New Arrivals    Booklist    Archival Products   Charts   Newsletters   Upcoming Events   Contact Us  

Popular Categories

   Genealogy Misc.
      - DNA, photos, reunions,         source citations, etc

   Canada
      - New Brunswick
      - Newfoundland & Lab.
      - Nova Scotia
      - Ontario
      - Prince Edward Island
      - Quebec
      - Western Canada
      - Military - Before 1920
      - Loyalists / UEL
      - Pioneers' Stories
      - Home Children
   England & Wales
   Ireland & N. Ireland
   Scotland
   United States
   more countries...


Popular Authors

   Ron W. Shaw
   Gavin K. Watt
   Ontario Ancestors (OGS)
   Dr David Elliott
   Linda Corupe UE
   Paul Milner
   Chris Paton
   Thomas MacEntee


Popular Publishers

   Global Heritage Press
   MacDonald Research
   Unlock The Past



Search by topic, title, author or word:



Archived Articles
Formerly published by GlobalGazette.ca




The Luck of the Scottish: A Revision of the Universal British Emigration Experience
Posted 19 April 2008
By Lauren M. Coules, University of Guelph Fourth Year Student (2008)



The Dunbrody Emigrant Ship, a three masted barque, is a
full scale reconstruction of a 19th Century famine ship.
The original ship was built in Quebec in 1845 for the Graves
family of New Ross, County Wexford, Ireland. The replica is
open for tours in the harbour at New Ross. An on-board
computer database of ship's passenger records lists more than
two million individual emigrant passengers.
One of the most haunting, compelling images of the nineteenth century is the densely packed emigrant vessels, full of impoverished faces. Although not uncommon, this may not have been the universal experience. Indeed, the Irish potato famines of the 1840s wreaked havoc on the population resulting in significant hardship and loss of life. It is estimated that between 1841 and 1851, the population of Ireland declined from 8,175,1241 to 6,552,3852 due to famine, disease and extensive emigration. The people migrated to North America, England and Scotland among other places, in vast numbers.

The comparable Scottish experience was a century earlier; evicted and poor, the Highlanders were victims of land clearances. However, in the mid nineteenth-century both populations were on the move to the New World. It is during this period that a significant difference in their migration experiences becomes apparent. In the same year, Irish and Scottish mortality rates on ships varied drastically. Thanks to impeccable records kept by Canadian quarantine stations, statistics can be analyzed whereby truly putting the differences into perspective. The period of 1830-1850 was characterized by numerous epidemics, including cholera and typhus fever. As expected, these diseases found their way onto emigrant ships en route to Canada. However, the Irish mortality rate more than tripled that of the Scots3. What caused these differences in death rates? It appears that the condition of the migrant's place of origin was a factor. Similarly, the state of the ships on which the emigrants traveled was reflective of their subsequent well being. The drastic variation between the Irish and Scottish experience is most clearly seen in their mortality rates. Using statistics to compare the populations helps to quantify the level of variation. In addition, the conditions at home and on ships needs to be evaluated to fully understand the root cause of discerned numeric differences. After the conditions at home and aboard are understood, it becomes apparent that the Scottish emigration experience was much different than that of the Irish. The varying mortality rate between Scottish and Irish emigrants during the 1840s was a result of the differing class, health and condition of the passengers. Only through analyzing these variables can one begin to comprehend the statistics from the period. The mid nineteenth century was most certainly a time of devastating famines and disease ridden ships, however, perhaps the Scottish were better able to escape their horrific effects.

