocean that opened up beyond the Pillars of Hercules, or the Straits of Gibraltar.15 Those migrants who left for Brazil also may have had a rationale for their passage even if their adventure would prove a failure. They too travelled to a land which for Canada at least was “beyond the pale,” without the necessary means for adapting to the local context. Can we also label their enterprise a “mad flight”? 7

mad fligh t?

Did they naively become dupes of powerful economic forces or did they take calculated risks? That people should suddenly decide to throw caution to the wind and migrate on impulse opens up an interesting question: why would they do something that appeared to be so irrational to their neighbours? The vast transdisciplinary literature on migration theory has grappled with the motives and contexts that lead people to migrate.16 Scholars use the term “selectivity” to identify those individuals in a given cohort who make the decision to leave home for opportunities elsewhere. Does the decision depend on the social or occupational backgrounds of the migrants or access to capital? What role do family and gender play in the decision? Do migrants act rationally or on impulse? Are they “induced” or enticed to migrate? This study probes why some people migrate on impulse. Historically, there have been many cases of individuals or groups, like the Montreal migrants to Brazil, who do not fit the profile of successful migrants and whose migrations cannot be explained by conventional theories. Their experience can be described as a failure. For example, the first group of Japanese labourers recruited in Hawaii in 1868 were found to be unfit for work. Some were diseased and most had difficulty adjusting to the climate and the low wages. Almost a third of them were helped back by the Japanese government, and a few more returned at the end of their contracts.17 Italian migrants from the Veneto to Australia in 1879, part of a colonization scheme of a French nobleman, the Marquis de Rays, who hoped to establish a new kingdom of Nouvelle France in eastern New Guinea, also met with failure. Of the 250 immigrants comprising 48 families, 45 individuals died in miserable conditions before the survivors settled in Sydney a couple of years later. Oliver Marshall has done extensive research on English and Irish migration schemes to the south of Brazil in the mid-nineteenth century. In the late 1860s and 1870s, recruiting agents and labour unions encouraged a significant number of families to emigrate to Brazil, where, by the early 1870s, they found themselves isolated, diseased, and starved. Three hundred of these immigrants ended up in the colony of Assunguy in the state of Paraná; about 125 settled in the colony of Cananéia, in the state of São Paulo. In the late 1870s, those colonists who had not died or abandoned these settlements languished there in desperate circumstances. Meanwhile, many immigrants in the Welsh colony in Patagonia were helped to return 8

Introduction

home by the Argentine government, as were American immigrants in Brazil assisted by American vessels in the area of their settlement.18 In the same decade, the Brazilian consul in New York recruited immigrants for Brazil, among whom were many francophones most likely of French-Canadian origins. Of roughly 250 to 300 immigrants, a significant number settled in the colony of Benevides, in the state of Pará at the mouth of the Amazon, while others moved on. By the end of August 1876 well over half of the 356 immigrants of various nationalities in Benevides had abandoned the colony.19 Between 1890 and 1892 about 1,500 Britons were enticed to leave a number of cities and towns in Britain for a new life in Brazil. A few hundred were from Bradford (Yorkshire), a significant number from Burnley (Lancashire), and others from Leeds, London, and smaller towns and villages. Their destinations were not clear although most sailed to Rio de Janeiro and from there they were sent through a circuitous route. Some ended up in Santa Catarina for a while, or in outlying areas of the state, such as the German colony of Brusque and then spread out to different settlements. Finding themselves in destitute circumstances they were helped back to Britain with the intervention of British consular officials in Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, and Santos. A large percentage of these immigrants died in Brazil.20 The British and Canadian episodes were connected. The British consuls in Rio and Santos warned Canadian officials about immigration agents headed for Canada. They predicted that many gullible people, like the Bradfordians, would find themselves in destitute circumstances were they to heed those agents and migrate to Brazil; indeed, Canadians were soon asking them for help to return home.21 Ironically, as historian Oliver Marshall notes in his study of British emigration schemes to Brazil in the 1860s and 1870s, following a string of failed enterprises, people began to fear emigration even to British colonies. Marshall notes that a leader of the National Agricultural Labourers’ Union who tried to promote settlement of English labourers in Canada would hear people crying out: “Oh, be careful, be very careful about sending men to Canada. Look at the Brazilian fiasco; take warning by that.”22 What did these migrations have in common? It would appear that the migrants had become the dupes of either untrustworthy or at the very least unreliable immigration and transportation agents. They responded to what appeared to be attractive inducements to migrate. In other words, 9

mad fligh t?

they migrated en masse, on impulse, and on vague promises that they would be provided with arable land, housing, and start-up funds. There were many other cases like these, some of which have disappeared from the annals of history. We often read that prospective immigrants were well prepared in dealing with the various offers that might come their way. They verified information, checked with kin and others whom they might trust. Many studies in the historical and sociological literature on migration have examined information networks, chains, and the ability of immigrants to meet their goals despite all of the dishonest agents trying to gouge their migration process.23 This study is an attempt to examine historically why groups of emigrants involved in labour or colonization schemes did not fit the mould. Why did they choose to believe the exaggerated offers that agents made to them? Why did families who for the most part were urban labourers decide to migrate overseas to work in agricultural labour whilst most urban migrants in Europe or in North America migrated to cities?24 If they were streetwise in dealing with business people in what was clearly a serious proposition – to travel with their families abroad for a given number of years, or perhaps forever – why would they have accepted offers that were too good to be true? This book tries to answer these questions by investigating the emigrants from Montreal to the state of São Paulo between 1896 and 1899.25 I propose to tackle the research questions starting from sociologist Barak Kalir’s conceptualization of “migratory disposition.” His theory, which borrows from Pierre Bourdieu and has been adapted to his work on Ecuadorian migrants to Israel, tries to account for the impulsive character of some migrations. Kalir argues that the formation of a disposition toward migration “entails an embodiment, namely, a disposition [that] constitutes an inherent part of one’s sense-making mechanism, which does not only include calculative practices but also bodily feelings, emotions, and desires.”26 If people who might never seriously have considered migrating do so in response to enticing propositions, they act impulsively, not solely on the basis of a calculated decision founded on an assessment of needs and information on prospective destinations. Enticements create a disposition in them to migrate but details are not tested or verified through the normal information networks of prospective migrants. Another sociologist, R.C. Taylor, detected a similar phenomenon among West Durham coal miners in the 1960s. Just over half of the sample of migrants he studied were what he called “resultant,” 10

Introduction

meaning that they had not contemplated leaving until they became redundant in the mines, and then they migrated on impulse, and with little information, aping the decisions of friends or relatives.27 More recently, Louise Ryan et al., in their studies of Irish immigrants in London, have suggested an association between unplanned migration and depression. Although this study is set in a more recent time period, it raises the interesting question of prospective emigrants making rash choices in moments of psychological distress. In the present study I am not exploring psychological factors. Rather I am arguing that these impulsive migrants were lured by dishonest agents and influenced by the “demonstration effect,” the example of neighbours who decided to migrate. My hypothesis is that their disposition to migrate was strengthened by their lack of rootedness in their society and neighbourhoods. Thus, at a time of economic distress and unemployment, they did not test the information they were being fed by agents through the normal networks of kin and friends. This made them all the more prone to make a rash decision.28 Why did certain passengers stay on the Moravia, while others disembarked? Why did they sail? The most obvious explanation is poverty.29 Generally, those migrants who intended to leave Quebec or who emigrated, were certainly in the lowest socio-economic strata of Quebec society. Every single person named on the ship’s list of emigrants – husband, wife, or child – was listed as an agricoltore (Italian was used on the steamer’s register of migrants, not Portuguese, as the transportation company and the captain were Italian) – or farmer, which was definitely not the case for almost all of them. This was obviously an exaggerated assertion on the part of the immigration agents, who could claim a bonus from the São Paulo authorities only for bona fide farmers. Of the traceable forty-five heads of family who were men and whose occupations were listed, only two claimed to be farmers either in the city directory, on passenger lists, or in the 1891 census. The two most prominent occupational groups were labourers (eighteen) and skilled workers (fifteen). This is not surprising for the North American economy was in the tail end of a major recession at the time, undoubtedly leaving these workers vulnerable to unemployment which reached its apex in the mid 1890s. This suggests that at least some of the emigrants or prospective emigrants were without work and living in poverty.30 According to one man who had met some individuals intent on reaching Brazil, “people told me that they consider the Brazilian offer the only 11

mad fligh t?

opening for them out of a dark pit in which they seem to have fallen. In one instance, that of a fairly educated man with his wife and child, the man had worked three months out of fourteen … On asking him if he wanted to go to Brazil, he at once said NO. ‘But what are we to do in Canada,’ There seems to be no helping hand.”31 Twenty-five men and eighteen women who had signed up for the voyage but then decided not to sail to Brazil met at the Order of United Workmen on 23 September 1896. They had registered for passage “because they were out of work, and they thought to better their condition in the South American Republic.” Now, staying behind in Montreal they were in desperate need of work, and “many a decent coat covered a hungry stomach.”32 Twenty-four of the men were taken to the Lachine Rapids Hydraulics and Land Company but were not able to find employment there. A few days later the contractor informed the city mayor that he would provide jobs for the twenty-five men and eighteen women who did not sail.33 Ironically, only three or four of the prospective employees actually showed up for work.34 A few of the emigrants from around Sorel and Ange Gardien were most likely agricultural labourers and farmers who had probably suffered from the crisis in agriculture experienced in Quebec in the last half of the nineteenth century, whereby many rural inhabitants shifted from farming to wage labour and increasingly relied on subsistence agriculture.35 The surplus rural population was directed to a variety of destinations, whether it was, for example, the industrial city of Montreal, the lumber and mining companies of the American Midwest, or the settlement opportunities made available through the colonization movement in Quebec – in the Laurentians, Lac Saint Jean, or in Matapédia – in the last third of the nineteenth century.36 The Montreal Gazette, commenting on the departure of the Canadians to Brazil in 1896, remarked that the “Canadians … have always been disposed to wander. It is not altogether a trait to be frowned down … South Africa, Australia the Argentine and almost every part of the world have found Canadians who went to their shores their best citizens.” The prime destination, however, was New England and its many mill towns. Although Lowell, Lynn, Salem, or Manchester, among other towns attracted FrenchCanadian immigrants who would be known as Franco-Americans, many of those migrants also repatriated or made multiple journeys to the United States.37 12

Introduction

Repatriation often coincided with economic downturns and thus unemployment in New England industry or in midwestern agriculture. This was the case in 1896, at the tail end and perhaps the severest period of a half-decade of serious economic recession. Indeed, the quarter century stretching from 1873 to 1896 had been one of stagnation, with a few mild recoveries amidst depression and recession. In that long stretch Canada’s economic performance, like its immigration program, compared poorly to other new economies, in particular that of the United States. However, neither was the American economy immune to socalled panics, as for example, the one that hit the western economies in the mid-1890s, with a double dip recession occurring in 1893–94 and 1896, and unemployment reaching its apexes in 1894 and 1896. Press reports in Montreal referred frequently to the return of Canadian emigrants in droves to Quebec from the New England mills in midsummer 1896, just as the São Paulo authorities directed their agents to advertise for farmers in the province. Hundreds of immigrants, for example, returned to Berthier, Trois Rivières, and Joliette in late August and early September 1896.38 Of the original 776 people who signed up to travel to Brazil, the vast majority were from Montreal; many of them resided in the Saint Antoine, Saint Gabriel, Saint Jacques, and Saint Anne Wards, or in the city suburbs or environs (See map on page 000). The city accounted for 110 families and 549 individuals (67 of them were listed as from Point Saint Charles). Three other families comprising 24 individuals were from the western industrial suburb of Saint Henri, another 5 families, in all 26 individuals were from the east-end industrial suburb of Maisonneuve, and another 3 families – 11 individuals – were from the industrial eastend Hochelaga Ward. Another 33 persons were from areas surrounding the city such as Lachine and Verdun. Sixty were from southwestern Quebec – Sorel, Boucherville, Vaudreuil, and 24 were from the presentday Outaouais region or Ottawa – Hull, Pontiac, Namur, and Notre Dame de la Salette. Other significant source cities or towns were Quebec (17), nearby Château Richer (10) and Ange Gardien (3), and Saint Thérèse in the foothills of the Laurentians (8).39 In total about 595 prospective migrants, or just over 75 per cent of all the applicants, were from Montreal and its surrounding suburbs. It is clear not only from the profile of the traceable migrants, but also from their ward or municipal provenance, that they were mostly unskilled 13

mad fligh t?

labourers, although there was also a significant number of semiskilled and skilled workers. In the late nineteenth century, Montreal was the leading industrial centre in Canada, with the city population increasing from 180,000 in 1881 to 325,000 just twenty years later. Heavy industry was located in Saint Anne Ward, the most important source of the Moravia’s passengers. The Grand Trunk Railway shops and their 2,000 employees were located in Point Saint Charles, along with other metal trades and the Redpath Sugar refinery as well. By the end of the century, Saint Henri and Saint Cunégonde, immediately west of Saint Anne, were also growing industrial neighbourhoods, with more specialized metal shops and textile firms. The east end of the city, in the Saint Marie and Hochelaga Wards and the suburb of Maisonneuve, was another area of heavy industry, dominated by the presence of the Canadian Pacific Railway shops (in Hochelaga).40 With over 50,000 employees in industrial plants in 1901, Montreal had a significant working class increasingly segregated from the lower and upper middle classes.41 The major concentrations of unskilled and semiskilled workers were along the Lachine Canal, close to and in Griffintown. The urban reformer Herbert Ames, who researched his classic 1897 study, The City Below the Hill, in the weeks and months immediately following the departure of the Moravia, wrote that a descent from the hill that dominates the city denotes “a marked change in the character of the inhabitants and in the nature of their surroundings.”42 The area under consideration included Point Saint Charles, which was dominated by the presence of the Grand Trunk Railway shops, as well as the predominately Irish area in Saint Anne Ward known as Griffintown.43 The Lachine Canal, which provided energy for the many manufacturing companies along its banks, cut through the district. To the west of the area of Ames’s study were the suburbs of Saint Cunégonde and Saint Henri, which constituted a continuum of the working-class neighbourhoods “below the hill.” Many residents in those locations worked in the area of Ames’s study, and some of them also ended up travelling to Brazil. The “city below the hill” was quite evenly split between British, Irish, and French ethnic groups, comprising almost thirty-eight thousand people of which eleven thousand were employed within its boundaries. By the end of the century, Saint Marie, Saint Gabriel, and Hochelaga also housed large numbers of unskilled and semiskilled workers. Skilled workers were to be found in the same neighbourhoods but in lower con14

Introduction

centrations.44 There were many migrants among the working classes, international as well as from rural Quebec. While young Irish Catholics (fifteen to twenty-nine years old) in Montreal in 1901 were largely born in the city, 29 per cent of women and 21 per cent of men were born outside of Quebec. The percentage doubled for Anglo-Protestant men, while 40 per cent of French Canadians were migrants from rural Quebec.45 In 1900 “one-quarter of English-speaking Catholic parents reported a birthplace in Ireland, Scotland, England or the United States; and nearly half of Anglo-Protestant parents were born in the Old Country, an additional 15 per cent in Ontario or Maritime Canada.”46 While migrants entered the city, there was also a great deal of household mobility, as families moved regularly from one city location to another, usually nearby, as in most North American cities. Families and individuals also emigrated to other parts of Canada, North America, or even beyond. Jason Gilliland has noted that in the period 1860–1900, only about onequarter of French-Canadian and Irish- Catholic households in Montreal resided at the same address they had been at five years previously. As these two ethnic groups were largely comprised of the working class, their movements in a city of tenants were significantly more frequent than those of Anglo Protestants of whom 40 per cent would still be at the same addresses that they had occupied five years earlier.47 Studies of the Montreal labouring classes in Saint Anne, Saint Gabriel Wards, and in other wards or municipalities have often referred to the poverty of the working class and in particular the unskilled. Almost 13 per cent of the families claimed to be earning less than the threshold of five dollars a week. According to Ames’s findings, one-quarter of Griffintown’s inhabitants lived at poverty levels. One quarter of all workers could not depend on a weekly wage year-round. Bettina Bradbury has shown how wage differentials between unskilled and skilled workers in Montreal were much greater than in English cities and much more in line with other North American urban centres. The unskilled labourers generally earned a dollar a day, provided of course that there was work all year-round. This was not the case, for example, with stevedores or construction labourers. A significant portion of the unskilled working class lived under the poverty line, and the only way that many families stayed above that line was with the participation of wives and children in the labour force. Indeed the labour force in the 1880s and 1890s did not expand only as a result of migration from the countryside or from Great 15

mad fligh t?

Britain. It also proliferated with the rise in the number of children in the workforce.48 Labourers in the Saint Anne Ward would view as normal the requests of agents recruiting for Brazil for entire families to work on the coffee plantations: it was already common practice in Griffintown, Point Saint Charles, and other working-class districts to involve entire families in wage labour. The city’s death rate was among the highest in the western world, and higher in working-class areas. In his study of poverty in the city, historian Terry Copp noted that infant mortality rates were the highest on the continent, and among major international cities, only second to Calcutta.49 Patricia Thornton and Sherry Olson found that in the late nineteenth century “one quarter of [infants] died within 12 months of birth, and that the rate among French Canadians was 42 per cent higher than among Irish Catholics or Anglo-Protestants.”50 Many, if not most of the emigrants who had resided in Montreal and left for Brazil, or had even signed up to leave but then did not ultimately get on the ship, were from among those working poor, who given the economic crisis in mid-1896, were experiencing short- or long-term unemployment. Press reports substantiate that most were in dire economic circumstances. At the 23 September meeting of the Canadian Order of United Workmen, the needs of families who had signed up for passage but then declined to sail were assessed. These families were in destitute circumstances, without work. Many had no clothes, as the ship’s crew had not returned their luggage when they disembarked. Others were “being cared for by people almost as poor as themselves, people who found it a hard job to keep the wolf from their own door.”51 Forty-two men registered that evening to find work. L.O. David, the Montreal city clerk, claimed that “the extreme poverty which he knew to exist amongst hundreds of families in Montreal was no doubt responsible for the alleged success of the Brazilian agent.”52 The night after the Moravia sailed, Henry Parkhurst, his wife and child, and two other men found shelter at the No. 2 Police Station at the corner of Gain and Craig Streets in Montreal, “relics of the Brazilian immigration … who had repented at the last moment and now found themselves penniless and starving.”53 It is true that poverty goes a long way in explaining why these families decided to pick up and leave in a desperate attempt to improve their lot. However, this does not account for the fact that in the so-called “city below the hill” there were about nine hundred families living in poverty who presumably knew about the expedition to Brazil. Why did they not 16

Introduction

decide to migrate as the others did? Why did many of those who originally planned to venture to São Paulo not do so? While recounting this tragic episode of the Canadian migration to Brazil, this book will also try to answer some of these questions. Chapter two will contextualize the migration in the competing migration programs of Canada and Brazil. For both countries, race and ethnicity mattered in the quest to devise policies to attract immigrants. While the Canadian government developed racial and ethnic criteria in order to meet its goal of settling an agrarian west, Brazil did the same to respond to its desire to change the racial structure of the nation as it made its way towards the elimination of slavery in 1888. Brazil sought what it considered to be ethnically and racially, and even religiously suitable immigrants to colonize the agricultural southern provinces of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, and to provide labour for the coffee plantations of the province of São Paulo, which had depended largely on slave labour. More specifically, this chapter discusses how the immigration programs developed in São Paulo, enacted as they were by the state but imagined, developed, and advocated by the powerful lobby of the coffee plantation owners, an oligarchy that practically ran the affairs of the state of Brazil. Chapter three takes us to the Montreal end of São Paulo’s “commerce of migration” and reviews the dynamics by which an immigration-transportation agency recruited immigrants from the province for the Brazilian coffee plantations. The federal Ministry of the Interior, which was responsible for immigration matters, developed a last-minute response to the proposed migration. Chapter four looks at the journey of the Moravia and the unsuccessful attempts to settle the Canadian immigrants in the coffee fazendas. Chapter five relates the work of the French, and in particular, British consular and other diplomatic officials to come to the aid of the Canadian immigrants, and especially their key role in getting many of those immigrants back to Canada. A key theme in this narrative will be the interconnectivity of the lives of some 480odd unsuccessful emigrants from Canada with Canadian officials, colonization schemes in Canada and Brazil, migration flows in North and South America, and commercial and diplomatic relations between Europe and the Americas. As the narrative of this migration covers a couple of continents and involved diplomatic and consular officials and shipping companies from 17

mad fligh t?

a third continent, the sources are varied. The single most useful source was the list of emigrants on the Moravia’s ship register, which is available online on the Arquivo Público do Estado de São Paulo’s website, “Memória do Imigrante.” The list made it possible for a research assistant to track down many of the names and correlate them to censuses, ship registers, city directories, and birth and marriage registers, often with the help of the genealogical website, ancestry.com. This allowed us to discover the residences, occupations, and movements of these migrants before and after their experience in Brazil. The Arquivo’s holdings also include important correspondence and registers pertaining to the Canadian migration. The correspondence of British consular officials, who oversaw cases involving Canadians in Brazil (Canada was represented diplomatically and at the consular level by Britain at the time), in the National Archives in Kew and at Library and Archives Canada in Ottawa provided very rich information on the immigrants, including some of their correspondence and many efforts to repatriate them, either to Canada or in some cases to Britain as many of these emigrants to Brazil were British migrants to Quebec. The files of Canada’s Department of the Interior revealed the Laurier government’s attempt to defuse what might have become a politically charged situation – Canadians starting an agricultural migration to Brazil just as Canada was planning an expansion of its immigration program to the prairies. The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs Archives in Nantes and La Corneuve provided crucial information on a French consul’s views of European rivalries in the commerce and coffee trade of São Paulo and a different perspective of the Canadian migrants there. Brazilian and Canadian newspapers were also important sources of information for this study. The Ligure Brasiliana, the Genoese shipping firm that opened an office in Montreal in 1896, launched its own campaign in Montreal newspapers to attract migrants, and once subscriptions began to grow the papers set in motion their own drive to persuade Quebecers not to leave. They continued to cover the plight of the emigrants for many months and published a number of their personal letters home. Ministry of the Interior officials went so far as to pass secret documents to the publisher of Montreal’s La Presse to help him in a libel case against Francesco Gualco, the director of the Ligure Brasiliana, claiming that the paper had destroyed his business. The Brazilian press, and in particular that of São Paulo, gave extraordinary coverage to the 18

Introduction

small Canadian migration. Much of this had to do with the political leanings of the newspapers and their attempts to support or detract from the government’s plans to introduce non-Italian immigrants to the state in order to ensure that its immigration program would not depend on one source country for its immigrants. These rich and varied sources made it possible to construct a narrative of this tragic episode and to develop a better sense of the context for understanding the motives of these migrants. This narrative will begin with the first episode, an examination of the social and economic conditions in the mid-1890s affecting these migrants, and the reasons that Brazil wished to attract immigration from Quebec in those years.

19

CHAPTER 2

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil

Although the histories of Canada and Brazil were vastly different, they also had much in common. They had both been colonies of significant empires. Brazil declared independence from Portugal in 1822 while four British North American colonies formed the Canadian federation in 1867. By 1871, other colonies and territories had joined the new nation (Newfoundland relinquished its colonial status in 1949). Although Canada, as a dominion of the empire, maintained a much closer bond to Britain than Brazil did to Portugal in the nineteenth century there were also similarities between the two countries in their reliance on overseas immigrants. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries Brazil and Canada, although well behind the United States, were among the significant recipients of overseas international migration. Between 1870 and 1930, the United States recorded over 20 million immigrants, while 4 million Europeans migrated to Argentina. Brazil was the destination of perhaps 2.5 million immigrants. Canada’s net figure was over 1.5 million. Cuba was not far behind in numbers. Both countries sought to promote immigration to develop their agricultural farmlands and staples but with wary eyes to the ethnic and racial ramifications of their respective programs. Race and ethnicity were implicit factors in the decision as to who to attract to settle Ontario (earlier, Upper Canada or Canada West) and the Canadian prairies or Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina in the south of Brazil, or the states of Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais, or São Paulo. Each country had to deal, as it were, with its own demons. For Canada, it was the lure of the United States to its immediate south which carried out a very successful immigration policy from the 1840s to the early 1920s. However, if the Americans admitted one defeat, it had to do

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil

with ethnicity and race: ever since 1885, the main source countries were not those of “preferred stock,” to use the term at the time, that is white, Nordic, Protestant immigrant farmers. Rather, it was the southern and eastern Europeans – Italians, Jews, and Greeks – and Chinese and Japanese who immigrated in what were considered alarmingly increasing rates in the four decades prior to the early 1920s, when barriers to entry were imposed. In the mid-nineteenth century, Canadians could look on only with frustration as the draw of the American Midwest diverted not only Brits, Norwegians, or Danes from their arrival port in Quebec toward the south, but also established Canadian farmers from the Maritimes or Ontario.1 For English Canadians the future identity of their land depended on obtaining the same kinds of immigrants that Americans were trying to attract, preferably British, but at least Nordic and Protestant, and above all agricultural. In the one hundred years before the Great Depression, Canadian immigration policy was ostensibly about populating the agrarian west, which meant not only attracting immigrants but also retaining them. In its first half century, Canada sought to attract British Protestants who might replicate a British culture in those settlements. Before the closing of the nineteenth century, that policy can generally be described as a failure. Although settlement in Ontario had grown significantly through British migration earlier in the century, followed by a not insignificant influx of immigrations in the West, there were also many episodes of failures or outright scams, which along with the lure of the American West, discouraged a larger inflow of immigrants. Canadian government officials and bureaucrats remained steadfast in their insistence on attracting British immigrants to preserve the cultural character of the country. Policy, including an ethnic and racial pecking order of “preferred stock,” immigration laws and even a homestead act, reinforced the cultural strategy but also very much aped American policy. One assumption in this policy was that only British and northern European immigrants would make good farmers and actually settle the land. Thus, it was believed that southern and eastern Europeans could not be relied on for stable settlement. This, of course, went against all of the evidence of successful Italian or Spanish land colonization in Argentina, or Italian colonization in the south of Brazil. The problem was that the southern and eastern European migration movement had taken off in the late nineteenth century, and Canadian officials continued to 21

mad fligh t?

perceive it as inappropriate for agricultural settlement. Italians, for example, were seen to be aiming for jobs in urban centres, on infrastructure projects, or in mining. Canadians looked to the Italian experience in the United States where this ethnic group responded to the labour needs of that nation’s growing industrial complex, and in doing so they ignored the overwhelming rural experience of this ethnic group in South America, where most Italians were migrating at the time. Indeed, in the 1890s Brazil was the main destination for Italian emigrants; at the same time American and Canadian policy-makers lamented their increasing presence in their societies.2 Beyond agriculture, the persistent demands of a capitalist system to maintain low wage levels also increased ethnic and racial diversity in Canada. Not only did the resource sector and transportation firms rely on southern and eastern Europeans, they also depended upon Chinese and Japanese immigrants, who arrived in increasing numbers on the West Coast. A few months after the Moravia sailed for Brazil, Clifford Sifton became minister of the Department of the Interior and responsible for immigration and settlement of the West. His broad reforms led to the first serious efforts by the Department of Immigration to solve the problem of sparse settlement in the prairie region. This included a more flexible policy that opened up to eastern European immigrants, especially western Ukrainians and Poles, although more stringent conditions were placed on Chinese immigration.3 Emigration, of course, was not something new to Quebec or Canada. Since the 1860s hundreds of thousands of French Canadians had left Quebec parishes to labour in the mill towns of New England, particularly in Maine, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire,4 along with hundreds of thousands of English Canadians who crossed the border to work throughout the American northern states. A significant movement for either temporary or permanent employment emerged in the opposite direction over the forty-ninth parallel as the border was rather fluid, although Canada suffered a net loss in cross-border migration.5 Although certainly well behind the United States in annual intake, by 1896 Canada was on its way to becoming one of the important immigration destinations in the world, but not, however, in relation to Brazil. During the recession of the mid-1890s, Canadian immigration figures lagged far behind their Brazilian counterparts. If 167,000 and 157,000 immigrants entered Brazil in 1895 and 1896, Canadian immi22

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil

gration in the same years totalled only 18,800 and 16,800. The state of São Paulo alone attracted more immigrants than did Canada. The irony was not lost on the fact that Canadians were leaving for Brazil while Canada was trying to attract immigrants to its prairies. As the conservative Montreal newspaper La Minerve put it, Canada was spending a pretty sum on sending agents through the countryside of Belgium, France, Britain, and Scandinavia, while now “we would have to occupy ourselves with Canadian emigration as if our population were as dense as that of Belgium.”6 Unlike Canada, Brazil’s demon was not an outside competitor, even if prospective immigrants might be attracted to the United States or closer to home, Argentina. Rather, it was internal: the country’s long legacy of slavery: the forced removal of black slaves from Africa to Brazil, which began in the 1530s and continued until 1856. Slavery was finally abolished in 1888. If in Canada the main preoccupation regarding agricultural labour from the mid-nineteenth century was how to attract permanent settlers to a wheat economy, in Brazil, despite early German colonization to the mixed farming areas to the south, the main concern was to develop a plan to replace the slaves who, it became increasingly clear from the 1850s, would not be a permanent feature of the Brazilian economy. Freehold or bloc settlement, as developed in the Canadian West, was not as obvious an answer to settlement in the coffee-growing regions in, for example, the state of São Paulo. Whether one was dealing with sugar or with the most important staple in the Southeast, coffee, Brazilian agricultural staples depended on the plantation system, which in turn depended on slave labour or a form of labour that might efficiently replace it. Why the “need” for slave labour and, after 1888, cheap European wage labour on the plantations? Quite simply this had to do with the expansion of the middle classes in Europe and North America in the late nineteenth century and the concomitant development of mass consumption patterns, and this included an increasing taste for coffee.7 From the mid-nineteenth century, Brazilian coffee exports grew, but even more dramatically in the 1880s and 1890s and into the twentieth century. If Rio de Janeiro was the early producer and main exporting centre in midcentury, as the production from its state and then Minas Gerais went through its port, by the 1890s, São Paulo became the main producing region in the country, and its port, in Santos, sixty kilometres 23

mad fligh t?

to the east on the Atlantic, became the world’s leading coffee export centre.8 There were two hundred million coffee trees in São Paulo in 1890 and 600 million by 1900.9 A railroad network, starting with the British-built São Paulo Railway in 1867, which linked the state capital with Santos and with Jundiarí to the north, facilitated the transportation of coffee from the main plantations to the coast. The plantation owners also formed the political elite of the state and influenced its policies in favour of the coffee trade, including liberal immigration programs. From the mid-nineteenth century, Brazilian coffee production expanded from Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais into São Paulo so that, by 1900, the province accounted for half of the world’s coffee production. In the first half of the 1890s, coffee prices remained high and stable. This accounted for the increase in Brazilian coffee output during the decade. When São Paulo glutted the international market in 1896, coffee prices fell, but the devaluation of the milreis (the Brazilian currency at the time) protected the state coffee producers in the short run.10 Coffee production in São Paulo occurred on large plantations or fazendas, which required a great deal of manpower as both the cultivation and harvest of coffee trees were very labour intensive. Agricultural practices did not change much over the course of the nineteenth century. In fact, there was no significant mechanization in the coffee production process in Brazil before the twentieth century. Coffee groves, whether they grew in the “red” or “white” soil of the state (both types of soil had their advocates) were to be found at between 560 and 750 metres above sea level. The initial phase of seeding and planting was labour-intensive. This involved clearing the land of shrubs (roçar), in April or May, and felling trees immediately after (derubar). In August and September, the felled wood would be burnt (quermar) as this was a dry period and weeds would not yet have set in, as they would during the rainy periods. The grove was then aligned in parallel rows (alinhar) and holes were dug fifteen to twenty centimetres in depth (covar). Six to eight coffee berries that had been carefully selected and dried during the harvest were seeded and covered with dry straw or leaves and a few logs to protect them from the heat of the sun. This phase would be completed by the last half of October. The coffee plants would sprout in November. During that month, a settler could also seed beans and corn, or even rice for subsistence. After this, the main work was in the care of 24

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil

the coffee groves, which normally meant meticulous weeding, in particular in the first year of the plant’s life, for this would facilitate longterm weed control. In December, labourers reseeded where plants had not taken. Around June of the following year the plants were pruned. Within five years, the trees would reach maturity and begin to yield abundant coffee berries. An enormous amount of manual labour was therefore involved in the process. When slavery was outlawed, the fazendeiros (plantation owners) looked to white Europeans to perform this labour. Between the end of the slave trade from Africa in the 1850s and the Lei Áurea of November 1888, the law which ended slavery, the plantation elite had to depend less and less on slave labour imported from the Brazilian Northeast. This was especially the case after the 1871 Rio Branco Law (Law of the Free Womb) by which anyone born to a slave was granted freedom. Since the mid-nineteenth century a small proportion of plantation labour was nonslave, about 10 per cent at first.11 São Paulo’s plantation owners were at the forefront in adopting wage labour in the 1880s. This had less to do with a liberal outlook than with seeing the writing on the wall – that slavery was coming to an end. For their part, slaves had become aware of their impending freedom and in the final two years before the final abolition of slavery they began to leave their masters with little reaction from police authorities. Plantation owners also faced the question as to what to do with the libertos (freed slaves) who now had a new relationship with their former masters. With the end of slavery, plantation owners could not accept the fact that former slaves would refuse to continue to work for them. They were ascribed pejorative qualities, seen as inept workers, lazy, and surly, called vadios (bums).12 The planters resented the law emancipating slaves and “set about to structure postemancipation political, social, and economic arrangements in such a way as to ensure that their interests would never again be so directly challenged by popular forces.”13 They were thus a major force at the end of the monarchy in 1889 and throughout Brazil’s passage to a republic. The plantation owners already formed the political elite of the state and influenced its policies in favour of the coffee trade, including liberal immigration programs. With the end of slavery, the fazendeiros realized that they would have to look elsewhere for labourers and they used their influence to ensure that liberal programs would attract immigrant 25

mad fligh t?

labour from abroad. Indeed, from the early 1870s, with the help of the state, they had already begun drawing immigrants to São Paulo, but it was not until 1887, when slaves began leaving the estates, that those numbers increased to significant levels. Those figures would rise dramatically in the 1890s with a corresponding increment in the number of coffee trees and ensuing exports. Between 1890 and 1914, 1.5 million Europeans immigrated to São Paulo. Almost two thirds of them received free passage subsidized by the state. This included prospective Japanese immigrants, who would arrive in increasing numbers from 1908. The majority of these immigrants, who were from Italy, worked on the plantations, where normally they were also allowed to cultivate market gardens in- between the rows of coffee plants. The estate also provided housing. After November 1888, the fazendeiros had difficulty in forging a new relationship with the libertos and then with former slaves, and they would translate that same slave-master outlook to their new relationships with wage labourers. Closely tied to the imperative to replace slavery in the plantation system was another related one: an implicit or explicit program to “whiten” the population of Brazil through race selection in the immigration process.14 The scheme had gained currency in the mid-nineteenth century in attempts to colonize the southern part of Brazil with German immigrants.15 In the 1860s and 1870s, there were sporadic attempts at colonization schemes by Irish, British, American Confederates, and even Canadians.16 Efforts were more successful with Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, and Germans. However, as the slave era was drawing to a close, it was implicitly understood that white Europeans would make up the new agricultural labour force. Racial traits were ascribed to those considered black or white. Blacks were attributed negative characteristics: backwards, lazy, while whites were championed as forward-looking and progressive. Why encourage white European settlement? As historian May E. Bletz and others have argued, “in the late nineteenth century, Brazilian supporters of immigration challenged the traditional view that race and climate combined to produce degraded and backward nations. A Brazilian thesis of white acclimatization in the tropics emerged, running counter to the common European view that for climatic reasons the white race was unable to work and thrive in extreme heat and that the low productivity and birth rate of the Brazilians was due to permanent 26

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil

features of climate and race.”17 British and Canadian onlookers also subscribed to these earlier ideas from afar. Canadian officials had been told by British consular officials among others that Brazil was suitable for Europeans, Italians, and Portuguese, and they reiterated this view in their own correspondence and communiqués. In the words of the Rio News, the English-language newspaper of the city published by an American, “Italians seem to be the most suitable immigrants into Brazil; for they readily accommodate themselves to new conditions of life and become happy and contented under circumstances which are easier than those at home where the struggle for life is severe.”18 The editor of this weekly newspaper, A.J. Lamoureux (who was not a French Canadian but an American of Hugenot background), did not seem to understand that many Italians encountered hardships they could not have imagined in their homeland. On the other hand, he and British and Canadian officials were convinced that Brazil was not a suitable place for “Nordic” immigrants, and hence Canadians, and they insinuated that it was not an “appropriate” land for British subjects. The tropical climate harboured all sorts of diseases, in particular yellow fever. Moreover, they argued that agricultural practices were different, immigrants were prey to dishonest agents, and food would be unpalatable to a Canadian. The press picked up on the same ideas.19 During the nineteenth century, intellectuals and political leaders in Brazil set out to challenge this point of view, increasingly advocating, implicitly or explicitly, the idea that the progress of the country was scotched by the preponderance of black slaves and that the policy of branqueamento (whitening) of the population through immigration would improve the moral fibre of the nation and lead to a more progressive society.20 Various perspectives on the imperatives of immigration in Brazilian society existed, but they all converged on the key point of race – that white ethnicity was to be the criterion for future immigrant selection. Historian Jeffrey Lesser has discussed two of the most important associations to emerge in the nineteenth century that dealt with questions of immigration in Brazil, the Sociedade Central de Imigração (the Central Immigration Society) sci and the Sociedade Promotora de Imigração (the Immigration Promotion Society) spi. The former association was developed by middle-class, mostly German background immigrants from the south of Brazil. Although it sought to prohibit African and Asian immigration to the country (including from the 27

mad fligh t?

Middle East), it was open implicitly to non-Catholic immigrants, who had been discreetly tolerated earlier in the century. By the end of the nineteenth century, the sci strongly influenced federal immigration policy. On the other hand, the spi, founded in 1886, was initiated by wealthy, powerful families who had important stakes in slaveholding, plantations, and railroads; families such as that of Martinho Prado Júnior, founder of the spi. Although these families did not want the state interfering in the immigrant recruitment process, favouring instead the involvement of private interests, they did demand state support for their migration schemes.21 How were the new European immigrants to be attracted to Brazil given the drawing power of the Argentinian Pampas, the American industrial Northeast, or agricultural Midwest, or the increasing lure of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand? Brazil ran its own national immigration program, which attracted colonizers, settlers, and even plantation workers. The state of São Paulo also recruited coffee plantation workers but the majority of those immigrants destined for that state’s fazendas were recruited through the work of the spi, relying on its cooption of the state. In 1895, the spi was taken over by the Secretaria or Department of Agriculture, Commerce, and Public Works (henceforth the Ministry of Agriculture). The planters controlled the state of São Paulo and thus decided on the political program of heavy government subsidies to enhance immigration. And heavy they were: Thomas Holloway has noted that, “[f]rom 1889 to the turn of the century nearly three-quarters of a million more foreigners arrived in São Paulo, of which 80 per cent were subsidized by the government.”22 The policy of branqueamento meant dealing with new ethnic groups and the countries from which they originated. The majority of the late nineteenth-century immigrants to São Paulo were Italians, 73 per cent between 1887 and 1900.23 The preponderance of one ethnic group, though useful for the fazendeiros, also bound state promoters to little more than one source country. On a number of occasions Italy suspended migration to Brazil, either because of diplomatic incidents or reports of fraud and abuse of Italian immigrants.24 For this reason, the Secretaria, in tendering its immigration contracts, included quotas on specific ethnic groups. Indeed, in August 1896, just a few weeks before the departure of the Canadians on the Moravia for Santos, following the tensions with the South American nation, Italy temporarily prohib28

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil

ited emigration of its nationals to Brazil. The dispute was not settled until mid-November.25 Given such a strong dependence on Italy, it became difficult for the plantation owners to maintain a guaranteed steady supply of migrants. In 1896, for example, 36,500 fewer immigrants entered the state through the port of Santos than in the previous year. The monthly average of immigrants to the state declined from 5,000 to 4,000 between August and December 1896, the months in which there was usually a surge in immigration figures. About 20,000 Italians also left for Argentina or returned to Italy during that period.26 In any case, despite these declines, in the first half of 1896, Italians made up 29,696 of the total immigration of 33,240 to São Paulo, an obvious indication of a very high reliance on agricultural labourers from the peninsula.27 One simple way to diminish this reliance was to draw other immigrant groups to the state. To facilitate this, the São Paulo government opened a path by introducing an act in 1895 to assign contracts for the recruitment of other European groups as well as ten thousand Quebecers and Puerto Ricans. One might ask why the state passed a law that provided specifically for the immigration of Canadian or Quebec emigrants? The decision was most likely connected to issues regarding ethnicity and culture. There were divisions within São Paulo’s élite over which ethnic groups to recruit. With Germany, Spain, and France having placed obstacles in the way of emigration of their citizens to Brazil, the planters had to look to other countries.28 Bohemians and Ukrainians at first did not respond to enticements and they migrated to Argentina.29 In general, it seemed that some of the leaders preferred immigrants of “Latin” background – French or Italian or Portuguese. Others, like Antonio Prado, were able to convince the state governor, Campos Salles, to promote an initial stream of Japanese immigrants, even if the latter was not at all enthusiastic about the idea.30 “Without a Portuguese, Spanish, or Asiatic immigration,” wrote Georges Ritt, the French consul in São Paulo, to the French minister of External Affairs, “it is towards the Nordic races, that is, Austrian, German, Canadian, that the attention of the Government of São Paulo especially turned: imitating Paraná, they would want to encourage a significant current of immigration of this nature to oppose the Italian one; it is surmised, according to some newspapers and some official circles, that such elements for settlement are more peaceful and, through the infusion of a new and more fertile blood, are capable 29

mad fligh t?

of bringing new vigour to the impoverished race, well superior to the Italian element and as if more robust, hardworking than Brazilians.” The consul reported that in this ethnic and racial hierarchy, Poles were not respected. The few who had immigrated to the state were “deplorable from the point of view of morality.” He pointed out that the contract with Fiorita & Co. to bring Canadians to the fazendas was only at this point a trial that had yet to begin, even if many advantages were foreseen in the experiment. Ritt also noted that rumours circulated about the state courting Russian immigrants. However, the true target of the Paulista program was not Canadians or Russians but Germans. There was much talk in the air of the advantages of German migration, and it was also tied to notions of race improvement. Ritt referred to a Dr Las Casas who was promoting German immigration and the “superiority of a race whose exceptional qualities (work stamina, discipline) he sees as a sort of panacea for S. Paulo!”31 That was perhaps one view. Others begged to differ. For, example, Governor Campos Salles did not trust Germans and made no attempt to conceal his “repugnance” towards them. Moreover, he felt that they could never integrate with Latins, as these two peoples were far too opposed to each other. As Campos Salles wrote to Ritt, “I thus fear less the influence on S. Paulo of 500,000 Italians who live there than the possible stirrings of 20,000 Germans.” Could this be one reason for the attempt to recruit immigrants from Quebec, in particular? Were they perceived as “Latins” and Catholics for that matter? It is interesting that only 3 Protestants immigrated to São Paulo during the first six months of 1896. This means that ironically the 192 Protestants aboard the Moravia made up virtually the entire Protestant migration to the state that year. If the Paulista program to recruit Quebec immigrants assumed they would integrate as Catholics in the Brazilian population, politicians did not take into account the potential of British Protestant immigrants in Montreal who might leave for Brazil.32 The need to “compensate for the numerous departures of settlers“ of Italian nationality and to avoid the risk of depending on settlers or labourers from one country, led the government of São Paulo to promote the immigration of other groups, including Canadians.33 As the Rio News reported, when the Canadians actually showed up in Santos, “the Brazilian government has a theory that the preponderance of any one nationality among the foreign inhabitants may become a source of 30

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil

political danger, hence its recent beating up for immigrants in two such divergent regions as the French portion of Canada and Japan.”34 To illustrate how the system worked that brought immigrants to coffee plantations in São Paulo in the 1890s, let us examine the process by which the Canadian immigrants were recruited and shipped from their home country. In the 1890s, normally in the month of August or September, the government put out a tender competition for contracts to recruit a determined number of immigrants for São Paulo. The spi and the state Ministry of Agriculture picked the most advantageous bids that had met all the conditions imposed in the tendering process. This process required an act of the state of São Paulo, as the subsidies involved an allocation of resources. Law 356 of 29 August 1895 allowed for the introduction of fifty-five thousand immigrants to the state, forty thousand of whom would arrive from Europe and ten thousand from Quebec and Puerto Rico (although it appears that Puerto Ricans were not solicited).35 The Europeans were to be Italian, Dutch, Swedish, German, Norwegian, English, Austrian, Portuguese, or Spanish. The Spaniards were limited to ten thousand and could migrate only from Galicia, Navarraand Biscay, or the Canary Islands. They had to be farming families dedicated entirely to cultivating the land. Immigrants were to be transported from their port of departure to the port of Santos and once registered there, the reimbursement price for the voyage (the recruitment bonus) could be drawn by the contractor through letters of exchange on London in ninety days. The immigrants were to be allowed to stay on the boat at no extra charge (usually up to eighteen hours) to the state. This provision allowed the government to keep some order in processing its many immigrants through the hostels of São Paulo and São Bernardo without experiencing heavy backlogs. The tender announcement was made on 25 October 1895, and followed the usual procedures of previous tenders. The government reserved five thousand immigrants provided by the recruitment scheme for direct proposals made by plantation owners who would have complete freedom to choose any nationality they wished to hire. They could not contract fewer than ten families nor more than fifty. After a sixty-day delay, after Christmas day, the tender submission period ended. Fourteen tenders were submitted, the last of these from a syndicate of four plantation owners for recruiting the “reserve” five thousand immigrants. 31

mad fligh t?

Although the most attractive submission came from two other agents, the French consul predicted that Angelo Fiorita & Co. would win the bid, and he was correct. As Georges Ritt noted: “The government has not yet pronounced itself officially but it appears that the latter will win since for the past two years this company virtually has been invested with the monopoly of this lucrative transportation concession and will try to influence public opinion in its favour.”36 Indeed, Fiorita was the most significant of the contractors and the one ultimately behind the Montreal expedition. The business had been around at least since the 1880s.37 It is noteworthy that Fiorita distributed a brochure before the winning bid was chosen, recapitulating the large number of immigrants that it had introduced directly or indirectly in past years. From 1887 until 1895 the company introduced 636,044 immigrants to São Paulo. From January 1888 until 27 October 1889, that is, during years of agricultural growth in the state right after the end of slavery, Fiorita furnished São Paulo with no less than 117,609 immigrants, 70,295 through state sponsorship and 47,314 through the federal government. From 28 April 1894 until 20 November 1895 the company introduced 136,036 immigrants to São Paulo, 75,517 through the state, and 60,519 through federal government efforts. In 1894, Fiorita founded the consortium La Ligure Brasiliana expressly for recruiting immigrants for the coffee plantations and in just over a year had transported 81,9434 immigrants to the state. The vast majority of these immigrants were from Italy. On 7 March 1896, Dr Bernardino de Campos, the state governor and his secretary of Commerce, Agriculture, and Public Works (minister of Agriculture), Theodoro Dias de Carvalho Junior, signed a contract with Angelo Fiorita & Co. for the “delivery” of those fifty-five thousand immigrants.38 According to the contract (clause 14), Fiorita would be paid the transportation subsidy for travel from Canada of £9 for adults over the age of 12, £4.10 for children aged seven to twelve, and £2.5 for children aged three to seven. The corresponding rates for Italian immigrants were £4.16, £2.8, and £1.4. Subsidies meant that those immigrants who did not have the means to emigrate could receive free steamship passage to Santos, rail journey to São Paulo, and eight days in an immigration centre or hostel (the hospedaria in São Paulo or São Bernardo) before being engaged on a fazenda. The subsidies were paid to the contractors in the form of a grant for each adult in a family struc32

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil

ture. Fiorita & Co., like other immigration contracting companies, made its profit by pocketing the difference between the government subsidy and the cost of doing business, which included free passage for qualifying immigrants. The immigrants had to be a family with at least one working-age male. The conditions regarding the family makeup were quite detailed. Significantly, the immigrants were requiredto be agricultores (farmers) although, as historian Thomas Holloway notes, “state officials commonly assumed that many people of urban origin misrepresented themselves as farmers in order to qualify for free passage.”39 This would be the case with the Montreal migrants, where clearly the transportation company and the agency turned a blind eye. From Santos, the immigrants were forwarded by train to the immigration hostel, the Hospedaria do Brás, located in an immigrant neighbourhood. The train from Santos pulled up beside the immigration centre, a “large and healthy dwelling,” according to a Brazilian promoter of the migration from Montreal, but far from it in reality.40 There they would be housed for eight days before being hired on a coffee plantation where they would receive a house, seeds, tools, and food to get settled. “The fazendeiros,” wrote the French consul, “having been alerted by the government to the arrival of the immigrants, get involved in sending directors or special intermediaries, with a view to engaging on their behalf the number of workers that they need, and once the contract is signed, direct them to the fazenda or the colony assigned to the emigrants.”41 One Canadian referred to the practice as something akin to slave trading.42 “The contracts of employment were,” according to Ritt, “a kind of forced hand for the emigrant, who having just arrived, not having yet sufficient knowledge of the land, and already disillusioned at times by far too rosy perspectives that have been plopped before his eyes before his departure, does not possess a freedom of action or sufficient spirit to defend his interests, and finds himself in some way obliged to accept unnecessary clauses that are onerous for him and which will be even more damaging, given the bad faith of certain fazendeiros.” The Ligure Brasiliana’s prospectus claimed that a family could easily care for four thousand coffee trees and would make about two hundred dollars a year. They could supplement this income with both subsistence and market gardening and also raise animals on their farms. The offer sounded ideal: “The families do not run any expenses whatsoever. Their passage is paid, house, implements and seed are furnished 33

mad fligh t?

free, and food is provided for a year.”43 As we shall see, only some of these conditions would be met. Georges Ritt’s description was not that optimistic. Yet he hastened to add that the plantation owners’ exploitation of the immigrants, although not infrequent, was still not the general rule in São Paulo. He pointed out that the settlers who worked on the coffee groves were allowed to raise livestock and fowl or plant vegetables not only for subsistence but for additional revenue as well. Unlike other observers, in particular the British consular officials, he did not emphasize how the Canadian immigrants had been deceived or ill treated. And he went as far as to say that the “fears and disappointments or the misery that awaited emigrants are thus after all pretty well without any foundation, and neither is the apprehension regarding the imaginary ill treatment that is supposed to be threatening them.” Ritt argued that this might have been the case in the past when certain fazendeiros thought they would replace the old slave trade with a new one. After all, had not the state of São Paulo passed a new law to assure the humane treatment of immigrants in the hospedaria?44 Why did the French consul present such a positive image of immigrants being welcomed in the Brazilian coffee country? We shall see in chapters four and five the accounts of suffering that British consular staff relayed to the Colonial Office. Were things after all not as bad as the British consuls or the Canadian officials made them out to be? Georges Ritt was not ignorant of the miserable conditions of the immigrants. He even visited the destitute Canadians when they were in the immigrant hostel and tried to respond to their needs. He followed up on French immigrants who had been in Canada and voyaged to Brazil on the Moravia. If we read his many reports on immigration issues in São Paulo, we can acquire an understanding as to why he sent back exaggeratedly positive accounts of immigrant conditions. It could be that Ritt was looking to the possibility of a much stronger French presence in São Paulo than was the case in the 1890s. He was envious of the British influence in the state. Loans through British banks, investments in transportation, such as the São Paulo Railway, in industry, or in plantations gave the British a prestige of which the French in the heady days of colonialism could only dream. To make matters worse, Italy, a nation Ritt considered to be far less advanced than his own, had made great inroads in the late nineteenth century in 34

A flyer distributed by the Ligure Brasiliana from Montreal inciting emigration from Quebec to the coffee plantations of São Paulo, 1896 (Courtesy of Library and Archives Canada)

mad fligh t?

the region. How did Italy do it? Through its alternative to failed attempts at colonial expansion: emigration.45 Ritt understood the significance of a strong immigrant presence in a city like São Paulo. He argued to the minister of External Affairs in Paris that a robust emigrant “colony” had given Italy’s diplomatic efforts a success denied to any other country, starting from Italy’s claims to reclamations in 1888, and reinforced by the presence of a warship at Santos Harbour. Even if Italy suffered humiliation to “une race qualifiée inferieure,” (“a race deemed to be inferior”), it ended up with a true diplomatic influence refused other great European powers, “et cela par le seul fait de l’émigration” (“and that, due only to emigration”).46 As a result, Italians made up the vast majority of farmers on the fazendas, including the Dumont and Prado plantations, perhaps the two most prestigious ones in the state. After the fall of slavery in 1888, Italians played a key role in the remarkable transformation of São Paulo. The Italian presence led to a significant increase in trade and commercial exchange between Italy and Brazil, and in ten years’ time, the peninsula went from being the seventh most important importer into Brazil to fourth position, just behind France; all this despite tensions between Italy and Brazil. In foodstuffs importations, it matched France. São Paulo was being Italianized, exclaimed the French consul in the same way that Santa Catarina was being Germanized. Some agricultural colonies were even entirely Italophone. For this reason, on a number of occasions, Ritt strongly urged the minister to rescind the Décazes decrees of 1875 that had prohibited assisted French migration to Brazil for the previous twenty years.47

The Brazilian Migration Campaign in Quebec Once the state of São Paulo had signed its contract with Angelo Fiorita and Co. in early March 1896, the immigration agency organized a commercial conduit to recruit and transport immigrants from Canada. The firm had great experience, simply repeating what it had done in its earlier schemes transporting hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Genoa. Fiorita subcontracted the shipping of its Canadian migrants to its Genoese transportation firm, La Ligure Brasiliana, owned by his sonin-law, Gustavo Gavotti.48

36

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil

The Fiorita-Gavotti family connection was not the only one involved in the Montreal venture. In July 1896, it was announced that Bernardino de Campos’s son, Américo de Campos Sobrinho, was named immigration inspector in Montreal for the recruitment campaign. Although he would arrive in the city only on the day before the departure of the Moravia, he should have been there earlier to scrutinize all the prospective immigrants before they were accepted on board the ship destined for Santos.49 Gustavo Gavotti’s managing director in Montreal was an Italian soldier of fortune, Francesco Antonio Gualco, a former Italian navy officer and engineer. Little is known about Gualco. He was from Turin and in 1892 married Josephine Wojhoska (or Josephine Farhana) in London. Josephine was from Kalisz, Poland, and had been married to an engineer who had spent some time in Trois Rivières. In July 1895 the couple was living in Turin when an engineer commissioned Gualco to sell some of his antique paintings. One day, when the owner of this artwork tried to reach Gualco, he was told by the porter at his residence that he had abandoned his apartment and was planning to leave for Canada. Indeed, Gualco had stored half of the paintings in a trunk with his personal belongings. A short time later, he arrived in Canada.50 He was said to be a former contractor on the Canadian Pacific Railway. In early 1896 it appears that he was working on the Soulanges Canal in the Vaudreuil area west of Montreal. According to historian Duncan McDowall, in the early 1890s Gualco conceived of the idea that FrenchCanadian farmers, who had been migrating to New England since the 1860s, might be convinced to deflect their emigration to Brazil’s coffee plantations. The plan was put on hold during Brazil’s 1893–94 civil war, after which time Gualco is said to have contacted the state governor, Bernardino de Campos (who in 1896 would become the federal minister of Finance), suggesting that a migration stream from the north would somewhat alleviate the problem of the instability of Italian migration.51 In less than three months following the signing of Fiorita’s contract, Gualco had opened an office on Commissioners Street in Montreal, spread news that he wished to launch a steamship line between Halifax and Santos in winter, both for commercial trade and migration, and begun advertising for settlers in at least one English- and one French-language newspaper.

37

mad fligh t?

These advertisements in the “situations vacant” (what we now call “want-ads” or “hiring”) came to the notice of a priest by the name of Charles-Ernest Trudel. Abbé Trudel was born in Saint Roch de l’Achigan in 1851, grew up in Montreal and trained for the priesthood at the seminary in Rimouski, where he was ordained in 1876. He was thus certainly well aware of the colonization movements promoted by the clergy in the late nineteenth century to persuade French Canadians not to migrate to the United States, but to stay on the land in Quebec. In 1878, he is said to have founded the village of Routhierville in the Matapédia Valley and was its first priest.52 Trudel served as an English professor in the Rimouski seminary from 1878 to 1881 and was subsequently a pastor at Saint Pierre and at Saint Georges de Malbaie, vicar at Trois Pistoles, curé at Saint Françoise, and finally at New Carlisle. At this point there were some concerns about the young priest and after a year’s leave of absence from 1889–90, he ended up near Fargo, North Dakota, for a couple of years, in Europe, and then Ogdensburg, New York, where he served as an assistant pastor until 1894. As Trudel was ordained for the missions, it might have appeared normal that he should have been working abroad for five years. However, there were deeper problems. Later on his bishop would remark that he could not have him back in Rimouski because “he would give in to very frequent excesses which were utterly disastrous and scandalous with regards to moral life and his relations and behaviour with young people of his sex, and sometimes even with women.”53 It is not clear what all these scandals were about but they involved among other things “immoralités abominables” in every place he served, even in the seminary and at his last post in New Carlisle. He had fathered a number of children in the diocese, whom he left behind when he went to the United States.54 According to some reports, in 1894, Trudel returned to Quebec, as pastor of a parish in the diocese of Valleyfield.55 Some reports referred to him as a defrocked priest. Certainly he was a renegade who caused his bishop endless troubles.56 Indeed, just five days before the sailing of the Moravia, Archbishop André-Albert Blais informed the Montreal vicar general that he had suspended Trudel because he refused to repay a debt he owed poor religious sisters in the archdiocese of Rimouski. Was Trudel trying to abscond and start a new life in Brazil? Was he hoping to find funds to cover this debt and others?

38

Two Contexts: Canada and Brazil

Trudel had met the former Brazilian consul in Montreal (from September 1892 until December 1893), J.C. Alves de Lima, who gave the priest information on Brazil as a land of immigration. As early as May of 1893, just a few months into the deep economic recession that would last three years, Alves de Lima had signalled his government about the growing local interest in Brazil. He wrote the São Paulo governor, Bernardino de Campos, stating that in Montreal “not a day passes by without a request for information on Brazil. Almost everyone asks for detailed news on our country.” He went on to ask if he might be sent suitable literature from the Sociedade Promotora de Immigração to hand out in Montreal. As a consequence, in August 1893 the inspector general of Lands and Colonization authorized him to collect information on possible emigrants to Brazil.57 Perhaps the two met in New York State while Trudel was in Ogdensburg and Alves de Lima, in Syracuse. Alves de Lima graduated in civil engineering from Syracuse University in 1878, the first Latin American student to do so. As a student, he gave a public address on Brazil in 1877, and published other articles regarding coffee, rubber, energy, and possible Brazilian-American cooperation.58 Trudel, in consultation with him, wrote a proposal in late May 1896 to the governor of the state of São Paulo to establish a settlement of French Canadians in São Paulo.59 He had been intrigued by a booklet that Alves de Lima had written on the state and its coffee culture, and pointing to the large French-Canadian migration to the United States and the lack of work there because of the recession, he inquired about economic possibilities for French Canadians in Brazil.60 “We are very proud of our language and our religion,” he wrote, “and if we knew that Brazil had such a rich and fertile land, a government liberal enough to protect us in the present and in the future we would not hesitate for a moment to take up the foundation of a permanent colony in your State.” But, Trudel wondered, if coffee was king in Brazil, what could the immigrants from Quebec bring to the new colony? Grains and vegetables, butter and cheese. Would the São Paulo government be willing to sell six thousand hectares of fields and forests for a French-Canadian colony of five hundred families, with a fifteen-year time frame for payment? Would the government also cover the costs of building a church and schools, and the priest’s salary until the colony could assume the

39

A view of the port of Montreal in 1895. Crowds stood on sheds to the left as well as on the docks. The Ligure Brasiliana’s offices, managed by F.A. Gualco, were located on Commissioners Street, to the right (McCord Museum, Anonymous, “Harbour and Bonsecours Market, Commissioners Street, Montreal, qc, about 1895”)

responsibility? Trudel posed these questions to the São Paulo governor and entrusted the document with Alves de Lima, who was supposed to deliver the petition personally to Campos.61 Its contents were also leaked to the press. The Rio News noted “the governor of the state at once refused the application,” and advised that the Canadians should turn to the governor of Paraná, as that state was “much more suitable for them.”62 It is difficult to tell if Charles Ernest-Trudel had already met Gualco when, in early June of 1896, the abbé, under the pen name of Alves de Santo, wrote a scathing article in La Presse attacking Gualco’s advertisements recruiting French Canadians for Brazil. While Trudel was attracted to the idea of a French-Canadian colony in “a land of the same race and religion,” especially because they were “suffering from the persecution and the tyranny of an ungrateful people determined to destroy our language and our faith,” he warned his fellow citizens to guard “against certain agents who could buy you as formerly African Negroes were purchased to be transported to the coffee plantation of 40

Montreal, 1896, looking northward over Griffintown and beyond, a source of many of the city’s emigrants to Brazil (McCord Museum, William Notman, “Montreal from Street Railway Power House Chimney, qc, 1896”)

Brazil where they became the slaves of the planters.”63 He repeated his plans for those colonies to produce butter and cheese because Canada had an excellent reputation, having taken first prize in those categories at the Columbian Exhibition. Gualco responded a couple of days later by saying that there was no such person as Alves de Santo and that the writer, he suspected, was an individual who had sought employment with his company.64 Mysteriously, within a few days, Trudel retracted his comments, saying that the Ligure Brasiliana was a trustworthy company and that ex-consul Lima had mistakenly raised doubts with him about Gualco’s enterprise. This is probably untrue, as Alves de Lima remembered Gualco in his memoirs as “um homem de visão” (a man of vision).65 Trudel claimed that Alves de Lima never handed the petition to Campos, but instead returned it to Trudel who sent it on to Angelo Fiorita, 41

mad fligh t?

who likewise should have handed it to Campos but did not. Eventually Trudel gave it to the governor once he got to Brazil. On 15 June, Gualco and Trudel began cooperating. Abbé Trudel became a representative of the Ligure Brasiliana among French and Irish Canadians who wished to establish themselves in Brazil.66 Evidently, Gualco found it useful to employ a priest as a drawing card for his venture, thus enabling Trudel to follow his dream.

42

CHAPTER 3

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

On 17 June 1896, Leopold F.M. Vander Haeghe, a Montrealer living on Saint André Street, wrote the British consul general in Rio de Janeiro asking whether one could trust the offers of a Brazilian agency of “free passage, a house, implements and seeds, to go to the Province of São Paulo, Brazil.” Vander Haeghe had signed on for emigration to Brazil for his entire family with the Ligure Brasiliana in June. He was the only Canadian who actually wrote the Canadian government representative in Brazil in order to know “whether it would be safe to come, and whether the climate would suit us Canadians … it would be a cruel thing if the offers were false, as we would find ourselves in a foreign country with different customs and language and also we would be ruined.”1 The consul, George W. Wagstaff, informed Lord Salisbury, the foreign secretary (and prime minister) of the United Kingdom, that he had replied to many such inquiries. “Brazil is totally unfitted for colonization by the Anglo-Saxon race, owing to the difference in climate, language, customs, etc., and the many other drawbacks existing against successful farming.”2 He alluded to the disastrous migration from Britain in 1892 that had led to the repatriation of the migrants at public expense. But Wagstaff found Vander Haeghe’s letter to be very serious as it alluded to a Brazilian emigration agent in Canada. As this agent was “attempting to exploit ignorant agricultural labourers,” Wagstaff urged that “steps should be taken, without delay, to disabuse the minds of the intending emigrants to Brazil against the illusory and misleading promises held out to them, and thus avoid adding the number who fall victims to fast diseases, different fevers, yellow included, and other maladies indigenous to this tropical region, and who would likewise fail disastrously in bettering their lot by coming to Brazil.”

mad fligh t?

Vander Haeghe had read an advertisement that appeared in what used to be called the “situations vacant” (later “want ads”) sections of newspapers. The notice was published almost on a daily basis in the Frenchlanguage La Presse and English-language Montreal Star from 20 May to 28 June, trying to attract “good Families to work on coffee plantation in the Province of Sao Paulo (Brazil). All expenses paid to destination. On their arrival every family will be provided free with a comfortable cottage, implements, and all other necessaries to start work, without any expenses.”3 La Ligure Brasiliana, the company behind the ad, was also looking for agents who could speak English and French, a worrisome prospect for the British consular staff in Brazil, as it suggested that the current campaign might grow much larger in scope. It was even more worrisome for officials in the ministry of the Interior, where the Department of Immigration was housed. Since Canada was importing farmers it made no sense, according to them, for Canadians to travel to Brazil to work as labourers on coffee plantations. Mr. Vander Haeghe was not the only person whose curiosity had been piqued by the advertisements. Hundreds of other Quebecers had done more than simply take notice, as they applied for ship’s passage to Brazil. The advertisements also came to the attention of individuals with a particular interest in migration and colonization. One such person was Auguste Bodard, who had arrived in Canada from France in 1873 and, from the late 1880s, had worked on colonization projects in Quebec and the Canadian West. In 1893, he was appointed emigration agent for the government of Canada in France and from Paris and Montreal ran the agency, La Puissance du Canada, established to settle French, Belgian, and Swiss farmers in Quebec, Ontario, and the Canadian West. On 12 June, Bodard contacted the deputy minister of the Interior in Ottawa, A.M. Burgess. He warned him of the advertisements in the papers trying to attract Canadian farmers to Brazil, noting that this was a repetition of what was going on in Europe: “Many times, I wrote to intending settlers to make known to them the true situation of Brazil and prevent them to go there.” He claimed to have letters from dissatisfied French emigrants who had settled in Brazil and wished to move to Canada.4 Bodard, who obviously perceived a threat in a competitor trying to draw people away from a land that was supposed to be attracting European immigrants, had also been in touch with Canadian Pacific Rail44

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

way officials, who had no idea of the possible movement of Canadians to Brazil. They encouraged the French agent, “to write several articles against Brazil in the papers.” With his letter to Burgess, Bodard included copies of the advertisements in the two newspapers as well as a few articles on the migration. He also noted that a Jesuit priest seemed to be involved. The presence of clergy spelled trouble for him, possibly encouraging settlers to be drawn away from Canada. Bodard inquired of Burgess whether he should write articles against this movement, as Canadian Pacific Railway (cp) officials suggested, and if so when, and whether he should personally sign them. Bodard was clearly worried about the future of his agency should migration to Brazil draw Canadians south just as he was trying to encourage emigration from French-speaking Europe to Canada. He was also concerned about the political ramifications of such a development and its impact on the imminent elections (federal elections were held on 23 June 1896, that is, two weeks later). Above all, he wanted some sort of government action to put an end to the movement. In closing his letter to Deputy Minister W.D. Scott, he sounded an alarm: “Be sure if the bad work of the Brazilian agent is not stopped, and his country made known, many Canadian farmers will leave for Brazil seducted [sic] as the French and other Europeans are, by a free passage and the fine and advantageous offers of a house, tools, seeds, etc. … for nothing or on credit.”5 Did the missive preoccupy the deputy minister? He did not act immediately on the warning, except for writing the commissioner of Agriculture and Colonization of Quebec that month for information on the Brazilian colonization scheme. The commissioner never acknowledged receipt of the letter.6 The matter only came up very briefly in the Quebec Legislative Council, and in late September, Scott stated that even if the ministry had been asked to cooperate, “I do not know what action they have taken, or whether they have taken any, on the subject.”7 Burgess’s office, however, had thought it important enough to warn him a couple of years earlier that a Gothenburg firm had arranged a direct steamship line between a Swedish port and Brazil. This business might “perhaps in spite of all the bad accounts from Brazil cause the tide of emigration, once so large to Brazil, to turn again to those shores.” Burgess had no response at the time and he instructed his secretary to pass the matter to the Department of Trade and Commerce, commenting, “so far as 45

mad fligh t?

we are concerned, I do not see what we can do in the matter.”8 In the following months the Brazilian agency in Montreal would prompt a response from him. It is odd that Burgess did not take those early warnings seriously, as more would follow. In early July, one cleric did take notice of the work of the Ligure Brasiliana. Abbé Georges Dugas was a well-known writer who, after spending much of his life in Saint Boniface, Manitoba, retired to his brother’s home in the rectory of Saint Anne des Plaines in Quebec. There he wrote about the history of the Canadian West, and early in 1896 published the original French version of The Canadian West.9 In the fifth chapter of this book, Dugas described how recruiting agents of the North West Company enticed voyageurs (French-speaking Métis employed in the fur trade) from their lands with exaggerated promises regarding life in the upper country,10 and he found an analogous situation in 1896. In an article in Le Soir, he lashed out at the competition among agents to draw French Canadians to a land unfit for them. Like the old fur trading company agents, who snatched the voyageurs from their land in order to “turn them into slaves out there, promising them happiness and riches,” these modern agents were preventing French Canadians from fulfilling their destiny at home. Abbé Dugas noted that on the previous day (9 July) he had met a priest from the United States who had related to him the disappointing news that he was going to be leaving for Brazil with two hundred Canadiens settlers. The cleric was obviously Charles-Ernest Trudel. Elsewhere, Abbé Dugas referred to the reports of Brazilian agents in Canada as “not particularly joyful news for those who work at colonizing our province of Quebec and the Témiscamingue. Are we going to allow an outburst in our Canada about this without forcefully raising our voices to scotch the attempts of the Brazilian agents?”11 A few other articles also appeared in newspapers or magazines mentioning the imminent Canadian migration. For example, in mid-July Le Monde, a Liberal-Conservative newspaper warned that “Brazil is fine above all for Brazilians, Italians, Spaniards and the inhabitants of warm countries but not at all for Canadians.” The paper had picked up on this leitmotif from press reports on Wagstaff’s letter to Salisbury regarding the impending Canadian immigration. The editorial concluded: “Our Canada is not an earthly paradise but we live more happily here than in many other countries. Let us thus stay here.”12 46

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

What had originally been touted as an opening of commercial trade between Brazil and Canada with a shipping line subsidized by the São Paulo government was proving more problematic. It was becoming clear in July that its real purpose was to establish a vast recruitment scheme in Canada for the São Paulo plantations, “where our disastrous migrations across the forty-fifth parallel have made us known far and wide as a nomadic people … Do you see us Canadians ‘three thousand leagues’ from our homeland, cultivating coffee instead of the hay, oats or wheat from our birthplace?” An editorial in La Minerve argued persuasively and aggressively against any movement to the southern continent. Climate and language would work against French Canadians, and so why not, asked the editorial, remain in Quebec, and look to areas ready for colonization: the Eastern Townships, the Matapédia, the cantons du nord, or the Gaspésie? And if not Quebec, then why not stay in Canada and settle in the West?13 On 11 July, the Liberal paper, La Patrie, reported that Rev. C.E. Trudel of L’Assomption would lead the first detachment of FrenchCanadian families to Brazil in early August. La Minerve retorted that “up to this point the radical rouge newspaper has not yet looked for a chance to slander a priest, but it pains us to have to note this here, and this fact would be extremely regrettable. It would not look good for someone in the role of a priest, that is of one of the model patriots of French Canada, to lend the authority of his backing, the influence of his leadership, to support such an anti-patriotic project that is so dangerous, to be blunt. At the risk of coming into conflict with such a respectable authority and to oppose such a powerful influence we would warn our compatriots without hesitation.”14 A few days later the paper reported that Archbishop Fabre declared that it was impossible for him to control this priest, given the conditions in which he found himself. “This is enough for us to build on the trust that such a propaganda and those who follow it deserve.”15 For La Minerve, such an unpatriotic priest who would support the idea that French Canadians should abandon their land for another was beyond the pale, as the prelate’s comments suggested. As Trudel had spent time in New England and had made connections there, he was able to persuade some of the Franco-American press to give him space to publicize his campaign. L’Avenir National in Manchester, New Hampshire and L’Espérance in Central Falls, Rhode Island 47

mad fligh t?

printed a letter from Trudel extolling the virtues of Brazil. These newspapers, although not supporting the migration, also allowed him to print the pamphlet information that had been passed around in Montreal.16 La Minerve was not alone in condemning this “anti-patriotic” movement. Le Monde, Le Soir, La Presse, and the major Quebec City newspapers carried out a virtual campaign against the Ligure Brasiliana’s recruitment scheme. The papers placed political pressure on the Liberal government in Ottawa and on the Quebec minister of Agriculture and Colonization. However, neither level of government appeared to take action, even as concerned citizens in the Montreal chapter of the Société Générale de Colonisation et Repatriement, which promoted settlement in Lac Saint Jean and in the Temiskaming, became concerned about this “épidémie.” They vowed to go down to the docks at the last minute, if necessary, to persuade French Canadians to get off the boat.17 By mid-August, the imminent sailing to Brazil was being debated on a regular basis. Climate and disease seemed to be the main points of contention. In Montreal, an old sailor, William Keats, warned against São Paulo, saying that not only was it an unhealthy place for settlers, overseers in the plantations were cruel and meat was scarce.18 Francesco Gualco, the director of the Ligure Brasiliana in Montreal, tried to quash that point of view by reprinting a passage from an 1891 report of the British consul in Santos that referred to the salubrious climate of São Paulo. In an odd coda to his letter to the Star he included a telegram from the papal nuncio in Rio de Janeiro to Archbishop Fabre of Montreal, in which the prelate referred to the healthy climate of the coffee region.19 Gualco had mentioned that same telegram in mid-July, when he claimed that his venture had the approbation of Archbishops Fabre and Bégin of Montreal and Quebec, and of the papal nuncio in Rio de Janeiro. Mgr Fabre denied this, saying that he and Bégin had neither encouraged nor discouraged Gualco when he told them about his work.20 Earlier in the year, Gualco had informed Mgr Fabre that the São Paulo state government had charged him with the task of recruiting “poor families among Canadian Catholics.” To ingratiate himself with the prelate, Gualco declared that it was “our intention not to take any step without informing your Grace of the business and not to begin any work without the advice and permission of your Grace.” In a bid to convince the prelate to back his project, Gualco showed great deference to Fabre, alluding to his own “humanitarian enterprise,” as he called 48

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

it, and hoping to be able to state publicly that the archbishop of Montreal was behind the movement to transport “absolutely poor and suffering families without work” from Montreal to the coffee capital, where they would build up a nest egg and eventually return to Canada. Gualco even offered the bishop compensation according to the number of families recruited. Of course, this did not materialize, but Gualco soon claimed that he had the backing of the Church hierarchy.21 The old sailor, William E. Keats, responded to Gualco’s assertions, saying that he was not surprised that an agent intent on directing migrants to Brazil would not agree with his warnings about conditions for migrants in that country. After all Gualco stood to make money from the venture. “We don’t hear of any free passages to the Argentine Republic, Canada, Australia, etc., or any place where people can live or make a living,” he retorted.22 In turn, Gualco replied that his was not an immigration agency but a “postal and commercial company,” and that as an experienced sea captain he knew that seamen did not generally know the countries whose ports they visited. Later he would claim that a second sailing would be attempted in November with an army of agents working the countryside in the Lower Saint Lawrence, and that he would try to have the steamer dock in Halifax and Cape Breton Island.23 More worrisome for officials at the Department of the Interior were his comments on Canada’s West: “I do not pretend to know Canada as Mr. Keats does Brazil, but if I judge from what I hear from people who have tried life in Manitoba, and who are now awaiting the arrival of steamers to try life in Brazil, I do not think that San [sic] Paulo has anything to fear from comparison with the much-vaunted NorthWest. I have now a letter from a settler in British Columbia which tells me of a single settlement where 300 families are in ‘la misère noire,’ and which I shall be happy to show Mr. Keats, but will he find work for the poor people for whom it has not been satisfactory, and whom his statements may prevent from finding fortune elsewhere[?]” Gualco also claimed that besides Brazil, thousands of people were migrating with free passage to Chile, Uruguay, and Australia.24 A F.R. Mitchell of Montreal thought that the sailor had exaggerated his claims. Mitchell had spent eleven years in Brazil and felt that if one could withstand Montreal winters and summers, then he or she could take “any climate in the world.” He pointed to the German colonies not far from São Paulo as proof that Canadians would have no problem 49

mad fligh t?

adjusting to the southern climate. Summers would be longer, and immigrants to Brazil would not “have to spend one-third of their earnings to keep out Jack Frost.”25 John Magor, the acting vice consul for Brazil in Montreal, also chimed in on São Paulo’s “most healthful and salubrious” qualities.26 The debate in the papers on Brazil as a land fit for Canadian emigrants continued until the Moravia’s departure.27 Three days before the sailing of the Moravia, Percival Stanley, a Canadian businessman in mining, wrote a long letter describing the ”cases of absolute destitution” he had witnessed, of “English and Germans, imploring not only work, but food to prevent actual starvation – men who were deceived by specious promises of work, in abundance, who had been lured by this free passage farce, that only enriches the pockets of the concessionaries.”28 It is surprising that even if the discussion in the papers had heated up since mid-August, the bureaucrats at the Department of the Interior did not seem to have taken much heed of it. Indeed, the newspapers had been discussing the matter for over two months. In addition, the Colonial Office kept the Canadian government informed about the progress of the migration scheme, for example, by delivering newspaper clippings from Brazil along with other correspondence to the Department of the Interior,29 so that officials had some warning of the imminent sailing of the Moravia. The English-language Rio News announced in mid-August that Américo de Campos Sobrinho was on his way to Canada with the title of inspector of Emigration, and the Jornal do Commercio had picked up the news a few days earlier. The paper looked forward to hearing about “the projected emigration from that country to Brazil.”30 There had been other warnings, as we noted, for over four months. Unfortunately, this correspondence arrived in Ottawa only on the ninth or tenth of September. It is noteworthy that Vander Haeghe’s correspondence with Wagstaff was included in the package.31 A migration to Brazil from Montreal might have serious implications for Canada’s settlement program for the Canadian West and might also expose the federal government to criticisms that, in a period of economic depression, it was not responding to the needs of its citizens. This is why the acting minister of the Interior, R.W. Scott, wished “to put a stop to this movement, if it is at all possible to do so, or at any rate to open the eyes of the people concerned to the grave risks they

50

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

are running.” The Canadian high commissioner in London, Sir Charles Tupper, had informed him on 31 August that the Italian government had prohibited emigration to Brazil, and Scott concluded that, “if the country is not fit for Italians, who are accustomed to a somewhat similar climate, it must be still more unfit for persons accustomed to the climate of Canada.”32 Scott thus began a behind the scenes campaign to dissuade prospective emigrants from embarking for Brazil from Montreal.33 The matter became urgent when John Hoolahan, the dominion immigration agent in the city, informed the department that the Moravia would set sail on 15 September with 500 to 600 immigrants, or between 100 and 120 families. It appears that this letter was the source that led to the depiction of early accounts of the migration, in newspapers and in Parliament, as primarily a French-Canadian migration, whereas French Canadians constituted just over 30 per cent of the emigrants.34 In the following days, as the story unfolded, Hoolahan would keep the Department of the Interior abreast of the most important press articles in Montreal.35 What led to a last-minute scramble, however, to deter prospective migrants from departing from Montreal was a question raised in the House of Commons on 10 September. It was clear from the discussions that news had been circulating about the impending migration but it was not important enough to have come to the Canadian prime minister’s attention. When J.G.H. Bergeron of the opposition asked Wilfrid Laurier about the government’s response to the few hundred emigrants who were to leave for Brazil on the Moravia, he replied that he was “not aware that the attention of the Government was ever called to this matter, and it is now brought to my notice for the first time.” He deemed the episode unfortunate, but liberal principles precluded any legislation that might prohibit freedom of movement. The most the government could do was to try to persuade people not to migrate, as “Canada is a far better country for them than Brazil.” In any case, he cautioned that potential migrants should verify the truth of any inducements held out to them.36 Two other members of Parliament noted that conditions in Brazil were not “healthy for foreigners,” and that even Italy had taken action to prevent the emigration of its subjects to Brazil. When Bergeron followed up on the matter a few days later, Laurier

51

mad fligh t?

replied that special efforts were being made to recruit emigrants among French Canadians in the parishes of the diocese of Montreal, and episcopal authorities there were asked to warn their people, through their pastors, about the dangers of migrating to Brazil.37 A.M. Burgess, the deputy minister in the Ministry of the Interior, sent J.A. Coté, the assistant deputy minister, to Montreal to deal with a situation which he clearly feared might have political consequences, especially as far as Canada’s future immigration program for the West was concerned. On 11 September, Coté received instructions and proceeded to Montreal where he was to pay visits to Rev. F. Bourgeault, the vicar general of the archdiocese (Archbishop Fabre was out of town at the time), the city mayor, Wilson Smith, and the city newspapers. Smith was also absent, so that Coté and John Hoolahan, the dominion immigration agent in the city, met instead with the city clerk. They looked over all the government’s documentation regarding the proposed Brazilian emigration but were hesitant to take any steps without their superior’s presence. Coté visited the offices of the Montreal Herald, the Montreal Star, and Le Monde. The newspaper representatives agreed that they were in opposition to the movement and consented to publish in the next edition of their respective papers a warning not to accept the offer of free land to migrate to Brazil. Hoolahan visited the offices of La Presse later that day. La Presse had already begun its own campaign against migrants subscribing to the voyage that, ironically, it had advertised favourably only three months earlier. After covering the newspaper offices, Coté called at the Archbishop’s Palace where he met the vicar general, Mgr F. Bourgeault who, as a few people had discussed it with him, claimed to be “thoroughly conversant with the matter.” This must have surprised the assistant deputy minister because he found the apparent secrecy of the whole enterprise of recruiting emigrants “to be a very extraordinary feature of the whole case.” As he noted, “hundreds of Canadian families are about to leave the Port of Montreal for Brazil, and strange to say no one can be found acquainted with the people in question.” This is a significant comment and suggests that many of those who were contemplating migration over the summer might have been reticent about the matter with their relatives and neighbours. Coté tried to get a commitment out of the vicar general to have priests warn their parishioners from the pulpits 52

“Dodgers” distributed by the Department of Immigration and pinned on church doors in Montreal in September 1896

the next day (this was a Saturday), but with the archbishop absent Bourgeault would make no promises. He did, however, allow Coté to post warnings on church doors. Coté took up the offer and directed Hoolahan and two of his staff members to hire a cab that afternoon to “visit every French and Irish church in the City of Montreal and tack copies of the dodgers at all the conspicuous places that they could find available in the vicinity of the various church entrances.” These flyers, while warning people of the dangers of migrating to Brazil, also reproduced Vander Haeghe’s letter to Wagstaff as well as the consul’s response on the issue to Lord Salisbury. On the next day, Hoolahan’s staff38 and a few other assistants would also wait outside church doors in Montreal and adjacent municipalities to pass out the same handbills to people leaving Sunday Mass.39 In all they handed out 2,600 handbills, about 400 each at the churches of Saint Henri, Saint Cunégonde, Saint Anne, Sacré Coeur, Saint Marie, and Saint Jean Baptiste, and another 150 at the wharf on the day of departure.40 Coté’s visit had the desired effect. In the following days the Montreal press increased its coverage of the impending departure of emigrants from the city and published many words of warning against accepting the offers of the agency luring immigrants to Brazil. Mayor Wilson 53

mad fligh t?

Smith returned to Montreal on the morning of 14 September and immediately consulted Judge Calixte-Aimé Dugas, a justice of the peace and police magistrate, about the possibility of delaying the departure of the Moravia, set to sail at noon the next day. He sent a messenger to haul in officials connected to the Brazilian emigration project for a meeting with John Magor, the Brazilian acting consul, Carlo Serra, the ship inspector of the Moravia, Américo de Campos Sobrinho, the emigration commissioner of the government of São Paulo, who had just arrived in town that morning, and Francesco Gualco, the director of the Ligure Brasiliana, the immigration agency responsible for recruiting the immigrants. John Hoolahan and City Clerk L.O. David attended. Judge Dugas was also present at this meeting. He tried to persuade the officials to delay the ship’s departure. John Magor refused. Smith and Dugas questioned the others about the promises made to the prospective migrants and about the guarantees – if at all any – offered by the Brazilian government. Dugas warned that the city would be liable for damages should there be any delay. He also refused to provide any guarantees that the São Paulo government would fulfill its promises to the immigrants. This meeting made it clear that the operations of Gualco and Campos could no longer remain discreet as the Canadian government had discussed the issue in Parliament. With Campos in town “for the special object of inducing emigrants to Brazil, more especially among our French Canadian people, “Mayor Smith characterized the project as a “threatened evil.” He called for a special government agent to be sent to Brazil to ascertain the truth of the promises extended to prospective immigrants. Hoolahan noted Acting Consul Magor’s assertion that the governments of São Paulo and Brazil had authorized him to endorse the work of the Ligure Brasiliana. Gualco was preoccupied with the discussions that had come up in the House of Commons. He tried to quash a statement made there that the Italian government had prohibited emigration of its citizens to Brazil, and he even denied that Wagstaff was, in fact, the British consul at Rio de Janeiro. He thus hoped to cast aspersions on Wagstaff’s warning in response to Vander Haeghe’s query.41 As the mayor and the operators of this immigration scheme were now under public scrutiny they were careful to investigate the matter thoroughly. Smith sent a lengthy report to the Ministry of the Interior. 54

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

He also asked John Magor, as acting consul of Brazil, not only to put Campos’s statement that morning into writing, but to confirm it (thus giving it a quasi-notarized status). Magor certified Campos’s claims that the emigrants would be brought to Santos and then transported free of charge by rail to São Paulo to the immigrant hostel, where a director would take care of them and a surgeon would be on duty. They then would be shipped to plantations where they would be well fed, freely lodged, and given a plot of land to cultivate. Their wages were to be about twenty dollars a month. An inspector would have oversight of the immigrants’ welfare. Finally, Campos promised that “the Government [of São Paulo] has established that the Canadians shall be specially regarded.”42 Campos also sent a lengthy report of his activities to his superior in São Paulo in which he discussed his meeting with the mayor. The fiscal commissioner had been told that his presence was requested at the meeting because the “government of the country [Canada] had ordered me to obtain the necessary information on the fate that awaited the immigrants in São Paulo.” He apparently answered all the questions that were asked of him, and was then told that the Canadian government would “prevent by all ways and means immigration to Brazil from this Dominion, which was later confirmed by the Prime Minister.”43 Mayor Smith was clearly using a heavy-handed approach to dissuade the Ligure Brasiliana from going through with the planned sailing. Towards the end of the summer reports referred to a thousand people and politicians and newspapers began to take note of the large numbers of Quebecers who had signed up for departure on the Moravia. The Telegraph in Quebec City tried to dispel rumours that several hundred families were leaving, although it claimed that some families from parishes east of the city had decided to emigrate.44 Newspapers began a writing campaign to try to dissuade those who had signed up. La Presse worked very closely with the Ministry of the Interior’s immigration department, which fed information continuously to the newspaper. The Montreal Daily Star was also very active in speaking out against the emigration. These rival newspapers were probably the most outspoken, even though from 20 May until 28 June they had each published numerous advertisements for the Ligure Brasiliana, enticing readers to emigrate to Brazil.45 The irony was not lost on the editor of Le Reveil who noted that “pendant des mois et des mois” – he exaggerated 55

mad fligh t?