The period of study is one famous for extensive epidemics and high death rates across diverse populations. Diseases such as smallpox and measles still haunted the young in much the same fashion as they always had. However, as the nineteenth-century progressed, two diseases rose to the forefront of public fear and prevalence: cholera and typhus. As the years passed, the people of Britain watched as cholera made its way from India towards their shores4. The distance was of little consequence as cholera spread quickly beyond India's borders, becoming a domestic concern. It was greatly feared among contemporaries due to its rapid expansion: "The disease mastered every climate, surmounted every natural obstacle, conquered every people."5 It was in 1831 that cholera was recorded as having hit England. However, the contemporary understanding of the disease was quite different than today. For a long portion of the 1800s, the nature of the disease was debated. Many believed that contact was required in transmission from person to person and did not understand why the spreading stopped7. When a person became ill, they presented symptoms of excessive diarrhoea, vomiting, headaches, rapid pulse, fever and the characteristic muscle spasms. Due to the confusion over cholera's contagiousness, numerous practices were employed to treat those who were sick and prevent the spread to others. According to a contemporary doctor, Moir, in containing malignant cholera one was to destroy all possessions, cut communication ties and have the house washed and fumigated8. The transmission of cholera through water sources was not yet understood at this point in history. In addition, it was a period of controversial treatment; blood-letting was still used on ill patients9. The contemporary understanding of the treatment and containment of typhus was equally inaccurate and ineffective. In a contemporary medical journal a physician, Pidduck, describes the nature of typhus: "The cause of typhus fever is the exhalation of a specific poison from the bodies of the sick, by which persons in health become infected with the disease, as in the case of smallpox, measles, scarlet fever etc."10 This definition was from a journal published the same year as the dramatic occurrence of typhus on emigrant ships demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the disease. For treatment, Pidduck recommended that the patient's stomach and bowels be purged, wash their body and put them into a clean bed. Ultimately, the typhus fever needed to run its course, terminating on approximately the fifteenth day.11 In addition, preventative measures were to be employed to prevent spreading. The doctor advised that the person be isolated, move curtains and carpet from the area and their clothes were to be boiled and baked in an oven. Interestingly, their notion of removing the material objects surrounding the sick may have been of some use. It is known today that typhus is spread by lice or fleas that carry the Rickettsia typhi bacteria.12 By removing material in which the vectors could hide, prevention may have actually occurred. Typhus is currently described as being characterized by fever, headache, dull rash, nausea, vomiting, coughing, abdominal pain, delirium and light sensitivity, all possible lasting 2-3 weeks.13 Currently, without treatment, there is a 10-60% death rate for patients with typhus, with those over 60 being at the greatest risk.14

The existence of the infectious disease in Victorian Britain and Canada varied. In the 1840s, cholera never reached the same death rate as typhus in Scotland.15 The two disease varied greatly in terms of their nature and effect on the populations of the period. Cholera tended to spread widely from its original incidence point.16 Conversely, typhus is naturally more localized unless under extreme conditions, characterized by events such as migration.17 Even prior to the devastating year of disease, 1847, typhus and cholera were present on emigrant ships to North America. One such example is that of the Lady Grey in 1841. Of the 135 passengers, 17 died while at sea and 2 more in quarantine from typhus.18 The movement of infected people ultimately spread the infectious diseases far beyond their natural reaches. With intense British emigration during the period, typhus and cholera both affected the developing Canadian localities. According to the 1851 census, epidemic diseases were responsible for one quarter of the total deaths: Upper Canada - 1782 and Lower Canada - 3088.19 The significantly higher death rate from infectious disease in Lower Canada may be a result of their possession of the significant port cities along the St. Lawrence whereby exposing them to sick emigrants more regularly. Smallpox, measles, dysentery, cholera, and typhus were all present in Canada during the mid nineteenth-century.20 It is clear that both typhus and cholera had established themselves in Britain and Canada during the period. With their existence in both Ireland and Scotland, the differing mortality rates become a complex question.

The conditions in Scotland need to be evaluated and understood so that they may be applied to the statistics properly. The demographic analysis of the period provides a standard to compare the Irish against in hopes of discovering differences. When it comes to mortality rates, social class, housing conditions and occupation need to be considered.21


Figure 1: All data used to construct figure was from: Stark, James. "Contributions to the Vital Statistics
of Scotland." Journal of the Statistical Society of London 14, no.1 (March, 1851): 48-87.