– the city press had published advertisements to lure immigrants. Not only this, some Montreal newspaper editors had also attended a champagne cocktail party with the Brazilian acting consul, John Magor, just a few days before the ship sailed. “The champagne had only just been downed before everything turned sour and the counter-campaign began,” wrote Le Reveil.46 The party that the paper referred to was a luncheon for seventeen guests held aboard the Moravia on 9 September with many representatives of companies or officials tied to the project. John Magor presented the sailing of the Moravia more as an attempt to revive commerce between Brazil and Canada, than as an experiment in recruiting migrants. The Star gave a much tamer view of the party than Le Reveil: although no mention of champagne was made, it was pointed out that coffee was taken under a canopy, with music to entertain the guests.47 After the meeting in Mayor Smith’s office on Saturday, 12 September, and the warning posted on church doors and handed to parishioners after Mass the following day, things began to go awry for Gualco and his associates. It appears that most of the three hundred-odd people who had their names crossed off the final list of passengers decided not to sail as a result of the publicity campaign. Indeed, it appears as if the press had been instrumental in publicizing the upcoming sailing and dissuading would-be emigrants. The Montreal Herald’s front-page headline on Monday 14 September read: “Warning to Canadians: False Representations which are Leading Hundreds to Brazil … British Consul at Rio de Janeiro Denounces the Scheme Vigorously – Many Montreal Victims Caught.” The ensuing articles tried to unmask the whole migration scheme. The headlines in La Presse the same day referred to “The Sad Fate Which Awaits Them – They Will work on Coffee Plantations – Replacing the Slaves Freed by Don Pedro.”48 The press even entered the headquarters of the emigration agency in the hopes of casting aspersions on the enterprise. The Montreal Herald reporter visited the offices of La Ligure Brasiliana, on Commissioners Street. He described “three tough looking citizens in the garb so often seen along the water-front on the backs of the professional bum and loafer,” mulling about the spacious office, smoking “black clays” while a fellow with a lowland Scottish accent tried to convince them of the merits of São Paulo. At the other end of the counter, another couple was getting a similar sales pitch. When the reporter approached the Scot he was offered a very rosy picture of Brazil and in particular São 56

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

Paulo. The salesman highlighted the various inducements – a salary and free land, tools, and seeds. He went so far as to suggest that the sandbanks of the rivers were almost untouched, and that it was possible to find gold there. He especially played up the possibility of a free house for migrants. But, as the Montreal Herald reporter noted, there were no guarantees.49 Indeed, the “scheme appeared to be of such a palpably misleading nature that it is only a wonder that anyone should be taken in by it.” Until the day before before the Moravia’s departure the press continued its campaign against the immigration scheme. From mid-July the Montreal Star pulled out the correspondence between Vander Haeghe, Wagstaff, and Salisbury to make the point that the Brazilian climate was unsuitable for Canadians, a leitmotif of the British consuls, Canadian officials from the Ministry of the Interior, and letter writers to the newspapers.50 Ultimately, 481 emigrants actually departed from Montréal, while 301 subscribed passengers either disembarked beforehand, many without their luggage, or did not even show up at the quay.51 The emigrants included 286 adults and 195 adolescents, children, or infants. In all there were 101 married couples on the boat. Of the men over the age of eighteen, 75 were not married or were travelling without wives; 60 of them were single, 11 were widowers, one was divorced, and 2 were listed as married, although their wives did not sail with them. Only 8 women over the age of eighteen were travelling alone. One of them sailed without her husband and 5 were widows. Of those widows, 3 headed families.52 Although it appeared from press reports that most families were French Canadian, in fact, not more than 31.7 per cent were French Canadian and probably even fewer. The Quebec Saturday Budget estimated that “there are probably not a hundred French Canadians, the majority being composed of English, Germans and other nationalities.”53 Of the 481 men, women, and children who sailed, 289 were Catholics and 192 were Protestants. Among the Catholics, we were able to isolate all migrants of Irish or British background as well as other ethnicities, such as Italian, as well as a few individuals with French names but who were born in France. One of the passengers listed as Protestant was most likely Jewish (8 other Jewish individuals on the list either never embarked or they got off the boat before it sailed).54 The Montreal Star noted that “nearly every class and nationality of people was represented. Half were English, Irish, or Scotch. The French Canadians came next in 57

mad fligh t?

numbers, while here and there was a German or a Jew. As a class they were a remarkably well-dressed, good-looking lot of Canadians. Here and there, of course, was one who was leaving the country for the country’s good … Many of the men were natives of London, and by occupation either dock laborers or mechanics … There were also on board three families from the North-West, who had tried farming in that country, and for lack of capital had failed.”55 There was some discrepancy with the arrivals records in Santos, as some passengers also disembarked at Quebec and perhaps at other ports on the way down the Saint Lawrence. Almost 40 per cent of the subscribed passengers never sailed. Together the emigrants constituted 115 families. The families fell within the purview of family members deemed acceptable migrants, according to the contract between the State of São Paulo and A. Fiorita & Co.: married couples no older than forty-five, with no children; a married couple no older than fifty with children; a widow or widower not older than fifty with at least one child fit to work; brothers, sisters, brothers-in-law, or sisters-in-law of the male head of family, no older than forty-five who had previously lived with the family; parents and grandparents or young orphans who were adopted by the family. Virtually all of the adults were mothers, fathers, widows or widowers, brothers- or sisters-in-law. As noted earlier, there were at least 2 Italians on the Moravia, but they were identified as Canadians, probably to help comply with quotas in the contract stipulating the numbers of immigrants allowed into São Paulo from Italy, its main source country in 1896.56 In all, 373 of the immigrants were from Montreal or its suburbs, 25 were from the Quebec City region (Quebec, Lévis, and Château Richer), 16 were from the present day Outaouais region, and 15 were from Sorel.

Why Did They Migrate? One important reason for the ability of the Ligure Brasiliana to attract immigrants from Montréal to Brazil was its aggressive campaign. But how important was this company to the migrants’ decision? Had these migrants made a rational decision or were they simply “induced” to migrate by this transportation company?

58

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

Although historian Dudley Baines has noted that nineteenth- and twentieth-century Swedish and Italian shipping companies were not aggressive in their marketing and that “agents were following, not leading, the market for emigrants,”57 this was not the case in Montréal in 1896. The Ligure Brasiliana was leading the market not only with the offer from São Paulo of free passage, a house, agricultural implements, and food, but with an aggressive campaign by its agents that convinced many people to sign up for the adventure to an unknown land. The presence of Abbé Trudel reinforced the campaign. As one newspaper noted, he should not have been wearing priestly garb. Moreover, he misleadingly signed a letter with the address of the Jesuit novitiate at Sault au Récollet and thus “exploited the trust that les canadiens have in the clergy … he went through our countryside and even manufacturing centre of New England to exercise his trafficking. There is no doubt that a large number of those who allowed themselves to be seduced too easily placed their faith in his promises because of his sacred office.”58 Migration historians have argued that poverty alone cannot explain the decision to migrate.59 Migration is a selective process and although poverty rates in Montréal were very high in 1896, not all the poor left, neither for New England (which in any case was out of the question in 1896, given the economic recession) nor Brazil. The fact that some of the migrants were not in dire straits suggests that there might have been other reasons for their impulsive migration. It is true, however, as noted in the introduction, that poverty was rampant in Montreal at the turn of the century and in particular during the recession of the mid-1890s. Unemployment rose in 1896, and the difficulties of finding work were compounded by the return of emigrants from the New England mill towns back to Quebec. The wards below the hill that Herbert Ames studied in late 1896 – Saint Anne, lower Saint Antoine, and Saint Gabriel, and the suburbs of Saint Henri and Saint Cunégonde (neighbourhoods outside of his area of study but in which many of the workers in those wards lived) – were among the important sources for the emigrants on the Moravia. Of 115 households that emigrated, 11 were from Saint Anne Ward, 8 from Saint Gabriel, 13 from lower Saint Antoine, 7 from the eastern edge of Saint Henri, close to another 3 families from Saint Cunégonde. Thus over one-third of the

59

mad fligh t?

emigrant families were from the poorest working-class quarters in Montreal. The scarce data we have on the occupations of these individuals suggest that almost all of the male “heads of families” were either skilled or unskilled workers. One person who accompanied reporters aboard the ship before its departure asked why these mothers and fathers of families “were forced to expatriate; is it not because poverty is so bleak in certain quarters? If the government which wishes to spend considerable sums for immigration, would at the same time provide for the living of strangers through public enterprises, national works, if municipal councils for their part better protected their workers, there would be fewer recriminations, and fewer desertions.”60 R.W. Scott, acting minister of the Interior stated that the larger number of the emigrants was “made up of poor people of Montreal, people very likely to be in charge of the municipal authorities during the winter.”61 We noted earlier that 3 widows who migrated were heads of families. Was their act of emigration a last-ditch attempt at staving off poverty? Or did it represent their elder sons’ decision to have the family try its luck elsewhere? However, it is also noteworthy that not all of the emigrants were without means. One British immigrant to Montreal who then went to Brazil, Edward Percival Holman, was employed in that city “and business being very dull, and flowing advertisements being sent through the Dominion, I gave up my occupation, sold my home and proceeded with my family to South America.” Although feeling the effects of the recession, he may have been an exception not only as a homeowner but also as an engineer in a sugar refinery (it was common for British immigrants to find work in the refineries through ethnic networks).62 When on 26 January 1897, fifty-five Canadians returned from Brazil, one “man in good circumstances” was waiting for his son and family to arrive at the train station from New York, although they did not show up that evening. His son did not leave Canada out of poverty but wanderlust: “Nothing could persuade him to stay, and fired with the spirit of adventure, he left, accompanied by a young wife and three small children, leaving an excellent home and situation for the uncertainty which has turned out to be disastrous.” The Montreal Gazette reporter at the train station reported another emigrant, “who had an excellent situation in the Verdun Asylum. All the argument in the world would not prevent him from leaving.” The paper noted that “there were other cases of the same kind where good situations had been thrown up.”63 La Presse re60

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

ported that “some of those who left for Brazil are going for their amusement, for pure recreation, or yet to gather useful information that La Presse will eventually pass on to its readers as it receives it.” Among the latter individuals were Elie Tassé who would report to the newspaper on the emigrants’ trip and early settlement in São Paulo. Louis Lepage, brother of Herménégil de Lepage, a rich Rimouski merchant also emigrated, as did the son of Paul Thériault, ironsmith at Île Verte in Temiscouata, a twenty-two-year-old who met Abbé Trudel when he was a pastor living nearby. Apparently Thériault was off to Brazil as an agent for some people who wished to open up commercial relations between Canada and Brazil.64 Another individual, A.M. Tremblay, was reported as selling his mill for six thousand dollars as well as all his furniture in order to participate in the migration. When people asked him why he would do this as he could live comfortably at home without exposing his family to all sorts of risks, he simply responded that he knew his geography and that one had a better chance of a longer life in Brazil than in Europe or Canada.65 Arthur Owen “gave up a good position in the electric shops of the Street Railway Company” in Montreal, “anticipating larger wages farther from home.”66 Joseph Trudel’s father wrote his departed son from Lévis in November to remind him that “you had a good future here; working, you could have lived very well.” He begged Joseph to return from Brazil.67 Even if we argue that these migrants were exceptional and that others were destitute, can poverty explain the migration? Poverty was clearly a major reason for migrating. However, we must also remember that others who did not migrate were just as poor if not even more so. Some of those who subscribed for the journey and then drew back at the last moment were even worse off in that they lost their belongings on the ship. Poverty cannot fully explain why these people chose to emigrate despite many warnings. And yet, the question remains: was even aggressive recruitment sufficient to induce the prospective migrants to leave? In studies of out-migration from Europe in the last two centuries, one of the important factors has been the discussion, on the part of the migrants, preceding the migration. Economic historian Simone Wegge and others have emphasized again and again the importance of social and family networks and migration chains in the decision to migrate. Over half of migrants from the German principality of Hesse-Cassel in the mid-nineteenth century, for example, belonged 61

mad fligh t?

to well-defined family networks of migrants.68 However, there was no migration chain from Montreal to Brazil. Moreover, family and friendship networks have been found to be very significant in the decision to migrate in more recent migrations as well.69 Geographer John J. Baxevanis found that in the migration in the early 1970s from the Peloponnesos of Greece more than 84 per cent of his informants “stated that their decision to migrate had been thought of, discussed and studied in economic terms beforehand. The point at which a positive decision is made [to migrate] apparently occurs when an additional source of dissatisfaction raises the magnitude of malcontent to new levels.”70 For those migrants who eventually left for Brazil, three years into a severe recession with high unemployment increased the “magnitude of malcontent” of these families and convinced them to leave Montreal. But did these migrants make their decisions to migrate in a rational manner? Did they discuss their migrations and seriously weigh the advantages and disadvantages of migrating? Did they seek counsel from family and kin, friends or neighbours? It is difficult to answer these questions. The vast majority of these migrants to Brazil were from Montreal, and it was unusual for urban inhabitants to migrate en masse in an organized colonization scheme overseas, whether from Europe or the Americas. Migration traditions did not develop in urban areas, and thus the migration networks that began with the nuclear family and expanded to the extended family, kin, and neighbours to emigration agents, had not developed in Montreal.71 It is not even clear if the migrants to Brazil had discussed seriously their migration projects with their extended families with a view to minimizing risks. Newspaper reports of families and friends pleading with the emigrants to get off the Moravia suggests they had either not been consulted or heeded. There is perhaps another way in which we can assess if these migrants had made a rational decision. Let us recall that most of the migrants were residents of Montreal. How rooted were they in the city? If they had been in the city for a long time or were born in the city, then one can surmise that they had an extended family and kin network, and could thus consider with these people the prospect of migrating. If they had been in the city for only a short time, then it would be difficult for them to have developed a network of meaningful relationships where they could seek the advice of people they implicitly

62

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

trusted. Were they “plugged in” to networks, or were they “disaffiliated,” to borrow from the French literature.72 To examine this question, we used a simple methodology: tracing the migrants in the 1891 manuscript census or Lovell’s city directories of the early 1890s. This allowed us to deduce if these migrants had been in Montreal for at least five years. We also traced heads of families in passenger lists. Among the 115 families, we were able to trace heads of 16 families in either the census records or passenger lists through the www.ancestry.com website, or in the 1890s city directories or newspapers. We located with certainty 11 male heads of families in the 1891 census, accounting for 68 individuals. Ten of them had been in their city or town of residence in 1896 for at least five years, accounting for 58 individuals. Thirty-nine of the individuals were from Montreal. We also traced 5 male heads of families through passenger lists. All 5 had landed in Canada between 1890 and 1896. Another emigrant had arrived from Scotland in 1892.73 If we include their family members, then they comprise 39 individuals. Thus 39 of 97 traceable individuals, or 40 per cent, had been in their town at the time of emigration for less than five years. This sample of 20 per cent of all the passengers does suggest that at least a significant minority of migrants had not been living in their city or town residence in 1896 for more than five years and therefore probably had not developed important networks of friendships. Yet, some of these families must have had close ties to family, kin, and neighbours. Evariste Simard, for example, was listed as hailing from Rivière du Loup. However, he was a former farmer from Saint Alphonse in the Saguenay who married Emélie Desbiens in 1877. His sister, Françoise Simard, founded the religious congregation of the Soeurs de Notre Dame du Bon Conseil in Chicoutimi. Evariste appears to have been the mayor of Saint Alphonse in the early 1890s by which time he had become a storekeeper and postmaster, positions he returned to after the Brazilian episode was over. Did he really travel to Rivière du Loup for a couple of years before migrating to Brazil or did he in fact remain in the Lac Saint Jean district? If so, what would have prompted Evariste and Emilie to migrate? Had they compared notes with relatives and friends?74 A letter writer to the Montreal Herald stated that, “I know many newly arrived Englishmen and their families went away by the Moravia, including an electrician he had met.”75

63

mad fligh t?

In the introduction we noted that in the 1960s R.C. Taylor found that migrant coal miners from West Durham in Britain copied their neighbours and relatives and emigrated when they became redundant in the mines. Their decision was impulsive. This might have been the case in Montreal as well. Some of the emigrant families were clustered in close proximity to each other. In Saint Antoine Ward, three families lived almost contiguous to one another and a fourth was a few hundred feet away. Three homes in Saint Gabriel were almost contiguous and another five households were within a quarter square mile of each other. In Saint Henri, five homes were within four hundred feet of each other; in the Saint Laurent Ward four homes were within a quarter mile square, and in Saint Jacques Ward four houses were within three hundred feet of each other. It is very likely that people discovered the emigration scheme from neighbours or at least decided to travel upon hearing that nearby families were attracted to the idea of going to Brazil. How about those 301 Quebecers who signed up for the voyage initially but then did not sail? Was their profile any different than those who did sail? They constituted 85 full or partial families; 61 of these families remained in the city but 24 families were separated by the migration in that some decided to stay and some left. Thus 2 husbands left without their wives, and 1 wife without her husband. Fifty-eight couples did not sail, nor did their 114 children, nor 61 men and 10 women over the age of eighteen: they included 5 widows and 4 widowers. Eight Jews, 100 Protestants, and 193 Catholics decided to remain in Quebec. This was very close to the ratios of those who sailed, except for the 8 Jews and a slightly higher proportion of Catholics. Thirteen of the 19 heads of families we were able to trace were born outside of Quebec, mostly in Europe, but their immigration dates ranged from 1865 to 1896. It should be noted that there was probably some discrepancy with regard to the size of the families. According to one of the emigrants, Arthur Owen, some individuals had assumed the names of friends in order to conform to the terms of the contract.76 Seven were skilled labourers and 10 were unskilled. Thus there was nothing outstanding in the profiles of those who stayed behind with respect to those who sailed. If a significant number of the migrants were most likely not networked, how about those with relatives and friends? One interesting piece of the puzzle is the crowd that presented itself at the port of Mon64

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

treal on the morning of 16 September. Newspapers reported crowds of from several hundred to ten thousand people. The wide variation in estimates is in itself a curious fact. One newspaper noted that many people in the crowd were relatives of the migrants, which suggests that at least some of the emigrants were in fact networked. La Presse’s report of the emigration included a drawing of onlookers at the port on the morning of 15 September. It showed many well-dressed men, a couple of women, and a boy, all of whom would appear to be from the middle classes. This would suggest that they were not there to see off friends or relatives but were merely assisting at a spectacle. These individuals aside, however, let us assume that many of the people at the pier had personal ties to the migrants. The mere fact of having relatives or even neighbours is not the same thing as being affiliated to a network. A family relationship might place you in a reseau, but one is free to ascribe significance to that relationship – or not. Does the tie bear any weight in making meaningful decisions in one’s life? On the day the Moravia sailed, the crowd was crying out to the passengers to get off the boat. In a sense that cry can be read as a call to those migrants to listen to reason, not to give in to their whims but to ascribe meaning to their relationships and to listen to objective voices. This was the crowd’s lastditch attempt to remain connected to the migrants who seemed to be drifting off in more ways than one, physically to Brazil but also into a world perhaps lacking an informed perspective. Almost all of these migrants were city people, labourers with no experience of rural agricultural labour in a tropical climate. How could they adjust to the new setting with a new language, a foreign culture and a different diet? Who informed them of conditions in the plantations beyond the Ligure Brasiliana agents who had an economic interest in their migration? They had no sense whether the promises of free land, free housing or a living wage were true. It seemed that everyone in the crowd knew that those migrants were off on a foolhardy adventure. The papers were filled with warnings. Quite simply, the migrants chose not to listen,77 not to trust the voices of people who had meaningful links to them. They ignored those voices and instead heeded the leaflets, advertisements, and lures of an agent or a questionable priest. As The Montreal Daily Witness reporter put it, “unfortunately, all have not heeded the sound advice given them; they preferred promises that were evidently exaggerated, not to say more.”78 65

mad fligh t?

The Departure “One of the most exciting scenes ever witnessed on the wharf … took place yesterday when the Hamburg-American steamship Moravia, Captain Schmidt, left for Santos Brazil,” wrote the Montreal Gazette news reporter about the ship’s departure on 15 September.79 The Montreal Daily Witness also noted that “it is many years since such exciting scenes were enacted on the wharf.”80 Passengers and spectators began to trickle in at dawn. Crowd estimates were in the thousands with reports of every square foot of the wharf being occupied, and with people even standing on the roof of the freight shed.81 The day before, the nearby warehouses were filled with a mountain of baggage of the departing Canadians. They included many suitcases, sacks, and trunks, and some sewing machines. One of the emigrants, Jules Dauphin, even brought a piano along.82 La Presse, which had estimated the crowd at three to four thousand, reported one witness’s comment that if one were to use one’s imagination, the scene “must resemble the one of the deportation of the sons of liberty in 1837 [following the rebellions].”83 The Moravia was leased from the Hamburg-American Company. Built in Glasgow in 1883 as the Bengore Head, it was rechristened later that year. The Moravia was 360 feet in length. It sported a funnel and 2 masts and could accommodate up to 100 first-class and 1,200 steerage passengers. The company stated its intention to attempt another voyage in November and to attract emigrants from the Maritime provinces, it would stop in Cape Breton and Halifax. A third sailing was planned for January, departing from Halifax.84 One of the officers stood at the gangplank, where passengers were checked off a list, and as they produced their free tickets, they were given blankets, tin cups, plates, and eating utensils. Most of the passengers boarded between eleven o’clock in the morning and noon, while families, loved ones, and other onlookers cheered or cried out. The “temper of the crowd was anything but good.” As the Montreal Herald reporter put it, “the officers of the ship … were hooted and groaned at by the crowd, and every passenger that walked up the gangway with his family and baggage, was greeted with derisive epithets and plied with all sorts of inducements to abandon the trip and return home,” for the crowd was determined to “coax or frighten as many of the passengers ashore as they could.”85 66

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

Onlookers at the Hamburg-America pier, port of Montreal, 15 September 1896 (La Presse, 16 September 1896)

Abandon the trip and return home is precisely what many of the intending emigrants did. As the French Le Nouveau Monde put it, “for a while there was nothing but a coming and going of indecisive passengers from the quay to the ship and from the ship to the quay, not knowing if they wanted to stay or leave.”86 Three hundred of them did not sail that day. Given the strong publicity campaigns of the federal government, the newspapers, the mayor, and pastors, some had made up their minds in the previous days. Others showed up but were persuaded by the crowd not to go. Yet others got on board and then decided to get off before the vessel’s departure. Scenes at the port ran the gamut from the comic to the tragic. One man with a very large wife waved to the crowd and announced that he was getting off. He then grabbed one of his children and his wife and with their other three children following left the boat as the crowd “stamped, waved its thousand arms and umbrellas, hats, and screamed with delight. The retreat of the gallant little man was just what was wanted: a dozen more families started up and began to gather up their belongings.”87 News reports from the various papers seemed to repeat the same stories that made light of spousal relations. Some husbands 67

mad fligh t?

tried to persuade their wives to come ashore; some wives tried to convince their husbands to do the same. The reporter from La Presse said that he saw “women in tears imploring their husbands not to undertake a voyage that would compromise the lives of their small children and their mutual happiness if not their existence.”88 According to La Minerve, two women near the gangplank were weeping because they could not find their husbands who were hiding on the ship.89 Thirty-nine yearold Fredrick Luther insisted that his luggage be taken ashore. The crew consented, but he then noted that his white bulldog was still on the ship. He tied the dog to some trunks on the gangplank and then signalled to his wife, Elizabeth, to come off the boat. She would not heed his pleas. At first he told her that she could go alone to the coffee plantations, but then he got her off with assistance from some men on the dock. Meanwhile the crowd cheered him on and scolded her. Another woman broke down in tears after trying for two hours to persuade her husband not to abandon her. He simply hid in the boat. Another man “who was evidently looking for a chance to back out of the bargain, took offence at some trivial matter” and demanded his luggage so he could leave the ship. When his goods finally arrived, his wife “no doubt by the natural contrariness of the sex, refused to budge from the deck of the vessel.”90 He looked to the crowd for support and then took his wife over his shoulders and walked her off the gangplank to the cheers of the throng.91 The Montreal Star reported that for “several hours before the Moravia pulled away from the wharf every available foot of space was occupied. The crowd must have numbered at least three thousand people. And it was not an altogether good-natured crowd either. For every one who went on board with boxes and bundles there were howls of derision and an abundance of advice about not going. Those who, at the last moment, backed out and bundled their personal effects over the gang plank to the wharf once more, were greeted with ringing cheers.”92 A very big woman standing about six feet tall approached the gangplank and announced that her husband on board was deserting her. She refused to move until he showed his face. “It was not long before the thoroughly cowed and terrified man appeared on deck and sneaked down the gangway, only to be pounced upon by his grenadier-like wife and carried away in triumph.” Two papers reported the Nantel family abandoning the ship and leaving all their belongings on board at the 68

Recruitment, Opposition, and Departure

very last moment; the ship register, however, confirms that they sailed. Many others did leave the ship. A Dr Laberge from the city’s health bureau had to intervene on behalf of one woman who could not get her luggage back from the crew. He stood on the gangplank and summoned the captain, ordering him to return the belongings to the woman before the ship’s departure.93 If the passengers were fretting over the decision as to whether to stay on board or abandon the Moravia, so too were the organizers of the voyage panicking at the possibility that the whole enterprise might fall apart. Francesco Gualco was running around taking sarcastic jabs at representatives of the press. Abbé Trudel, donning a new English clergyman’s suit and an evening hat, tried to convey an air of confidence while the ship officers worked nervously under the hoots and catcalls of the crowd.94 At twelve twenty in the afternoon, the vessel finally sailed. Many people were in tears. A number of drunken men clung to ropes on board as they held up their half-empty bottles to the crowd. Everyone then left, as one journalist wrote, “ce théatre de tristesse” – this theatre of sadness – and “went home reflecting upon the deplorable things that they had witnessed.”95 As another reporter put it, “it was a scene that one does not see often in a lifetime.”96 As the Moravia sailed the Atlantic toward Santos, politicians in Ottawa discussed the fate of the passengers. Senator Pascale Poirier reflected the general sentiment that the government had a duty to protect these people. The plight of the Bradford emigrants to Brazil was a warning that Canadians could not survive the conditions they faced. There was more than a hint of ethnic and national superiority on the part of Poirier when he argued that “the nourishment which they receive in Brazil is not fit for Canadians, and kills them. The fever will kill, the passage will kill, and the despair will kill. It is a matter of humanity; we all know what has been done to abolish slavery.” And with more than a hint of racial superiority he continued, “negroes are human beings, of course, and deserve protection, but we have not the same obligation to them that we have to our own countrymen. We all know what has been done by European nations to prevent traffic in slaves in Africa; this is not slavery exactly, but it is traffic in human beings.”97 In the following months, the politicians and other Canadians would learn more about the true conditions of the Canadian emigrants to Brazil. 69

CHAPTER 4

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

The trip to Brazil seems to have been rather uneventful, typical of many of the long ocean sailings of the 1890s, when passenger ships would take just over a week to cross the North Atlantic. As the Moravia left with only one-half of its expected passengers, the agency tried to recoup some of the losses through cargo transport by carrying a sizeable load of timber to Brazil. The river pilot who guided the ship down the Saint Lawrence was named Bouillé, a member of a family of river pilots from Deschambault, on the north shore, between Quebec and Trois Rivières.1 They had plans to stop off in Quebec City to pick up a contingent of passengers. However, when it was discovered that mooring at the Quebec port would have cost the shipping company one thousand dollars, it was decided to have the Quebec area passengers come into Montreal by rail instead.2 In any case, the Moravia did make a call at Quebec where five passengers got off on the evening of 16 September, even if Bouillé claimed that only one person debarked. One such passenger, twenty-six-year-old John Groves of Saint Laurent, whose wife had not joined him on the journey to Brazil, had slipped on the steamer and hurt his head, although his injury did not look so serious. On the morning of the sixteenth he found himself behind bars in the ship for being drunk and was debarked because he was not attached to any family and therefore could not sail. He took another boat back to Montreal. Four others decided to pull out of the voyage at the time, while one man who was late for embarkation in Montreal got on at Quebec.3 Other people who got off the ship were Francesco Gualco and a Charles Lionais, both with interests in the enterprise, and John Magor, all of whom had accompanied the passengers on the first leg of the journey.4 Lionais was rarely mentioned in newspaper reports regarding the mi-

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

gration. He was a mining engineer who had managed asbestos mines near Thetford.5 The pilot reported that the emigrants were well treated on the Saint Lawrence sailing and were fed abundant rations accompanied by beer. Spirits could be purchased on board. The ship left Quebec on the evening of the sixteenth, set sail for the open sea on the nineteenth, and arrived at the port of Santos, Brazil, on 6 October.6 One reporter was given a tour of the ship by the third officer before departure, and he referred to it as “a fine vessel … and the emigrants will have, at least, no reason to complain of the accommodation provided them in transit.”7 Emigrant letters published in the newspapers provide a range of outlooks on the trip. Charles Sanderson of Montreal, forty-two years of age, his wife Lina, and their three children said that the crossing was “not too bad.” Joseph Lapierre of Montreal, writing to his father–in-law, H. Plouffe, a grocer on Logan Street, described the journey as “magnifique.” According to Lapierre, the boat was swaying back and forth on only one occasion.8 Another traveller said it was “splendid.”9 Other reports were not as favourable. Georges Auclair of Montreal and Cordelia Masson of Sorel, who had married in April 1895, were on the boat destined for Santos. Georges confided to his mother that he had been quite sick during the long crossing.10 Marie Beauchamp of Montreal, who sailed with her husband, Georges Sanguinet, their adopted teenage daughter, and three small children wrote to her parents in Saint Jean Baptiste Ward in Montreal from Santa Ana, near São Paulo, to tell them that the children had been quite sick during the voyage.11 Apparently the menu looked appetizing at first but changed for the worse once the ship was at sea. Bread and butter were served for breakfast with a raw herring to be shared by two people. Lunch amounted to soup, potatoes, and stale meat, “just enough to ward off death,” wrote Charles Laferrière and Louisa Rajotte of Hull to his father.12 Supper consisted of boiled barley. Although the acting minister of the Interior, R.W. Scott, reported to the Senate that the passengers had abundant supplies of food and that they were well treated on board, this did not appear to be the case.13 What was more difficult than the lack of food were the small water rations. Each passenger was supposed to receive two litres of distilled water and four litres of nondistilled water. Instead they received a pint of water every twenty-four hours and no hot water for washing. Despite these inconveniences, the Laferrières 71

mad fligh t?

remarked that “the voyage had been among the happiest.” They experienced the worst storm of their lives in the first couple of days at sea, but the following days were beautiful, and “the sea was not any rougher than Lake Flora,” in Hull. Apparently everyone on board was seasick except for Charles Laferrière, Elie Tassé, and the Abbé Trudel. This is not surprising as the two of them were the only cabin passengers on board. Tassé, whose father Elisé was a translator and clerk on the Hansard staff, was not on the ship list, yet he was mentioned by Laferrière and also by La Presse and La Minerve, who, as we noted, were using him as their source for information on the voyage. Laferrière, whose brother edited a French-language newspaper in Hull, was also referred to as an agent of the Ligure Brasiliana and apparently was paid one dollar for each immigrant he recruited.14 Yet he also appears to have planned to farm in Brazil. The most dramatic event during the sailing involved the deaths of three passengers. A forty-two-year-old man, Joseph Lambert, known as Chalifoux, of Saint Christophe Street in Montreal, but originally from Saint Jérôme, died of heart disease. He had left a wife and five children behind in the city. Two infants had convulsions and passed away on the journey, six-month-old James Jones, son of Annie Jones of Nazareth Street in Griffintown, and one-year-old Emilie Canade, a twin and daughter of Nicholas and Carmela Canade, Italian farmers who had recently moved to Montreal.15 The bodies were buried at sea without a religious service. Apparently, Abbé Trudel was asked to conduct services but refused. This was ironic, because in those very days, on 25 September, during debate in the Canadian Senate, Richard Scott noted that the Moravia staff, “in addition to the physician … carry a clergyman with them,” to which Senator Pascal Poirier retorted, “to help them to die.”16

The Arrival The ship arrived in Santos on the evening of 6 October. The passengers disembarked at seven o’clock in the morning on 7 October and “were huddled together on a barge like a lot of cattle” on the way to the mainland.17 The accounts of different immigrants varied on the timing of the arrival, but this had more to do with confused memories given 72

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

the lack of normal bearings and schedules to keep track of the passing days. Marie Beauchamp, writing her parents on 25 October, recalled sighting land on 15 October, losing sight of it the next day, and then sighting it again on the twenty-first. She remembered staying in Santos one day and two nights in order to pass quarantine.18 Georges and Cordelia Auclair said they arrived on 5 October in Santos and then left for São Paulo on 7 October, reaching the city at four o’clock in the afternoon.19 Arrival records made it clear, however, that the Moravia reached Santos on 6 October. The Canadians were among the seventyfive thousand immigrants to arrive in the state of São Paulo that year through that port.20 The following day, the immigrants took a train for the sixty-kilometre trip through the escarpment and rugged mountainous territory to São Paulo in a train powered directly by steam at times and by cable at other times. The passengers were fed bread and cheese during the journey.21 Upon arrival they were conveyed to the immigrant hostel.22 On 8 October Abbé Trudel, ever hopeful of establishing a French-Canadian colony, went to pay his respects to the minister of Agriculture, Carvalho, and to the state governor.23 The Times correspondent in Rio de Janeiro reported that from the outset the arrival of the immigrants in São Paulo caused some scandal as the newly-arrived Canadians declared they had received false promises and were dissatisfied with their reception in Brazil. The Brazil Chamber of Deputies responded with a call for the correspondent’s expulsion.24 Meanwhile the migrants, upon their arrival at the immigrant hostel in São Paulo, the Hospedaria do Brás (or do Capital) went straight to the government authorities to lament their condition. This seems to have worked to their benefit. Some of the Canadians tried to leave on the next steamer but did not have the means. Without some attention to their plight, and without the involvement of British authorities, one could reasonably expect a messy situation.25 However, with British intervention, some families were able to obtain plantation contracts on the Dumont fazenda, originally a French plantation that had just come under British control and which assured them “better estates [and] … good treatment under English managers.”26 The train from Santos used a side track to stop alongside the government immigration hostel in São Paulo, “an immense two-storey building that covers about four square arpents.”27 The “men, women and children 73

mad fligh t?

were here unloaded like cattle and stalled in one large room, where all lived and slept together for eight days and where the majority still remain, fearing to fly from evils they can gauge to greater evils that they know not of.” The immigrants were allowed to stay on because of the interventions of the British consular officials.28 In a letter to his parents, one immigrant reported that the Canadians in the hospedaria were going to be forced out on 19 October. “What will happen to those poor families,” asked Joseph Trudel, “wandering in the streets of São Paulo, with no acquaintances, no resources? … It’s frightening.”29 In the end, some families stayed in the hostel until Christmas.30 In any case it was not a problem to keep them there for a few days longer as the number of immigrants in the building dropped significantly during the Canadians’ sojourn. If there were 1201 immigrants in the building on their second day in the establishment, by the nineteenth the number had dropped to 257, and to then to 170 the next day.31 The hospedaria was an immense establishment that, as we have seen, could pack in over 1,000 immigrants at a time. Consider that in 1896, 15,466 families, a total of 74,910 immigrants, spent some time in the hostel. Over one-third of these were children under the age of twelve. In October, the month of the Canadians’ arrival, 790 families comprising 3,902 immigrants lodged in the centre. Just over 12 per cent of them were from the Moravia, 474 in all. If there was a discrepancy between the 481 emigrants who left Montreal and the 474 registered at the Casa de Immigracão, it was because 3 of them died on the journey, 5 had debarked, while one had embarked at Quebec.32 Until a few weeks before the landing of the Canadians, there used to be two hostels in the city, the Hospedaria do Capital and the Hospedaria de São Bernardo. The second was a quarantine station for immigrants arriving with a disease but it was no longer viewed as useful. The remaining hostel was for those immigrants destined for the plantations. The fazendeiros of the plantations would go directly to the hospedaria to choose their new labourers and draw up contracts with them. The dynamics might have given the impression of a virtual slave trade. Charles Laferrière, an immigrant from Hull, said that it was at the hospedaria that he understood that the Canadians were slaves because buyers were outbidding each other for families.33 The French consul, Georges Ritt, noted these “ôtelleries [were] in effect immense caravanserai and veritable markets

74

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

of human flesh.”34 One emigrant asserted that the owners of the coffee and sugar plantations “wanted the Canadians to sign a contract to work for ten years, cutting down bush and cultivating the plants that would be put in, and then at the end of that period the workers, if they survived, would receive for their hire one-half of the value of the plantation, which might turn out worthless.”35 Joseph Trudel claimed to his parents that upon arriving in São Paulo, the immigrants were led to a market “comme on mène les animaux” (as one leads animals), and that buyers would purchase the immigrants for the coffee plantations. Immigrants were then shipped off to endure two days of rail travel and a day on muleback. “Here is how I arrived with my wife at M. Antonio Pedro’s [he was referring to Prado] place, the richest planter in Brazil after M. Dumont.”36 Not all the families that ended up in the hostel were seen as fit for the coffee plantations. You will recall that the Canadian immigrants were brought in as part of a program to recruit non-Italian immigrants for the state coffee producers. The 1895 law in the contract with A. Fiorita & Co. of March 1896 had precise conditions regarding which immigrants would be acceptable and would therefore result in a bonus to the immigration agents. Of the 474 immigrants from Canada, only 429 were deemed fit. This means that 45 immigrants were rejected. Just over 7 per cent of the total of 612 immigrants were refused acceptance under the contract terms in the state of São Paulo in 1896.37 There is a discrepancy, however, between the figures in the São Paulo state records and the ship’s list of passengers, which referred to only 30 immigrants as being rejected. Among these were Georges Sanguinet and his wife, Marie Beauchamp and their 4 children, who ended up, as we noted, in Santa Ana. Why they were not meant to be accepted is unclear. The entry in the ship’s register refers to them being “artistas” or (artists), but perhaps they meant “artisãos” or (artisans). One male immigrant who was listed as a head of a family, Louis Leclercq, was blind, and another was mute. One can assume that they and their families were not counted in the register of immigrants destined for the plantations. The French consul took to heart the plight of the Leclercqs. Although Louis and his family were rejected upon arrival at São Paulo, the consul begged the director of the immigration hostel to keep the family in the facilities for a few more days until he had communicated with the minister of Agriculture, Carvalho, about their ultimate destination.38

75

mad fligh t?

It might also be that some of the immigrants were rejected because they were not deemed to be Canadian. Some observers had noted this and they also argued that these immigrants were not up to the task of working on the plantations. In an editorial examining immigration policy and the state government’s program of drawing in certain nationalities as a counterweight to the large Italian immigration, the São Paulo daily, O Commercio de São Paulo, asserted that the “Canadians who recently arrived are not Canadians and not even all are fit to handle farming.”39 It is not clear how many of these immigrants were actually deported or pressured to leave Brazil. Upon their arrival at the immigration hostel, Abbé Charles-Ernest Trudel promised the families that he would find work for them. He was also quick in contacting the press, for the day after the arrival of the immigrants in São Paulo, one of the local dailies, O Estado de São Paulo, published an article referring to his positive remarks on Canadian emigration to Brazil that had appeared in La Presse in May. Trudel immediately had a meeting with Governor Manuel Ferraz de Campos Salles and with the minister of Agriculture for the state of São Paulo.40 Some families did stumble upon a job, and after eight days Trudel told the others to find work wherever they could.41 In any case, many of the immigrants were offered immediate work on the coffee plantations. It seemed that the government was going to give “these hardworking people good jobs so that it could establish a migratory flow from Canada to the State of São Paulo.”42 Trudel must have felt that he had finally seen an end to his peripatetic existence. He went to see the vicar general of the archdiocese of São Paulo, Mgr. Fergus O’Connor, who accepted to bring his request to the archbishop to receive the faculties to confess and celebrate Mass for the Canadian immigrants. The bishop, not knowing about the cleric’s chequered past, gave him the faculties to confess and preach in his diocese.43 He also assented to having Trudel incardinated in the diocese, that is, to be a priest of the diocese of São Paulo. First, the FrenchCanadian cleric would have to obtain an exeat, that is, a document from his own bishop in Rimouski that would release him from his diocese, which would take some time.44 Upon arriving in São Paulo, a number of the immigrants went to see the minister of Agriculture, Carvalho, seeking redress, but only to be told that as they had been brought to Brazil by a private company, he 76

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

could do nothing for them.45 The immigrants spoke about getting on the next steamer, and some of them said they lacked the means. Indeed, it seems that most did not have the means.46 The day after the Canadians settled in at the hospedaria, the English and French consuls in São Paulo came to visit them, as did a representative from Christy’s, the British hat makers’ firm, and J.C. Alves de Lima, the former Brazilian consul in Montreal. The four of them had purchased blankets for the women and children.47 It is interesting how, among these immigrants, the French Canadians were the ones to stand out for the British consular authorities, just as they had been noticed as representing the majority of emigrants for newspaper reporters and government authorities in Canada. When the migrants left Santos, the British consular representative there, Henry Mark, wrote Arthur Raikes in Petrópolis that the immigrants “were mostly composed of French Canadians with a sprinkling of English, Irish, Belgian, Swedes and French.”48 The “sprinkling” made up over two-thirds of the immigrants. The French consul, Georges Ritt, estimated that there were fifty “purs Français” among them.49 In the early weeks of their migration, the Canadians in Brazil wrote letters back home or to government authorities that were reprinted either in consular papers or in the press. We cannot know how many letters were sent back to Canada, but a few have survived because they were either preserved, transcribed, or even translated. It is difficult to speak of a representative experience in the correspondence. At times, the letters appear to contradict each other regarding living conditions in Brazil. What the letters do point to is the intimate link between migration, identity, and emotions. In most of the letters, both women and men wrote of the hardships they had to endure in the new land, and mentioned, with deep yearning, their homes. Home was not necessarily Montreal or even Canada, as some immigrants referred to Britain. They not only lamented their lot in São Paulo, but swore that they would never take such a foolhardy voyage again. They spoke of a situation of near starvation as their regular foods from back home was far too expensive in their new land. A recurring motif was homesickness. Ann Brooks and Ruth Simpson have argued that “theories of migration have tended to be a narrative of migration with emotion written out.” When one reads the accounts of the Canadian migrants, it becomes clear that emotions – the affective dimension – loomed large in the lives of these migrants. 77

mad fligh t?

Some of them, as we know, were secondary (or step) migrants from the British Isles or from France to Canada; others were French-Canadian migrants from rural areas who had lived in Montreal before embarking on this voyage. They must have experienced a sense of loss and displacement in the early weeks of their migration: questions such as who they were, who were their points of reference, where home was, who were their social contacts, plagued them as they struggled to reconstitute their identity in the new, threatening context.50 To quote Eric Richards, it was their way of “dealing with the emotional dislocation of migration.”51 Historian David A. Gerber also notes that while information can be withheld or untruths might be told in letters, this can be explained by the ”commitment to maintain personal correspondence, which is above all a commitment to preserve a bond between individuals, rather than truth-telling as such.”52 In her examination of psychological and philosophical dimensions of migration, Zofia Rozińska observes that the “inability to return – whether for political or economic reasons – intensifies the desire to return and the sense of longing for home,” and leads to melancholy, to “the sense of estrangement, sadness and loss, and the want of the meaning of life.”53 In the rest of this chapter we shall refer frequently to the immigrants’ accounts of their conditions at the hostel, on the plantations, and in São Paulo. As we search for clues regarding their conditions in these places, we must also keep in mind their need to deal with “emotional dislocation,” and to pursue their bonds with family back home because a deep sense of yearning and melancholy would lead them to filter or even embellish details. In mid-October, nineteen British male nationals and their families, who had emigrated to Canada, and then to Brazil, petitioned Percy Lupton, the British consul in São Paulo, to aid them in their repatriation. Six of these immigrants were unaccompanied, six had wives but no children; two couples had one child each, three couples had two children each, and another two couples had five children each. The grammatical problems in their communication suggests that they were semiliterate. They asked, “as they were poor English families,” to be sent back either to Canada or to their native land. In a separate note, one of the immigrants, J.D. Collins attested to the fact that they were “all born and Bred in England only been in Canada but short time.” Their letter was one run-on sentence, and though the phrases were at times awkward, the spelling was correct. It appears that they had been 78

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

sent to a plantation but were told “that we had better return the following morning as we were not the right speaking people and no good and on our arrival at the Emigration House we were told we could not come back anymore.” They informed the consul that those “far up country” [on the plantations] could not get back, and that a few people were left in the hospedaria, including “half-starved poor little children crying with hunger and mothers nor milk to comfort them.” It was “heart rending to witness this fact we have never seen such poverty in old England as there is at the present time here.”54

The Hospedaria The Canadians were unhappy with their lot in the hospedaria, described as “a barracks more like a gaol,” by one of the emigrants.55 An irritating aspect of the hostel was the presence of two armed guards at the entrance doors: “once inside, no one was allowed to leave.”56 According to one immigrant, “we were nearly frozen. The men walked all night trying to keep warm, and the children were crying all the time.” As they had no pillows and suffered during the cold evenings, “at night, many would walk up and down for hours,” recounted Arthur Owens.57 Charles Laferrière of Hull, Quebec, noted that as there was no furniture in the building, one did everything standing up – eating, drinking, and sleeping – “like some quadrupeds.” Charles Sanderson reported that he slept on the bare floor.58 The Auclairs too wrote their parents that “we sleep on the ground in a huge building, all together,” while Marie Beauchamp reported that “we were given a good mattress on the floor.” Arthur Owen probably explained the discrepancy: he noted that the beds in the common room were sugar cane mats, “which were little softer or higher than the floor.”59 Joseph Lapierre related to family back home that everyone slept in one hall, without “mattresses and the French consul distributed blankets on the third day.” He referred to the high cost of living in São Paulo, noting that even barbers and tailors were very expensive.60 Twenty-six-year-old Napoleon Brière of Montreal, who had gone out with his wife, Tela Anderson, an infant and a toddler, and two brothers, wrote his parents about their journey to São Paulo, on 25 October. His terse remarks about the hospedaria spoke volumes: “We were all lodged in the immigration house. I cannot 79

mad fligh t?

describe that house to you.”61 Arthur Owen, who was one of the fortunate Canadians to get back to Montreal in November, informed reporters that the alternative was to rent a small bedroom in town with no door or furnishings for the equivalent of fifteen dollars a month.62 A couple of days after their arrival in the city, O Commercio de São Paulo complained that “these people have been here for 45 hours without destination or arrangements. Accompanied by a priest who no longer knows what to do and a journalist who understands nothing about this case, the Canadians … remain there in the hospedaria, anguished and afflicted.”63 Many immigrants complained about the food. “The food we got was most shameful. It was not fit for any human being. For breakfast we had coffee and bread. Dinner, rice and beans, together with olive oil, meat and potatoes. Supper, coffee and bread. The people used to go and buy their food outside, because they could not eat the food supplied.”64 Sanderson wrote his brother Andrew in Point Saint Charles that the “food given to us is such as we would not feed to pigs in Montreal.”65 Jules Ledoux testified that all they had for meals was black bread and some pea soup. Upon his eventual return to Montreal, in an interview with reporters, Arthur Owen also referred to the “bad bread and worse coffee [that] made up, with little variation, the Canadians’ daily fare.” Joseph Lapierre told his parents-in-law that “food consists of rice and a bit of meat and bread: same thing every day.”66 A representative from each family produced a ticket and received a dish of food and coffee, which the family shared from the same vessel. Canadians complained about the bread as there was never enough and at one point they simply unloaded one of the servants of all the bread he was carrying. This had the effect of increasing the portions.67 In the 1890s bread was not part of the Brazilian diet. Laferrière said that food was fine but insufficient. In any case, it was better than the food on board the Moravia. In the hostel, he said, at least one could eat, drink, and wash oneself.68 According to one immigrant, authorities checked all outgoing correspondence from the hostel and if there was anything objectionable in a letter, a blank sheet would be sent to the addressee. This meant that some emigrants might never have received letters during their stay in the hospedaria. However, it is not clear that this was actually the case as the

80

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

Canadian press published a few private letters of immigrants to family members in Montreal describing the miserable conditions in Brazil. Were the Canadians in the Brás hostel truly maltreated? Or was the hospedaria dealing with a group of immigrants who simply were not able to adjust to a new language, culture, new foods, and the hardships of working on coffee plantations? Certainly the Canadians had grounds for their complaints as the hospedaria was said to be overcrowded and the food unappetizing. The British consul at São Paulo, Percy Lupton, however, argued that they were “most unsuited to the country” and “utterly helpless. The language, food and customs are totally different.” It was not as if these emigrants were lazy or unambitious: “The bulk of these have gone bravely out with the intention of making the best of a bad bargain; but I fear very few of them will do any good. They will drift back here and help to swell the land of hangers-on around the Consulate.”69 Constantine Phipps, the British minister at Rio de Janeiro, wrote Lord Salisbury that these Canadian immigrants “are obviously entirely unfitted for the purposes for which they were contracted, some owing to age or to physical incapacities. Where many of the more ablebodied Canadians have, in spite of the non-fulfilment of the promises under which they were contracted, accepted work in coffee farms and elsewhere, others have become a burden on the community or have become vagrants.”70 Even if the Moravia migrants had been led by false promises, the consular representatives from Britain deemed them unfit to settle in the plantations of São Paulo, a land that had been inhospitable to many European immigrants as well. The French consul, however, seemed to have a different view of the immigrants. Georges Ritt wrote his superior in Rio that “certainly, the elements that comprise this first convoy of Canadian emigrants are excellent on the whole, and infinitely superior to the elements of Italian provenance, both according to their appearance and professional qualities.” So why the discrepancy? Was it due to Ritt’s broader agenda? As we saw in the first chapter, he wanted to promote French migration to São Paulo because he saw how Italian migration had increased trade for their home country and given Italy a foothold in the Brazilian economy. It might be that he wished to show how acceptable French immigrants would be in Brazil given that even the destitute Canadians were considered more suitable than the preponderant Italians. He argued that this

81

mad fligh t?

first lot of Canadian immigrants might have been more successful had they been better vetted by the São Paulo fiscal commissioner for emigration in Montreal, Campos Sobrinho, and that as a result of his negligence there would be renewed agitation for welcoming Italian immigrants.71 Henry Mark, the British consular representative at Santos, argued that the Canadian immigrants were “excellent folk but have been misled by false representations and are the dupes of their own simplicity.” However, he believed that the these unfortunate immigrants were not the only dupes, for the authorities in São Paulo were “forced to recognize that a great mistake has been committed and recognize that they have been deceived in the element that has been brought out.”72 In other words, Marks asserted that these immigrants were unfit for the work of the coffee fazendas. British consul-general in Rio de Janeiro, George W. Wagstaff, remarked on “the unsuitableness of this country as a settlement for such people and I regret to say that my opinion is being fully corroborated by the results which are showing themselves in connection with these immigrants.” Not only was the country unsuitable but the immigrants had also been cheated,” as it is notorious that the exaggerated and highly coloured promises held out to the immigrants by the contractors … have not been carried out.”73 The Rio News editor agreed that those whom he presumed to be French Canadians were simply not fit to work in this South American country. Writing soon after their arrival, A.J. Lamoureux argued that “[t]o induce such a people to come to Brazil, especially as contract laborers on the coffee plantations, is in our opinion a capital mistake. They are a timid, simple people, and they will not readily understand the conditions of the new life about them. They have lived a perfectly free life in Canada and the United States, and they will be discontented under the restrictions which Brazilian officials place upon them.” He too could not avoid the environmental argument that “they will find the climate too hot for them and the first epidemic of yellow-fever which breaks out will fill them with terror.” Lamoureux justified his views by arguing that French Canadians preferred to stay in Quebec, inaccurately asserting that although they might migrate to New England, they invariably returned home. Ralph D. Vicero, professor of geography and environmental studies, has estimated that about one-half of French Canadians who immigrated to New England eventually returned to Quebec, a figure close to the return rates for a few other immigrant groups in the United States in 82

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.74 As for the issue of climatic adaptation, he quipped that the canadiens rejected the warmer climes of the southern United States because they “prefer the long, cold winters of the north and they are loyal to their ice-bound Canadian homes in spite of poverty and discomfort.”75 In late October, the British consular authorities observed that about two-thirds of the immigrants had found employment on the plantations and in the town of São Paulo. Three weeks after their arrival, many of them were already “broken down in health and spirits … and the outlook of the approaching summer when the remainder also will most probably succumb is dismal in the extreme.”76 In São Paulo, Percy Lupton learned from the minister of Agriculture, Carvalho, that those immigrants who had no work had in fact declined offers of employment, “and as they showed no desire to quit the Immigration house they would be forced to leave.” As Mark noted, “they will thus practically be thrown at his, Mr. Lupton’s door, as a great many are already.” For this reason, Lupton pleaded with the authorities in São Paulo to keep the immigrants in the hospedaria. By late October, according to one immigrant, “20 families are left in the home.”77 About a week into the immigrants’ stay at the hostel Carvalho visited the establishment and told the Canadians they would have to go to the plantations or leave the casa. According to Jules Ledoux, “we were all half dead of hunger and poverty and we were ready to do anything to get out of there.”78 O Estado de São Paulo had a different perspective. The paper reported that Carvalho had visited the casa on a number of occasions (and it is not clear that this was the case), and on one such visit was accompanied by the British and French consuls, who “were witnesses of all the good will of the government.” According to the daily, he was unwilling to have this first attempt at drawing Canadians to the fazendas end in failure, and he therefore helped a few desperate families to be received by the Dumont estates, “in spite of their not having any great need” of these immigrants.79 What do we make of the Estado’s assertions? According to the French consul, the paper was considered almost to be the voice of the government. It strongly supported the republican vision and that of governors Campos (1892–96) and Campos Salles (1896–97). Moreover, it would be expected to toe the party line, as did the Jornal do Commercio, which had its readers believe that the Canadian matter was “satisfactorily settled.”80 The 83

mad fligh t?

Commercio de São Paulo, on the other hand, which was run by the rich, antirepublican, indeed monarchist fazendeiro, Edouardo Prado, the former Brazilian minister in Paris, reported on the visit of the Canadians to the agriculture minister. It signalled their complaints regarding “the food which is furnished them in the hospedaria and … being denied certain comforts to which they are accustomed, such as milk for their little children and necessary lodging, they fear being abandoned. Many of these immigrants desire to return to their own country.”81 It appears that what many were calling the “fiasco” of the Canadians in São Paulo was becoming a prism through which defenders and detractors of the republican leaders were debating the issues of immigration, ethnicity, and the roles of the state and the plantation owners in developing an immigration program. O Commercio de São Paulo was quick to point out soon after their arrival that “coming as Canadians were many French people, various Belgians, a good number of Irish some English and a deaf-mute!” Among these Canadians were “true and false ones.” The paper was clearly poking holes in the immigration program of the government, advocating that it had to “adopt energetic measures in order that the immigration services not decline to the same degree of disorganization that had become characteristic of all republican public services.”82 The Estado de São Paulo retorted that it had the same information, “but that is no reason for us to start calling on the government to give up without delay this patriotic attempt to bring Canadian immigration here.” The problem was that the qualifications of the prospective emigrants had not been checked by the immigration commissioner in Montreal as he arrived so late in the city. This meant that the emigrants left Montreal with absolutely no idea as to whether or not they were fit for plantation work.83 Predictably, the monarchist paper Auctoridade laid the blame squarely on the governor of the state, Campos Salles. The Canadians had been accompanied by a priest and a journalist and now “no one wants to have them on their fazenda. This Canadian immigration contract cannot be justified in any serious way. Let’s see how general Campos Salles gets out of this mess.”84 What was the lot of those who stayed in São Paulo rather than go out to the plantations? It is difficult to gauge their work and living conditions. First of all, they were mostly families, and as such, they were the least mobile. A couple of sources noted that single men ended up in Buenos Aires, while others were finding their way home. Families, on 84

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

the other hand, “were in a poor plight.”85 All we have to go on are extracts of letters home to their parents, families, or friends in Quebec, and they must be read with a grain of salt. Some of the letters perhaps overdramatized their difficulties as these migrants were looking for economic help from home, either to tide them through the next period, or even more likely, in the hopes of obtaining the means to journey back to Montreal. Other letters portrayed a rosy picture of life in São Paulo, perhaps either to save face or else to prevent worried parents from discovering the misery in which their children had ended up. Twentyeight-year-old Joseph Lapierre of Montreal, who with his wife Eloise Provençal, twenty-three, and their four children, was destined for the Sabaúna plantation, stayed behind in São Paulo. He wrote his parents that “there is no poverty here as there is a great deal of work. Our health is currently excellent even if the long journey here tired out my wife somewhat.”86 Charles Sanderson also chose to work in São Paulo, earning seventy cents a day, and paying seven dollars a month in rent for one room. “And everything is so dear that my children cry for bread,” he wrote. The situation was “next to starvation.”87 Napoleon Brière, who had been destined for the plantations in Sabaúna, ended up working for a railway company. The manager of the São Paulo Railway Company, a British enterprise, had offered work for some Canadians, in order to give them a means of returning home. Indeed, he gave passes to Santos to twelve of the Canadians so that they might find passage back to Canada at the port.88 Brière earned sixty cents a day.89 “We only eat one meal,” he wrote his parents, “how we would like to eat more, but my salary would not permit more.” Brière may have made his letter sound dramatic to strike a chord with his parents – he was begging them to send him money – but his family’s circumstances did appear to be quite miserable: “If it goes on, if we do not eat more than that, we shall all die. My little child [he was referring to four-month-old Adina] is like a skeleton, and he [this must have been a translation error as Brière had only two daughters] never stops crying.” He supplemented his monthly salary with loans from his foreman because the cost of living was far too high for his meagre income: “Milk costs 10 cents the half-pint. We have only been able to buy some once … Shoes are $4 a pair, and that is the lowest price. I have none on my feet. Being wet all the time, you will understand that it is no easy matter to get cured. If you only knew what misery there is here. Nobody in 85

mad fligh t?

Canada can even imagine it. Homesickness and hunger will kill us all.”90 When Arthur Owen left Brazil in mid-November, “many of the women were crying, and all were sorry they had left their homes.”91 Joseph Trudel, a thirty-two-year-old farmer from Lévis, on the south shore of the Saint Lawrence River, opposite Quebec, his wife Georgiana Deliste, and their month-old infant, Joseph, had the good fortune to be taken in by a doctor and his wife a couple of days after landing at the hospedaria. Joseph wrote his parents that the ocean voyage had been ennuyant (boring), especially as he was unable to walk for a couple of weeks due to a leg injury. As a result of the voyage, the young Joseph was not doing well, while his father was no longer reconnaissable (recognizable). “I assure you,” wrote Trudel, “that my wife and I do nothing but weep.”92 The Trudels had been convinced to undertake the journey to Brazil by Joseph’s elder brother, thirty-four-year-old Albert, also a farmer from Lévis. It is not clear whether or not he was married, but he came along as part of Joseph’s family, for he would not be accepted as an immigrant on the Moravia were he to travel alone. Joseph was no longer on speaking terms with Albert for “it was his fault that I ended up in this barbarian country.” About five days after arriving in the city, Joseph was able to find work as a house painter for a Parisian Frenchman. Although he complained about the low wages, he was earning between $1 dollar and $1.20 a day, which seemed to be better than the wages of other immigrants who stayed in São Paulo. Like others, Joseph lamented the fact that he could not eat butter in Brazil because he could not afford it: to do so, he would need to earn double his current wages. Although by 18 October, Joseph said that his situation was not that bad, he did add that he continued to weep and hoped that his parents might send him $25 so that he could bring his family back to Canada, as he did not want to die in Brazil. Sarah Moody, twenty-seven, and her husband, John Poley, thirtythree, whom she called “Jack” and whom we met in our introduction, had travelled to Brazil with their five young children: William, eight, Eliza, six, James, four, George, two, and Ester, two months old. They were a Protestant family living on John Street in Saint-Henri. Jack had worked as a labourer with the Canadian Pacific Railway.93 Sarah wrote two letters, one to her parents and one to her sister and brother, some time in December 1896, begging for assistance. Perhaps she was exaggerating her family’s plight, but even accounting for this we can under86

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

stand that they found themselves in distress. She let her parents know that “Little George is close to death’s door. To tell you the truth, we are all nearly starving, for we cannot get enough bread to eat, and as for butter, we dare not think of it.” Addressing her father, she pleaded, “I am sure you would not see your dog lying as I am now lying [she had been in bed for four days]; and to see the children, is far worse; and as for Jack, he is nearly off his head what with being up all night with the children and me.” Jack was earning 75 cents a day, which made it difficult to buy basic foodstuffs. Sarah noted that tea cost $1.40 a pound, potatoes came to 1 dollar a peck (a peck was about ten to fourteen pounds), bread was 15 cents a pound, meat 20 cents a pound, and sugar, 20 cents. “We have not tasted potatoes since we came here,” she remarked. Sarah told her siblings that “the little ones are always crying for bread, and poor little Bill and Jim say they wish they were home again with Aunt Ettie.” Sarah’s bed, to which she had been confined for a few days, was filled with wood shavings.94

The Plantations The Canadian immigrants had been promised work on the coffee plantations in the state of São Paulo. The list of emigrants on board the Moravia also indicated their ultimate destinations, in all nine coffee fazendas or state agricultural colonies. These destinations included some of the most important plantations in the province: Fazenda Paulino Carlo filhos at Rio Claro, Fazenda Dumont in Riberão Preto, Nesto de Carvalho’s estate at Batataís, and at other plantations at Santa Veridiana and Colonia Sabaúna, near São Paulo. Many emigrants were simply listed as staying in the capital. Presumably they were seen as unfit or else there was no demand for them. While at the hostel, some were offered work on the coffee plantations or elsewhere. In all, 110 of the immigrants were listed as staying on in the “Capital.” Sixty-one immigrants were sent to Rio Claro; 57 immigrants were destined for Antonio Prado’s plantation at Santa Veridiana; and 36 went to the Amado Pinto & Companhia fazenda in Villa Raffard. At first glance it would appear that immigrants from outside Montreal tended to stay on the same plantations as others from their towns, but this was usually because they were from the same family as well. 87

Harvesting coffee in a São Paulo plantation at the beginning of the twentieth century (Library of Congress)

A postcard of the Hospederia, São Paulo, ca. 1900

The immigrant train of the British-owned São Paulo Railway, which travelled from Santos to the neighbourhood of Brás, where the hospedaria was located. The train also transported immigrants to the coffee plantations in the state.

mad fligh t?

Postcard of a dormitory in the Hospederia or immigrant hostel in São Paulo

However it is notable that the immigrants from Notre Dame de la Salette were all placed at Santa Veridiana as were those from Maisonneuve. Sixteen Montrealers from Point Saint Charles were settled in Villa Raffard. Canadians on each plantation were almost always from the same religious and linguistic group. Did they ask to be settled on the same fazenda or did the Ligure Brasiliana decide that? We do not know. Canadians in Sabaúna, for example, were francophone Catholics, as were those in Santa Veridiana, with the exception of one Anglophone Catholic family. And except for one francophone Catholic family, all of the immigrants in Villa Raffard were anglophone Protestants, as were all the Canadians in Cravinhos and in Araraquara.95 It is not clear how the immigrants arrived at those destinations. It appears that A. Fiorita & Co. was not diligent in following up with their 90

Table 4.1 Coffee plantation destinations of Canadians District

Fazenda proprietor

Rio Claro Riberão Preto Batataís Santa Veridiana Villa Raffard Araraquara Babylonia Cravinhos Sabaúna

Fazenda Paulino Carlo filhos Fazenda Dumont Nestor de Carvalho Antonio Prado Amado Pinto & Companhia J. Coumaux(?) M. Ant. Cunha João Cunha Bueno Nucleo Colonial (state colony)

Table 4.2 Plantation destination of Canadians in São Paulo No. of families

No. of Individuals

Catholic

Protestant

Plantation area

5 2 3 2 11 16 4 9 13

17 4 16 16 45 57 33 36 61

2 2 15 0 42 56 33 4 30

15 2 1 16 3 1 0 32 31

Araraquara Babylonia Batataís Cravinhos R. Preto S. Veridiana Sabaúna V. Raffard Rio Claro

mad fligh t?

Plantations to which Canadians were sent, 1896–97 (Wikipedia/commons)

emigrants once they had left them at the hospedaria. British authorities claimed they had gotten placements for them. The French consul, on the other hand, stated that his British counterpart did little for them. He found the Canadians to have been abused by emigration agents regarding colonization schemes. To make matters worse, “they have at their head, a kind of Catholic priest, Reverend Trudel, who has the looks of an exploiter and whose appearance is ambiguous, to put it mildly.” Ritt felt obliged to intervene on behalf of the Canadians. He noted that even if the French Canadians were all British subjects, they turned to the sollicitude officieuse (unofficial care) of the French consul. Ritt could not refuse them, “as they speak the same language and seem to have the same reverence [culte] for France.”96 Thus he spent most of a week trying to take care of the Canadian emigrants, placing them with the Prado, Sabaúna, and Dumont plantations (one of the French Dumont agents helped the consul as he was still with the company, which was changing over to British control). Ritt claimed that he placed most of the Canadians who requested help at the same time that he found work for the French nationals. On the other hand, as we noted, 92

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

some emigrant accounts referred to the plantation owners’ agents hiring them at the hospedaria as if the Canadians were human chattel. What was the lot of the families who travelled to the fazendas? A significant number of families ended up in the coffee or sugar plantations where they were paid, according to one Canadian, $1.20 to $1.40 a day. Their houses had earthen floors and no windows.97 It is not clear if the immigrants were aware of plantation wages before leaving the city or upon arrival at the fazenda. In any case, the very low wages and poor working and living conditions drove the Canadians away from the coffee country. Joseph Trudel said that a family of six received about $1 dollar for a week’s food supply, which was not enough even for a day.98 In the North American Northeast, labourers earned between $1 dollar and $1.50 per day. One can thus understand the frustration and bitter disappointment of the immigrants in Brazil. Charles Anderson reported annual wages of $130 Canadian, which was about one-quarter of what a full-time labourer could earn back home at the time, and besides that, he was living in a barn. As Marie Beauchamp noted: “As to those who left for the plantations, they have already come back and they are all very angry.” Marie and her husband, Georges Sanguinet, wrote her parents: “Luckily we did not go [to the plantations] out there ourselves for we had been notified.” Although she said there was work, the family was surviving, and the weather was fine, she told her father that “it is well that you did not come, as you were right when you said how it was, but now we are here and find it very lonesome.”99 A recurring theme in the letters back home was poverty and maltreatment in the plantations. Georges and Cordelia Auclair also were forewarned about the fazendas where, they were told, “people are taking the place of Negroes and they are beaten with bayonets; vermin devour them, they are pure slaves and people die like flies.” Again, the Massons may have embellished their story strategically for they were allowed only two more days in the hospedaria and then would be on their own with no funds. “Food is very expensive and we are in bad shape; not a cent for food!” They lamented and pleaded for “quelques piastres,” a few coins, to help them until Georges could find a job.100 The Auclair’s account of what they heard about the plantations was corroborated by Trudel. On the plantations the immigrants became slaves, wrote Trudel, and “before going there I would chop off my head.”101 Jules Ledoux said that “we were supposed to be lodged and 93

mad fligh t?

fed for free. But once we got there we realized we had been cheated yet again. We were obliged to pay very dearly for any supplies and our masters had absolute power over us. We were lodged in tiny filthy rooms with no bed. Our food consisted of bread, soup and coffee, which we prepared ourselves. I saw no butter during my stay in Brazil; even sugar was a luxury for us. It was impossible for us to abandon the place because we simply had no money and the owners of the plantations made sure not to give us any.”102 Joseph Trudel reported that the average workday on the plantation began at six o’clock in the morning and continued until eight o’clock in the evening. “Work would not be that bad were it not for the frightening heat that literally crushes us,” he continued, thus suggesting that the Canadians might not have been fit for the climate. Trudel, like other immigrants, was allowed to cultivate some land of his own. He seeded four thousand feet of corn and beans, and when everything was ready for the harvest, the owners of the plantation made life so difficult for him that he was forced to leave without compensation. This situation cut back on his food supplies and made life intolerable.103 Trudel reported that many families had left for the plantations, and that his brother, Albert, had joined them. “I am sure that once they get there, they will become virtual slaves,” and that they would not “be alive in a year’s time.” However, already by 18 October four families had returned by foot to São Paulo, taking four days and nights to get there.104 Perhaps the reports of virtual slavery and intolerable conditions had been exaggerated. In late October, François-Xavier Tremblay wrote his brother Olivier in the county of Montmagny, on the south shore of the Saint Lawrence River, about eighty kilometres northeast of Quebec to let him know that he and his family had left São Paulo soon after their arrival there and had gone to live on a plantation. He said that his family loved the climate though he was not particularly enamoured of the workplace. He noted that hard liquor was very cheap as many people produced it, so that the land was filled with drunkards, although the Canadians did not take to the liquor. He complained that because wages were low, it was difficult to cover food expenses, and that one of the causes of this situation was the steep decrease in coffee prices (coffee prices declined in late 1896). As one of the few authentic farmers on the Moravia with experience in Quebec, he complained that there was no hay or grain to be seen in this land, and that all there was to eat was rice and beans. The soil, he lamented, cheated him, as all one could grow 94

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

The Prado Fazenda in Santa Veridiana, photographed by Guilherme Gaensly (Boris Kossoy, São Paulo 1900: Imagens de Guilherme Gaensly [São Paulo: Kosmos, 1988]: 105.) (CG1)

was coffee. Even if he did not complain about being treated as a slave he said that he would return to North America had he the funds.105 About ten families found work on the estates of Antonio Prado at Santa Veridiana. A number of families from Maisonneuve, an eastern suburb of Montreal, ended up there, and we have some record of their perceptions of Santa Veridiana from their letters back home, which were reproduced in the Montreal dailies. Among these families were a fortyyear-old widower, Joseph Lauzon, from Maisonneuve, and his nineteen-year-old son, Peter. Joseph had originally subscribed his entire family, six children in all ranging age from seven to nineteen years of age, for the voyage, but at the last moment, it was decided that the five youngest children should remain in Montreal. When Lauzon returned from Brazil in December 1896, he went to the offices of La Presse to inform the paper of his time in Brazil. Santa Veridiana had about 120 houses and a church, and was located about a thirteen-hour train ride from Santos. The workers’ homes were spartan, a single storey brick construction, divided into lodgings for two families, with window shutters but no glass panes, a tile roof, and an earthen floor.106 “Four walls, a roof, that’s our house,” commented Charles Laferrière about his 95

mad fligh t?

abode in Santa Veridiana. “A dirt floor, no windows. And you make your own furniture. I also made myself a cot and a bamboo table. That’s my setup.”107 Nineteen-year-old John MacDougall of Maisonneuve also travelled to Santa Veridiana with his thirty-five-year-old widowed mother, Annie, and his siblings, Victor, fourteen, Alfred, thirteen, and Adelina, nine. John wrote to his aunt in Montreal about the family’s experience on the coffee plantation. Their house had a poor roof and a red clay floor. Although the MacDougalls had been at the fazenda since 14 October, their baggage had not yet arrived by 22 October. As they were given no beds, they made their own of branches. They were provided with two planks to make a table. They were unhappy with the food, and in particular, the lack of a cooking stove. John referred to work that was so hard “that a horse could not last,” especially under the burning sun. “Those who got off the boat before its departure,” he wrote, “are much happier than we are.”108 Women were not obliged to labour on the estate but all men had to report for work every day. If they were ill, the men still had to present themselves to the manager to receive permission to stay home. The fazenda had its own officers to police the plantation and check on the houses to ensure that workers were not shirking their duties. Lauzon was the first witness to what had been suspected all along, that the Ligure Brasiliana had made false promises. The immigrants had been told they would receive two hundred dollars a year, plus food and accommodations. At the end of the first week each family received the equivalent of two dollars, no matter the number of labourers in the family. The amount was increased to three dollars the following week, but food and accommodation costs were deducted from the total. The food consisted of corn, rice, beans, and manioc.109 There was no meat in the diet because it was too expensive and was only available in nearby villages. Charles Laferrière complained that families were given lard in which you might find a single filament of meat. “You don’t mention potatoes, butter, beef, eggs,” because they were far too expensive.110 In the racially hierarchical language of the time, La Presse asserted that the Canadians lacked “a generous allowance of food, they are treated like blacks,” eating péjaos pretos (black beans with flour) and carne seca (cured meat).111

96

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

The Canadians had other inconveniences to deal with, such as sandflies that would get under the skin and cause nasty swellings, the fright of stumbling across “crocodiles” (a likely reference to the jacaré (caiman), and vipers on the fazendas. A much greater inconvenience, however, was the rough treatment from the supervisors who would go as far as beating the plantation workers to get them to work faster. Charles Laferrière said that the work was not that bad but the vipers and sand-flies and huge ants were always a cause for concern.112 Two Canadians fled another estate in Santa Veridiana because of the harsh treatment they had received, and joined the Canadians on Prado’s fazenda. Another Canadian refused to work, maintaining that he would rather die elsewhere. However, he had to yield to his supervisor who told him he would use means that would make him work if he had to. The plight of the men on the estate was deplorable, but Charles Laferrière said they could endure it, “but it’s these poor women who pass their time weeping and scratching themselves because they continuously walk on a layer of sandflies and ants.” Charles’s wife, Louisa Rajotte, would often take pleasure in imagining herself in Ottawa, doing the things she used to do when she was there (in Hull). “You feel sorry for her,” exclaimed Laferrière, “but she is not the only one in that state, as we are 473 passengers. Their fate is the same everywhere.”113 In mid-December, Olivier Tremblay of Saint François parish in Montmagny wrote a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier in which he begged for help in getting his two brothers back from the Sabaúna colony. François Xavier, forty-two years old, of Château Richer had gone to Brazil with his wife, Georgina, thirty-eight, and eight children ranging in age from six months to eighteen years. Another brother, Jean Baptiste, forty-four, of Ange Gardien, had also travelled on the Moravia with two sons, Napoleon, eighteen and Solor fifteen. Olivier wrote Laurier in his imperfect French that they were “très malheureux il sont malade et il ont pour nouritur que du riz et des fêves cuites dans l’eau [very unhappy they are ill and for food they have rice and boiled beans].”114 Antonio Prado held a meeting with the forty or so Canadians on his plantation where they voiced their complaints regarding the false promises. He shrugged them off telling them that they should not expect to make money the first year in Brazil and should even expect to

97

mad fligh t?

go into debt. He offered to lend families ten dollars each to help them out and he also informed them that although they were free to go, he made it clear that if they borrowed funds they would be obliged to stay. The prospect of being forced to remain on the fazenda discouraged the Canadians; indeed, one of Lauzon’s friends from Maisonneuve, John Gendron, who had come to Santa Veridiana with a young wife and two toddlers, passed out at the news. Both John, aged thirty-one, and his wife, Mary Claremond, fell ill, and according to Lauzon, were on death’s door when he left Santa Veridiana. Joseph Lauzon and his nineteen-year–old son and Albert Trudel, Joseph’s brother, decided to leave the plantation when Prado covered their passage to São Paulo. On their first night in the state capital, they slept outdoors as people treated them with contempt; they then slept in a police station where they were made to sweep the sidewalk to earn their keep. Lauzon was beaten for not keeping up with the work. Finally they stayed briefly in the hospedaria before traveling on to Santos, where they were able to earn their trip to New York by working on the steamer Bellaura.115 On 3 November, four weeks after their arrival in Brazil, Joseph Lapierre, Louis Courtois, and Joseph Durocher petitioned the consul in Rio de Janeiro for relief. Lapierre and his wife Eloise had two daughters and two sons between the ages of two and seven. Courtois was thirtythree years old, and his wife Emma Gauthier was twenty-seven. Like the Lapierres, they were from Montreal and had two sons and a daughter, aged from three to eleven. Durocher, aged thirty-one, and Josephine Grenier, thirty, had two daughters, an infant, and a six year old. They had been shut out of the hospedaria in São Paulo and offered work on the Sabaúna plantations. However, they either quit the fazenda or refused to work there and travelled to Rio, where they found a room in a hotel for one night for all fifteen of them. The price was beyond their means and thus they spent the second night outdoors walking “all night, men women and children.”116 Wagstaff, the consul, got in touch with the inspector general of Colonization and Immigration who arranged for the families to stay at the Rio immigration depot, situated on Ilha das Flores, until the consul was able to send them back to Canada.117 What can we make of the accounts of these migrants, whether from their letters or the reports of the French or British consuls? On the one hand, it was clear that the migrants had been deceived. There appeared to be a disconnect between the promises of La Ligure Brasiliana and 98

The Journey, Arrival, and Settlement

the apparatus in Brazil that was meant to deliver on those promises. On the other hand, the Canadian immigrants were unfit for work on coffee plantations in São Paulo. They seemed to lack the strength and the stamina for the long hours and difficult labour conditions in a tropical climate, with a different diet than they were accustomed to. They found it almost impossible to get used to a simple Brazilian cuisine with no butter, little milk, and few eggs, a far cry from their diet back home or from the foods that Franco-Americans consumed in New England. In any case, they could not afford to recreate their diet in Brazil, given the excessive costs of their staples. Many of them had family back in Quebec who could not understand why they would have left and were pained by the drama of the separation, perhaps forever. All this must have left the immigrants with a deep sense of nostalgia. Joseph Trudel’s father in Sorel let Joseph know that “your mother does nothing but cry for your terrible fate. She wants you to come back with your family as soon as possible.” He appealed to his son’s “filial sentiments owed your father to beg you to do everything in your power to come back as soon as possible.” And he signed off, “awaiting to see you soon.”118 Clearly these immigrants were no strangers to hardship: they had experienced lives of toil in Quebec, and, in fact, many of them were immigrants to Quebec before arriving in Brazil. However, in their new land, they appeared to break under the stress of a completely new context where, after tiring ship and railway journeys and encounters with a spartan hostel, they became indigent labour without knowledge of the local language.

99

CHAPTER 5

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

The hardships that befell the Canadian immigrants in the state of São Paulo, either in the hospedaria, in the city, or in the plantations led them to search for a way back to Canada, or in some cases, Britain or France. Eighteen months after their initial departure, the majority of these migrants had found their way home. The Canadian government was called on to approve the return of specific immigrants and to fund their passage but the detailed work of staying in contact with them, booking their rail and ship passage, and finding refuge for these stranded families and individuals fell upon the British consular service. In the nineteenth century, the British consular service was very much under criticism for its inefficiency and lack of modern professional standards. The Foreign Office appointed many honorary officials who received no stipend and were supposed to promote British commercial and trade interests, even if they were seen to have little effect on them. Those who were appointed to the consular staff were not on a particular career path in the service: there was little in the way of promotions, and therefore no motivation for staff to excel in the hope of moving ahead on grounds of merit. In all about five hundred British consular officials were serving abroad in the late nineteenth century.1 Beyond trade and commerce, the consular officials were meant to oversee British nationals in foreign territories. The dominions had no diplomatic or consular representation in the 1890s as this was the responsibility of Britain. Thus it was the consular officials in Rio, Santos, and São Paulo who monitored issues involving Canadian immigrants, the vast majority of whom were British subjects. A complicated channel – one might say web – of communications between Britain and Canada involved back and forth messages amongst the consular officials, the

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

Foreign Office, the Colonial Office, the governor general of Canada, the Canadian prime minister ‘s office, and the appropriate cabinet minister. As we noted in the previous chapter, British consular representatives diligently followed up on the plight of the Canadian immigrants. A few weeks after the arrival of the Moravia, the British consul in Santos, Francis W. Mark, wrote the chargé d’affaires in Petrópolis, Arthur S. Raikes, about this “maladroit affair,” with the understanding that he would have to do something about it. “[A]s the whole tribe of these unsuitable immigrants will, I apprehend, shortly be on my hands I shall deem it a favour if you will kindly indicate what course I should take in offering relief.”2 A week later this also evidently became a problem for the consul general in Rio de Janeiro, George W. Wagstaff, when three French-Canadian families showed up at the doorstep of the consulate. Wagstaff wrote the Canadian high commissioner in London, Sir Charles Tupper, asking whether he could provide relief for, and repatriate these distressed immigrants “at the expense of the Dominion Government.”3 In October the consular representatives primarily ensured that the Canadian immigrants were placed on coffee plantations, and if that was not possible, offered some form of work in São Paulo. At the very least they demanded that they be allowed to remain in the hospedaria for longer than the normal allotted period of eight days. They also provided emergency assistance to families who might otherwise have starved or lacked some of the basic necessities. In the first few weeks, the British consulate in the coffee capital received some help from the local English community and the French consulate in providing blankets and food to the newly arrived immigrants. By the end of October, however, the consuls were increasingly worried about the expenses, as it was not clear how long the crisis might last. Arthur Raikes understood that the attempt to solicit monies from any government might be a long and drawn-out affair. The Foreign Office had no funds for such purposes, and only exceptionally were British subjects helped back to Britain with government money. This was usually the work of private charity. Raikes reminded Francis Mark that if he were to consult the archives of his consulate for the years 1891–92 he would come across correspondence dealing with the British emigrants who left Bradford and other towns for Brazil in those years. He recalled that “a considerable number were sent home with funds supplied by the mayor of that city” and by the local mp. He advised Mark to “ascertain the localities 101

mad fligh t?

from which the distressed immigrants have come in order that the local authorities may be communicated with, being careful however not to hold out any hope of such repatriation to the Immigrants.”4 Even if the consular staff in São Paulo approached the governor of the state to enlist his help for the immigrants, one might wonder why they were not more insistent with local state officials, demanding that they provide work or food and shelter for the Canadians or else repatriate them. After all, they were well aware that the state had passed a law in 1895 to induce those immigrants to come to the fazendas and had entered into a contract with the transportation company that had brought this first batch of a prospective total of ten thousand settlers in the first place. As Constantine Phipps, the new minister plenipotentiary, or ambassador, in Petrópolis, wrote Governor Ferraz de Campos Salles of São Paulo: “I venture to hope that your Excellency will take into consideration that very strong inducements were held out by the accredited agents of the São Paulo Government to move these persons to leave their homes and that in spite of strong discouragement on the part of the local authorities against the movement.” This was the strongest tone that he seemed to assume before the state authorities. Elsewhere, Phipps was deferential and sought not to irritate the governor. He had his reasons, which he revealed to Lord Salisbury, the British prime minister and foreign secretary, early in 1897when he was dealing with the former governor of São Paulo and then Federal Finance Minister Bernardino de Campos. Phipps bluntly stated that he did not want to irritate Campos “when he is actively interesting himself in favour of British commercial interests in Brazil.”5 He also found São Paulo to be “the most honestly and energetically governed of all the Brazilian States,” the most prosperous and one with whose authorities he enjoyed a good relationship. In addition, he sensed that the federal government had a “slender hold,” as he put it, on the state government and he therefore saw little use in applying pressure in favour of the immigrants at the federal level.6 Percy Lupton, the consular agent in São Paulo, evidently agreed with Phipps when he wrote him that “I fear only under considerable pressure and with unpleasantness will the São Paulo State disburse more funds for the repatriation of these unfortunate people.”7 Unpleasantness had to be avoided in coaxing Brazilian authorities to contribute to the repatriation effort, as larger interests were involved. It was perhaps for this reason that 102

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

over the autumn of 1896 and even later the various consuls reinforced the notion that “these unfortunate people persisted in their determination to come to São Paulo in spite of … efforts on the part of the Canadian government to dissuade them. Now as the unhealthy season is rapidly approaching these Canadians will I fear become still more deplorable.” In other words, they conveyed the idea that they were dealing with a problem for which the government of São Paulo might share some blame, but that most of the blame fell squarely on the Canadian “dupes.”8 Phipps truly went out of his way not to irritate the authorities of the state of São Paulo. As the representative of Britain and her colonies, he could not be critical of Canada, so he directed his criticism above all to the immigrants themselves and the emigration agents. When the Jornal do Commercio published an article on the Canadians in mid-January, Wagstaff wrote the editor to suggest a text that might correct “a false impression.” The paper might report, he proposed, that the British minister had met with many of the emigrants and that they had never complained of ill treatment. They had been made highly coloured promises by the emigration agents, “but so far from being ill treated they spoke highly of the endeavours of various charitable fazendeiros and others to reconcile them to a mode of living and a climate for which they were obviously unfitted.” To reinforce his arguments, he added the following suggestion: “As to the Govt of St. Paulo, Phipps cannot speak too highly of the reception which was given to such proposals as he made in favour of the emigrants and feels that it regrets sincerely the bad selection of these persons and the exaggerated promises held out by the immigration agents.” Constantine Phipps thus did his utmost not to cast any aspersions on the São Paulo authorities.9 By late October it was clear that the Canadian experiment had been a failure. On 3 November, Rev. Charles Trudel wrote the governor of the state that his mission as representative of the Ligure Brasiliana to the French Canadians and Irish Catholics from Canada was over. While he assumed all of the responsibility for having been able to attract the immigrants to the Moravia – arguing that they would never have embarked on the journey without the news that a French-Canadian priest would accompany these emigrants and act as an intermediary with the government regarding colonization issues and without his signature on a circular that advertised the expedition – he took no blame for the negative outcome. “If among the families who were transported here from 103

mad fligh t?

Canada to São Paulo, some were found not to conform to the aims proposed by the government, I should not be attributed any fault,” asserted Trudel, “because I had nothing to do with these families.”10 The matter of repatriating the Canadian immigrants was straightforward. The British consular staff represented British and colonial interests in Brazil and was therefore responsible for dealing with Canadians who might be in difficulty. However, shipping immigrants back to Canada involved a financial cost and this complicated matters. The Colonial Office would not accept sharing any financial burdens regarding repatriation. Getting a response from the Canadian government was a long and cumbersome affair. Normally a consular official would inform the consul general in Rio or the chargé d’affaires in Petrópolis of a need, and one of the two would write the Colonial Office who would communicate with the Canadian high commissioner in London who would then communicate with Ottawa. The Canadian government was never clear on what financial aid it might extend to the emigrants. After an announcement that immigrants would be helped back to Canada, the government would continue to insist that there were no resources or that funds had not been budgeted. It called on the British government to assist the immigrants and to accept to settle repayments at a later date. If a starving family of Canadian immigrants was to show up at the consular agent’s office in Santos begging for assistance in getting back to Canada or simply asking for a small sum in order to cover a meal, this official would find himself in a quandary. Would he tell a starving family with dying children to come back in a few weeks when he finally had a response from the chargé d’affaires? Or would he look for another solution? The consular officials normally opted for the latter. Over a three-year period they sought funds, advanced petty cash, donated their own money, or sought help from the British community in São Paulo. Consular officials also looked to the governor of São Paulo for contributions. On 28 December Phipps wrote Lupton saying that he had understood that the governor of São Paulo had given Lupton ten contos (equal to about five thousand dollars) to assist the Canadian immigrants. He expected Lupton to send him an account of all the expenses allocated to assisting immigrants in distress or to their repatriation, after 28 December.11 He also instructed the consular staffs in São Paulo and Santos to use these funds to repatriate as many of the immigrants 104

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

as possible and to assist those who could not leave at once.12 The governor was thanked privately but the British consular staff was very discreet about the donation as the governor did not want to create a precedent with other immigrant groups.13 According to British consular authorities, a few of the migrants worked their way back to Canada soon after their arrival. These were almost all younger bachelors. Some of the families moved to the coffee plantations upcountry in late October and November. By late November and early December it appears that more and more Canadians were pleading for help, and in particular for repatriation, either by post or in person. An official at the Foreign Office informed the Colonial Office in early December that “a number of these immigrants have already applied to H. M. Legation for assistance and Mr Raikes anticipates that further cases of destitution will occur.”14 In mid-December, Joseph Guy, who was one of the forty Canadians sent to the Dumont fazenda, wrote a letter to the São Paulo consul lamenting that “all our family is ill and I have had the misfortune of losing one of my children. Sir, I ask for my repatriation kindly consent to my request. Sir, we are: four children myself and my wife.”15 Around that time, Phipps visited the capital where the consuls made him aware of the other more pressing cases. One fellow, known as “Walsh,” most likely Michael Welsh of Montreal, had also lost his wife, Catherine and was left with seven children (the ship register shows eight), “all ill – whom he cannot possibly support. “ Another immigrant, W. Smith, was “obviously physically unfitted to work in this country.” Phipps reported to Lord Salisbury that many of the immigrants imported for agricultural purposes were “composed of young children with parents entirely unfitted for work. The mortality amongst them has been considerable and the majority even of the ablebodied emigrants who I have seen assure me that they were in receipt of higher wages in Canada than they have been able to get here.”16 Although he was referring to the most needy examples, “there are many other serious though less deserving cases.”17 To respond to the needs of these immigrants, Wagstaff wrote the Canadian High Commission for instructions concerning the support and repatriation of the distressed immigrants. The commissioner, Sir Charles Tupper, would keep in touch with the Canadian government, which acted discreetly in order not to publicize expenditures. At the same time political expediency meant that the government had to respond in some 105

mad fligh t?

way as the matter had come up in the House of Commons, the Senate, and in voluntary associations. The Saint Jean Baptiste Society in Quebec, for example, monitored the episode and made a few public pronouncements, the most important of which was a resolution condemning the migration to Brazil as a “national danger.”18 The Chamber of Commerce in Montreal also published a resolution to be communicated to Prime Minister Laurier, demanding that the federal government repatriate the Canadian emigrants in Brazil by merchant steamer.19 A La Presse editorial in mid-November argued that the entire episode tarnished the Canadian image abroad: “This departure has allowed the agents of those countries [competing with Canada for European immigrants] to depict Canada as a poor, ruined country where poverty is so great that its inhabitants have been reduced to emigrate to Brazil in conditions that have more than one resemblance with the emigration and indenture of Chinese coolies.”20 By early December, Donald Smith (Lord Strathcona) was high commissioner in London. During his early days in office he was following three French-Canadian families consisting of fifteen persons who needed assistance to get back to Canada.21 Finally on 10 December the Canadian government announced that Canadians who wished to return would be helped back with their passage costs covered by the federal government. This allowed the British consuls to move more quickly in responding to the requests of the stranded Canadians.22 Clearly, the immigrants continued to leave the coffee plantations and they probably had word that it was possible to return to Canada with the help of the consul. Olivier Tremblay, whom we encountered in the last chapter, wrote his brother François-Xavier in mid-December to inform him he had seen the local member of Parliament who had told him of Laurier’s plan to repatriate the Canadians from Brazil. He warned him that they would not all be brought out together, and that he should apply to the consul for tickets for himself and his family.23 The consuls sought the cheapest voyages back to Canada, which at times involved leaving from Rio rather than nearby Santos, and then travelling through Britain rather than directly to North America. For example, on 19 December Wagstaff informed Tupper that “in the absence of instructions of any sort respecting these deluded persons,” he had made arrangements for the return to Canada of three families, six adults, and nine children in all, via Liverpool with the Pacific Steam Navigation Company steamer, the Potosí, “in order to avoid their perishing in the 106

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

streets of the city.”24 In a postscript, Wagstaff informed Tupper that he had to open his dispatch again “to add that at the moment of closing the mail, five more distressed immigrants arrived from the interior whom I considered expedient to forward to Liverpool by S.S. ‘Potosí’ with the others.” Indeed, five more immigrants presented themselves at the docks at Rio de Janeiro on 23 December and were allowed to sail with the others to Liverpool.25 We do not know where or in what conditions the immigrants were maintained in Liverpool, but they left the port for Saint John, New Brunswick on the Allan Line steamer, the Lake Ontario, on 16 January 1897. Most of the original party who travelled from Brazil continued on to Canada, except for one married man who arrived in Liverpool without his wife and then went missing from the boarding house the day before the departure from the British port. Another individual, Joseph Durocher of Saint Edouard de Lotbinière, on the south shore of the Saint Lawrence River, between Trois Rivières and Quebec, “on arrival at Liverpool was so ill with kidney disease that he had to be taken to the hospital and the doctor would not allow him to sail with the others. His wife and child remain with him.” He spent twenty-five days in the hospital and noted “that the reports of the misery of the emigrants in Brazil are not exaggerated in the least.”26 High Commissioner Smith gave “directions for arrangements for all of them to be returned to Canada as soon as he is sufficiently improved.”27 The immigrants were sent back on 6 February – even if Joseph still looked very ill (the family was thus given a private berth) – at a special half-rate fare. They were then transported from Saint John to Montreal by Canadian Pacific Railway, also at half-price. Durocher and his family finally arrived in Saint John on 19 February, and the next day their train journey to Quebec, and then Lévis was authorized.28 A few days after the Potosí left Rio, Percy Lupton in São Paulo arranged for fifty-six of the Canadian immigrants to be transported to New York on the steamship Buffon. Others were working their passages while yet others were making their ways back as stowaways. Thirty adults and twenty-six children eventually took the Buffon.29 The passengers spent a few days in New York and were then sent by rail to Montreal. Friends and families spent four days in the Bonaventure and Windsor Stations in the city awaiting their arrival. However, when they finally made it into Windsor Station at just past eleven o’clock in the evening, there were very few people to greet them, as they had gone 107

Custom List of Passengers on the ss Buffon, port of New York, 22 January 1897, first page. The passengers on this list were stranded Canadians transported back from Santos with the help of the British consulate. They would take rail passage from New York to Montreal.