For Scotland in general, women had longer life expectancies than men.22 For many places throughout history, it was believed that cities had higher death rates than rural areas; this was also the case for Scotland in the period. The lifespan of Scots in the cities was shorter, and up to ten years less for children.23 The most practical urban centre for this study is Glasgow as they had the highest number of ships sail from their ports. Glasgow was significantly affected by the industrial revolution in terms of its growth and development. From the period of 1801 to 1841, the number of houses in Glasgow more than doubled, the population more than tripled and the average number of people per house rose from 3.82 to 5.23.24 This increase in the density of housing and people had a significant impact on death rate. Epidemics typically rose from overcrowding in any population, and Glasgow was no exception.25 These epidemics seriously affected the mortality of the period. While the crude death rate from 1821-24 was 24.8, it rose to 39.9 from 1845-49 due to the typhus and cholera epidemics.26 However, the classes of people varied throughout Glasgow; it was considered to be "essentially a working-class town..."27 It was in these working-class areas that mortality rates were the highest.28 In comparison, Ireland was characterized with both similar and unique population characteristics. Similar to Glasgow, Ireland had also experienced a significant population increase during the nineteenth-century. Due to this extremely large population and their limited resources, poverty was extensive.29 The poor seasons of 1845 and 1846 devastated the Irish population. To further complicate the problem, there was no outdoor poor relief.30 As a result of the immense poverty, the emigration was not well planned, financed or controlled. "No emigration... could have been more thoroughly spontaneous."31 The Lancet described the poorer class of Irish as unclean, however, on the ships the conditions were forced upon them.32 It also reported that on a ship of 470 passengers there was no medical officer to be found on board. On their ships, the beds and clothes were never washed which would have been conducive to the persistence of typhus.33 It was not only those who were in Ireland who were impoverished "...the immigrants of the year 1847 were probably the most diseased, destitute, and shiftless that Canada has ever received."34 Scotland and Ireland shared both significant variations and distinct similarities. Both experienced significant population increases in the period. However, the influx of people was more evident in the cities of Scotland than in Ireland therefore less impacted by the poor seasons. The impact of the famine was felt and anticipated outside of Ireland as well.

In Canada, word of the impending influx of people was spreading. Smallpox, typhus and cholera demanded attention by the people.35 "The one question that was guaranteed to provoke widespread interest in public health was the outbreak of a life-threatening, explosive epidemic."36 There was a call in particular to protect Quebec from diseased emigrants.37 In February of 1832, the Quarantine Act was passed in anticipation of the arrival of cholera from Britain.38 This act called for the establishment of Grosse Ile, a quarantine station to intercept the ailing passengers. A second act was passed taxing emigrants to help cover the cost of prevention and Grosse Ile.39 In addition, the Medical Board of Upper Canada offered advice in helping prevent the spread and contraction of disease.40 As a result they were better prepared for the rush of potential sick emigrants during the potato famine. The system was not perfect however. In Canada there too was debate about whether or not certain diseases were contagious, and if they were, by what means.41 Despite their actions and precautions, typhus and dysentery were reported to have reached as far as Peterborough in Upper Canada.42 There was no preparation possible for the incredible influx of people in 1847 who had been ravished by typhus.

Grosse Ile documented every ship that came to or passed through quarantine with thoroughly detailed records that year. It was estimated by a British emigration agent in Quebec, Alexander C. Buchanan, that over 98,000 people left for Quebec in 1847 while only 91,150 arrived.43 From England: 32,328 departed, 54,329 from Ireland, 3752 from Scotland and 7697 from Germany.44 Of those who departed, nearly 2 out of every 10 would die.45 This staggering statistic is misrepresentative of the experience of many emigrant voyages.


Figure 2: All data used to construct figure was from: Charbonneau, Andre and Drolet-Dube, Doris. A
Register of Deceased Persons at Sea and on Grosse Ile in 1847. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage, 1997.

Based on port mortality rates, the Scottish and English were notably lower than the Irish. The English may have in fact been even lower than it appears. Nearly three quarters of the emigration from England left from Liverpool, approximately 21,000 people, and of those people nearly 20,000 were Irish.46


Figure 3: All data used to construct figure was from: Charbonneau, Andre and Drolet-Dube, Doris.
A Register of Deceased Persons at Sea and on Grosse Ile in 1847. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage, 1997.