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

home in disappointment. The Montreal Gazette reporter at the scene was principally impressed by the “weak and unhealthy appearance of all the men, women and children who made up the party,” which “was almost pitiable. Men laden down with parcels in bags and the women with, in nearly all cases, tiny children clinging to their skirts, made up a spiritless party, but one that could not have been more thankful to return to their home.” The returnees who had no one to greet them were carried by two large sleighs to two hotels in Jacques Cartier Square, the People’s and the Bonsecours, twenty-nine to the first establishment and fourteen to the other. The other returnees were welcomed by their friends and next of kin “as ones back from the grave.”30 Despite the significant early flow back to the dominion, the São Paulo consul realized that there was “still a considerable number requiring their repatriation, chiefly to Canada, and amongst them many really deserving cases.” He referred to about one hundred on his lists, while Consul Mark had about ten on his. For this reason, Lupton asked that Consul Mark also be authorized to repatriate immigrants from Santos, as both he and Lupton were sending the Canadian immigrants from that port.31 The same day, Lupton followed up with another dispatch emphasizing his request that the Canadian government relieve his consular agency “of the most distressing cases which are now chiefly French Canadians,” but that “amongst the immigrants asking to be returned to Canada are English, Irish, Scotch and Welsh who have resided in Canada for periods ranging from 20 years to only a few months. Some are married to Canadians proper and most have children born in the Dominion.” He wished to know if those immigrants qualified as Canadians and therefore could be repatriated.32 As long as the British authorities could depend on the Brazilian contribution to repatriate Canadian immigrants, they pursued the most desperate cases and sent them either to Liverpool or Southampton, and then on to Saint John or Halifax, or to New York (there was no direct steamer service to Canada). From these latter cities, the immigrants were transported by rail. It appears that some of the smaller groups of immigrants were sent to Southampton. Charles Gentil and his wife, Catherine, aged respectively forty and thirty, and their nineteen-monthold son, Dominique, presented themselves at the Rio consulate on 9 January in destitute circumstances, and were conveyed to Southampton

109

mad fligh t?

on the Thames on the thirteenth.33 Among these families were Edward Percival Holman, his wife Lucy Graft, and their one-year-old son, Percival. Holman, you will recall, had been working with a sugar company in Montreal when he was lured by the “flowing advertisements” being sent to Canada and joined the emigrants on the Moravia. After suffering “the most terrible privations,” the family was shipped to Southampton with three other immigrant families on the ss Minho in early January, “absolutely destitute, not even being forwarded to London, as we were informed by the British Consul at Santos, we should be.” The Holmans should have taken another ship from Britain to Canada later that month with other Canadians but Lucy was too sick to travel and the child also was ill. The Canadian High Commission and the Charity Organisation Society helped out the family and, because of his past experience, found Percival a job in the sugar industry. A few weeks later, he was unsuccessful in his requests for compensation from the High Commission, which had offered him a passage back to Canada. He still could not leave as “my child is lying seriously ill at Saint Thomas’s Hospital, also myself and wife are suffering from effects of Brazilian climate.” They finally left Britain for Canada in mid-June and then travelled to Toronto.34 I have been unable to trace all the lists kept by the consular staff in São Paulo and Santos, but it appears that in the following months they worked their way down those lists, repatriating the immigrants at the same time that new appeals arrived at their doorstep. Only days after his previous request, Lupton reported “eleven families in absolute distress composed of 44 persons which I would strongly recommend should be repatriated without delay.” This would require a new search for funds and therefore some more persuasion on the part of the consular officials, as 80 per cent of the funds received from the governor of São Paulo had already been expended on the earlier repatriations.35 At the same time, Lupton felt that the Canadian government was being let off the hook easily: “The bulk of the immigrants have now left the country causing little or no expense to the Canadian government, therefore in fairness to the Brazilian and English governments and the English community here the Canadian government should take its share of this ill starred expedition.”36 It is not clear if indeed the bulk of the immigrants had left Brazil by mid-January. If this was the case, then it means that over one hundred Canadians must have returned to Canada on their 110

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

own soon after their arrival in Brazil. This, however, is difficult to verify. A late November news item in the Montreal Gazette reported that “many of the passengers who left Canada on that eventful trip managed to reach the Argentine Republic, while others with the assistance of friends have returned to Canada.”37 On the heels of the departure of the Buffon, Lupton addressed the problem of the forty-four Canadians who had approached him. This episode took on tragic dimensions. Lupton forwarded them by train to Rio de Janeiro on 29 January, from whence they would depart on the ss Coleridge. As they departed, one additional man joined them in the hope of working his passage back. “This party,” wrote the consular agent of São Paulo, “constituted the more helpless and useless portion of the remaining Canadians; but I still have a few destitute families that could not get away by the boat owing to illness and the very short notice, also since my application for the 11 distressed families, further families have arrived from the interior, and are continuing to arrive, in a very miserable and destitute condition. I fear, I may have to apply to you again before long for a further authorization to repatriate a few families, who are a heavy drag on the time and resources of this Agency.”38 The Coleridge passengers left Rio for New York on 31 January. They were not allowed on the ship before that morning, however, which meant that they had to find some other form of accommodation for two nights, as they were arriving from São Paulo. The shipping company picked up the immigrants at the Praia dos Mineiros and allowed them to stay in the cargo hold of another ship, the Vandyck, which was lying in the bay. It was felt that they would run less of a risk of contracting disease there than in the town. Some of the consular staff in Rio had met the immigrants upon their arrival at the train station “and they proved to be in a most deplorable condition, the children, of which there were 18 under 10 years of age, were emaciated and some evidently extremely sick.” The station master would not allow them to loiter in the station while a special tram car made its way there to transport them and their baggage to the port: “They had to wait in the street where they were continually hooted and jeered at by the crowd which seemed to resent their advent as probable transmitters of yellow fever, a conjecture which their abject appearance unfortunately only too strongly justified.” The immigrants made their way down to the quay, “many of them having to rest repeatedly during the journey owing to 111

mad fligh t?

their exhausted condition.” In the meantime, Consul Mark also forwarded three women, each with a child, from Santos.39 As the Coleridge was to sail to New York, the United States Consulate General had a medical officer examine the travellers. He found the children to be seriously ill, “and the condition of three of them was so bad that they were not expected to survive many hours.” At nine o’clock in the morning, on the day of departure, a Sunday, the immigrants were taken off the Vandyck and transferred to the Coleridge, except for the four ill children and three mothers and a sister of these children, who were lodged at the Rio Seamen’s Mission. One of the children died the following morning,” and it is feared that the life of another cannot be saved.”40 Annie May, the thirty-eight-year-old wife of Richard Collever, was on this ship with four of her children. Her eldest son stayed with his father until spring to work his passage back to Canada. The family was in “a perfectly destitute condition” when they arrived in Windsor Station. The Saint Patrick’s Society gave them emergency care.41 The British consular staff in the Brazilian cities was frustrated and exhausted by the experience of getting the fifty or so Canadians on the Coleridge. After having arranged for shipping fares, rail, and a tramcar, consular officials had to deal with many other details. Their messenger in Rio spent the better part of the day before the departure shipping the immigrants’ baggage, which totalled more than two tons, and completing the freight payments as some had not been settled. When the emigrants left the São Paulo station on the British-built line that would take them to Rio, Percy Lupton gave Napoléon Brière forty milreis (about twenty dollars) to purchase food and milk for the children during the journey. However, when the train arrived at the Cruzeiro station, it was discovered that the fares had not been paid for five of the children. The station master demanded payment of forty-four milreis (just over twenty-two dollars) from Brière. He used the funds given him by the consul to pay for that expense. Just before the departure of the Coleridge, Christina Maxwell, who was not on Lupton’s list, simply showed up at the docks with a letter from the São Paulo consular agent. However, she had to stay behind as the paperwork for the Coleridge had already been terminated.42 Wagstaff did not hide his irritation and disappointment with Lupton for having sent all these ill and distressed immigrants from São Paulo with no explanation. He felt that the whole operation had been “highly 112

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

disagreeable.” Besides entailing very considerable trouble to the consular staff, “the circumstances have been especially painful in this last instance when we have seen these unfortunate people, while in the most distressing plight, who died in the streets, and wives parted from their husbands and mothers from their children in order to remain behind to tend their sick.” Wagstaff reminded Phipps that he had warned these immigrants about Brazil before they left Montreal and he “hoped that the experience gained will deter others from coming to this country which is most unsuitable for emigrants from the United Kingdom or Colonies.”43 By mid-February 1897 it appeared that the situation was under control and that almost all of those immigrants who had not gone to the coffee plantations but remained in São Paulo had been sent back to Canada. Percy Lupton reported “two very hopelessly distressed cases” in his city and the “other few remaining families in S. Paulo are endeavouring to work their way here and I trust may not have to fall back on the Consulate for assistance.”44 Constantine Phipps instructed Consul Mark to arrange with the government of São Paulo to find employment for those Canadians remaining in the city and for the agricultural inspector to assist them at colonization efforts. He argued that if such efforts proved prosperous for southern Europeans, then how could one hold the government of São Paulo responsible for the destitute Canadians?45 A few weeks earlier, he had telegraphed Lupton the message that “100 is too many,” referring to the immigrants left in the city. “Able bodied men must find work.”46 Lupton’s problems were far from over, however, because only a few days later he heard that the Dumont Coffee Plantation was going to dismiss all its Canadian families – about forty persons in total – as “they are wholly unsuited to the occupation and are only a burden to the Company.” The consul could, of course, allow those people to return on their own, but he feared that “refusing them our assistance in repatriating them would only be courting disaster.”47 He had good reason. As he related to Consul Mark in Santos, no application would be considered by the Canadian government unless other efforts failed. Consequently, he instructed that provisions be made locally for the forty discharged immigrants.48 The case of the immigrants from the Dumont fazenda placed the British consular staff in a tight corner. The Laurier government in Ottawa had given instructions that immigrants could not be sent back to 113

mad fligh t?

Canada without authorization, and to have that authorization the consul had to show that all other efforts had failed. The dominion government was unwilling to repatriate any more immigrants after the Coleridge episode. Moreover, Phipps instructed the São Paulo Consular Office to affix a notice to that effect directed at the immigrants visiting the premises.49 This meant that consular staff had to show proof that they had done the utmost to garner the aid of the São Paulo government.50 The latter would have to be persuaded to maintain these immigrants and find them occupations as colonists as they had been promised. “The São Paulo Government cannot import immigrants and then [when a private fazenda recognized them as being useless and refused to help them] throw them upon the English community of São Paulo or else morally force the Canadian government to repatriate them,” argued Phipps. He asked Lupton and Mark to “develop this theory” in conversation with the minister of Agriculture, Carvalho, who was “a reasonable man open to correction. Tell them at the same time that her Majesty’s Government are very sensitive of the kindness and courtesy shown in placing the 10 contos [the approved funds the governor had given] at my disposal, but this discharge from the Dumont Fazenda is a fresh difficulty to be met with and overcome.”51 For that matter, it is not entirely clear when the Canadians left the Dumont fazenda or other plantations. It appears that there was a constant trickle, beginning as early as mid-October, when those first four families mentioned in the previous chapter made a quick exit and walked for four days back to São Paulo.52 In early November, the Rio News reported that “according to private sources of information from São Paulo some of the French Canadians [the weekly had still not caught on to the fact that they were only a minority amongst the emigrants] who were supposed to be settled on the plantations, are drifting back to that city, and it is feared that the whole crowd will soon be asking for assistance to return to Canada. This does not agree with the rose-colored statement just issued by the authorities.”53 Not much later, one immigrant who fell ill while working on the plantations was taken to the hospital with a fever. When his condition improved somewhat he made his way to Santos and from there he went to the United States where he was still ensconced in mid-December.54 Joseph Trudel remarked that “a bunch [une foule] of Canadians went by foot from one

114

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

of these plantations to the nearest city. The trip takes two to three weeks. Some did not make it to the destination, having died of starvation on route.”55 In March there seemed to be fewer requests for help from the migrants. It is possible that some travelled home on their own, having put aside enough funds to do so;56 or perhaps the British consular officials were waiting for authorizations and funds to forward to more emigrants. It was also expensive for the consuls to ship the Canadians straight from Santos to New York as the shipping companies would not give them the favourable fares they enjoyed from Rio. The Lamport & Holt and the Prince Lines gave them a slight reduction, of which, at times, they availed themselves. Thus, Mark would send Canadians to Rio by Royal Mail, German, and other boats. This, of course, meant that consular staff in Rio had to bear the burden of housing and maintaining immigrants between sailings.57 By early April the trips back to Canada picked up again. Joseph Guy, whom we noted had written the consul from the Dumont plantation in mid-December, was finally helped back on the Coleridge from Rio to New York with his wife, Philomena, and their children Jean, Rosa, Philippe, and Oscar, along with seven other Canadians. Their youngest son Joseph died in Brazil. Upon their arrival in Montreal, the immigration agent paid their railway fare to Acadie. Margaret Farrell and her six-year-old son, Eddy, were also on the boat. According to Phipps, her husband, Patrick, had died of a “Brazilian fever,” most likely yellow fever, upon his arrival in the country. And yet, a few months later he was still alive and would leave Santos on 28 May, working his passage to New York on the Kaffir Prince. Margaret was classified as “unfitted for work” in December. Could it have been that she invented the story of her husband’s death in order to speed up the process of getting back to Canada on an assisted passage? Joseph Trudel of Lévis, whom you will recall from the last chapter refused to go out to the coffee plantations and chose to remain in São Paulo, also got on the ship. Consular records state that he boarded with his wife Georgina. However, a newspaper report showed that she had arrived a couple of months earlier without luggage, as she had left it with him and thought he was already in Montreal. Joseph worked his way back on the Coleridge, and in Montreal the immigration agent found him employment.58 La Presse reported that upon their arrival at Windsor

115

mad fligh t?

Station on 1 May, “everyone was in utter destitution, and their pale and emaciated look was pitiful.” The Irish Catholic families were brought straight to Saint Patrick’s home.59 A few days after the departure of the Coleridge, British consular officials discovered that Governor Campos Salles authorized the state to contribute a further eight contos for the distressed Canadian immigrants.60 It is not clear if this move on his part was in response to some bad publicity in the press. A few weeks earlier, on 4 February, the Correio Paulistano published an article in the centre of its front page with the title, “Immigraçao Canadense: Um caso de ‘Chantage’” – “Canadian Immigration: A Case of Blackmail.” The author was a former immigrant to Brazil living in Radstock, Quebec (present-day Saint Marcelline de Kildare, near Joliette). Jean Baptiste Istace sent three pamphlets he had written to Governor Campos Salles, threatening to publish a book in which he would expose the truth as to how his state handled European settlers. He claimed that “my brochure is precisely what Canadians need and I could sell them my author’s rights immediately.”61 Figuring he could make eight thousand dollars on the work, he asked the governor if he did not want it published. However, as the Rio News pointed out, there was plenty of literature circulating with warnings to avoid Brazil as a country of emigration. Implicitly alluding to the Canadian immigrants, A.J. Lamoureux said that what Istace was doing was wrong but so was it wrong to have deceived those immigrants: “If he is to be condemned, why not the others – the immigration agent who made false promises, the official inspector sent out to Montreal by the state of São Paulo who passed him on without correcting his mistake, and the state government of São Paulo under whose authority all those wrongs were committed … We consider that the state of São Paulo is directly responsible for this fiasco, and it is morally if not legally bound to redress the wrongs of the victims.” What was lost on the newspapers was that Istace was not one of those Canadian immigrants who travelled on the Moravia. In Brazilian documents, he was listed as a French national, although he was most likely Belgian. In 1890, he arrived in São Paulo as a labourer, at the age of forty-eight, with his wife. He later left Brazil and settled in Canada.62 As the Canadian government had reiterated its refusal to help bring back any more Canadians, Campos Salles’s funds would assure the final phase of repatriation of destitute immigrants.63 Thus, two couples, a 116

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

woman, and a child were placed on the steamship Wordsworth on 4 May, sailing from Santos to Rio and on to New York, with the two husbands, Thomas Williams and Jules Ledoux, working their way back to save expenses. Jules and his wife, Thérese, actually paid their rail fare from São Paulo to Rio, rather than take ship at Santos. Rosa Davis sailed alone as her husband William had abandoned her.64 The party arrived at the Bonaventure Station on 23 July. Ledoux and Williams spoke to the press about their ordeal, describing how they were “sold like cattle and treated like dogs.”65 On 1 June five more families consisting of twenty-three persons were sent on the Hevelius from Rio to New York. Percy Lupton asked the minister of Agriculture for free passages on the Central Railway for nine families from the interior to Rio in the hopes of settling the question of the Canadian immigrants.66 These included forty-three-year-old David Fecteau and thirty-four-yearold Eliza Paul of Briancourt (Sorel), whom we met in the introduction, and their five children. It was most likely that Percy Lupton had interceded on behalf of this family on 10 May with Secretary of Agriculture Carvalho, asking that they be allowed to stay for a little while in the Hospedaria de Imigrantes, as otherwise they would “be forced to sleep in the street in their last days” before departure.67 Georgina Maher, thirty-two, and her two children – she had a baby in Brazil – returned without her husband, Joseph Loiselle, thirty. After making numerous inquiries in São Paulo, Lupton was still not able to locate Joseph as late as March 1899, and suggested that advertisements and a reward be posted for information on him. “So far as I can recollect the man,” noted Lupton, “he was one of the very helpless ones.” Henri Vielle, thirty-five, and Florentine Coupin, twenty-four, also returned with two children, and Emilia York, twenty-nine, travelled with five children. There was no news on her husband, Charles Moore. John Hoolahan, the dominion immigration agent in Montreal who was at Windsor Station to greet the party on 24 June remarked that all of them were “in a perfectly destitute condition.”68 Among the travellers on the Hevelius were Arthur and Sally Simpson and Arthur’s two small children from a previous marriage. He was from England, “a respectable looking man, with a good business reputation” who had come to Canada two years earlier with his new eighteen-yearold bride. In Montreal he worked with a life insurance company and was doing well until he too was taken up with the idea of going to Brazil. 117

mad fligh t?

In that country they exhausted the funds they had set aside for the trip until they reached the point of starvation. As a result, Arthur fell ill but he managed to get his family to Rio and assistance with his trip back to Canada, from the British Consulate. In Montreal, federal immigration agent Hoolahan sought to have Simpson removed directly to the hospital from the immigrant shed at Windsor Station, but he steadfastly refused. The Simpsons were taken in by the Saint George’s Home, (a benevolent society of the same name that helped English immigrants), but officials in the home decided that Simpson needed to be transferred to the Montreal General Hospital by ambulance because he was too weak. Once Arthur left the home, Sally apparently created a fuss as she cried out “thank God, I’m at liberty at last,” and then broke down weeping. She left the home ostensibly to bring a small box to another returned Canadian. However, she never came back. A room search revealed that Sally had taken anything of value with her. It was surmised that she had gone back to England. The children remained with the Saint George’s Society, which apparently was a complicated matter as the eldest daughter Daisy appeared to be mentally ill, while younger daughter Lilly was anguished by the departure of her mother.69 The Simpsons were not the only Hevelius travellers to end up in the Saint George’s Home. Emilia York, the wife of Charles Moore, was also sent to the home with her five small children. She had lost her two-yearold son, Willy, in late January, and had another baby in Brazil. The family had lost all of its possessions: Emilia had only the clothing on her back while the children ran around barefoot. The family had worked on the coffee plantations even if Emilia had been confined to bed through illness most of the time that they were there.70 Meanwhile, other Moravia emigrants found themselves in difficult circumstances trying to find their way back. In late May, a party of thirty-eight individuals, consisting of ten men, seven women, and twenty-one children, applied to the British consul to be sent home.71 Thirty-four-year-old Adelina Tremblay and her sixteen-year-old daughter, Marie, of Saint Alphonse, Quebec were in London in July 1897. Adelina’s husband Joseph had articled his way back to Canada a few months earlier by way of England on a cattle boat. His plan was to send for his wife and daughter after arriving home. However, as Adelina became destitute and fell ill, it was thought best to send her to Buenos Aires. From there, in mid-June, the consular staff forwarded mother 118

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

and daughter to Marseille, and in early July to London. As they knew no English, the high commission staff in London speedily found a special fare for them to take the Allan Line to Quebec and a railway journey on to Montreal.72 Another immigrant to Brazil who ended up in France with the help of the French consul was Louis Leclercq. The reader will recall that he had emigrated from France to Canada, settling in Sorel in 1873. From Noeux in the Département to Pas-de-Calais, he wrote Prime Minister Laurier a letter in late May imploring his assistance in getting back to Canada. He claimed that he had supported the Laurier Liberals and because of that lost his position in 1891 (with the election of the Macdonald Conservatives in Ottawa) as the superintendent of the gas corporation there. Due to “unmerited misfortunes,” he wrote, he left for Brazil on the Moravia, becoming a victim of that migration. In consequence, he returned to France (with the help of the French Consulate) where he only had a distasteful experience73 and thus hoped to return with the assistance of the state. He also said that his mp, A.A. Bruneau, would vouch for him, which he did, although too late. Unfortunately for Leclercq, he was told that the Canadian government would not authorize any more payments for the repatriation of Canadians from the Brazil episode. What Leclercq did not tell Laurier was that he was blind, which might explain why he emigrated. The reader will recall that two weeks after the family’s arrival, the French consul in São Paulo had asked the minister of Agriculture to prolong the family’s stay in the hospedaria given the difficult conditions of the family: Mme Leclercq was very weak and died in Marseille in early January 1897. The Leclercqs do not appear to have ever returned. The deputy minister of the Interior, James Smart, replied that there would be no more expenditures to help back Canadians from abroad.74 There is no record of Leclercq in the Canadian census following this exchange. A year after the departure of the Moravia, a few more of the destitute immigrants were helped back. Thomas Wright, a fifty-year-old widower from Montreal was given passage back home via New York in early October. It is not clear what happened to his twenty-year-old son, William. Another widower, Antoine Levieux, and his twenty-one-yearold son, Joseph, were sent from Liverpool to Halifax in mid-November. George and Jane Ann Peat of Point Saint Charles returned to Montreal in late January 1898, but we do not know what happened to their two 119

mad fligh t?

daughters, three-year-old Flora and one-year-old Jenny. Mary Benoit arrived in New York from Rio on 16 March 1898, but there was no word of her husband, Joseph Chayer.75 Mary was suffering from rheumatism when she begged the consular agent in São Paulo for help. She “had become a perfect cripple, and was only able to move on crutches.”76 Ten months earlier, some returned immigrants had reported that Chayer was held up on his journey because of illness. He had been walking from his coffee plantation to São Paulo.77 By June 1898 Canadian authorities asked for information on any remaining Canadian immigrants in Brazil. Constantine Phipps did not have much for them. George Walters, age thirty-five, was still there with his wife, Ada Bick, twenty-six, and their three-year-old son, James. They were expecting another child. John Thomas, forty-seven and his thirty-eight-year-old wife, Elizabeth, were also left in Brazil with their three children, Margaret, thirteen, John Philip, twelve, and George Edward, eight years old. The family was most anxious to get back to Canada. Phipps argued that it was necessary to help them because Elizabeth was not in good health. The father and John Philip planned to work their passages up to New York and the others would be assisted financially. Phipps asked for authorization from Canada, which he received, but by mid-March 1899 John Thomas had a good job and wished to continue working there until he might later require assistance. The family finally left Santos for New York, arriving there on 1 September. The captain of the ss Bellina allowed John and his eldest son to work their passages back.78 As we mentioned earlier, Joseph Loiselle could not be located and neither could a J.B. Duchesne, who oddly, does not appear on the Moravia register. The latter individual is probably listed as Jean Baptiste Ahrens, of Montreal. Percy Lupton said that he had appeared at the São Paulo consulate begging for some help, and when Lupton provided some assistance, Duchesne gave Lupton a money order for forty dollars from his wife for safekeeping. That was in mid-May 1897, and by late July Lupton had not heard back from him. As he put it, “this man disappeared from here in a mysterious manner … I heard that this man was a bit weird in his head, but his conduct on the occasion of his visits to the consulate did not bear out that report.” Quebec’s Daily Telegraph reported his return in September 1897. Duschesne stated that very few Canadians were left in Brazil. He suffered less as a single man 120

The British Consular Staff and the Crisis

than did other emigrants. “Still after three months’ experience on a coffee plantation, seeing plenty of snakes and insects, and running into debt to buy food at the plantation store, he decided to walk 360 miles to get back to São Paulo.” This was probably a gross exaggeration. He contracted yellow fever in the city and when he improved he worked his way back to New York.79 In that same report, Percy Lupton wrote that “my colleague at Santos and myself pride ourselves in having repatriated nearly the whole of these unfortunate people losing by death but very few adults, considering they arrived at the beginning of a hot and unhealthy summer. We were most fortunate. We have now but very few left here and some of them are wishing to stay.” Elsewhere, he spoke confidently of the São Paulo consulate’s capacity “to effect a complete clearance of all of them.”80 In Santos, Francis William Mark wrote that “there remain so few Canadians now and these are jogging along independently of us and not being maintained either by Mr. Lupton or myself as naturally you would suppose. There is one family at the Casa de Imigracão who were refused on the Royal Mail owing to three children with measles and I represented to the Minister that it would be preferable to promptly free the state of them. The others are maintaining themselves somehow but Mr. Lupton tells me he is subsisting some of them absolutely and here my field is clear altogether of Canadians.”81 A few weeks later, returned immigrant Jules Ledoux stated that a great number of Canadians succumbed to yellow fever and some others who could not afford to pay their passage had to stay in Brazil. He declared that he was among the last of the Canadians to return.82 A few weeks after Ledoux’s return, the Canadian government closed its files on the Canadian emigrants. As Canada had not had to deal with the issue of repatriation on an extensive scale, it lacked an appropriate department. The financial burden fell on the Ministry of the Interior, which was uncertain as to how to obtain funds. By June of 1897, it had dispensed of $3,055.77 on the repatriation scheme.83 Almost a year and one-half later the Montreal Gazette reported that “while several hundred made their way back, with the assistance of the Canadian and British governments, during the winter of 1896 following their emigration, and many others have worked their way home since, there are others who have been and still are unable to get out of the country.” The Montreal Gazette estimated that about fifty Canadians 121

mad fligh t?

were still left in Brazil in late 1898. It is impossible to verify that number or to know how many of them ever came back.84 Depending upon to whom one spoke, the perceptions of the gravity of the Moravia episode differed. For the Liberal party in power, the migration had been a nasty affair that endangered Canada’s own immigration program and threatened to become a hornets’ nest unless the government showed concern in assisting emigrants back to Canada. The perspective of the emigrants was very different. It was perhaps best captured by Joseph Trudel when he exclaimed Restons au pays (Let’s stay home in our land): “If only I could make myself heard by my compatriots! At times we complain about poverty in Canada. Ah, if only we could have an idea of what poverty really is, dark poverty, the one we see that has spread to Brazil, London, Ireland and elsewhere, we could assert that after all Canada is a lucky country!”85

122

CHAPTER 6

Conclusion

It is striking how a story that garnered such interest among Montrealers should have been forgotten so quickly. This is the way memory often works. Events can draw thousands of individuals, as did this incident attract the Montrealers who ventured to the city port on 15 September 1896 to see off the emigrants or convince them not to leave. In a short time the memory dims and soon there is no mention of the event. The last time that the Canadian newspapers referred to the episode was in April 1901 when many Italian immigrants were recruited as labourers in Canada by Italian labour agents or padroni for the Canadian Pacific Railway.1 In Montreal they found themselves with meager wages and paying inflated prices for foodstuffs and lodging. Assuredly, they had accepted offers to work in Canada but once in the country they discovered that they had been deceived. Did it sound familiar? It certainly did to the La Presse reporter who wrote the front-page article. As he noted, this story “brought back the memory of that all too famous expedition of our compatriots to Brazil in 1896. Fascinated by the flashy accounts that were held up to them hundreds of Canadians left their families in order to go and search in unknown places the fortune that cowardly speculators had promised them.”2 It was an all too famous episode, but after 1901 there was no more mention of it. Of course, the tragedies and drama of the First World War ensured that the Brazilian incident retreated into the forgotten past. Perhaps parents did not communicate their experiences to children who were not yet born or were too young to remember, as people often do when they undergo a traumatic event. Eight hundred people had been implicated in the affair. Almost five hundred travelled to Brazil and most of them returned to Canada. And yet, no lore or oral history of this migration persisted. This is a curious

mad fligh t?

fact because so many lives were deeply marked by this episode, perhaps even ruined. From consular or newspaper accounts we know that a number of people died or were deathly ill while there. We mentioned the man and two children who died on board the Moravia. Others, such as G. Dickson and C. Brown of Montreal, were struck down by yellow fever.3 We know that those subscribers to the voyage of the Moravia who ended up staying in Canada lost everything in order to buy their tickets, and that some of them lost their possessions when they left their luggage on the ship. Others who were not helped by consular authorities had to pay their way back to Canada from Brazil. They arrived in Quebec without a cent to their names, in rags, hungry, and often sick, obliged to start their lives over again in cities or on farms. Perhaps the takeoff in the economy that began in late 1896, offering the hope of finding work, made it possible for them to pick up again. From census records we are able to trace precious few of the individuals and determine their circumstances – whether they had jobs, what kind of work they engaged in, whether or not they owned a home, or expanded their families. Napoléon Brière, from Montreal, who had worked in the Sabaúna plantations, ended up back in Montreal in Saint Marie Ward. George Clermont also went back to that ward and continued to work as a saddler. Richard Collever, who had a good post as a fireman for one of the railways in 1891 and lived in Saint Gabriel Ward, had moved to Saint Anne Ward by 1901 where he worked as a labourer. He was still doing the same in 1911. David Fecteau, one of the farm labourers from Sorel, moved to Saint Anne’s Ward where he also worked as a labourer. George Gow ended up as a hotel clerk in Manitoba. Charles Harris had been a steam fitter in Montreal in the early 1890s and worked as a storeman for the Canadian Pacific Railway just before departing for Brazil. By 1901 he had moved from Saint Anne to Saint Gabriel Ward. John Jones continued as a labourer when he returned to Saint Anne’s Ward in Montreal, while Joseph Lapierre, who had been a grocer, returned to Hochelaga as a farmer. Charles Sanderson went back to Saint Gabriel’s Ward as a fireman on the railway and by 1911 was an engineer in the city of Lachine. Evariste Simard, who had started off as a farmer and ended up as a postmaster and mayor of Saint Alphonse in the Saguenay before leaving for Brazil, returned to his occupation of postmaster in that town. John Thomas, who had been a carter in Saint Cunégonde in the early 1890s 124

Conclusion

and then a labourer in Saint Henri before leaving for Brazil, returned to that Montreal suburb once again as a carter. Joseph Trudel returned to Lévis where he worked as a wheelwright. Thomas William, who had been a labourer in Montreal, went back to Saint Marie Ward as a moulder keeper. Georgiana Loiselle and Jane Wyatt settled in the same ward. We only have a sample of about fifteen adult males. We know that some of the migrants died, and some returned to Britain and France. Of those who returned to Canada, it would seem that most found equivalent or even better jobs, and a few ended up in lower-level occupations. The expansion of the Canadian economy after 1896 certainly allowed all of these migrants to find gainful employment, and some were even able to return to their former jobs. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the returned migrants never left a written record, or at least one that we can recover in archives. Perhaps some families have correspondence from the period but this we do not know. If we have some more substantial information on these migrants or on people involved with the migration, after 1898, when the vast majority had returned, it is on those individuals who were not of the farming or working classes. The reader will recall that during the sailing of the Moravia, only two passengers were not in steerage. One was the journalist, Elie Tassé from the Ottawa region, who was supposed to send back reports to La Presse, La Minerve, and Le Temps, for their coverage of the Canadian emigrants in Brazil. Strangely, he had not been listed in the register of emigrants on board the ship or as one of the immigrants arriving at the immigrant hostel in São Paulo. One might have thought that he had returned soon after his assignment had terminated. In March of 1899, this “broken down young French-Canadian” went to the offices of the Rio News to relate his experiences in Brazil before leaving for Canada with the help of the British consul. According to the paper, this “physical wreck” was only one of two Canadians left behind from the “Canadian band.” The other was a poor Irish woman who had become an inmate of the Santa Casa de Misericórdia Hospital in São Paulo. In fact, there was at least a third immigrant who stayed behind. Jules Dauphin, a former boiler maker, was born in France but immigrated to Montreal as a child, and moved into Ottawa County, Quebec in 1891 before signing on for the migration to Brazil. On 19 February 1899 he was registered as entering the immigration hostel in Minas Gerais with his twenty-one-year-old 125

mad fligh t?

wife, Moud, and a ten-month-old daughter, Louise. This was the family that had taken a piano to Brazil on the Moravia.4 Tassé related the whole story of the ill-fated adventure from the setting up of an agency in Montreal until the departure of most of the Canadians. He did not say what he had been doing in Brazil for the previous two years. The other first-class passenger in the Moravia was the questionable priest involved in the whole episode, Rev. Charles-Ernest Trudel. It turned out that Trudel’s decision to go to Brazil was probably the most fateful one in his priestly life. During his early weeks in São Paulo, you will recall, he wrote the archbishop of Rimouski, André-Albert Blais, for his papers of excardination so that he could join the São Paulo diocese. In November 1896, Trudel left South America for a brief trip to Europe, and then went back to Montreal, never to return to São Paulo. There was a technical issue here: Blais did send an exeat (a letter excardinating Trudel) to the bishop of São Paulo, Joachim Arcoverde. However, by the time the document arrived in Brazil, Trudel was no longer there. To complicate matters further, a few months later, Arcoverde became the archbishop of Rio de Janeiro, another diocese. Trudel found himself in limbo. His own bishop had released him and the diocese of São Paulo would no longer have anything to do with him. His only hope was to return to Rimouski, but his bishop refused to have him back because of all the trouble Trudel had caused in the diocese in the past. There were still people who wished to bring the priest to court. As a result, Rev. Trudel spent the rest of his life looking for a stable posting. After his return from Brazil he did not work for many years. He lost his savings when his bank failed in 1899. Subsequently, he was taken in by Presbyterians. He studied at their college for three months, presumably to become a minister. He also preached at a French evangelical church. After he received reprimands from the Montreal bishop, Trudel went to Portland, Maine, where his cousin, François-Xavier Trudel, was pastor of a number of parishes in the area. The vicar general there asked him to stay on, but at a meeting of priests the subject of his trip to Brazil was brought up. It was made known that people had accused him upon his return, of “disloyalty and dishonesty.”5 As a result, his priestly faculties were revoked. Trudel then took up with Baptists in the town of Waterville, Maine where for a while he preached to them. After this, Trudel tried unsuccessfully to enter a couple of 126

Conclusion

monasteries and even worked with an apostate Old Catholic church, all in the American Midwest. His story dragged on for years. In 1921, he was still seeking the authorization to celebrate Mass. He was an inmate at the Taylor County Poor Farm in Wisconsin and had been living in poverty near Westboro for about twelve years. He died in 1930 and is buried in the east end of Montreal. Francesco Gualco, the director of the short-lived Ligure Brasiliana agency in Montreal, left the city in January 1897 for a brief period. However, he was soon on the make once again, exploiting the connections he had developed with influential individuals in Brazil and in the whole Moravia enterprise. He had good reason to skip town as there were no prospects for his agency what with all the negative publicity, the opposition of the newspapers and different levels of government. Gualco had launched a libel case against Trefflé Berthiaume, publisher of La Presse, in late September 1896. He asked a judge for the arrest of Berthiaume and sued him for five thousand dollars in damages for an article he had published in his newspaper on La Ligure Brasiliana’s role in the fiasco. What he did not know was that officials at the Department of Immigration in Ottawa were feeding Berthiaume evidence for his defense.6 Gualco also sued the editor of Le Moniteur du Commerce, Frank D. Shallow, for the same amount. He lost the first case and probably the second as well.7 As he had done in Italy when he had legal problems, he left town. A few months later, through the connections he had established with Américo de Campos Sobrinho in the Moravia scheme, Francesco and his wife Josephine met Antonio Augusto de Souza, whose daughter had married Campos’s brother, Carlos. The family invited the Gualcos to their city, São Paulo, where they met de Souza and through de Souza’s powerful connections in a political system dominated by clientilismo (patronage), Francesco and Antonio obtained a forty-year electric tramway monopoly concession for the city. Gualco arranged for the capital backing through Canadian and American financiers. The two original partners then sold their concession to the new corporation that eventually became the Brazilian Traction, Light, and Power Company. Gualco died just a few years later at a relatively young age, while Josephine remarried and moved to Kincardine, Ontario. She purchased a large estate there and donated it to a local hospital in 1908 before permanently returning to Europe.8 127

mad fligh t?

Initially Campos did not fare well. The Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture’s 1896 report noted that, “not having obtained the desired results from the immigration from Canada, and on the contrary having brought grave embarrassment to the administration, the Government resolved to suspend it, and for that reason Campos was dispensed of his duties” in Montreal.9 Campos proceeded to Lisbon and Malaga where he became an immigration inspector for his state government, doing the same job he had tried to do in Montreal. He was twenty-five years old at the time, and had previously been police chief for São Paulo. He was elected a state deputy in 1898, and again from 1915 until 1927, and was then a senator for three years. He was married in 1914 and died in 1933.10 John Magor, a merchant originally from Newfoundland and the acting Brazilian vice-consul in Montreal, continued on in that position until his death in 1899 at the age of sixty-four.11 It was remarkable that as late as January 1897 he seemed oblivious to the hardships of the migrants and the difficulties they had caused in the local, national, and international contexts. In a letter to Carvalho, the minister of Agriculture in São Paulo, he asked for payment for having filled in for Campos as fiscal immigration commissioner in the weeks following the departure of the Moravia. More surprisingly, he suggested that Brazil continue its efforts to attract Canadians. He planned to arrange for prospective emigrants to take discounted fares on regular lines from New York to Rio, rather than charter a ship from Montreal. This would have the advantage of not attracting the attention of the Canadian government!12 The episode of the Moravia leaves us with more questions than answers. Although quantitative data can help us to perceive why some residents of Quebec chose to leave and others did not, it is more difficult to decipher the deeper reasons. We have hypothesized that many of those who left were either disaffiliated or chose not to trust their networks. This opens up to the question as to why this should have been the case. Did disaffiliation result from increasing class and economic segregation of society? Perhaps, but there is not enough evidence to support this claim. The economic recession took its toll, leaving people unemployed and uncertain about their futures. Was migration a desperate attempt to resolve the problem or the prospect of unemployment? Historically, migration streams often emerged in cycles of slow economic growth or of stagnation in the sending country. They did not necessarily begin in 128

Conclusion

a period of economic recession, especially if the migration target was also in a period of stagnation. For example, migration from Europe to Canada declined in the mid-1870s or the mid-1890s, when Canada suffered strong economic recessions. Although this was not the central factor in the Canadians’ failed migration, these emigrants left for the São Paulo coffee plantations in 1896, just as coffee prices declined. Materialistic motives alone cannot explain the migration. A decline in trust in those migrants’ networks, or in the migrants’ unwillingness to listen to their families and friends might offer one plausible reason, but it is difficult to explain that decline in trust. Did the breakdown of the bonds of trust, the unwillingness to heed advice, or disaffiliation reflect a decline in neighbourliness in the late nineteenth century?13 Despite the theoretical arguments in the literature it is difficult to come up with clear evidence of this decline. These questions are not easy to assess but they ultimately are connected to the question of why those 481 emigrants left the port of Montreal on that day. They also suggest that our preliminary hypothesis and findings are only a first step response. The lack of rootedness of migrants in Montreal, in particular, or of French immigrants around Sorel, and the ensuing dearth of a kin network offer one significant explanation, but it does not account for all the migrants. We must keep in mind as well that these migrants were largely urban labourers and went off to Brazil to pursue a new career in agriculture. This significant change in vocation compounded the difficulties of adjusting to a new country, climate, disease, insects, language, and culture. Was the episode of the Moravia a “mad flight?” In many ways it was typical of so many migration stories of the late nineteenth century. Unskilled, skilled, and agricultural labourers facing unemployment, particularly during an economic downturn, were prone to taking risks, and at times the risks could appear to be extravagant, unrealistic. It was not unusual for migrants – in particular single male migrants – to fail in their endeavours. Consider the many stories of unsuccessful adventurers who joined a gold rush or travelled to work on the railroads in Canada on the cusp of a recession. What was unusual about the Moravia emigrants is that they were families who in a brief period of time – a matter of weeks or days – decided to leave their homes. They sold their belongings, arrived in a land unsuited to their abilities, and found themselves to be ill-equipped to perform the work expected of them. As one American witness to their plight noted in her travel journal in Brazil, 129

mad fligh t?

they had arrived in “this ‘Land of Warmth and Sunshine,’ knowing nothing of agriculture, half-skilled in some trades, or well-skilled in trades useless to Brazil … They sickened. Their feet festered with jiggers. They could not speak Portuguese. They were helpless.”14 In that sense their story takes on the tragic tones of the Dantean account of Ulysses’s “mad flight.”

130

APPENDIX 1

List of Emigrants Who Sailed to Santos from Montreal

Age

34 33 15 42 42 30 32 12 9 6 3 1 mth 45 30 45

Joseph Tremblay Delina Conture Marie Tremblay Julius Kroey Fleda Bruithener John James Shaw Aganers Gurdens Bella Shaw James Shaw Helena Shaw Nellie Shaw John Shaw Evariste Simard Emilia Grant Charles Peterson 2

7

2

3

Fam. Size M M N-M M M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M M

Civil State RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC Prot.

Relig

Died on board Moravia or in Brazil Helped back by British (or French) consular officials Helped back and had a baby in Brazil Worked their way back on ship; partial help of consulate

Name

D H HB HW

Key to Return column’s abbreviations:

Husband Wife Daughter Husband Wife Husband Wife Daugther Son Daughter Daughter Son Husband Wife Husband

Relationship St Alphonse St Alphonse St Alphonse St Cunégonde St Cunégonde Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Rivière du Loup Rivière du Loup Montreal

Domicile

[illegible] [illegible] [illegible] Babylonia Babylonia V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro S. Veridiana S. Veridiana V. Rio Claro

Destination

H H H

Return

Mureal Young Ida Peterson Carl Peterson Samuel Jones Annie Jones William Jones George Duggan Sarah Duggan Joseph Lenzon Peter Lenzon Mary Haysom Charles Haysom George Haysom Arthur Haysom Albert Haysom Walter Haysom Thomas Haysom Joseph Haysom Frank Haysom Albert Windsor Elisa Halloway Cecila Windsor Joseph Lossel Gergena Mahar Bertha Lossel

24 12 10 42 22 14 36 40 40 18 45 25 24 23 22 21 20 18 14 28 28 4 29 31 3 3

3

9

2

4

M N-M N-M M N-M N-M M M Widower N-M Widow N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M M M N-M

Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC

Wife Daughter Son Husband Daughter Son Husband Wife Husband Son Wife Son Son Son Son Son Son Son Son Husband Wife Daughter Husband Wife Daughter Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Hochelaga Hochelaga Hochelaga

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal [illegible]

S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana

V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro Araraquara Araraquara Araraquara Araraquara Araraquara S. Veridiana S. Veridiana V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro

HB H

H H H

Age

38 34 33 24 10mth 34 29 6 26 21 10mth 40 19 18 40 37 3 11mth 11mth 28 20 10mth

Name

Charles Howden Mena Peterson James Walters Ada Bick James Walters Patrick Farrell Marguerite Burt Edward Gereux E. Percival Holman Lucy Graft Percival Holman Louise Graft John Holman William Graft Nicholas Canade Carmelia Dramis Rodolphe Canade Emilie Canade Ernestina Canade Eugenio Canade Bonaventura Marras Hector Canade 8

6

3

3

2

Fam. Size M M M M N-M M M N-M M M N-M Widow N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M

Civil State Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Relig

Domicile

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Husband Montreal Wife Montreal Adopted Son Montreal Husband Montreal Wife Montreal Husband Montreal Mother-in-law Montreal Brother Montreal Brother-in-law Montreal Husband Montreal Wife Montreal Son Montreal Daughter Montreal Daughter Montreal Brother Montreal Sister-in-law Montreal Nephew Montreal

Husband Wife Husband Wife

Relationship

Capital Capital Capital Araraquara Araraquara Araraquara Araraquara Araraquara Araraquara Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital

Araraquara Araraquara

Destination

HW H H HW H HW H H H

Return

mad fligh t?

Maria Canade William Skelcher Alice Saylor John Skelcher James Saylor Alfred Powel Louisa Powel William Powel Gilbert Powel Henry Hurcomb Emilie Store Stephen Hurcomb Jane Hurcomb Rose Hurcomb Emily Hurcomb Milly Hurcomb Edward Hurcomb Lillian Hurcomb John Geondron Mary Claremond Homan Geondron Francina Geondron Henry Foucault Joseph Foucault Joseph Musset

135

8days 24 20 20 19 30 31 8 13mth 40 36 17 15 12 10 6 4 1 31 23 2 1 38 18 33 4

4

9

4

4

M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M Widower N-M N-M

Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC. RC RC RC RC

Husband Wife Brother Brother-in-law Husband Wife Son Son Husband Wife Son Daughter Daughter Daughter Daughter Daughter Daughter Husband Wife Son Daughter Husband Son Brother-in-law

Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve St Justine St Justine StJustine

Capital V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard Capital Capital Capital Capital Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto H H H H H H H H H H H H H

H H H

Age

34 23 40 38 20 16 14 11 9.5 26 26 32 3mth 50 26 28 38 7 43 42 15 11

Name

Ovila Nantel Elizabeth Murphy Richard Collever Annie May William Collever Annie Collever Richard Collever James Collever Agnese Collever George Martin Rene Jules Denis Marie Adeline Dube Elizabeth Denis Bertrand Jos. Paquet Maurice Dube Charles Harris Melina Harris William Harris John O’Donnell Louise O’Donnell Charles O’Donnell Ethell O’Donnell 4

8

2

Fam. Size M M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M M M N-M N-M

Civil State RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC

Relig Husband Wife Husband Wife Son Daughter Son Son Daughter Nephew Husband Wife Daughter Father-in-law Brother-in-law Husband Wife Son Husband Wife Son Daughter

Relationship Riv. des Prairies Riv. des Prairies Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt StCharles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Verdun Verdun Verdun Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles

Domicile

V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro Mus: S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana Mus: V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard Batataís Batataís Batataís Batataís

Destination

H H H H H H H

H H H H

H

Return

Henry Storme Achille Storme Charles Moore Emilia York Frank Moore Emma Moore Charles Moore Elisa Moore Wellie Moore Bertha York Howard Arthur Howard Joseph Bruly Louise Dupuit Henry Bruly Napoleon Bruly Joseph Perry Angela Mascor Rose Perry James Perry Carmel Perry Dominique Perry Angel Perry Alexander Mascor Henry Pierce Sarah Pierce

60 28 40 29 11 9 7 5 2 24 1 42 40 14 12 46 40 10 6 4 22 36 32 25 24 8

4

9

2

Widower N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M Widow N-M M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M

RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot.

Husband Son Husband Wife Son Daughter Son Daughter Son Sister-in-law Nephew Husband Wife Son Son Husband Wife Daughter Son Daughter Niece Brother Brother-in-law Husband Wife

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Pt St Charles Pt St Charles

Babylonia Babylonia Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Mus: S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Araraquara Araraquara H H H H

HB H H H H D

H

Age

3 34 23 25 1 19 41 22 40 17 36 58 33 36 13 7 4 2 36

29 10

Name

Marie Louise Pierce James Pierce Thomas Williams Mennie Williams Walter Williams Alfred Williams Thomas Evans James Evans Antony Levieux Joseph Xav. Levieux Joseph Levieux John Waljo Wiliam Wern Helene O’Donnell Jenney Wern Bridget Wern Edward Wern Marguerite Wern Joseph Guy

Philomena Ouilette Jean Guy

4

2

4

4

Fam. Size

M N-M

N-M N-M M M N-M N-M Widower N-M Widower N-M N-M Widower M M N-M N-M N-M N-M M

Civil State

RC RC

Prot. Pr.ot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC

Relig

Wife Son

Daughter Brother Husband Wife Son Brother Husband Son Husband Son Brother Father-in-law Husband Wife Daughter Daughter Son Daughter Husband

Relationship

Acadie Acadie

Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal

Domicile Araraquara Araraquara Mus: V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard Mus: V. Raffard V. Raffard Capital Capital Mus: S. Veridiana S. Veridiana Batataís Batataís Batataís Batataís Batataís Batataís Mus: R. Preto; Dumont R. Preto R. Preto

Destination

H H H

H H H H H H H

H H

HW H H

Return

Rosana Guy Philippe Guy Oscar Guy Joseph Guy Louis Devigne Adele Levicuse Adele Devigne Marcel Devigne John Inglis Margaret Culder John Inglis James Inglis Adolphe Berneaux Rosalie Massy George Georgette Charles Lafeniere Louise Rajotte Allan Laferriere Caron Rajotte Joseph Derocher Josephine Grenier Marie Anne Derocher Anabelle Derocher Camillo Derocher Maure Carmer

8 6 5 2 33 26 2 1 38 26 6 4 41 28 27 30 26 22 23 31 30 6 8mth 45 22 RC RC R,C. RC Prot.

M M N-M N-M M

2

4

3

4

RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC

N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M M N-M M M

Husband

Husband Wife Daughter Daughter

Daughter Son Son Son Husband Wife Daughter Son Husband Wife Son Son Husband Wife Adopted Son Husband Wife

Lachine

Lotbinière Lotbinière Lotbinière Lotbinière

Acadie Acadie Acadie Acadie Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel St Hyacinthe St Hyacinthe St Hyacinthe Hull Hull

Sabaúna Sabaúna Sabaúna Sabaúna

Capital Capital Capital Capital S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana

R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto

H H H H

H H

H H H

H H H D

Age

45 39 30 50 38 15

5 4 2.5 38 45 40 34 38 40 25 18 28 23 7 6

Name

Carmella Daunez Julius Collins Anna Maglin George Sanguinet Mary Beauchamp Medenia Derienne

Henry Sanguinet Jeanne Sanginet Regina Sanguinet Jules Ledoux Therese Gossiaux Michael Andrews Annie Maloney Jean Disteldorff Gabrielle Ahrens Jean Baptiste Ahrens Albert Elast Joseph Lapierre Eloise Provencal Bertha Lapierre Joseph Lapierre 4

2

2

6

Fam. Size

N-M N-M N-M M M M M M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M

M M M M N-M

Civil State

RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC. RC RC RC RC RC RC

Prot. Prot. RC RC RC

Relig

Husband Wife Husband Wife Adopted daughter Son Daughter Daughter Husband Wife Husband Wife Wife Wife Brother-in-law Nephew Husband Wife Daughter Son

Relationship

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal

Domicile

Capital Capital Capital S. Veridiana S. Veridiana Mus: V.R. Claro V.R. Claro V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard Mus: Sabaúna Sabaúna Sabaúna Sabaúna

Cravinhos Cravinhos Capital Capital Capital

Destination

H H H H

H

H H H HW H H

H H H

Return

Debra Lapierre Adrien Lapierre William Davis Rosa Anns Joseph Hogan Mary MacCarthy William Marriott Annie Marriott William Marriott Edward Marriott Nelson F. Lacombe Rosalie Gravel Alfred Clarke Sarah Sward Lilie Clark Frederick Payne Harwert Payne John Payne Mennie Payne Ethel Payne Bernice Payne Franklyn Payne Gladys Payne Florence Payne Daniel Dunn

5 2.5 32 34 43 40 25 23 3mth 18 43 39 26 23 2 40 40 15 15 13 9.5 7 5 3 25 10

2

2

2

6

N-M N-M M M M M M M N-M N-M M M M M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M

RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot.

Daughter Son Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife Son Brother Husband Wife Husband Wife Daughter Husband Wife Son Daughter Daughter Daughter Son Daughter Daughter Nephew

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Lévis Lévis Montreal Montreal Montreal Côte St Louis Côte St Louis Côte St Louis Côte St Louis Côte St Louis Côte St Louis Côte St Louis Côte St Louis Côte St Louis Côte St Louis V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital

Sabaúna Sabaúna V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard

H H HW H H

Fam. Age

28 30 5 2.5 42 32 7 5 2 38 29 12 10 6 3 3mth 45 36 12 10 8 28

Name

Mike Kennedy P. (Bridget) Horly Mary Kennedy Patrick Kennedy Charles Sanderson Lina [illegible] Andy Sanderson Lidia Sanderson Lisa Sanderson Robert Lanning Mary Fitzsimmons Emma Lanning Lorna Lanning Boby Lanning Arthur Lanning Ethel Lanning John Thomas Elizabeth [illegible] Marguerite Thomas John Thomas George Thomas Joseph Wyatt 5

7

5

4

Civil Size M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M M

State RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Relig Husband Wife Daughter Son Husband Wife Son Daughter Daughter Husband Wife Daughter Daughter Daughter Son Daughter Husband Wife Daughter Son Son Husband

Relationship Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal St Gabriel

Domicile

V. Rio Claro

Mus: Batataís Batataís Batataís Batataís Batataís Batataís Batataís

Destination

HW H H HW H D

H H H H H H H H H

Return

Jane Amos Rena Wyatt Emily Wyatt Lezzie Wyatt Robert Amos Michael Welsh Chaterina Donalson Henry Welsh Richard Welsh John Welsh James Welsh William Welsh Charles Welsh Robert Welsh Henry Verelle Florentine Coupin Henry Verelle Mary Verelle John Jones Elizabeth Walter Annie MacDougall John MacDougall Victor MacDougall Alfred MacDougall Adelina MacDougall

29 3 1 3mth 28 43 44 19 15 13 11 9 7 5 35 24 4 2 40 36 35 19 14 13 9.5 5

4

10

6

M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M M Widow N-M N-M N-M N-M

RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC

Wife Daughter Daughter Daughter Brother-in-law Husband Wife Son Son Son Son Son Son Son Husband Wife Son Daughter Husband Wife Wife Son Son Son Daughter

St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel Quebec Quebec Quebec Quebec Quebec Quebec Quebec Quebec Quebec Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve

H H H H H H H H H HW H H H

H H H H H

S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana

H H H D?

V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro Mus: S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana

Fam. Age

41 39 13 44 42 23 35 35 36 36 7 5 4 2 13 38 40 21 27 24 23 21

Name

Michael Robert Sung Des Lonces Jovin Robert Peter Des Lonces Joseph Chalifoux Selma Cherien Thomas Michaud Celina Vezina James Mackay Mary Dwyer William Mackay Martha Mackay Robert Mackay Alice Mackay Florence Mackay George Clermont Severina Allarice George Clermont William Middleton Rhoda Clewon Samuel Maxwell Cristina MacIntosh 2

7

2

2

4

Civil Size M M N-M N-M M M M M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M M M M M

State RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot.

Relig

Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife Son Daughter Son Daughter Orphan Husband Wife Son Husband Wife Husband Wife

Husband Wife Son Brother-in-law

Relationship Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Kamouraska Kamouraska Kamouraska Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Montreal Montreal

Domicile

Capital Capital

R. Preto Mus: R. Preto R. Preto Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Mus: R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto

Capital Capital Capital Capital

Destination

HW? H HW? H

H H H H H H H H H

D

Return

Eugene Lemoine Francoise Coupin Leonie Lemoine Aleide Lemoine Alexander Messier Sarah Carther Margret Blevin James Blevin Thomas Blevin Ada Hales Blevin William Hales Jacint Deary Lin Deary Dominique Deary Antony Deary Ferdinand Deary Henry Noakes Emma Weber Cresse Noakes William Noakes John Eccleson Ellen Wright Patrick Meaney Mary Culuran Annie Meaney

32 32 14mth 43 40 39 42 23 18 21 27 48 28 25 39 22 33 24 2.5 9mth 41 44 29 23 2.5 3

2

4

5

5

2

N-M 4

M M RC N-M M M Widow N-M N-M M M Widower N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M M M M N-M

RC Husband RC Wife Daughter Montreal RC Brother RC Husband RC Wife Prot. Wife Prot. Son Prot. Son Prot. Daughter Prot. Son-in-law RC Husband RC Son RC Son RC Nephew RC Nephew RC Husband RC Wife RC Son RC Daughter RC Husband RC Wife RC Husband RC Wife RC Daughter

Montreal Montreal R. Preto Montreal St Charles St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Lachine Lachine Lachine Lachine Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro

R. Preto Mus: R. Preto R. Preto

Mus: R. Preto R. Preto

H H H

H H H

Fam. Age

32 30 2 1mth 33 27 8 6 4 2 2mth 30 25 42 42 12 6 25 27 3 45 43

Name

George Peat Jane Blakey Flora Peat Jennie Peat John Poley Sarah Moody William Poley James Poley Eliza Poley George Poley Ester Poley James Williamson Elizabeth Haines Cesar Delenz Francoise Saur Augustin Delenz Blanche Delenz James Stearns Annie Quigley Albert Stearns Charles Stearns John Atkinson 4

4

7

Civil Size M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M

State Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC Prot.

Relig Husband Wife Daughter Daughter Husband Wife Son Son Daughter Son Daughter Husband Wife Husband Wife Son Daughter Husband Wife Son Brother Husband

Relationship Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal St Jn Baptiste

Domicile

V. Raffard

Capital Capital Mus: R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto

Destination

H

H H H

H H H H

Return

Mary Welch Henry Bush William Carr Jane Galespie Eugene Chaffin Louise Espere Claire Chaffin Rene Chaffin Thomas Wright William Wright Pascal de Mars Mary Levieux Mary de Mars Rosanna de Mars Angele de Mars Carmela de Mars Charles Bernard Pamela Chagnon Corinna Bernard Rodolphe Bernard Antonietta Bernard Olivier Chagnon Adolphe Leroux Delphina [illegible] Adolphe Leroux

38 26 22 24 42 38 14 4.5 50 21 34 23 6 4 2 10mth 36 25 5 4 2 34 45 35 7.5 6

6

2

2

3

M N-M M M M M N-M N-M Widower N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M

Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Wife Nephew Husband Wife Husband Wife Daughter Son Husband Son Husband Wife Daughter Daughter Son Daughter Husband Wife Daughter Son Daughter Brother-in-law Husband Wife Son

St Jn Baptiste St Jn Baptiste Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal

V. Raffard V. Raffard Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital Mus: R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto Mus: S. Ver S. Veridiana S. Veridiana H

H H

H

Fam. Age

9mth 28 27 6 4 27 23 26 39 22 45 25 7 4 2 44 43 43 31 6mth 25 22

Name

Ferdinand Leroux Arthur Simpson Sillay Simpson Volvet Simpson Daley Simpson Mayer Levy Dora Lagenas Joseph Chayer Mary Benoit Octave Chayer Jean Vacher Annie Keattey Joseph Vacher Mary Vacher Camille Vacher Thomas Jessops Mary Allan James MacArthur Mary MacArthur Douglas MacArthur George Alfred John Alfred 5

3

2

5

3

2

4

4

Civil Size N-M M M N-M N-M M M M M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M M M M M N-M M M

State RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot.

Relig Son Husband Wife Daughter Daughter Husband Wife Husband Wife Brother Husband Wife Son Daughter Son Husband Wife Husband Wife Son Nephew Nephew

Relationship Montreal St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel St Laurent St Laurent Montreal Montreal Montreal ND Salette ND Salette ND Salette ND Salette ND Salette Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal

Domicile

Mus: R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana V. Raffard V. Raffard Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital

S. Veridiana Mus: V. Raf V. Raffard V. Raffard V. Raffard

Destination

H H

H

HW H H H

Return

Robert Artur Louis Courtois Emma Gauthier Alphonse Courtois Dora Courtois Adolphe Courtois Eugene Conti Henriette Gonselin Emery Conti Alexandre Conti Elsy Conti Mary Gagneau Jules Dauphin Mary Lacombe Narcise Dauphin George Auclair Cordelia Masson Charles Gentil Catherine Gallighan Dominique Gentil James Peterson Rosanna Fetors Hypolite Kramer Jean Baptiste Kramer Arthur Doron

42 33 27 10 11 3 39 34 10 7 5 15 28 19 1mth 21 19 40 30 15mth 35 35 58 29 36 2

3

5

M M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M M M M M N-M M M Widower N-M N-M

RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. RC RC RC

Husband Montreal Wife Montreal Son Montreal Daughter Montreal Son Montreal Husband ND Salette Wife ND Salette Son ND Salette Son ND Salette Daughter ND Salette AdoPt daughter ND Salette Husband Namur Wife Namur Son Namur Husband Montreal Wife Montreal Husband Hochelaga Wife Hochelaga Son Hochelaga Husband Montreal Wife Montreal Husband Montreal Son Montreal Nephew Montreal Capital Capital Capital Capital Capital V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro Mus R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto

Sabaúna Sabaúna Sabaúna Sabaúna Sabaúna Mus:S. Ver S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana S. Veridiana

H?

HW H H H H

H H H H H

Fam. Age

29 31 3 6mth 26 25 2.5 3mth 30 32 25 22 1mth 34 47 44 19 17 14 12 9 7

Name

Elian Louteff Vitalian Claprood Annette Louteff George Louteff Napoleon Briere Tela Anderson Edith Briere Adina Briere Adolphe Briere Allan Briere Joseph Trudel Georgiana Deliste Joseph Trudel Albert Trudel Louis Leclercq Marie Martin Adele Leclercq Eugenie Leclercq Louis Leclercq Leon Leclercq Rosalie Leclercq Cherie Leclercq 4

5

4

Civil Size Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M

Relig

M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M

State

Husband Wife Son Brother Husband Wife Daughter Daughter Son Son Daughter Daughter

Husband Wife Daughter Son Husband Wife Daughter Daughter Brother

Relationship

Lévis Lévis Lévis Lévis Sorel Sorel Sorel Sorel Sorel Sorel Sorel Sorel

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal

[illegible]

Domicile

Capital Capital Capital Capital Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected Rejected

Capital Capital Capital Capital Mus: Sabaúna Sabanna Sabanna Sabanna Sabanna

Destination

H H H H H H H H

HW H H

H H H H H H H

Return

Alph. Fortin Le Page Grazielle Giroux Ed. Fortin Le Page David Fecteau Eliza Paul David Fecteau Charles Fecteau Ovila Fecteau Adelars Fecteau Joseph Fecteau Ernest Fuidge Alice Rowe Alice Fuidge Violette Fuidge Richard Black John Black Henry Black Franå X. Tremblay Georgina Tremblay Georgina Tremblay Florida Tremblay Emilie Tremblay [illegible] Tremblay Anna Tremblay Marie Tremblay

27 27 2 43 34 13 10 8 5 4 37 25 2 9mth 42 20 36 42 38 18 17 15 9 6 5 3

7

3

M M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M Widower N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M

RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Husband Wife Son Husband Wife Son Son Son Son Son Husband Wife Daughter Daughter Husband Son Brother Husband Wife Daughter Daugher Daughter Daughter Daughter Daughter

Montreal Montreal Montreal Briancourt Briancourt Briancourt Briancourt Briancourt Briancourt Briancourt Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Château Richer Château Richer Château Richer Château Richer Château Richer Château Richer Château Richer Château Richer Mus: Sabaúna Sabanna Sabanna Sabanna Sabanna Sabanna Sabanna Sabanna

Capital Capital Capital Mus: R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto R. Preto V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro V. Rio Claro

H H H H H H H H

H H H H H H H H H

Fam. Age

18mth 6mth 26 20 18 14 12 24 19 44 18 15 30 24 15 48 18 20 22 23 24

Name

Lavinia Tremblay Philomena Tremblay Alva-George Gaw Emma Louise Gaw Beniamin Gaw William Gaw Robert Gaw Allan Richard Gaw Nellie Gaw Baptiste Tremblay Napoleon Tremblay Solor Tremblay Adolphe Seney Mary Michaud Wilfred Seney Henry Cottam Arthur Cottam Charles Cottam James Cottam Abraham Cottam Thomas Cottam 8

10

Civil Size N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M M M [illegible] N-M N-M M M N-M Widower N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M

State RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot.

Relig Daughter Daughter Husband Wife Brother Brother Brother Brother Sister-in-law Husband Son Son Husband Wife Foundling Husband Son Son Son Nephew Brother

Relationship

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal

Château Richer Château Richer Par. St Philippe Par. St Philippe Par. St Philippe Par. St Philippe Par. St Philippe Par. St Philippe Par. St Philippe Ange Gardien Ange Gardien Ange Gardien [illegible]

Domicile Sabanna Sabanna Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Cravinhos Sabaúna Sabaúna Sabaúna Mus: S. Ver S. Veridiana S. Veridiana

Destination

HW HB

H

H D

Return

APPENDIX 2

List of Emigrants Who Subscribed but Did Not Sail on the Moravia

Age

24 26 1.5 31 29 15 13 11 7 4 2 46 38 22 11 8 7 22 20 2 22 52

Name

Alfred Girodet Eugenie St Hilaire Alfred Girodet Patrick Maher Brigdet Welsh Allin Maher Dore Maher Mary Maher Brigdet Maher Patrick Maher Batie Maher Hormisdas Meloche Henriette Lapierre Louis Meloche Joseph Meloche Clara Meloche Rosalia Meloche William Luson Adelina Morreau William Luson Jose Morreau Louis Morreau

Full Full Free Full Full Full Full Half Quarter Quarter Free Full Full Full Full Half Quarter Full Full Free Full Full

Passage Type

5

6

8

3

Fam. Size M M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M

Civil RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Religion Husband Wife Son Husband Wife Daughter Son Daughter Daughter Son Daughter Husband Wife Son Son Daughter Daughter Husband Wife Son Brother-in-law Father-in-law

Relationship

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Vaudreuil Vaudreuil Vaudreuil Vaudreuil Vaudreuil Vaudreuil Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve

Domicile

Frederick Robb Mary Smith William Robb Arthur Robb Thomas Smith Elizabeth Davis John Jones Joseph Lenzon Levis Lenzon Lezzie Lenzon Eva Lenzon Arthur Lenzon Pierre Cleroux Ethel Dube Ferdinanda Cleroux Ferdinand Cleroux Ivonne Cleroux Ovila Cleroux Marie Cleroux Leontina Cleroux Frederick Luther Elizabeth Fernsen Charles Smith Louisa Burchart Charles Burchart

23 21 21 19 23 32 4 mth 21 15 13.5 10 7 40 39 17 16 14 12 10 9 39 33 41 40 25

Full Full Full Full Full Full Free Full Full Full Half Quarter Full Full Full Full Full Full Half Half Full Full Full Full Full 2

8

7

5

5

M M N-M N-M N-M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M M M N-M

Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot.

Husband Wife Brother Brother Brother-in-law Wife Son Wife (likely Son) Son Daughter Daughter Son Husband Wife Daughter Son Daughter Son Daughter Daughter Husband Wife Husband Wife Adopted Son

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve St Thérèse St Thérèse St Thérèse St Thérèse St Thérèse St Thérèse St Thérèse St Thérèse Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal

Age

12 34 32 9 5 3 2.5 19 47 40 17 8 5 3 49 23 20 1 16 19 34 32

Name

Edward Smith Henry Ellison Marie O’Connor Brunette Ellison Vivenne Ellison Henry Ellison Felix Ellison Frederick Ross Louis Gendrean Rosanna Gendrand Raphael Gendrean Hector Gendrean Marianne Gendrean Albert Gendrean Alphonse Gendrean Ovila Gingras Adilina Gendrean Ovila Gingras Prospero Foucault Joseph Dube [illegible] [illegiblle] Goreau

Full Full Full Half Quarter Quarter Free Full Full Full Full Half Quarter Quarter Full Full Full Free Full Full Full Full

Passage Type

6

3

7

7

4

Fam. Size N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M M M

Civil Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Religion Son Husband Wife Daughter Daughter Son Son Nephew Husband Wife Son Son Daughter Son Brother Husband Wife Son Son Brother Husband Wife

Relationship Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal St Justine Montreal Montreal Montreal

Domicile

Anthony Goreau Robert Page Stapleton Ruth Swallow Owen Page Stapleton Edith Page Stapleton William Clement Page Mike Long Elisa MacGillan Richard Long Thomas Long Elisa Long Marguerite Long James MacGillan Pierre Diette Catherine Darege William Andress Ellen Fitzpatrick John Fitzpatrick Amedee Lanzon Amede Lanzon Stanislas Lanzon Isidore Lanzon Hormisdas Lanzon Teksphore Lanzon Andre Lanzon

29 42 38 21 14 30 32 28 12 6 4 2 38 24 24 26 23 28 44 20 19 17 12 8 6

Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Quarter Quarter Free Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Half Quarter 7

3

2

7

5

3

N-M M M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M M M N-M Widow N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M

RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Brother-in-law Husband Wife Son Daughter Nephew Husband Wife Son Son Daughter Daughter Brother-in-law Husband Wife Husband Wife Brother-in-law Wife Son Son Son Son Son Son

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Quebec Quebec Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal

Age

38 58 45 31 24 22 19 28 28 8 3 2 21 24 26 23 20 20 32 29 10 15mth

Name

Thomas Wern Jean Ouilette William Culder Elizabeth [illegible] Napoleon Julien [illegible] Charles Collins Rignald Nepean Sohpine Rogers Stella Nepean Jerold Nepean Catherine Nepean Robert Rogers Desire Gergeay Melania Piette Adolphe Rubingeir Annie Goldrich Louis Rubingeir Eugene Matthias Delia Pepon Delia Matthias Dolardina Matthias

Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Half Quarter Free Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Half Free

Passage Type

3

2

6

2 3

7 8 5 2

Fam. Size N-M Widower Widower M M M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M M M N-M M M N-M N-M

Civil RC RC Prot. Prot. RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC

Religion Brother Brother-in-law Father-in-law Wife Husband Wife Brother Husband Wife Daughter Son Daughter Brother-in-law Husband Wife Husband Wife Son (Brother?) Husband Wife Daughter Daughter

Relationship

Montreal Acadie St Gabriel Lachine Quebec Quebec Montreal St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel St Gabriel Laprairie Laprairie Montreal Montreal Montreal Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve Maisonneuve

Domicile

Anatole Pepin Alphonse Decaurey Selina Papin Emanuel Lacombe Amanda Renaud Emma Lacombe Joseph Allard Stephanie Provencal Ernest Allard Donalda Allard Alexander Allard Marie Blache Allard Edward Woods James Woods Morris Rothman Diana Reiston James Rothman Charles Rothman Batthie Rothman Samuel Noremberg Fanny Noremberg Annie Noremberg Hyman Noremberg Sarah Noremberg William Clark

22 26 21 27 22 7 36 32 10 5 1.5 3mth 24 21 35 32 12 4 2 36 30 8 6 1 29

Full Full Full Full Full Half Full Full Half Quarter Free Free Full Full Full Full Full Quarter Free Full Full Half Quarter Free Full 5 4

5

6

6

3

2

5

M M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M

N-M M

RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot.

Brother-in-law Husband Wife Husband Wife Daughter Husband Wife Son Daughter Son Daughter Brother-in-law Brother-in-law Husband Wife Son Son Daughter Husband Wife Daughter Son Daughter Brother

Maisonneuve Quebec Quebec Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Côte St Louis

Age

46 26 24 23 17 43 42 16 23 25 22 4 2 22 32 31 3 28 24 23 42 27

Name

Annie O’Neil James O’Neil David O’Neil John O’Neil Michael Welsh Alexandre MacLoween Elisa Foster Malcolm MacLoween Abraham Belzel Edward Burne Lucy Beckus Carry Burne Daniel Burne William Collins [illegible] MacCarthy Bridget MacCarthy Kate MacCarthy John MacCarthy Auguste LaPierre Selina Pepin Joseph [illegible] Thelesphore Rapin

Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Quarter Free Full Full Full Quarter Full Full Full Full Full

Passage Type

2

4

4 3

4

4

Fam. Size Widow N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M M M M

Civil RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Religion Wife Son Son Son Son Husband Wife Son Nephew Husband Wife Son Son Nephew Husband Wife Daughter Brother Husband Wife Husband Husband

Relationship

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Quebec Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Pt St Charles St Denis St Denis St Denis St Denis Ottawa Ottawa Montreal St Bruno

Domicile

Alma Pege Henry Rapin Adolphe Bouthellien Fedelin Thomas Napoleon Thomas Alexia Thomas George Middleton Joseph Clien Fanny Clien Iesse Clien Ayman Bolan Lina Hemfarp Omer Devenport Adelina [illegible] Charles Devenport Mary Devenport Edward Madden Charlotte Folwell Mary Connor Annie Madden Wilbrod [illegible] Hemelie Martin Adelina Lachapelle Eugene Sennieur Lambert Patrie

24 40 18 6 4 2 22 36 34 10mth 25 22 39 33 15 8 25 26 40 12 24 20 43 17 42

Full Full Full Quarter Quarter Free Full Full Full Free Full Full Full Full Full Half Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full 4

4

4

2

3

6 3

4

M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M M M M M N-M N-M M M Widow N-M M M Widow N-M M

RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Lutheran Lutheran Lutheran Jewish Jewish RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC

Wife Brother Nephew Nephew Nephew Nephew Brother Husband Wife Son Husband Wife Husband Wife Son Daughter Husband Wife Mother Sister Husband Wife Mother-in-law Adopted brother Husband

St Bruno St Bruno St Bruno Montreal Montreal Montreal Pt St Charles Lachine Lachine Lachine Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal St Alexia

Age

48 17 14 12 56 40 26 16 13.5 5 3 1mth 22 31 32 6 35 43 42 17 15 11

Name

Julie Lavoie Angelina Sommier Georgina Sommier Arthur Sommier Andre Beauvoir Denis Maher Margret Maher Francis Maher Maud Maher Fred Maher Adelina Maher Frine Maher John Fraiser James Campbell Catherine Joce Mennie Campbell John Campbell Alfred Powell Elizabeth Web Mabell Powell Maggie Powell Annie Powell

Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Quarter Quarter Free Full Full Full Quarter Full Full Full Full Full Half

Passage Type

5

8

6

Fam. Size M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M

Civil RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot.

Religion Wife Stepdaughter Stepdaughter Stepson Brother-in-law Husband Wife Son Daughter Son Daughter Daughter Nephew Husband Wife Daughter Brother Husband Wife Daughter Daughter Daughter

Relationship

St Alexia St Alexia St Alexia St Alexia St Alexia Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Hochelaga Hochelaga Hochelaga Hochelaga St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri

Domicile

Henry Grover Bella Costeny John Groves Richard Blackham Mary Blackham Jay Pottare Edward Blakey Beatrice Williamson [illegible] Bush [illegible] Donald John Dunn Mary Hall John Dunn Marie Dunn Catherine Dunn Rachel Dunn Simon Dymond Leber Fisher John Dymond Hetta Dymond Sarah Dymond Mayer Dymond Calan Crepeault Delvina Pilandeau John Power

28 33 26 41 36 16 22 3mth 28 19 34 31 11 8 5 3 29 28 8 4 1 27 32 31 41

Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Free Full Full Full Full Half Half Quarter Quarter Full Full Half Quarter None given Full Full Full Full 2

6

6

2

3 5 3

3

M M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M M M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M M

Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. Jewish Jewish Jewish Jewish Jewish Jewish RC RC RC

Husband Wife Brother Husband Wife Adopted son Brother-in-law Daughter Husband Wife Husband Wife Son Daughter Daughter Daughter Husband Wife Son Daughter Daughter Brother Husband Wife Husband

St Laurent St Laurent St Laurent Montreal Montreal Montreal Pt St Charles Montreal St Jean Baptiste St Jean Baptiste Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal St Jean Baptiste St Jean Baptiste St Jean Baptiste St Jean Baptiste St Jean Baptiste St Jean Baptiste St Roch St Roch Pt St Charles

Age

38 14 9 22 23 45 34 26 24 48 28 27 22 21 20 18 25 22 30 43 35 3

Name

Norcha Hanery William Power John Power Arthur Piche Albina Gar Albert Dumont Lucie Desrosiers Ovila Boyer Josephine Bonlt Aldina Roch Joseph Roch Charles Roch Damien Roch Paul Roch Zacharias Roch [illegible] Roch Joseph Mirault Eulalie Brosseau Eugene Brosseau Felicien Vernery Roseanne Depain Leon Vernery

Full Full Half Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Quarter

Passage Type

3

7

2

2

2

4

Fam. Size M N-M N-M M M M M M M Widow N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M M M N-M

Civil RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Religion Wife Son Son Husband Wife Husband Wife Husband Wife Wife Son Son Son Son Son Daughter Husband Wife Brother-in-law Husband Wife Son

Relationship

Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Pt St Charles Montreal Montreal Cocouna Cocouna Montreal Montreal Boucherville Boucherville Boucherville Boucherville Boucherville Boucherville Boucherville St Denis St Denis St Denis Montreal Montreal Montreal

Domicile

Eugenie Vernery [illegible] Vernery Alfred Bason George Potterton Torney Mary Scorrey Edette Potterton Torney Willie Potterton Torney Richard Potterton Torney Pierre Bouche Matilde Plante Pierre Bouche Odilone Bouche Matilde Bouche Hofta Bouche Charles Bouche Adolphe Bouche Maxime Bouche Mario Bouche Matildle Bouche Desire Bouche German Fitzpatrick Katie Moriarty Arthur Fitzpatrick Patrick Fitzpatrick Joseph Fitzpatrick

1.5 4mth 19 26 28 8 9mth 45 44 38 24 22 19 17 16 9 7 6 5 3 32 33 16 13 6

Free Free Full Full Full Half Free Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Half Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter Full Full Full Full Quarter 12

5

6

N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M Widower M M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M N-M

RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC RC

Daughter Son Nephew Husband Wife Daughter Son Father Husband Wife Son Son Daughter Daughter Son Son Son Son Daughter Son Husband Wife Son Son Son

Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri St Henri Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal

Age

8mth 22 42 31 25 8 3 30 23 4mth 18 34 21 27 30 27 22 12

Name

Julie Fitzpatrick Louis Masson Joseph Gentil James Hunter Jane Mary Muir Moreby Al Hunter Edward James Moreby George Everell Delvina Young George Everell Frederick Young Gothly Alvard Jennie Young Julie Martin George Couchon Catherine Picket Joseph Picket Alberta Gaw

Free Full Full Full Full Quarter Quarter Full Full Free Full Full Full Full Full Full Full Full

Passage Type

3

2 9

4

4

3 4

Fam. Size N-M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M M N-M N-M M M N-M M M N-M N-M

Civil RC RC RC Prot. Prot. Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC Prot. Prot. RC RC RC RC Prot.

Religion Daughter Brother-in-law Brother Husband Wife Son Son Husband Wife Son Brother-in-law Husband Wife Sister-in-law Husband Wife Brother-in-law Sister

Relationship

Montreal Montreal Hochelaga Montreal Montreal Montreal Montreal Pontiac Pontiac Pontiac Pontiac Montreal Montreal Sorel Quebec Quebec Quebec Par. St Philipp

Domicile

Notes

abbreviations asp asv lac maec maen na

Arquivo Público do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil Archivio Segreto Vaticano Library and Archives Canada, Ottawa Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, La Corneuve, France Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, Nantes, France National Archives, Kew, United Kingdom

chapter one 1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8

9

L’Évènement, 21 September 1896. La Presse, 22 September 1896. Ibid. The register noted that there were four names but then listed six names. The Montreal Gazette, 16 September 1896, estimated between two and eight thousand individuals. The Montreal Daily Star, 15 September 1896, referred to “wharves lined with thousands.” A couple of other newspapers referred to ten thousand onlookers. Montreal Star, 15 September 1896. Montreal Gazette, 16 September 1896. Américo de Campos Sobrinho, Fiscal Commissioner to Alvaro Augusto da Costa Carvalho, Secretary of State for Agriculture, Commerce, and Public Works (minister of Agriculture), 31 October 1896, Secretaria da Agricultura 1896, Caixa 86, Ordem 4206, asp. The figures have been obtained from the Memorial de Imigrante, “Livros de Registros da Antiga Hospederia de Imigrantes de São Paulo,” books 55 and 56A, http://www.museudaimigracao.org.br/acervodigital; and the emigrant passenger log for the Moravia, “Relação dos emigrantes que partem hoje a bordo do vapor Moravia,” 15 September 1896, http://www.museudaimigra cao.org.br/acervodigital/passageiros.php?pesq=1&navio=moravia&periodo _ano=&periodo_ano2=&dt_ano=&dt_mes=&dt_dia=&Pesquisar=Pesquisar.

notes to pages 5–10 10 See correspondence of consular officials in São Paulo, Santos, and Rio de Janeiro in fo 128/227, na. Humphrey, Summer Journey, 70–1. 11 Holloway, Immigrants on the Land, 49, 188. McDowall, Light, 31–3, 413; Barbosa and Frenette, “De l’Amérique du Nord au Brésil”; Barbosa, “Brasil-Canada,” 183–200, 186–9; Barbosa, Brazil and Canada, 98–115; Frenette, “Migrating In, Migrating Out”; Ogelsby, Gringos; Zucchi, “Mad Flight?” 12 Wagner, Victorian Narratives, 8–9. 13 Zucchi, Italians in Toronto and Little Slaves of the Harp, especially chapter 1. Among the important studies are Thistlethwaite, “Migration from Europe”; Hvidt, Flight to America, Wyman, Round Trip to America; Macdonald et al., “Chain Migration”; Hatton and Williamson, Age of Mass Migration; Brault, French Canadian Heritage; Bodnar, Transplanted; Baily, Immigrants in the Land of Promise; Baines, Emigration from Europe; Nugent, Crossings. 14 See, for example, Harney, “King of Italian Labour,” or Bowen, Muddling Through. 15 See Boitani, Winged Words, chapter 8, and Giussani, Religious Sense, 133– 4, 140. 16 Massey, “Social Structure,”and de Haas, “Internal Dynamics.” 17 Marumoto, “‘First Year.’” 18 Marshall, Pioneer Settlers; Niau, Phantom Paradise. 19 Barbosa and Frenette, “De l’Amérique du Nord,” 80–3; Barbosa, “BrasilCanada,” 184–6. 20 Reports from Her Majesty’s Representatives; Further Reports from Her Majesty’s Representatives; Further Correspondence Respecting British Immigrants, 1891; Further Correspondence Respecting British Immigrants, 1893. The West Yorkshire Archive Service in Bradford, uk, has holdings on the emigration from Bradford. See “Brazilian Emigrants Relief Committee,” bbd1/1/115. See also correspondence between the British consul general in Rio de Janeiro and the Brazilian minister of Foreign Affairs: H. Wyndham to G. Pereira, 29 August 1891, 285/1/13; H. Wyndham to J.C. Chermont (on Irish immigrants in Rio), 7 January 1892, 285/1/8; G. Park to C.G. de Mello (complaining about the Brazilian consul in Cardiff inciting migration to Brazil), 14 October 1892, 285/1/13, all in Arquivo Público do Estado de São Paulo (ahi). The most authoritative study on early anglophone settlements in Brazil is Marshall, Pioneer Settlers. 21 See for example, the requests of Joseph Lapierre, Louis Courtois, and Joseph Durocher to the British Consul, Rio de Janeiro, 3 November 1896. See also Consul George W. Wagstaff (Rio) to Charles Tupper, Canadian High Commissioner, 6 November 1896, fo 128/227, na, and others in rg 76-I-A-1, vol. 33, lac. 22 Marshall, Pioneer Settlers, 196. 23 See, for example, note 13. 24 See Hatton and Williamson, Age of Mass Migration, chapter 3.

168

notes to pages 10–16 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

36 37 38

39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53

Takenaka, “Japanese in Peru”; Laracy, “Italians on Pacific Frontier.” Kalir, “Migratory Disposition,” 188. Taylor, “Migration and Motivation.” Ryan et al., “Depression in Irish Migrants.” See Olson and Thornton, Peopling the North American City, in particular, chapter 4. The skilled workers included a painter, machinists, masons, a wheelwright and a joiner, and a fireman. Others included a chemist and a grocer. Montreal Star, 22 September 1896. Ibid., 24 September 1896. Montreal Gazette, 25 and 29 September 1896; Montreal Star, 24 September 1896. Montreal Daily Witness, 30 September 1896. See Bernier, “Capitalism in Quebec Agriculture,” 422–34; Ramirez and Otis, Crossing the 49th Parallel, especially chapter 1; Widdis, With Scarcely a Ripple; Ramirez, On the Move, chapter 1. Studies of colonization movements include Gauvreau, “Mouvements migratoires”; Séguin, La conquête du sol and “L’histoire de l’agriculture.” Montreal Gazette, 16 September 1896. It is estimated that about one-half of French-Canadian emigrants to the United States repatriated to Canada. See, for example, “Ils reviennent au foyer natal,” La Presse, 4 September 1896; “N’émigrons pas,” 2 September 1896; “Émigrants trompés,” 13 October 1896. See also Roby, Franco-Americans, 19. The addresses were culled from city directories, petitions, and newspapers. Lewis, “Segregated City,” 79–86. Gilliland and Olson, “Residential Segregation”; Gilliland et al., “Did Segregation Increase?”; Lewis, “Segregated City.” Ames, “City Below the Hill,” 3. On the Irish in Griffintown see Barlow, “House of the Irish,” and Cross, “Irish in Montreal.” Lewis, “Segregated City,” 122–6. Gauvreau et al., “Harsh Welcome,” 360. Thornton and Olson, “Deadly Discrimination,” 100. Gilliland, “Residential Mobility,” 30. Bradbury, Working Families, 83–116. Copp, Anatomy of Poverty, 27. Thornton and Olson, “Deadly Discrimination,” 127. In the city, mortality rates for French Canadians were 22.7 per cent, 15.4 per cent for Irish Canadians, and 16.6 per cent for Anglo-Protestants, all within a year, even if the vast majority of these deaths occurred in the first twenty-eight days following birth. Montreal Herald, 24 September 1896. J. Arthur Coté, Department of Immigration to A.M. Burgess, Deputy Minister of Immigration, 14 September 1896, rg 76-I-A-1, vol. 33, lac. Montreal Daily Witness, 16 September 1896.

169

notes to pages 21–7 chapter two 1 Ramirez and Otis, Crossing the 49th Parallel; Widdis, With Scarcely a Ripple. 2 On Canadian immigration policy and the ethnic “pecking order” for agricultural settlement, see Kelley and Trebilcock, Making of the Mosaic, 83ff. 3 Hall, Sifton, vol. one, 253–73; ibid., 120–34. 4 Among the significant works, see Roby, Les Franco-Américains; Brault, French Canadian Heritage; Atlas historique du Québec; Takai, Gendered Passages. 5 Widdis, With Scarcely a Ripple. 6 La Minerve, 16 September 1896. 7 See Topik, “World Coffee Market”; Holloway, Immigrants on the Land, 4ff. 8 Holloway, “Introduction,” Immigrants on the Land. 9 Font, Coffee, 14–15. 10 Pendergrast, Uncommon Grounds, 73–4. 11 Andrews, Blacks and Whites, 55. 12 For an example of the relationship between planters and freed slaves, see Stein’s Vassouras, 250–76. 13 Andrews, Blacks and Whites, 42. 14 See Bletz, Immigration and Acculturation, and Lesser, Immigration, Ethnicity, and National Identity. 15 For a survey of German immigration to Brazil, see Luebke, Germans in Brazil, 7–34. 16 Dawsey and Dawsey, Confederados; Marshall, Pioneer Settlers; Harter, Lost Colony; Barbosa and Frenette, “De l’Amérique du Nord au Brésil”; Barbosa, “Brasil-Canadá”; Barbosa and Frenette, “À la recherche des passagers du Panola.” 17 Bletz, Immigration and Acculturation in Brazil and Argentina 1890–1929, 115. 18 Rio News, 13 October 1896. 19 Although hundreds of thousands of French Canadians had migrated to New England, that was not considered emigration in the same way as the flight to Brazil. Despite the fact that the transborder migration had persisted for over a generation, one newspaper referred to the Canadian migration to São Paulo as “the first real taste of emigration Canada has had.” Montreal Star, 15 September 1896, 8. See, for example, the remarks of George W. Wagstaff, British Consul General at Rio to Sir Charles Tupper, High Commissioner in London, 6 November 1896, and Wagstaff to Lord Salisbury, 15 July 1896 (copy), both in rg 25, vol. 58, lac; or “Beware of Brazil,” Montreal Star, 15 August 1896. Historian Andrea Geiger notes that British Columbians in 1909, upon hearing that Japanese immigrants were being courted by Brazil and Peru, “opined that ‘climatic conditions’ there would be ‘much more congenial to Japanese’ than those in North America.” See Geiger, Subverting Exclusion, 136.

170

notes to pages 27–32 20 Bletz, Immigration and Acculturation, 20ff; Lesser, Immigration, Ethnicity, and National Identity, 60–84. Lesser also presents an interesting discussion of how non-European immigrants – Chinese, Syrian-Lebanese, and Japanese – found and were ascribed a place in the racial and identity politics of Brazil. See also Lesser, Negotiating National Identity, and Conrad, “Planter Class,” 41–55. 21 Lesser, Immigration, Ethnicity, and National Identity, 68ff. 22 Holloway, Immigrants on the Land, 6ff, 37–40. With the transition to state government following the federal constitution of 1891, the Department of Agriculture, Commerce and Public Works gradually took over the immigration program. See also Holloway, “Creating the Reserve Army?”. 23 Holloway, Immigrants on the Land, 42–3. 24 See Rosoli, “La crise des relations entre l’Italie et le Brésil.” Georges Ritt to Ministre des Affaires De l’Étranger (henceforth mae), 26 December 1895, São Paulo consulat général: 621po/1/1-122 (1895–1957), maec. 25 See Rio News, 24 November 1896. 26 Georges Ritt to mae, 26 December 1895, São Paulo consulat général: 621po/1/1-122 (1895–1957), maec. 27 Ibid., 27 July 1896. 28 Holloway, Immigrants on the Land, 42–43. 29 On Ukrainian migration to Brazil from Galicia in the late nineteenth century see Cipko, “‘Brazilian Fever’”; and Boruszenko, “Ukrainians Abroad.” 30 Georges Ritt to mae, 27 July 1896, São Paulo consulat général: 621po/1/ 1-122 (1895–1957), maec. 31 Ibid. “Supériorité d’une race dans les qualités ‘exceptionnelles’ de laquelle (travail, résistance, discipline) il voit une sorte de panacée régénératrice pour S. Paulo !” 32 Lesser notes that Arab Christian immigrants in Rio and São Paulo during the 1890s were seen as ethnically other, turcos, and as not fitting into the Brazilian identity. Many of them would have been Catholic, though not of the Roman rite. See Lesser, Negotiating National Identity, 49ff; Georges Ritt to mae 26 December 1895, São Paulo consulat général: 621po/1/1122 (1895–1957), maec. “Je crains donc moins pour S. Paulo l’influence de 500,000 italiens qui y vivent que les agissements éventuels de 20,000 Allemans [sic].” 33 Georges Ritt to mae 26 December 1895, São Paulo consulat général: 621po/1/1-122 (1895–1957), maec. 34 Rio News, 13 October 1896. 35 Diário oficial, 1 September 1895, 1; the tender for contracts was announced in the Diário oficial on 15 November 1895, 2. 36 Georges Ritt to mae, 26 December 1895, São Paulo consulat général: 621po/1/1-122 (1895–1957), maec. 37 On Fiorita, see Gonçalves, “Mercadores de Braços,” 414–31. 38 A copy of the contract is in Secretaria de Estado dos Negocios da Agricultura,

171

notes to pages 33–8

39 40

41 42

43 44

45 46 47 48

49 50 51

52 53

54

55

172

Commercio e Obras Publicas, Relatório de 1896, 92–103, asp, and in Diário oficial, 11 March 1896, 3. Holloway, Immigrants on the Land, 47. Affidavit of Américo de Campos Sobrinho before Mayor R. Wilson-Smith and Judge Dugas, 14 September 1896, transcribed by John Magor, Acting Consul for Brazil, rg 76-I-A-1, vol. 33, lac. Georges Ritt to mae, 26 December 1895, São Paulo consulat général: 621po/1/1-122 (1895–1957), maec. From Lévis, Joseph Trudel wrote his parents that immigrants were brought to a market like animals to be purchased by buyers for the coffee plantations. See his letter in La Presse, 12 October 1896. Ibid. Georges Ritt to mae, 26 December 1895, São Paulo consulat général: 621po/1/1-122 (1895–1957), maec. He was referring to law no. 376, passed on 21 December 1895. See Choate, “Introduction,” Emigrant Nation. Georges Ritt to mae, 27 July 1896, São Paulo consulat général: 621po/1/ 1-122 (1895–1957), maec. Ibid. As the Paulista government tried to diminish its dependence on the large influx of Italians, the subsidy for Italian immigrants was less than half the subsidy for Canadians. Gonçalves, “Mercadores de Braços,” 205–6. The Brazilian press played up this issue in its attack on the state government. La Stampa, 29 and 30 July 1895. Duncan McDowall states that Gualco lived from 1840 to 1899, and that he was married in 1888. According to the marriage register, it was in 1892. See McDowall, Light, 31–3, 413; and www.ancestry.com. On a review of studies on the colonization movement and development of “les régions” in Quebec see Massicotte, “Les études regionales,” 155–73. André-Albert Blais to Donato Sbarretti (Apostolic Delegate to Canada), 8 February 1903, Rappresentanza Canada sc. 61, fasc. 2, “Caso del Rev. Charles E. Trudel (1900–1910),” Arch. Nunz. Canada b64/1, asv: “Il s’est livré à des excès très frequents et des plus désastreux et des plus scandaleux contre la morale et dans les rapports et la conduit avec les jeunes de son sexe, parfois aussi avec les femmes.” André-Albert Blais to D. Falconio, Apostolic Delegate to Canada, 22 December 1900. On Trudel see Rappresentanza Canada sc. 61, fasc. 2, “Caso del Rev. Charles E. Trudel (1900–1910),” 64:1 Dac 5: “Rimouski,” “Caso del Rev. Charles E. Trudel (1900–1910),” Arch. Nunz. Canada b64/1, asv; A-13-3, Dossier C.E. Trudel, Archives de l’Archidiocèse de Rimouski. See for example, Morin, Dans la maison du Père, 105. It is not clear that Trudel did serve in any Valleyfield parish as the diocesan archives there have no trace of him.

notes to pages 38–42 56 Perin, Rome in Canada, 194, writes that although Trudel had left the Church soon after his ordination and studied for the Presbyterian ministry, by 1902 he was trying to be reinstated to the priesthood. The papal nuncio to Canada discovered that the priest had fathered a number of children in the Rimouski diocese and was corresponding with a Baptist minister in Maine, hoping to find a post there. For an example of his legal problems see the public notice ordering Trudel to appear in court, Gazette des Campagnes (Saint Anne de la Pocatière), 3 April 1890. One reporter saw Trudel at the docks at the departure of the Moravia on September 15 claiming that he recognized him as “a man unfrocked by the Church.” Montreal Herald, 15 September 1896. 57 J.C. Alves De Lima to Bernardino de Campos, 6 May 1893, Comissão geográfica e geológica, Caixa 1-A, Ordem 7616-A, asp. See Diário Oficial, 21 August 1893, 3, http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/1672993/dou-secao -1-21-08-1893-pg-3/pdfView. The Colonial Office had requested temporary recognition of Alves de Lima as Brazilian consul at Montreal on 24 August 1892. “Brazilian Consul at Montreal M. DeLina [sic], ss [Secretary of State] – 1892/09/09 No. [number] 4697 states no objection to.” http:// www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/orders/001022-119.01-e.php? &sisn_id_nbr=51075&page_sequence_nbr=1&interval=20. Alves de Lima states that he spent two years in Montreal with his family. Alves de Lima, Recordações de Homens, 21. 58 Born 7 September 1852, Alves de Lima through his father, a fazendeiro, was able to acquire a posting as consul to Havana and then Montreal, “onde ninguem conhecia o Brasil” (where no one knew Brazil). He took the side of the rebels in the 6 September 1893 navy revolt in Brazil and in late December was relieved of his duties as consul in Montreal allegedly for having tried to prevent the Nictheroy, a converted Brazilian warship, from leaving New York for Brazil. See Recordações de Homens, 7–19; The Teesdale Mercury (Barnard Castle, England), 27 December 1893. 59 Charles-Ernest Trudel to Bernardino de Campos, 28 May 1896 but delivered in November, Secretaria da Agricultura, Caixa 85, Ordem 4205, asp. 60 Trudel might have been referring to a publication that was printed later, perhaps in revised form: Alves de Lima, Some Revelations. 61 Charles-Ernest Trudel to Bernardino de Campos, May 28 1896, Caixa 85, Ordem 4205, asp. 62 Rio News, 24 November 1896. See also Commercio de São Paulo, 21 November 1896. 63 Le Canada et le Brésil,” La Presse, 3 June 1896. 64 Ibid., 5 June 1896. 65 Alves De Lima, Recordaçoes de Homens, 20. 66 Charles-Ernest Trudel to Bernardino de Campos, 3 November 1896, Secretaria da Agricultura 1896, Caixa 86, Ordem 4206, asp.

173

notes to pages 43–8 chapter three 1 Leopold F.M. Vander Haeghe to George W. Wagstaff, 17 June 1896, rg76, vol. 33, file 725, part 2, lac. 2 Wagstaff to Lord Salisbury, 15 July 1896, ibid. 3 See, for example, La Presse and the Montreal Gazette, 20 May 1896. 4 Auguste Bodard to A. M. Burgess, 12 June 1896, rg76, vol. 33, file 725, part 2, lac. 5 Auguste Bodard to A. M. Burgess, 12 June 1896, ibid. 6 R.W. Scott to William Smith, 11 September 1896, ibid. 7 Debates of the Senate, 25 September 1896, 255. 8 Translation of Stockholm Daily News clipping, 5 April 1894; “Alf A-dh” to Fortier, 25 April 1894; Memo from A.M. Burgess, 25 April 1894, rg76, vol. 33, file 725, part 2, lac. 9 L’Ouest Canadien. The English edition was translated by Abbé G. Dugas as Canadian West. 10 Dugas, Canadian West, 148–58. 11 Le Monde, 14 July 1896: “Une nouvelle qui n’est pas réjouissante pour ceux qui travaillent à coloniser notre province de Québec, et le Témiscamingue. Allons-nous laisser faire une telle ralle dans notre Canada sans élever fortement la voix pour enrayer la tentative des agents brésiliens?” 12 Le Monde, 14 July 1896. “Le Brésil est bon surtout pour les Brésiliens, les Italiens, les Espagnols et les habitants des pays chauds mais nullement pour les Canadiens … Notre Canada n’est pas un paradis terrestre, mais on y vit plus heureux que dans beaucoup d’autres pays. Restons y donc.” 13 La Minerve, 13 July 1896: “Où nos désastreuses migrations à travers la ligne quarante-cinquième nous ont valu au loin la triste renommé de population nomade … Voyez-vous d’ici nos Canadiens à ‘trois miles lienes’ de leur patrie, cultivant le café, au lieu du foin, de l’avoine ou du blé du pays natal?” 14 Ibid.: “Si ce journal radical rouge n’a pas encore recherché là l’occasion de calomnier un prêtre, nous sommes peinés d’avoir à le constater ici, mais ce fait serait excessivement regrettable. Il ne paraitrait pas bien dans le rôle d’un prêtre, c’est a dire de l’un des patriotes modèles du Canada français, de prêter l’autorité de son concours, l’influence de sa direction, pour quelque considération que ce soit à une œuvre aussi anti patriotique, aussi dangereuse tranchons le mot. Au risqué de venir en conflit avec une autorité aussi respectable, de contrecarrer une influence aussi puissante, nous n’hésiterons pas un seul instant à crier gare à nos compatriotes.” 15 Ibid., 18 July 1896: “Cela suffit à nous édifier sur la confiance que mérite une pareille propagande et ceux qui la poursuivent.” 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid., 16 and 18 July 1896. 18 Montreal Star, 15 August 1896. 19 Ibid., 18 August 1896. 20 Semaine Réligieuse, 8 July 1896, 7, 95–6.

174

notes to pages 49–55 21 F.A. Gualco to Mgr. Fabre, n.d. but appears to be January 1896, “Brésil,” 180.115/896-1, aam: “Notre intention de ne pas faire aucun pas sans que votre Grâce sera informée de l’affaire et de ne pas commencer aucun ouvrage sans le conseil et permission de votre Grâce.” 22 Montreal Star, 20 August 1896. 23 La Presse, 22 September 1896. 24 Montreal Star, 20 August 1896. 25 Ibid., 18 August 1896. 26 Ibid., 21 August 1896. 27 See for example, ibid., 22 August and 5 September 1896. 28 Ibid., 12 September 1896. 29 George W. Wagstaff to Lord Salisbury, 21 August 1896; Arthur Raikes to Salisbury, 10 August 1896; Raikes to Salisbury, 19 August 1896; F.H. Villiers (Foreign Office) to Undersecretary of State, Colonial Office, 2 September 1896; all in rg76, vol. 33, file 725, part 2, lac. 30 This was reported in the Rio News, 15 August 1896. 31 R.W. Scott to William Smith, 11 September 1896, rg76, vol. 33, file 725, part 2, lac. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 John Hoolahan to Secretary of the Department of the Interior, ibid. He picked up information from the Canadian Gazette in London, 11 September 1896. In a later letter, after the departure of the Moravia, Hoolahan would note that the passengers were English, French, Irish, and Italians; Hoolahan to Secretary, Department of the Interior, 16 September 1896, ibid. 35 See, for example, Hoolahan to A. M. Burgess, 12 September 1896, ibid. 36 Debates of the Senate, 25 September 1896, 76, 249–56; Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons, 10 September 1896, 957–8, 14 September 1896, 1133; “Extract from a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council,” pc1716, 6 November 1896, rg 76-I-A-1, vol. 33, lac. 37 Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons, 14 September 1896, 1133. 38 John Hoolahan to Secretary, Department of the Interior, 16 September 1896, rg76, vol. 33, file 725, part 2, lac. 39 J. Arthur Coté to A.M. Burgess, Deputy Minister of the Interior, 14 September 1896; Hoolahan to Secretary, Department of the Interior, ibid. 40 Memorandum, “List of churches at which posters were distributed on Sunday September 13th 1896,” ibid. 41 Wilson Smith to R.W. Scott, Acting Minister of the Interior, 14 September 1896, ibid. 42 “Statement of Américo de Campos Sobrinho before Judge Dugas and Mayor Wilson Smith, endorsed, signed and sealed by John Magor,” 14 September 1896, ibid. 43 Américo de Campos Sobrinho, Fiscal Commissioner to Alvaro Augusto da Costa Carvalho, Secretary of State for Agriculture, Commerce, and Public

175

notes to pages 55–61

44 45

46 47 48

49 50

51 52

53 54 55 56

57 58 59

60 61 62

63 64

176

Works, 31 October 1896, Secretaria da Agricultura 1896, Caixa 86, Ordem 4206, asp. Quebec Saturday Budget, 22 August 1896. An advertisement appeared in the Montreal Star every day from 20 May to 7 June 1896, and then every second day until 20 June; and in La Presse, 20 May to 7 June daily, 10–14, 17–22, and 24–28, June 1896. Le Reveil, vol. 5, no.103, 19 September 1896, 35. La Presse, 10 September 1896; Montreal Star, 11 September 1896. “Le Triste Sort Qui Les Attend – Ils travailleront sur les plantations de café – A la place des esclaves libérés par Don Pedro,”La Presse, 14 September 1896. Montreal Herald, 14 September 1896. Montreal Star, 14 September 1896 or La Minerve, 13 July 1896, for example. The latter article stated that these Canadians would be going “directly to the cemetery.” See also Clifford Sifton to Governor General-in-Council, 28 April 1897, rg-76-725-3, lac. Sifton noted that British consular authorities had warned of the “unsuitability of the climate and general conditions prevailing in Brazil to people from more northerly regions.” Montreal Herald, 24 September 1896. The widows had three children and a son-in-law, four and eight children respectively. On widowhood in Montreal, see Olson and Thornton, Peopling the North American City, 234–7, 242–3; Bradbury, “Surviving as a “Widow”; and Wives to Widows. Quebec Saturday Budget, 19 September 1896. Montreal Star, 15 September, 8. The Montreal Herald of 15 September asserted that nearly all of the passengers were French Canadian or Irish. Montreal Star, 16 September 1896. These details have been gleaned from the emigrant passenger log for the Moravia (see chapter 1, note 9) and cross-referenced with the 1891 and 1901 Census of Canada and with newspaper accounts. See also Georges Ritt’s comments on the French immigrants among these migrants: Correspondance avec le Consulat de France, São Paulo 1896, 84:1, Rio de Janeiro Legation Série A, Archives des Postes, maen. Baines, Emigration from Europe, 48. La Presse, 16 September 1896. Ran Abramitzky et al., “Europe’s Tired, Poor,” especially 1851, found that “men from urban areas who faced poor economic prospects in Norway, as measured by occupation, were more likely to migrate to the United States.” La Presse, 16 September 1896. Debates of the Senate, 25 September 1896, 254. Mabel Boord, Hon. Secretary of the Charity Organization Society, London to High Commissioner for Canada, 29 January 1897, rg 76-I-A-1, vol. 33, file 725, lac. Montreal Gazette, 27 January 1897. L’Évènement, 21 September 1896.

notes to pages 61–6 65 La Presse, 15 September 1896. 66 Montreal Daily Witness, 21 November 1896. 67 “F.T. to J.T.,” La Presse, 4 November 1896. The letter was dated 2 November: “Tu avais un bon avenir ici; en travaillant, tu pouv[a]is vivre très bien.” 68 Wegge, “Network Strategies.” 69 MacDonald and MacDonald, “Chain Migration”; Choldin, “Kinship Networks”; Boyd, “Family and Personal Networks”; Manfredini, “Families in Motion”; and Meadows, “Engineering Exile.” 70 Baxevanis, Economy and Population Movements, 63; Errington, Emigrant Worlds and Transatlantic Communities, 12–48. 71 On the concept of the expanding networks of trust for prospective migrants, see Guilmoto and Sandron, “La dynamique interne des réseaux migratoires,” 120–21. 72 I am using the term loosely to convey the sense of individuals having little affiliation with social and familial networks. See Castel, “Routes to Disaffiliation.” 73 A letter from the Canada Government Agency in Liverpool to J.G. Colmer, 13 January 1897, referred to one of the emigrants, as “a Scotchman, Wm Carr, and his wife, who have been in Montreal four years.” In rg76-I-A-1, vol. 33, file 725, lac. 74 Paroisse Saint-François-de-Chicoutimi, “Registres Photographiés au Greffe de Chicoutimi, Marriage Register 1877;” Census of Canada, manuscript census, 1891, 1901, accessed on Ancestry.ca. On Françoise Simard, see Robillard, La Traversée du Saguenay. 75 Montreal Herald, 24 September 1896. 76 Montreal Daily Witness, 21 November 1896. 77 Hein de Haas refers to “negative social capital” in a “pioneer” migrant situation wherein potential migrants feel constrained by their social context and are frequently characterized by nonconformist tendencies. Migration becomes a way to reject their existing social network, and any advice or warnings provided through such a network would likewise be rejected. See de Haas, “Internal Dynamics.” 78 16 September 1896, 1. Gil S. Epstein notes the importance that the “herd effect” has in the migration decision. Private information is discarded as others around choose to migrate with little information at their disposal, and convey the sense that such a large number of people cannot possibly choose to act wrongly. Epstein, “Herd and Network Effects.” 79 Montreal Gazette, 16 September 1896. 80 Ibid., 15 September 1896. 81 Le Nouveau Monde. La Presses’s estimates went from two to eight thousand; La Minerve’s were from five to six thousand. 82 La Minerve, 15 September 1896. 83 La Presse, 16 September 1896. 84 Ibid., 22 September 1896. 85 Montreal Herald, 16 September 1896.

177

notes to pages 67–73 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

Le Nouveau Monde, 26 September 1896. Montreal Daily Witness, 15 September 1896. Ibid. 15 September 1896. La Minerve, 16 September 1896. Montreal Herald ,16 September 1896. Montreal Star, 15 September 1896. Ibid., 15 September 1896. La Presse, Montreal Star, 15 September 1896. La Minerve, 16 September 1896. La Presse, 15 September 1896. Montreal Daily Witness, 15 September 1896. Debates of the Senate, 25 September 1896, 253. chapter four

1 Roby and Roy, Deschambault, 78–9. According to the 1871 census, there were 134 navigators in the town and 11 river pilots. 2 Trudel provided this information, La Presse 15 September 1896. 3 Ibid., 17 September 1896. 4 Ibid., 22 September 1896. 5 On Lionais, see Railroad Gazette, 10 January 1893, 59; Canada Gazette, vol. 22, 6 (April 1889), 1859. 6 La Presse, 7 December 1896. 7 Montreal Star, 12 December 1896; Montreal Herald, 15 September 1896. 8 La Presse, 11 November 1896. 9 Montreal Star, 24 November 1896. 10 La Presse, 19 November 1896. 11 Ibid., 11 December 1896. 12 Ibid., 30 December 1896. According to La Presse, 17 September 1896, there was also a Euclide, son of M.J.O. Laferrière, secretary-treasurer of the Ottawa School Commission, aboard the Moravia, along with his wife Alban. The next day the paper referred to Alban as a man who had decided to remain in Canada. 13 Debates of the Senate, 25 September 1896, 254. 14 ? to L.M. Fortier, 14 September 1896 rg 76-725-2, lac. Perhaps the Laferrières were also in cabin class. 15 Montreal Star, 24 and 27 November 1896; Montreal Gazette, 28 November 1896. 16 Arthur Owen to the Montreal Daily Witness reporter, 21 November 1896; Debates of the Senate, 25 September 1896, 256. 17 From a letter, “From One Who Was There,” Montreal Star, 24 November 1896. 18 Montreal Herald, 11 December 1896; 4 December 1896. 19 La Presse, 19 November 1896.

178

notes to pages 73–6 20 Secretaria de Estado dos Negocios da Agricultura, Commercio e Obras Publicas, Relatório de 1896, 50–2, asp. 21 The timing is confirmed by Henry Mark to Arthur Raikes, 28 October 1896, rg17 I1-299, lac. 22 Ibid., fo 128/227, na. 23 Correio Paulistano, 8 October 1896. 24 Montreal Gazette, 13 and 17 October 1896. 25 La Presse, 12 October 1896. 26 Montreal Star, 13 October 1896. In his annual report, the British consul general noted that immigration figures were up and he continued to dissuade British emigrants from going to Brazil. The Montreal Star, 21 October 1896 reported his comments: “When finally the immigrants are settled, their condition, especially in the coffee districts, is a hard one. They very seldom succeed in obtaining possession of the land. After deducting the cost of living and rent, the margin for saving is very small, and they soon discover to their bitter regret that Brazil is not the ‘El Dorado’ so graphically depicted by the emigration agents in Europe.” 27 Laferrière in La Presse, 30 December 1896: “Une immense construction à deux étages et qui couvre à peux près quatre arpents carrés.” 28 Arthur Owen, Montreal Daily Witness, 21 November 1896. 29 Trudel, La Presse, 25 November 1896. 30 La Presse, 24 December 1896. 31 “Hospedaria da Capital, Movimento de imigrantes, 1895–98” Ordem 118, asp. 32 The figures are from the “Movimento de entrada de imigrantes na Hospedaria da Capital e na provisoria de São Bernardo durante o ano de 1896,” Secretaria da Agricultura 1896, Caixa 5, Ordem 5532, asp. 33 La Presse, 30 December 1896; Secretaria de Estado dos Negocios da Agricultura, Commercio e Obras Publicas, Relatório de 1896, 63–4, asp. 34 “En effet, immenses caravansérails, et véritables marchés de chair humaine.” Georges Ritt to mae, 26 December 1895, Correspondance avec le Consulat de France à São Paulo 1896, 84:1, Rio de Janeiro Legation Série A, Archives des Postes, maen. 35 Rio News, 19 January 1897. 36 La Presse, 1 May 1897. 37 São Paulo, Secretaria de Estado dos Negocios da Agricultura, Commercio e Obras Publicas, Relatório de 1896, 92–4. 38 Georges Ritt to Le Directeur de l’Immigration, 20 October 1896, São Paulo consulat general, 621po/1/82, maen. Louis Leclercq to Wilfrid Laurier, 26 May 1897; A.A. Bruneau to Clifford Sifton, 28 June 1897; James Smart to Leclercq, 8 June 1897, rg-76-725-3 (mfm 186, 177, 171), lac; Ritt to Alvaro Augusto da Costa Carvalho, Minister of Agriculture, São Paulo, 21 October 1896, Secretaria da Agricultura 1896, Caixa 85, Ordem 4205, asp. 39 Estado de São Paulo, 8 October 1896, 10 October 1896.

179

notes to pages 76–82 40 41 42 43 44

45 46 47 48 49

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

69 70 71

180

Commercio de São Paulo, 9 October 1896. Testimony of Joseph Lauzon to La Presse, 21 December 1896. Commercio de São Paulo, 9 October 1896. Estado do São Paulo, 8 October 1896, 15 October 1896. O Estado do São Paulo, 15 October 1896. Charles-Ernest Trudel to Apostolic Delegate, Canada, 21 December 1903, Nunz Canada B61/2, asv and C.E. Trudel, Archives de l’Archidiocèse de Rimouski. His bishop would have to apply to Propaganda Fide, the office in Rome ultimately responsible for the Catholic Church in Canada (until 1908, Canada was considered a “mission” land and therefore answered to Propaganda). La Presse, 12 October 1896; Montreal Star, 16 December 1896. La Presse, 12 October 1896. Ibid., 30 December 1896; Montreal Star, 24 November 1896. Henry Mark to Arthur Raikes, 28 October 1896, rg17 I1-299, lac. Georges Ritt to French Minister, Rio, 13 October 1896, Correspondance avec le consulat de France, São Paulo 1896, 84:1 Archives des Postes, Rio de Janeiro Legation Série A, maen. Brooks and Simpson, Emotions in Transmigration, in particular chapter 1, 17. Gerber, ed., “Limits of the Australian Emigrant Letter,” in Letters Across Borders, 56–74. Ibid. “Epistolary Masquerades,” 145. Rozińska, “Emigratory Experience, 30, 36. Petition, fo128, 141–57, na. Montreal Star, 24 November 1896. Testimony of Jules Ledoux, La Patrie, 3 July 1897. Montreal Daily Witness, 21 November 1896. Montreal Star, 24 November 1896. Montreal Daily Witness, 21 November 1896: “Nous couchons par terre dans une grande batisse, tous ensemble.” La Presse, 11 November 1896. Montreal Herald, 11 December 1896. Masson, La Presse, 19 November 1896. Commercio de São Paulo, 9 October 1896. Montreal Star, 24 November 1896. Ibid., 12 December 1896. La Presse, 11 November 1896. Montreal Daily Witness, 21 November 1896. La Presse, 30 December 1896; taken from a letter he wrote on 18 October but was delayed in Saint Thomas and Galveston before reaching his parents in December. Letter of 7 November published 4 December 1896 in the Montreal Star. Constantine Phipps to Lord Salisbury, 9 December 1896, fo 128/225, na. “Assurément, les éléments qui composent ce premier convoi d’émigration Canadienne sont excellents, dans leur majeure partie; et infiniment supérieur aux éléments de provenance italienne, tant par l’apparence que par les quali-

notes to pages 82–92

72 73 74

75 76 77

78 79 80

81 82 83 84 85 86

87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96

tés professionnelles.” Georges Ritt to French Minister in Rio de Janeiro, 13 October 1896, Correspondance avec le consulat de France, São Paulo 1896, 84:1, Archives des Postes, Rio de Janeiro Legation Série A, maen. Henry Mark to Arthur Raikes, 28 October 1896, rg17 I1-299, lac. George W. Wagstaff to Charles Tupper, 6 November 1896, fo128/227, na. Vicero, “Sources staistiques,” 361. Greek and Italian return rates in this period are estimated to be in the 45 to 50 per cent range. See Wyman, Round Trip to America, 9–12. Nugent, Crossings, 35. Rio News, 13 October 1896. Henry Mark to Arthur Raikes, 28 October 1896, rg17 I1-299, lac. J.D. Collins to Percy Lupton, 29 October 1896, fo128, na. His is the only address we have for the Canadians outside of the hospedaria: no. 1 A, Rua São Caetano, near the São Paulo Station. La Patrie, 3 July 1897. Estado do São Paulo, 10 October 1896. See Rio News, 3 November 1896. On the description of the Brazilian press and the political leanings of newspapers see George Ritt’s report on the Brazilian press to the French Minister in Rio, 9 February 1897, France, Rio de Janeiro Légation, Série A, Correspondance avec le Consulat de France à São Paulo, 1896, 84, mae. Quoted in Rio News, 3 November 1896. Commercio de São Paulo, 8 October 1896. Estado de São Paulo, 10 October 1896; see also A Noticia [Rio de Janeiro], 11 October 1896. Auctoridade, 11 October 1896. Owen in Montreal Daily Witness, 21 November 1896; “One Who Was There,” Montreal Herald, 27 November 1896. La Presse, 11 November 1896: “Il n’y a pas de misère, puisque l’ouvrage est abondant. Notre santé est actuellement très bonne, bien que la longueur du voyage ait quelque peut fatigué ma femme.” Montreal Star, 12 December 1896. Arthur Owen in Montreal Daily Witness, 21 November 1896. Owen states that they were paid eighty cents a day. Ibid., 21 November 1896. Montreal Herald, 11 December 1896; the letter was written on 1 November 1896. Montreal Daily Witness, 21 November 1896. La Presse, 15 January 1897, letter written 12 October 1896. Lovell’s Montreal Directory, 1896–97, 898. Montreal Daily Witness, 11 December 1896. For an excellent discussion of the architecture of Santa Veridiana and other fazendas see Benincasa, “Fazendas Paulistas.” Georges Ritt to Minister of France in Rio de Janeiro , 13 October 1896, France, Archives des Postes, Rio de Janeiro Legation Série A, Correspondance avec le Consulat de France à São Paulo 1896, 84:1, mae: “Dont il parlent la langue et semble avoir le meme culte pour la France.”

181

notes to pages 92–102 97 98 99 100

101

102

103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

117 118

“One Who Was There,” Montreal Herald, 27 November 1896. La Presse, 1 May 1897. Montreal Herald, 11 December 1896. “Le monde prend la place des nègres et on le mène à la baïonnette: la vermine les dévore, ce sont de purs esclaves et on meurt comme des mouches … Les vivres sont très chères et on est bien mal pris; pas un cent pour manger.” La Presse, 23 November 1896. “Avant d’y aller je me couperais le cou.” From a letter of Joseph Trudel to his parents, begun12 October and completed 18 October 1896. It was published in La Presse, 25 November 1896. La Patrie, 3 July 1897: “Voilà comment je suis arrivé moi-même avec ma femme, chez M. Antonio Pedro, le plus riche planteur du Brésil, après M. Dumont.” La Presse, 1 May 1897. 18 October letter to parents, ibid., 25 November 1896. Olivier Tremblay to Francois-Xavier Tremblay, 26 October 1896, in ibid., 12 December 1896. All of this information was conveyed in ibid., 21 December 1896. Ibid., 21 and 30 December 1896. Ibid., 30 December 1896. Manioc is a tuber and is also known as cassava. La Presse, 30 December 1896. Ibid., 12 October 1896. They lack “le confortable pour la nourriture; ils sont traités comme des noirs.” Ibid., 30 December 1896. Ibid. “Elle fait pitié, mais elle n’est pas la seule dans cet état, car nous sommes débarqués 473 passagers. Leur sort est partout le même.” Olivier Tremblay to Wilfrid Laurier, 18 December 1896, Laurier papers, mg26-G., vol. 30, C-745 (mfm, 9854-6), lac. La Presse, 21 December 1896. Copy of Joseph Lapierre, Louis Courtois, and Joseph Durocher to George W. Wagstaff, Consul in Rio, 3 November 1896, rg17 I1-299, lac: “toute la nuit, hommes femmes et enfants.” Wagstaff to Sir Charles Tupper, High Commissioner for Canada, 6 November 1896, rg17 I1-299, lac. “F.T. to J.T.,” La Presse, 4 November 1896: “Ta mère ne fait que pleurer sur ton mauvais sort. Elle veut que tu reviens le plus tôt possible avec ta famille.” chapter five

1 2 3 4

182

Byrd, “Regional and Functional Specialisation,” 127–45. Henry Mark to Arthur Raikes, 28 October 1896, fo 128/227, na. George W. Wagstaff to Charles Tupper, 6 November 1896, ibid. Arthur Raikes to Henry Mark, 31 October 1896, ibid.

notes to pages 102–7 5 Constantine Phipps to Lord Salisbury, 25 January 1897, rg-76-725-2, lac. 6 Phipps to Salisbury 9 December 1896, fo 128/225, na. Indeed, as Phipps pointed out to Salisbury, by late January 1897, the federal government had stopped interfering in emigration matters and had abolished the office that had managed these issues. See Phipps to Salisbury, 25 January 1897, fo 128/229, na. 7 Percy Lupton to Phipps, 18 January 1897, rg-76-725-2, lac. 8 Arthur Raikes to Lord Salisbury, 31 October 1896, fo 128/225, na. 9 George W. Wagstaff to José Carlos Rodriguez, 14 January 1897, fo 128/ 233, na. He added that as much as possible had been done by the Canadian authorities to keep people “from embarking on this enterprise but these ignorant people were not proof against the persuasions of the immigration agents. Mr. Phipps however little as he is prepared to encourage the immigration of labourers from Great Britain or her colonies could not fail to be struck during his visit to S. Paulo by the important advantages offered in the prosperous progressive and interesting state to immigrants from southern Europe.” Phipps communicated these same thoughts to Laurier, 4 February 1897, ibid. 10 Charles-Ernest Trudel to Governor Campos Salles, 3 November 1896, Secretaria de Agricultura 1896, Caixa 85, Ordem 4205, asp. 11 Constantine Phipps to Percy Lupton, 28 December 1896, fo 128/227, na. 12 Phipps to Lord Salisbury, 28 December 1896, fo) 128/231, na. 13 Phipps to Earl of Aberdeen, Ottawa, 2 January 1896, fo 128/233, na. 14 Francis Bertie at the Foreign Office to the Undersecretary of State at the Colonial Office, 3 December 1896, rg-76-725-2, lac. 15 Ibid., 18 December 1896. 16 Constantine Phipps to Lord Salisbury, 9 December 1896, fo 128/225, na. 17 Phipps to Earl of Aberdeen, 10 December 1896, rg-76-725-2, lac. 18 La Presse, 13 October 1896. 19 Ibid., 28 November 1896. 20 Ibid., 11 November 1896. 21 Donald Smith to President of Council, 2 December 1896, rg 76-725-2, lac. 22 La Presse, 10 December 1896. 23 Olivier Tremblay to “Frère,” 15 December 1896, fo 128/227, na. 24 George W. Wagstaff to Charles Tupper, 6 December and 19 December 1896, rg-76-725-2, lac. 25 Wagstaff, “List of Canadian emigrants repatriated by the S.S. ‘Potosi’ on 23 December 1896,” rg-76-725-2, lac. As an example of the time lags in communications with Ottawa, in late May 1897 the Department of the Interior had not yet settled the accounts of this sailing as they lost the original documentation sent on 23 December 1896 from Brazil. See C.B. Rhind to Undersecretary, Ministry of the Interior, 26 May 1897, rg-76-725-2, lac. See also Times, 25 December 1896, which refers to the British consul repatriating twenty-two Canadian immigrants via Liverpool. 26 Daily Telegraph, 23 February 1897.

183

notes to pages 107–12 27 Donald Smith to Clifford Sifton, 23 January 1897, rg-76-725-2, lac. Smith to Sifton, 16 January 1897; L. Pereira, Department of the Interior to S. Gardner, Dominion Immigration Agent, Saint John New Brunswick, 18 January 1897; Smith to Sifton, 8 January 1897; Canada Government Agency in Liverpool to John Colmer, 16 January 1897, all in rg-17-I-1299, lac. 28 Telegram from S. Gardner to Department of the Interior, 19 February 1897; John R. Hall to S. Gardner, 20 February 1897, rg-76-725-2, lac. Canada Government Agency, Liverpool to John Colmer, 6 February 1897, rg 17, I-1-299, lac. 29 Percy Sanderson, British Consul General, New York, to the Secretary of State, Canada, 26 January 1897, rg-76-725-2, lac; Percy Lupton to Constantine Phipps, 16 January 1897, fo 128/231, na. 30 Montreal Gazette, 27 January 1897. See District City of New York, Port of New York, “Custom List of Passengers,” for ss Buffon, 22 January 1897, ancestry.com. 31 Lupton to Phipps, 16 January 1897, fo 128/231, na. In his dispatch of 12 January 1897, he referred to “98 souls” on his lists. In the same letter, Lupton had made the request that Consul Mark be authorized to send Canadians back from Santos. Lupton to Phipps, 12 January 1897, fo 128/231, na. 32 Ibid., 12 January 1897. 33 George W. Wagstaff to Wilfrid Laurier, 12 January 1897. They were then transferred to Liverpool and sailed back to Canada on 4 February on the Mongolian. See Donald Smith to Clifford Sifton, 6 February, 1897, rg-76725-2, lac. 34 Smith to Sifton, 30 January 1897, ibid.; J.G. Colmer to Secretary, Department of the Interior, 22 July 1897, rg-76-725-3; George Curzon (Foreign Office) to Undersecretary of State, Colonial Office, 24 February 1897; Edward Percival Holman to Lord Salisbury, 7 February 1897, rg-76-725-2; Lyndwode Pereira to Treasurer, Canadian Pacific Railway, 2 December 1897, rg-76-725-3. George Hanna, Allan Lines to L. Pereira, 24 June 1897, rg-76-725-3, all in lac. 35 Percy Lupton to Constantine Phipps, 18 January 1897, fo 128/231, na. 36 Ibid. 37 Montreal Gazette, 28 November 1896. 38 Percy Lupton to Constantine Phipps, 29 January 1897, fo 128/231, na. It should be noted that the train trip was very difficult for the immigrants. As Lupton observed, besides the “heavy expense of the Railway journey to Rio,” it “is also a cause of great suffering to these unfortunate people.” Lupton to Phipps, 26 March 1897, fo 128/227, na. 39 George W. Wagstaff to Phipps, 2 February 1897, fo 128/231, na. 40 Wagstaff to Phipps, 2 February 1897, fo 128/231, na. 41 Montreal Gazette, 8 February 1897. See Clifford Sifton to Governor-

184

notes to pages 112–16

42

43 44

45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55 56

57

58

59

General-in-Council, 19 February 1897; Clerk of the Privy Council to Sifton, 23 February 1897; Percy Sanderson, Consul General, New York to Secretary of State for Canada, 13 February 1897, all in rg-76-725-2, lac. She would leave at the end of the month on the Wordsworth to New York, while her husband, Samuel, would work his way back around the same time, on the Duart Castle, to Liverpool. Telegram of D. Gardner to Secretary, Department of Interior, 13 March 1897; C.B. Rhind to Wilfrid Laurier, 25 February 1897; “List of distressed Canadian immigrants on the ss Wordsworth,” 25 February 1897, all in rg-76-725-2, lac. George W. Wagstaff to Constantine Phipps, 2 February 1897, fo 128/231, na. Percy Lupton to Phipps, 15 February 1897, fo 128/231, na. In a telegram dated 11 February to the Foreign Office, Phipps asserted that there were about fifty destitute Canadians left in São Paulo. rg-76-725-2, lac. Phipps to Wilfrid Laurier, 4 February 1897, rg-76-725-2, lac. Telegram, Phipps to Percy Lupton, 16 January 1897, fo 128/231, na. Lupton to Phipps, 23 February 1897, in ibid. Phipps to Henry Mark, 25 February 1897, rg-76-725-2, lac. Phipps to Mark, 26 January 1897, fo 128/231, na. See also “Notice of British Legation, Rio de Janeiro 1897,” rg-76-725-2, lac. The immigrants shipped on the Coleridge had sailed with that authorization. See Phipps to Wilfrid Laurier, 22 January 1897, fo 128/233; Phipps to Mark, 26 January 1897, fo 128/231, both in na. Phipps to Percy Lupton, 25 February 1897, fo 128/231, na. Joseph Trudel’s letter to his parents, dated 18 October, cited in La Presse, 25 November 1896. Rio News, 10 November 1896. Montreal Star, 16 December 1896. La Presse, 1 May 1897. William Wren and Helen O’Donnell and their five children were assisted to New York on 6 March. George W. Wagstaff to Wilfrid Laurier, 6 March, 1897, rg-76-725-2; Clifford Sifton to Percy Sanderson, 3 April 1897, rg76-725-3, both in lac. Henry Mark to Constantine Phipps, 22 May 1897, fo 128/227, na. Mark was responding to difficulties between the consular offices in Rio and Santos on the issue of maintenance of immigrants in transit. See telegram rough copy, Phipps to Mark, 29 April 1897; Phipps to Mark, 6 May 1897; and Phipps to Mark, 9 May 1897, all in fo 128/227, na. John Hoolahan, Report, 29 April 1897, rg-76-725-3, lac; “List of immigrants forwarded per S/S/ ‘Coleridge’,” 7 April 1897, rg-76-725-3, lac; Phipps to Earl of Aberdeen, 10 December 1896, rg-76-725-2, lac; George W. Wagstaff to Wilfrid Laurier, 7 April 1897, rg-76-725-3, lac. Daily Telegraph, 23 February 1897. La Presse, 1 May 1897.

185

notes to pages 116–20 60 Constantine Phipps to Governor Campos Salles, 11 April 1897, Secretaria da Agricultura 1897, Caixa 142, Ordem 4262, asp. As in previous correspondence with the governor, this letter was full of deferential gratitude towards Campos Salles. 61 Correio Paulistano, 4 February 1897. 62 Rio News, 9 February 1897, and online registry of the Hospedaria de São Paulo, http://museudaimigracao.org.br/acervodigital/livrodetalhe.php?livro =020&pagina=142&familia=05933, Pesquiza Registro de Matricula, accessed 15 May 2015. 63 In late June the department communicated that it would no longer authorize payments of any further sums for repatriation. See Arthur Raikes to Henry Mark, 26 June 1897, fo 128/227. Also George Curzon to Constantine Phipps, 30 June 1897, fo128/229; Department of the Interior to Donald Smith, 18 May 1897, fo128/229, na. 64 George W. Wagstaff to Wilfrid Laurier, 5 May 1897, rg-76-725-3, lac; Francis W. Mark to Phipps, 4 May 1897, fo 128/227, na. 65 Montreal Star, 2 June 1897. 66 Percy Lupton to Alvaro Augusto da Costa Carvalho, 22 May 1897, Secretaria da Agricultura 1897, Caixa 141, Ordem 4261, asp. 67 Lupton to Carvalho, 10 May 1897, ibid. The courtesy was extended a couple of days later. 68 Lupton to John Hoolahan, 21 March 1899, rg-76-725-3, lac; Hoolahan to Secretary, Department of the Interior, 24 June 1897. See also C.B. Rhind, “List of distressed Canadian immigrants forwarded to New York per steamship ‘Hevelius,’” 1 June 1897, rg-76-725-2, lac. 69 Montreal Star, 24 and 29 June, 1897. 70 Ibid., 29 June 1897. 71 Henry Mark to Constantine Phipps, 22 May 1897, fo 128/227, na. 72 Charles Perceval, British Consul in Marseille to Donald Smith, 3 July 1897; Smith to Clifford Sifton, 8 July 1897; Smith to Sifton, 23 July 1897, all in rg-76-725-3, lac. 73 The original French: “ou il me montre que des déboires.” 74 Louis Leclercq to Wilfrid Laurier, 26 May 1897; A.A. Bruneau to Sifton, 28 June 1897; James Smart to Louis Leclercq, 8 June 1897, all in rg-76-7253, lac; Consul français to Alvaro Augusto da Costa Carvalho, Minister of Agriculture, São Paulo, 21 October 1896, Secretaria da Agricultura 1896, Caixa 85, Ordem 4205, asp. The family was listed in the 1881 and 1891 censuses, where he was identified as a superintendent at the gas plant. However, the family did not appear in the 1901 or 1911 censuses. Daily Telegraph, 11 January 1897. 75 Privy Council Secretary to Ministry of the Interior, 20 October 1897; Allan Line to Department of the Interior, 4 December 1897; Donald Smith to Ministry of the Interior, 20 December 1897; “Attestation,” 26 January 1898; “Attestation,” 25 January 1898, all in rg-76-725-3, lac. “Expense

186

notes to pages 120–3

76

77 78

79 80 81 82 83

84

85

report,” 16 March 1898, lac. Consul Mark took a couple of years to recuperate his advance in Mary Benoit’s aid. See C.P. Lucas to Canadian High Commissioner, 10 September 1900; F.H. Villiers to Undersecretary of State, Colonial Office, 4 September 1900; M.F. Ommanny to Canadian High Commissioner, 10 November 1900; Martin Gosselin to Undersecretary of State, Colonial Office, 6 November 1900; and Francis W. Mark memo, 27 September 1900, all in rg-76-725-3, lac. Edward Nordby, Acting British Consul, Santos to Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, London, 30 April 1898, rg-76-725-3, lac. Nordby put her on the steamship Taylor for New York. La Presse, 1 May 1897. Constantine Phipps to John Hoolahan, 10 June 1898, rg-76-725-3, lac; Clive Bayley, British Consul General, New York, to Secretary of State, Canada, 5 September 1899; Percy Lupton to Hoolahan, 11 October 1898; Hoolahan to James Smart, 31 July 1898; Frank Pedley to Smart, 14 October 1898; D.W. Mitchell, Acting Vice-Consul in São Paulo to John Hall, Department of the Interior, 18 June 1899; Pedley to Smart, 12 July 1899, all in rg-76-725-3, lac. On John Thomas, see Lupton to Hoolahan, 21 March 1899; Francis W. Mark to Percy Sanderson, 5 August 1899 (among a dozen other letters on their file), rg-76-725-3, lac. Clifford Sifton authorized disbursement for these distressed Canadians on 21 June 1898. Quebec Daily Telegraph, 15 September 1897. Percy Lupton to Constantine Phipps, 26 March 1897, fo 128/227, na. Henry Mark to Phipps, 4 May 1897, fo 128/227, na. La Patrie, 2 June 1897. Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons, 21September, 1896, 4861-64. The item was removed as a permanent charge from the immigration appropriation and converted into a miscellaneous expense. Montreal Gazette, 2 November 1898; Percy Lupton to John Hoolahan, 21 July 1897, rg-76-725-3, lac; Lupton to Hoolahan, 21 March 1899, rg76-725-3, lac. Jules Ledoux had also noted that there were very few people left in Brazil a year earlier, stating that some, “being unable to pay their passage had to remain there.” La Patrie, 3 June 1897. La Presse, 1 May 1897. It is interesting that the Brazilian Consulate in Montreal alerted the Brazilian minister of External Affairs of this article and he, in turn, the governor of São Paulo. See N. P. de Silva Vade to D.E. de Costa Cerqueira, 7 May 1897, and Cerqueira to Governor Campos Salles, 18 June 1897, Secretaria da Agricultura 1897, Caixa 141, Ordem 4261, asp. conclusion

1 See Harney, “King of Italian Labour.” 2 La Presse, 15 April 1901.

187

notes to pages 124–30 3 Ottawa Citizen, 7 November 1896. 4 http://www.siaapm.cultura.mg.gov.br/modules/imigrantes/brtacervo. php?cid=15302, Register SA-937, p. 34, accessed 20 November 2015. 5 Charles-Ernest Trudel to D. Falconio, 8 December 1900, Arch. Nunz, Canada b64/1, asv. 6 On the libel case, see Montreal Herald, 25 September 1896, 8; 26 September, 2; La Minerve, 24, 26 September; 3, 5, 12 October; 4, 11 December; Montreal Daily Witness, 2 October; Montreal Star, 25 September; Montreal Gazette, 25 September; 2 October. See anonymous memo 3 October 1896, and DMI to J.G.H. Bergeron, 29 September 1896 suggesting that someone from La Presse stop by the department to read papers and obtain copies for the libel case, rg 76-I-A-1, vol. 33, lac. 7 Barbosa, Brazil and Canada, 107. 8 McDowall, Light, 44ff. Gualco contacted James Ross the Montreal rail contractor, who brought William Mackenzie and F.S. Pearson into the project. http://www.friendsofthekincardinehospital.ca/ourhospital.php. 9 Secretaria de Estado dos Negocios da Agricultura, Commercio e Obras Publicas, Relatório de 1896, 58. 10 http://historiapoliticadoamparo.blogspot.ca/2012/01/bernardino-jose-decampos-junior.html, accessed 15 May 2015. 11 Evening Telegram, 20 April 1899. 12 John Magor to Governor of São Paulo, 19 January 1897, Secretaria da Agricultura 1897, Caixa 141, Ordem 4261, asp. 13 Some of the important studies reflecting the view that with industrialization and affluence there was a decline in neighbourliness in the late nineteenth century in Great Britain and in the United States are: Thernstrom, Poverty and Progress; Lockwood, “Working Class Images of Society”; Robin Pearson, “Knowing One’s Place”; and Abrams and Bulmer, Neighbours. For a revisionist view see Procter,” Privatisation of WorkingClass Life. 14 Humphrey, Summer Journey, 70–1.

188

Bibliography

archival collections Brazil Arquivo Público do Estado de São Paulo Secretaria da Agricultura, Caixa 5, 85, 86, 141, 142 Arquivo Histórico e Diplomático, Palacio Itamaraty, Rio de Janeiro ahi 285 series Canada Archives de l’Archidiocèse de Rimouski Dossier C.E. Trudel Archives de la Chancellerie de l’Archevêché de Montréal “Brésil,” 180.115/896-1 Library and Archives Canada Immigration Program Papers rg 76-I-a-1, vol. 33, file 725 rg17 i1-299 Laurier Papers, mg26-g, vol. 30 France Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, Nantes Rio de Janeiro Légation, Série A, Archives des Postes, Correspondance avec le Consulat de France à São Paulo, 1896 Archives du Ministère des Affaires Etrangères, La Corneuve São Paulo consulat général : 621po/1/1-122 (1895-1957) Great Britain National Archives (na) (Kew) Foreign Office Papers fo 128/225 fo 128/227 fo128/229 fo 128/231 fo 128/233

bibliog raphy West Yorkshire Archive Service, Bradford “Brazilian Emigrants Relief Committee,” bbd1/1/115. Vatican City Archivio Segreto Vaticano Rappresentanza Canada sc. 61 Arch. Nunz. Canada b64/1 Dac 5: “Rimouski” official published reports Brazil (São Paulo) Secretaria de Estado dos Negocios da Agricultura, Commercio e Obras Publicas, Relatório de 1895. São Paulo, 1895. Secretaria de Estado dos Negocios da Agricultura, Commercio e Obras Publicas, Relatório de 1896. São Paulo, 1896. Secretaria de Estado dos Negocios da Agricultura, Commercio e Obras Publicas, Relatório de 1897. São Paulo, 1897. Canada Debates of the Senate of the Dominion of Canada, 1896: first session, eighth Parliament. Ottawa, 1896. Official Report of the Debates of the House of Commons of Canada, 1896: second session, eighth Parliament. Ottawa, 1896. Great Britain Reports from Her Majesty’s Representatives in Brazil concerning the Condition of British Immigrants (Commercial No. 19, 1891). London, 1891. Further Reports from Her Majesty’s Representatives in Brazil concerning the Condition of British Immigrants (Commercial No. 20, 1891). London, 1891. Further Correspondence Respecting British Immigrants in Brazil (Commercial No. 9, 1892); Further Correspondence Respecting British Immigrants in Brazil (Commercial No. 3, 1893). London, 1893. websites www.ancestry.com. www.ancestry.ca http://museudaimigracao.org.br/acervodigital/livrodetalhe.php?livro=020& pagina=142&familia=05933. http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/orders/001022-119.01-e.php?& sisn_id_nbr=51075&page_sequence_nbr=1&interval=20. http://historiapoliticadoamparo.blogspot.ca/2012/01/bernardino-jose-de-camposjunior.html.

190

bibliography http://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/1672993/dou-secao-1-21-08-1893-pg-3/ pdfView. http://www.siaapm.cultura.mg.gov.br/modules/imigrantes/brtacervo.php?cid= 15302. newspapers, gazettes, and magazines Auctoridade Canada Gazette O Commercio de São Paulo O Correio Paulistano Diário oficial do Estado de São Paulo O Estado do São Paulo L’Évènement Gazette des Campagnes Jornal do Commercio La Minerve Le Monde Montreal Daily Witness Montreal Gazette Montreal Herald Montreal Star A Noticia Le Nouveau Monde La Patrie La Presse Quebec Daily Telegraph Quebec Saturday Budget The Railroad Gazette Le Reveil Rio News La Semaine Réligieuse de Québec La Stampa The Teesdale Mercury The Times (London) books, articles, and theses Abramitzky, Ran, Boustan, Leah Platt, and Katherine Eriksson. “Europe’s Tired, Poor, Huddled Masses: Self-Selection and Economic Outcomes in the Age of Mass Migration,” American Economic Review 102:5 (2012): 1832–56. Abrams, Philip and Martin Bulmer. Neighbours: The Work of Philip Abrams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Alves de Lima, J.C. Recordações de Homens e cousas do meu tempo. Rio de Janeiro: Leite Ribeiro, 1926.

191

bib liograph y Ames, Herbert. “The City Below the Hill”: A Sociological Study of a Portion of the City of Montreal Canada. Montreal: The Bishop Engraving and Printing Company, 1897. Andrews, George Reid. Blacks and Whites in São Paulo Brazil 1888–1988. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991. Araujo Neto, Miguel Alexandre de. “Imagery and Arguments Pertaining to the Issue of Free Immigration in the Anglo-Irish Press in Rio de Janeiro.” ABEI Journal: The Brazilian Journal of Irish Studies 5 (2003): 111–27. Atlas historique du Québec: La francophonie nord-américaine, edited by Yves Frenette, Étienne Rivard, and Marc Saint-Hilaire. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval, 2013. Bade, Klaus J. Migration in European History. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003. Baily, Samuel L. Immigrants in the Land of Promise: Italians in Buenos Aires and New York City 1870–1914. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998. Baines, Dudley. Emigration from Europe 1815–1930. London: Macmillan, 1991. – Migration in a Mature Economy: Emigration and Internal Migration in England and Wales, 1861–1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Barbosa, Rosana. “Brasil-Canada: Ligações migratórias nos séculos XIXe–XX.” Interfaces Brasil/Canada 12, 14 (2012): 183–200. – Brazil and Canada: Economic, Political and Migratory Ties, 1820s to 1970s. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2017. – and Yves Frenette. “De l’Amérique du Nord au Brésil: Deux épisodes d’immigration francophone dans la deuxième moitié du XIXe siècle.” In Les Français au Brésil (XIXe–XXe siècles), edited by Laurent Vidal and Tania Regina de Luca, 79–90. Paris: Les Indes Savantes, 2011. – Immigration and Xenophobia: Portuguese Immigrants in Early 19th Century Rio de Janeiro. Lanham: University Press of America, 2009. – “À la recherché des passagers du Panola: Un episode de migration française et nord-américaine au Brésil, 1875–1876.” e-crini, Université de Nantes, France (N. 3, 2012). http://www.ecrini.univnantes.fr/35354114/0/fiche___pagelibre/ &RH=1332493528973. Barlow, John Matthew. “‘The House of the Irish’: Irishness, History, and Memory in Griffintown, Montreal, 1868–2009.” PhD diss., Concordia University, 2009. Baxevanis, John J. Economy and Population Movements in the Peloponnesos of Greece. Athens: National Centre of Social Research, 1972. Benincasa, Vladimir. “Fazendas Paulistas: Arquitetura rural no ciclo do café (2 vols).” PhD dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo, 2007. Bernier, Bernard. “The Penetration of Capitalism in Quebec Agriculture.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 13, 4 (1976): 422–34. Bethell, Leslie, ed. Brazil: Empire and Republic 1822–1930. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Bletz, May E. Immigration and Acculturation in Brazil and Argentina 1890– 1929. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Bodnar, John. The Transplanted: A History of Immigrants in Urban America. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985.

192

bibliogra phy Boitani, Piero. Winged Words: Flight in Poetry and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Boruszenko. Oksana. “Ukrainians Abroad: In Brazil.” In Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopaedia. Vol. I. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1978: 1194–1204. Bowen, Lynne. Muddling Through: The Remarkable Story of the Barr Colonists. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 1992. Boyd, Monica. “Family and Personal Networks in International Migration: Recent Developments and New Agendas.” International Migration Review 23, 3 (1989): 638–70. Bradbury, Bettina. Working Families: Age, Gender, and Daily Survival in Industrializing Montreal. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1993. Brault, Gérard J. The French Canadian Heritage in New England. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1986. Brettell, Caroline, and James Frank Hollifield. “Emigration and Household Structure in a Portuguese Parish, 1850–1920.” Journal of Family History 13, 1 (1988): 33–57. – eds. Migration Theory: Talking Across Disciplines. London: Routledge, 2000. Brooks, Ann, and Ruth Simpson. Emotions in Transmigration: Transformation, Movement and Identity. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. Byrd, Peter. “Regional and Functional Specialisation in the British Consular Service.” Journal of Contemporary History 7, 1 (1972): 127–45. “Canada Census, 1891 and 1901.” Ancestry.ca. Castel, Robert. “The Routes to Disaffiliation: Insecure Work and Vulnerable Relations.” International Journal of Urban and Religious Research 24, 3 (2000): 519–35. Castles, Stephen, Heine de Haas, and Mark J. Miller, eds. The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World. London: Palgrave Macmillan 2009. Choate, Mark. Emigrant Nation: The Making of Italy Abroad. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 2008. Choldin, Harvey M. “Kinship Networks in the Migration Process.” International Migration Review 7, 2 (1973): 163–75. Cipko. Serge. “The Legacy of the ‘Brazilian Fever’: The Ukrainian Colonization of Paraná.” Journal of Ukrainian Studies 11, 2 (1986): 19–32. Cohen, Robin. Global Diasporas. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997. Conrad, Robert. “The Planter Class and the Debate over Chinese Immigration to Brazil, 1850–1893.” International Migration Review 9, 1 (1975): 41–55. Copp, Terry. The Anatomy of Poverty: The Condition of the Working Class in Montreal 1897–1929. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1974. Cross, Dorothy Suzanne. “The Irish in Montreal, 1867–1896.” ma thesis, McGill University, 1969. Darroch, A.G. “Migrants in the Nineteenth Century: Fugitives or Families in Motion?.” Journal of Family History 6, 3 (1981): 257–77. Dawsey, Cyrus B, and James M. Dawsey, eds. The Confederados: Old South Immigrants in Brazil. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1995.

193

bib liograph y De Haas, Hein. “The Internal Dynamics of Migration Processes: A Theoretical Inquiry.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36, 10 (2010): 1606–37. Dugas, Georges. The Canadian West. Montreal: Librairie Beauchemin, 1905. – L’Ouest Canadien: Sa découverte par le sieur de La Vérendrye; son exploitation par les compagnies de traiteurs jusqu’à l’année 1822. Montreal: Cadieux et Derome 1896. Elliott, Bruce S, David A. Gerber, and Suzanne M. Sinke, eds. Letters Across Borders: The Epistolary Practices of International Migrants. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Epstein, Gil S. “Herd and Network Effects in Migration Decision-Making.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 34, 4 (2008): 567–83. Erickson, Charlotte. Leaving England: Essays on British Emigration in the Nineteenth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994. – “The Use of Passenger Lists for the Study of British and Irish Emigration.” In Migration Across Time and Distance. Population Mobility in Historical Context, edited by I.A. Glazier and L. De Rosa, 318–35. New York: Homes and Meier, 1986. – “Who Were the English and Scottish Emigrants in the 1880s?” In Population and Social Change, edited by D.V. Glass and R. Revelle, 99–113. London: Arnold, 1972. Errington, Elizabeth Jane. Emigrant Worlds and Transatlantic Communitites. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2007. Few, Janet Mary. “Faith, Fish, Farm or Family?: The Impact of Kinship Links and Communities on Migration Choices and Residential Persistence in North Devon 1841–1901.” PhD diss., University of Exeter, 2009. Font, Mauricio A. Coffee, Contention, and Change in the Making of Modern Brazil. Cambridge, ma: Basil Blackwell, 1990. Frenette, Yves. “Migrating In, Migrating Out, Migrating Within Canada: Une approche microhistorique.” In Migration, Regionalization, Citizenship: Comparing Canada and Europe, edited by K. Sarkowsky, R.O. Schultze, and S. Schwarze, 15–26. Wiesbaden: Springer, 2015. Gauvreau, Danielle. “Mouvements migratoires et familles: Le peuplement du Saguenay avant 1911.” Revue d’histoire de l’Amérique française 42, 2 (1988): 167–92. – Sherry Olson, and Patricia Thornton. “The Harsh Welcome of an Industrial City: Immigrant Women in Montreal, 1880–1900.” Histoire Sociale/Social History 40, 80 (2007): 345–80. Geiger, Andrea. Subverting Exclusion: Transpacific Encounters with Race, Caste, and Borders, 1885–1928. New Haven and London: Yale University Press 2011. Gerber, David A. “Epistolary Masquerades: Acts of Deceiving and Withholding in Immigrant Letters.” In Letters Across Borders: The Epistolary Practices of International Migrants, edited by Bruce S. Elliott, David A. Gerber, and Suzanne M Sinke, 141–57. London: Palgrave Macmillan 2006. Gilliland, Jason A. “Modeling Residential Mobility in Montreal, 1860–1900.”

194

bibliogra phy Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History 31, 1 (1998): 27–42. Gilliland, Jason A., and Sherry H. Olson. “Residential Segregation in the Industrializing City: A Closer Look.” Urban Geography 31, 1 (2010): 29–58. – Sherry H. Olson, and Danielle Gauvreau. “Did Segregation Increase as the City Expanded? The Case of Montreal, 1881–1901.” Social Science History 35, 4 (2011): 465–503. Giulietti, Corrado, Jackline Wahba, and Yves Zenou. Strong Versus Weak Ties in Migration. Bonn: iza Discussion Paper Series, 2014. Giussani, Luigi. The Religious Sense. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997. Gonçalves, Paulo Cesar. “Mercadores de Braços: Riqueza e accumulação na organização da emigração européia para o Nuvo Mundo.” PhD diss., Universidade de São Paulo, 2008. Graham, Richard. Britain and the Onset of Modernization in Brazil, 1850–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1968. Griggs, William Clark. The Elusive Eden: Frank McMullan’s Confederate Colony in Brazil. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1987. Guilmoto, Christophe Z., and Frédéric Sandron. Population 55, 1 (2000): 105–35. French Edition. Haines, Robin. “Indigent Misfits or Shrewd Operators? Government-Assisted Emigrants from the United Kingdom to Australia, 1831–1860.” Population Studies 48 (1994): 223–47. Hall, Donald J. Clifford Sifton. Vol. One, The Young Napoleon 1861–1900. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1981. Hall, Michael. “The Origins of Mass Immigration in Brazil, 1871–1914.” PhD diss., Columbia University, 1969. Harter, Eugene C. The Lost Colony of the Confederacy. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2000. Harney, Robert F. “Montreal’s King of Italian Labour: A Case Study of Padronism.” Labour/Le Travail 4 (1979): 57–84. Hatton, Timothy J. and Jeffrey G. Williamson. The Age of Mass Migration: Causes and Economic Impact. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. – eds. Migration and the International Labor Market, 1850–1939. London: Routledge, 1994. Herken-Krauer, Juan Carlos. “La inmigración en la Paraguay de posguerra: El caso de los ‘Lincolnshire Farmers’ (1870–1873).” Revista Paraguaya de Sociologia 18, 52 (1981): 33–107. Hoerder, Dirk. Cultures in Contact: World Migrations in the Second Millennium. Raleigh: Duke University Press, 2002. Holloway, Thomas. “Creating the Reserve Army? The Immigration Program of São Paulo, 1886–1930.” International Migration Review 12, 2 (1978): 187–209. – Immigrants on the Land: Coffee and Society in São Paulo, 1886–1934. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1964.

195

bib liograph y Horn, Pamela. “Gloucestershire and the Brazilian Emigration Movement, 1872– 73.” Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 89 (1970): 167–74. Humphrey Alice R. A Summer Journey in Brazil. New York: Bonnell, Silver and Co., 1900. Hvidt, Kristian. Flight to America. The Social Background of 300,000 Danish Emigrants. New York: Academic Press, 1975. Jackson, J.T. “Long-Distance Migrant Workers in Nineteenth-Century Britain: A Case Study of the St. Helen’s Glass Makers.” Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Historical Society 131 (1982): 113–37. Jackson, M.O. Social and Economic Network. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Jennissen, R. “Causality Chains in the International Migration Systems Approach.” Population Research and Policy Review 26, 4 (2007): 411–36. Jones, Maldwyn. “The Background to Emigration from Great Britain in the Nineteenth Century.” Perspectives in American History 7 (1973): 3–94. Kalir, Barak. “The Development of a Migratory Disposition: Explaining a ‘New Emigration.’” International Migration Review 43, 4 (2005): 167–96. Kelley, Ninette, and Michael J. Trebilcock. The Making of the Mosaic: A History of Canadian Immigration Policy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010. Kossoy, Boris. São Paulo 1900: Imagens de Guilherme Gaensly. São Paulo: Kosmos, 1988. Lamb, Roberto Edgar. Uma jornada civilizadora: Imigração, conflito social e segurança pública na Provincia da Paranåa, 1867–1882. Curitiba: Aos Quatro Ventos, 1997. Laracy, Hugh M. “Italians on the Pacific Frontier.” Quaderni dell Istituto Italiano di Cultura 4 (1971): 67–78. Lehr, J., and Cipko, S. “Contested Identities: Competing Articulations of the National Heritage of Pioneer Settlers in Misiones, Argentina.” Prairie Perspectives: Geographical Essays 3 (2000): 165–80. Lesser, Jeffrey. Immigration, Ethnicity, and National Identity in Brazil, 1808 to the Present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. – Negotiating National Identity: Immigrants, Minorities, and the Struggle for Ethnicity in Brazil. Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1999. – “Neither Slave Nor Free, Neither Black Nor White: The Chinese in Early Nineteenth Century Brazil.” Estudios interdisciplinarios de América Latina y el Caribe 5, 2 (1994): 23–34. Lewis, G.J. Human Migration: A Geographical Perspective. London: Croom Helm, 1982. Lewis, Robert D. “The Segregated City: Residential Differentiation, Rent and Income in Montreal, 1861–1901.” ma thesis (Geography), McGill University, 1985. Lockwood, David. “Sources of Variation in Working Class Images of Society.” The Sociological Review 14, 3 (1966): 249–67.

196

bibliogra phy Lovell’s Montreal Directory for 1896. Montreal: John Lovell & Son, 1896. Luebke, Fredrick C. Germans in Brazil: A Comparative History of Cultural Conflict During World War I. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1987. MacDonald, John S., and Leatrice D. Macdonald. “Chain Migration, Ethnic Neighborhood Formation and Social Networks.” The Millbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 42, 1 (1964): 82–97. Macedo, Francisco Riopardense de. Ingleses no Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre: Edições a Nação, 1975. Manfredini, Matteo. “Families in Motion: The Role and Characteristics of Household Migration in a 19th Century Rural Italian Parish.” The History of the Family 8, 2 (2003): 317–43. Manning, Patrick, Migration in World History. London: Routledge, 2005. Marshall, Oliver. English, Irish and Irish-American Pioneer Settlers in NineteenthCentury Brazil. Oxford: Centre for Brazilian Studies, 2005. – European Immigration and Ethnicity in Latin America: A Bibliography. London: Institute of Latin American Studies, 1991. Marumoto, Masaji. “‘First Year’ Immigrants to Hawaii & Eugene Van Reed.” In East Across the Pacific: Historical and Sociological Studies of Japanese Immigration and Assimilation, edited by Hilary Conroy and T. Scott Miyakawa, 5–39. Santa Barbara: Clio Press, 1972. Massey, Douglas S. “Social Structure, Household Strategies, and the Cumulative Causation of Migration.” Population Index 56, 1 (1990): 3–26. Massicotte, Guy. “Les études régionales.” Recherches sociographiques 26, 1–2 (1985): 155–73. – et al. “Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal.” Population and Development Review 19, 3 (1993): 431–66. McDowall, Duncan. The Light: Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company Limited, 1899–1945. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1988. McNeill, William H., and Ruth S. Adams, eds. Human Migration: Patterns and Policies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1978. Meadows, Darrell R. “Engineering Exile: Social Networks and the French Atlantic Community, 1789–1809.” French Historical Studies 23, 1 (2000): 67–102. Morin, A.-Cléophas. Dans la maison du Père: Nécrologie sacerdotale du diocèse de Rimouski 1867–1967. Rimouski: Archidiocèse de Rimouski, 1967. Muñiz-Solari, O., W. Li, and Y. Schleicher, eds. “Migration Conceptual Framework: Why Do People Move to Work in Another Place or Country?” M. Solem, P. Klein, O. Muñiz-Solari, and W. Ray, eds. aag Center for Global Geography Education, 2010. http://globalgeography.aag.org. Munshi, K. “Identification of Network Effects: Mexican Migrants in the US Labor Market.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (2003): 549–97. Negrón, Rosalyn. “Personal Networks and Migration Decision: The Case of Jamaican Brain Drain.” Journal of Identity and Migration Studies 6, 1 (2012): 43–63. Niau, J.H. The Phantom Paradise: The Story of the Expedition of the Marquis de Rays. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1936.

197

bib liograph y Nugent, Walter. Crossings: The Great Transatlantic Migrations, 1870–1914. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992. Ogelsby, J.C.M. Gringos from the Far North: Essays in the History of CanadianLatin American Relations 1866–1968. Toronto: Macmillan of Canada, 1976. Olson, Sherry, and Patricia Thornton. Peopling the North American City: Montreal 1840–1900. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2011. O’Reilly, Karen. International Migration and Social Theory. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. Ostergren, R.C. “Kinship Networks and Migration: A Nineteenth-Century Swedish Example.” Social Science History 6, 3 (1982): 293–320. Pearson, Robin. “Knowing One’s Place: Perceptions of Community in the Industrial Suburbs of Leeds, 1790–1890.” Journal of Social History 27, 2 (Winter 1993): 221–44. Pendergrast, Mark. Uncommon Grounds: The History of Coffee and How It Transformed Our World. New York: Basic Books, 2010. Perin, Roberto. Rome in Canada: The Vatican and Canadian Affairs in the Late Victorian Age. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990. Platt, D.C.M. “British Agricultural Colonization in Latin America, Part I.” InterAmerican Economic Affairs 18, 3 (1964): 3–38. – “British Agricultural Colonization in Latin America, Part II.” Inter-American Economic Affairs 19,1 (1965): 23–42. Pooley, Colin G., and Ian D. Whyte, eds. Migrants, Emigrants and Immigrants: A Social History of Migration. London: Routledge, 1991. Procter, Ian. “The Privatisation of Working-Class Life: A Dissenting View.” The British Journal of Sociology 41, 2 (1990): 157–80. Ramirez, Bruno with Yves Otis. Crossing the 49th Parallel: Migration from Canada to the United States, 1900–1930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001. – On the Move: French-Canadian and Italian Migrants in the North Atlantic Economy, 1860–1914. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1991. Richards, Eric. “How Did Poor People Emigrate From the British Isles to Australia in the Nineteenth Century?” Journal of British Studies 32 (1993): 250–79. – “Limits of the Australian Emigrant Letter.” In Letters Across Borders: The Epistolary Practices of International Migrants, edited by Bruce S. Elliott, David A. Gerber, and Suzanne M. Sinke, 56–74. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. Richardson, C. “Irish Settlement in Mid-Nineteenth Century Bradford.” Yorkshire Bulletin of Economic and Social Research 20 (1968): 40–57. Robillard, Denise. La Traversée du Saguenay. Montreal: Bellarmin 1990. Roby, Yves. Les Franco-Américains de la Nouvelle-Angleterre, 1776–1930. Sillery: Septentrion, 1990. – Les Franco-Américains de la Nouvelle-Angleterre: Rêves et réalités. Sillery: Septentrion, 2000. – The Franco-Americans of New England: Dreams and Realities. Sillery: Septentrion, 2004. – and Francine Roy. Deschambault. Quebec: Septentrion 2013. Rosoli, Gianfausto. “La crise des relations entre l’Italie et le Brésil: La grande

198

bibliogra phy naturalisation, 1889–1896.” La revue européene des migrations internationals 2, 2 (1983): 69–90. Rozińska, Zofia. “Emigratory Experience: The Melancholy of No Return.” In Memory and Migration: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Memory Studies, edited by Julia Creet and Andreas Kitzmann, 29–42. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2014. Ryan, Louise, Gerard Leavey, Anne Golden, Robert Blizard, and Michael King. “Depression in Irish Migrants Living in London: Case–Control Study.” The British Journal of Psychiatry 188, 6 (2006): 560–6. Schurer, K. “Migration, Population and Social Structure. A Comparative Study Based in Rural Essex, 1850–1900.” PhD diss., University of London, 1988. Séguin, Normand. La conquête du sol au 19e siècle. Montreal: Boréal, 1977. – “L’histoire de l’agriculture et de la colonization au Québec depuis 1850.” In Agriculture et colonization au Québec: Aspects historiques, edited by N. Séguin, 9–37. Montreal: Boréal, 1980. Shepperson, Wilbur S. Emigration and Disenchantment: Portraits of Englishmen Repatriated from the United States. Norman, ok: Oklahoma University Press 1965. Simpson, Tony. The Immigrants: The Australians in Paraguay. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1981. Skidmore, Thomas E. Black into White: Race and Nationality in Brazilian Thought. Durham, nc: Duke University Press, 1993. Souter, Gavin A. A Peculiar People: The Australians in Paraguay. Sydney: Sydney University Press, 1981. Stein, Stanley J. Vassouras: A Brazilian Coffee County, 1850–1900. Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press, 1957. Stolcke, Verena, and Michael Hall. “The Introduction of Free Labor on São Paulo Coffee Plantations.” Journal of Peasant Studies 10, 2 (1983): 170–200. Swierenga, Robert P. “List Upon List: The Ship Passenger Records and Immigration Research.” Journal of American Ethnic History 10 (1991): 42–53. Swift, Roger. “The Historiography of the Irish in Nineteenth-Century Britain.” In The Irish in the New Communities, edited by Patrick O’Sullivan, 99–127. Leicester: Leicester University Press, 1992. Takai, Yukari. Gendered Passages: French-Canadian Migration to Lowell, Massachusetts, 1900–1920. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. Takenaka, Ayumi. “The Japanese in Peru: History of Immigration, Settlement, and Racialization,” Latin American Perspectives 31, 3 (2004): 77–98. Taylor, R.C. “Migration and Motivation: A Study of Determinants and Types.” In Migration, edited by J.A. Jackson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Thernstrom, Stephan. Poverty and Progress: Social Mobility in a Nineteenth Century City. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964. Thistlethwaite, Frank. “Migration from Europe Overseas in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries.” Comité International des Sciences Historiques, XIe Congrès International Des Sciences Historiques, Stockholm 1960, Rapports: V: Histoire Contemporaine. Stockholm: Almquist & Wickesell, 1960: 32–60.

199

bib liograph y Thornton, Patricia, and Sherry Olson. “A Deadly Discrimination Among Montreal Infants, 1860–1900.” Continuity and Change 16, 1 (2001): 95–135. Three Hundred British Immigrants Many of Whom are Dying of Starvation in the Colony of Assunguy, Paraná, Brazil, South America. London: W. Macintosh and Co., 1877. Topik, Steven. “The World Coffee Market in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, from Colonial to National Regimes.” London: London School of Economics, Department of Economic History, 2004. Vicero, Ralph D. “Sources statistiques pour l’étude de l’immigration et du peuplement canadien-français en Nouvelle-Angleterre au cours du XIXe siècle.” Recherches sociographiques 12, 3 (1971), 361–77. Vidal, Laurent, and Tania Regina, eds. Les Français au Brésil (XIXe–XXe siècles). Paris: Les Indes Savantes, 2011. Wagner, Tamara S. Victorian Narratives of Failed Emigration: Settlers, Returnees and Narratives in Nineteenth-Century Literature. Milton Park: Routledge, 2016. Weaver, Blanche Henry Clark. “Confederate Emigration to Brazil.” The Journal of Southern History 27, 1 (1961): 33–53. Weaver, John C. The Great Land Rush and the Making of the Modern World, 1650–1900. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003. Wegge, Simone A. “Network Strategies of Nineteenth-Century Hesse-Cassel Emigrants.” The History of the Family 13, 3 (2008): 296–314. Wey, Claude. “Luxembourgers in Latin America and the Permanent Threat of Failure: ‘Return Migration’ in the Social Context of a European Micro-Society.” AEMI Journal I (2003): 1–11. Widdis, Randy. With Scarcely a Ripple: Anglo-Canadian Migration into the United States and Western Canada, 1880–1920. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1998. Williams, Glyn. The Desert and the Dream: A Study of Welsh Colonization in Chubut, 1865–1915. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1975. Winsberg, Morton D. Colonia Baron Hirsch: A Jewish Agricultural Colony in Argentina. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1963. Winter, Anne. Migrants and Urban Change: Newcomers to Antwerp, 1760– 1860. London: Pickering & Chatto, 2009. Wtulich, Josephine, ed. Writing Home: Immigrants in Brazil and the United States, 1890–1891. Boulder: East European Monographs, 1986. Wyman, Mark. Round Trip to America: The Immigrants Return to Europe, 1880–1930. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993. Zucchi, John. Italians in Toronto: The Development of a National Identity, 1875–1935. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988. – The Little Slaves of the Harp. Italian Child Street Musicians in NineteenthCentury Paris, London and New York. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999. – “Mad Flight? The Montréal Migration of 1896 to Brazil.” Journal of the Canadian Historical Association / Revue de la Société historique du Canada 24, 2, (2013), 189–217.

200

Index

Ames, Herbert, 14–15, 59 Anderson, Charles, 93 Anderson, Tela, 79 Ange Gardien, 12, 13, 97 Angelo Fiorita & Co., 30, 32, 36, 41, 58, 75, 90 Araraquara, 90, 91 Arcoverde, Archbishop Joachim, 126 Auclair, Cordelia (née Masson), 71, 73, 79 Auclair, Georges, 71, 73, 79 Baines, Dudley, 59 Barbosa, Rosana, 5 Batataís, 87, 91 Baxevanis, John J., 62 Beauchamp, Marie, 71 Bellaura, 98 Benoit, Mary, 120 Bergeron, J.G.H., 51 Berthiaume, Trefflé, 127 Blais, Archbishop André-Albert, 126 Bodard, Auguste, 44–5 Boucherville, qc, 13 Bourgeault, F., 52 Bradford, emigrants from to Brazil, 9, 69, 101 Branqueamento, 27–8 Brazilian Traction, Light, and Power Company, 127 Briancourt (Sorel), qc, 117 Brière, Napoleon, 85, 112, 124

Brown, C., 124 Bruneau, A.A., 119 Buenos Aires, 84, 118 Buffon, 107 Burgess, A.M., 44, 45, 52 Campos, Américo de Sobrinho, 4, 37, 50, 127 Campos, Bernardino de, 32, 37, 39, 102 Campos Salles, Manuel Ferraz de, 29, 30, 76, 83, 84, 102, 116 Canadian Order of United Workmen, 16 Canadian Pacific Railway, 14, 37, 44, 45, 86, 107, 123, 124 Carvalho, Theodoro Dias de, 32, 73, 75, 76, 83, 114, 117, 128 Casa de Misericórdia Hospital, São Paulo, 125 Catholics, 15, 16, 30, 48, 57, 64, 103 Charity Organisation Society (London), 110 Château Richer, qc, 13, 58, 97 Chayer, Joseph, 120 Claprood, Vitalian, 4 Claremond, Mary, 98 coffee production, 23–5 Colonial Office (Britain), 34, 50, 101, 104 colonization movement (Quebec), 12 Copp, Terry, 16

i ndex Correio Paulistano, 116 Coté, J.A., 52–3 Coupin, Florentine, 117 Courtois, Louis, 98 Cravinhos, 90, 91 Daily Telegraph, The, 55, 120 David, L.O., 16, 54 Davis, Rosa, 117 Décazes decrees (1875), 36 Deliste, Georgiana, 86 De Mars, Pascal, 4 Desbiens, Emélie, 63 Deschambault, qc, 70 disaffiliation, 63, 128 Dixon, G., 124 Duchesne, J.B., 120 Dugas, Calixte-Aimé, 54 Dugas, Georges, 46 Durocher, Joseph, 98, 107 ethnicity, 17, 20, 27, 29, 84 Fabre, Archbishop Edouard-Charles, 47, 48, 52 failure and migration, 4–10 Fargo, nd, 38 Farhana, Josephine. See Gualco, Josephine Farrell, Margaret, 115 fazendas: Amado Pinto & Companhia, 87; Colonia Sabaúna, 85, 87, 90, 91, 97, 98, 124; Dumont, 36, 73, 75, 83, 87, 92, 105, 113–15; Nesto de Carvalho, 87; Paulino Carlo filhos, 87; Prado, 36, 75, 92, 95, 97 Fecteau, David, 3, 117, 124 food, 27, 33, 50, 59, 86, 112, 121; on board the Moravia, 71; in the hospedaria, 77, 80, 81, 84; on the plantations, 93, 94, 96, 99 freed slaves. See slaves Frenette, Yves, 5

202

Gascoyne-Cecil, Robert (Lord Salisbury), 43, 46, 53, 57, 81, 102, 105 Gauthier, Emma, 98 Gavotti, Gustavo, 2, 36 Gentil, Charles, 109 Gilliland, Jason, 15 Gow, George, 124 Graft, Lucy, 110 Grenier, Josephine, 98 Griffintown, 14–16, 41, 72 Groves, John, 70 Gualco, Francesco Antonio, 2, 18, 37, 40, 41, 48, 54, 56, 69, 70, 127 Gualco, Josephine, 37, 98, 127 Guy, Joseph, 105, 115 Halifax (Nova Scotia), 37, 49, 66, 109, 119 Hevelius, 117, 118 Holloway, Thomas, 5, 28, 33 Holman, Edward Percival, 60–1, 110 Homesickness, 77–8, 86 Hoolahan, John, 51–4, 117 Hospedaria de Imigrante. See Hospedaria do Brás Hospedaria de São Bernardo, 32, 74 Hospedaria do Brás or Hospedaria do Capital, São Paulo, 32–4, 73, 77, 79–82, 83, 92, 93, 98, 100, 101, 117, 119 houses and housing on plantations, 10, 26, 65, 93, 95, 96 Hull, qc, 13, 71, 74, 79, 97 immigration policy: Brazil, 23–9; Canada, 21–3; São Paulo, 29–36 impulsive migration, 6, 8–11 Istace, Jean Baptiste, 116 Italy, 7, 26, 28, 32, 34, 36, 51, 58, 81, 127 Jews, 21, 57, 64 Jones, John, 124 Jornal do Commercio, 50, 83, 103

in dex Kaffir Prince, 115 Kalir, Barak, 10 Keats, William, 48–9 Lac Saint Jean, 12, 48, 63 Laferrière, Charles, 71, 74, 79, 80, 95, 96, 97 Lake Ontario, 107 La Ligure Brasiliana, 4, 18, 32, 33, 35–6, 40–4, 46, 48, 54–6, 58–9, 65, 72, 90, 96, 98, 103, 127 La Minerve, 23, 47, 68, 72, 125 Lamoureux, A.J., 27, 82, 116 La Patrie, 47 Lapierre, Joseph, 71, 29, 80, 85, 98, 124 La Presse, 18, 40, 44, 48, 52, 55–6, 60, 66–8, 72, 76, 95–6, 106, 115, 123, 125, 127 La Puissance du Canada, 44 L’Avenir National, 47 Laurier, Sir Wilfrid, 18, 51, 97, 106, 113, 119 Lauzon, Joseph, 95, 96, 98 Law 356, 31 Leclercq, Louis, 3, 75, 78, 81, 83, 102, 104, 107, 109–14, 117, 120, 121 Ledoux, Jules, 80, 83, 93, 117, 121 L’Espérance, 47 Le Monde, 46, 48, 52 Le Nouveau Monde, 67 Le Reveil, 55-6 Lesser, Jeffrey, 27 Le Soir, 48 Le Temps, 125 letters and letter-writing, 18, 44, 71, 77–81, 85–6, 93, 95, 98 Levieux, Antoine, 119 Levieux, Marie, 14 Lévis, qc, 58, 61, 86, 107, 115, 125 libertos. See slaves L’Île Verte, qc, 61 Lima, J.C. Alves, 39–41, 77

Lionais, Charles, 70 Liverpool, 106, 107, 109, 119 Loiselle, Georgiana, 125 Loiselle, Joseph, 117, 120 Louteff, Elian, 3 Lupton, Percy, 78, 81, 83, 102, 104, 109–14, 117, 120–1 Luther, Fredrick, 68 MacDougall, John, 96 Magor, John, 50, 54, 56, 70, 128 Maher, Georgina, 117 Maisonneuve, qc, 13, 90, 95, 98 Mark, Henry, 77, 82 Marseille, France, 119 Marshall, Oliver, 8–9 Martin, Marie, 3 Maxwell, Christina, 112 McDowall, Duncan, 5, 37 migration: motives, 8, 19, 59–65, 129; networks, 62, 64 Ministry of External Affairs (France), 29, 36 Mitchell, F.R., 49 Montmagny, qc, 94 Montreal Daily Witness, 65 Montreal Gazette, 12, 60, 66, 109, 111, 121 Montreal Herald, 52, 56, 63, 66 Montreal Star, 44, 48, 52, 55, 57, 68 Moody, Sarah, 3, 86 Moore, Charles, 117 Moravia, 3–4, 11, 14, 16–18, 22, 28, 30, 34, 37, 38, 50–1, 54, 55–9, 62, 63, 65–7, 69–70, 73, 74, 80–1, 86– 7, 94, 97, 101, 103, 110, 116, 118– 20, 122, 124–5, 127–30 Namur, qc, 13 Noeux, Pas-de-Calais, France, 119 Notre Dame de la Salette, qc, 13, 90 O Commercio de São Paulo, 76, 80, 84

203

i ndex O Estado de São Paulo, 76, 83, 84 Ogdensburg, ny, 38, 39 Ogelsby, J.C.M., 5 Olson, Sherry, 16 Ottawa, 13, 18, 44, 48, 50, 69, 97, 104, 113, 119, 125, 127 Owen, Arthur, 61, 64, 79–80, 86 Parkhurst, Henry, 16 Paul, Eliza, 117 Peat, Jane Ann, 119 Petrópolis, 77, 101, 102, 104 Phipps, Constantine, 81, 102–5, 113– 15, 120 plantations. See fazendas Point Saint Charles, 13–14, 16, 80, 90, 119 Poirier, Pascale, 69 Poley, John, 3 Pontiac, qc, 13 poverty: in Brazil, 79, 83, 85, 93, 106, 122, 127; as a cause of migration, 7, 11, 15–16, 59–61 Prado, Antonio, 29, 75, 95, 97 Prado, Edouardo, 84 Prado, Martinho, 28 Protestants, 15, 16, 21, 30, 57, 64, 90 Provençal, Eloise, 85 Quebec Saturday Budget, 57 race, 17, 20, 26, 27–8, 30, 36, 40, 43 Raikes, Arthur, 77, 101, 105 Rajotte, Louisa, 71, 97 Rimouski, 38, 61, 76, 126 Rio Claro, 87, 91 Rio de Janeiro, 9, 20 23, 43, 48, 54, 56, 73, 81, 82, 98, 101, 107, 111, 126 Rio News, 27, 30, 40, 50, 82, 114, 116, 125 Ritt, Georges, 29-34, 36, 74, 77, 81, 92 Rivière du Loup, qc, 63 Ryan, Louise, 11

204

Saint Alphonse, qc, 118, 124 Saint Anne Ward, 13–15, 46, 53, 59, 124 Saint Antoine Ward, 13, 59, 64 Saint Cunégonde, qc, 14, 53, 59, 124 Saint Edouard de Lotbinière, 107 Saint Gabriel Ward, 13–15, 59, 64, 124 Saint George’s Society, 118 Saint Henri, qc, 3, 13, 14, 53, 59, 64, 86, 125 Saint Jacques Ward, 4, 13, 64 Saint Jean Baptiste Society, 106 Saint John, nb, 107, 109 Saint Laurent Ward, 64, 70 Saint Marie Ward, 14, 53, 124 Saint Patrick’s Society, 112, 116 Saint Roch de l’Achigan, qc, 38 Salisbury, (Lord). See Gascoyne-Cecil, Robert Sanderson, Charles, 71, 79, 80, 85, 124 Sanguinet, Georges, 71, 75, 93 Santa Veridiana, 87, 90, 91, 95, 97 Santos, 2, 4, 9, 23, 28, 30–2, 36–7, 47, 55, 58, 66, 69, 71–3, 77, 82, 85, 89 São Paulo Railway, 24, 34, 85, 89 Scott, Richard William, 50, 60, 71–2 Scott, W.D., 45 Simard, Evariste, 63, 124 Simpson, Arthur, 117 Simpson, Sally, 117 slavery, 17, 23, 25–6, 32, 36, 69, 94 slaves, 23, 25–7, 41, 46, 56, 69, 74, 93, 94; libertos, 25–6 Smith, Donald (Lord Strathcona), 106–7 Smith, W., 105 Sociedade Central de Imigração, 27 Sociedade Promotora de Imigração, 27, 39 Société Générale de Colonisation et Repatriement, 48

in dex Sorel, 3, 12, 13, 58, 71, 99, 117, 119, 124, 129 Southampton, 109 Souza, Antonio Augusto de, 127 ss Bellina, 120 ss Coleridge, 111, 112 ss Minho, 110 ss Potosí, 106, 107 Stanley, Percival, 50 Strathcona (Lord). See Smith, Donald Syracuse, ny, 39 Tassé, Elie, 61, 72, 125 Taylor, R.C., 10, 64 Thériault, Paul, 61 Thomas, John, 120 Thornton, Patricia, 16 Tremblay, Adelina, 118 Tremblay, A.M., 61 Tremblay, François-Xavier, 94, 106 Tremblay, Jean-Baptiste, 97 Tremblay, Olivier, 97, 106 Trudel, Albert, 96 Trudel, Charles-Ernest, 38–42, 46–8, 59, 61, 69, 72–3, 76, 103, 126 Trudel, Joseph, 74, 75, 86, 93, 114, 115, 122, 125 Tupper, Sir Charles, 51, 101, 105–7

Valleyfield, 38 Vander Haeghe, Leopold F.M., 43, 44, 57 Vaudreuil, qc, 13, 37 Vicero, Ralph D., 82 Vielle, Henri, 117 Villa Raffard, 87, 90, 91 Wagner, Tamara S., 6 Wagstaff, George W., 43, 50, 53, 54, 57, 82, 101, 103, 105–6, 112–13 Waterville, me, 126 Wegge, Simone, 61 Welsh, Michael, 105 widows or widowers, 57, 58, 60, 64, 95, 96, 119 Williams, Thomas, 117, 125 Wilson Smith, R., 52 Wojhoska, Josephine. See Gualco, Josephine Wright, Thomas, 119 Wyatt, Jane, 125 York, Emilia, 118

205