As seen in Figure 3, the Irish ports had significantly higher mortality rates. In addition, if one considers Liverpool to be a predominantly Irish point of departure, the trends are obvious. Similarly, many people from Cork were leaving from Liverpool.47 With that in mind, the comparably high rates of Cork and Liverpool make much more sense. One point to heavily consider is the drastic difference between the sheer quantity of Irish versus Scottish migrants. In the year of 1847, 442 ships registered in Quebec and only 42 were from Scottish ports which was dwarfed by the 224 from Ireland.48 Similarly, the Irish also came in greater numbers per ship than the Scottish. Of the 77 ships with over 400 passengers, 72 were from Ireland or Liverpool , who were predominantly Irish.49 On average, Scottish ships had approximately 140 passengers, while the Irish had 211. These statistics are broken down by average per port in Figure 4.


Figure 4: All data used to construct figure was from: Charbonneau, Andre and Drolet-Dube, Doris.
A Register of Deceased Persons at Sea and on Grosse Ile in 1847. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage, 1997.

It is clear that the Irish ships had significantly more passengers per trip than those of Scotland and England. This may have been in part due to the nature of their conditions in Ireland. One must consider, however, the element of probability that is associated with more passengers. With increasing numbers, the probability of one person being infected among them before getting on the ship increased. Other differences to note lie in the significant variation between ports even of the same country. Both Aberdeen and Dundee had no deaths on ships departing from their ports that year. Conversely, Glasgow had 30 ships leave with an average mortality rate of 4.9% (Figure 5).


Figure 5: All data used to construct figure was from: Charbonneau, Andre and Drolet-Dube, Doris.
A Register of Deceased Persons at Sea and on Grosse Ile in 1847. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage, 1997.

On occasion, people also took schooners from Glasgow to Greenock, as with the Eliza, therefore altering the ships source population to a more industrialized populace.50 The most significant finding within the records of Grosse Ile in 1847 was the lack of relationship between the number of passengers per ship and the mortality rate. Both Scotland (Figure 6) and Ireland (Figure 7) had no significant correlation between the two variables. This may surprise many historians. It is generally believed that one of the main causes of death on emigrant ships during the period was overcrowding on ships. However, based on the records from Grosse Ile, it appears that this was not in fact the case. This would imply that the mortality rate was a result of factors other than the number of people on the ships. The average death rate per port shows enough variation, particularly seen in Cork vs. Glasgow that it may begin to explain the differences. It would seem that the port played a greater role in the ultimate outcome of the passengers at sea. This, however, raises a whole host of new factors which will be discussed later on. In addition, the number of passengers versus the total number of deaths (only on ships with mortality rates >0) was calculated. This was in attempt to discern whether or not once one person fell ill, the level of spreading that occurred was correlated to the number of people on board. This also failed to show any relationship (Figure 8). Another widely held belief regarding the length of the voyage was falsified in the case of 1847. There was no correlation between the number of days at sea and the total number of deaths (Figure 9). The statistical analysis has discovered interesting trends regarding the typhus epidemic and emigration in 1847.

Based on the records from Grosse Ile, it is evident that many more Irish died in proportion to Scots in the same year. According to the numbers, this is not a result of the increased number of passengers on Irish ships comparatively, nor the length of their voyage at sea. What then caused the significantly lower Scottish mortality? The results from Figure 3 show a drastic difference in mortality rate from port to port, even within the same nation. It would appear that this is one of the possible places where the differences in death rates stem from. If one considers the population on board a given ship to be fairly representative of the population of the port city and surrounding areas then certain trends become apparent. In most cases, passengers were likely to select a port most accessible from their home.51 Although 1847 was the year of typhus, cholera was still present among British populations. Another serious outbreak occurred in 1849 claiming thousands of lives. This change in the port home population was mirrored onboard emigrant ships. That year, the Circassian left Aberdeen where 70 died: 53 of cholera and only 17 from typhus.52 This demonstrates how reflective the ships passengers are of the changing conditions at home. Similarly, the same phenomenon was witnesses in England. Both Bristol's ship and stationary populations had low mortality rates. "Apparently, the general sanitation conditions were better in Bristol than in many other cities, leading to healthier passengers leaving on emigrant ships."53 This again demonstrates that the port of origin is representative of the health of their emigrants. In addition, Cork and Liverpool had some of the highest mortality and disease rates on their ships. The passengers onboard were mainly Irish emigrants, weakened by famine and poverty.54 The Irish population had experienced devastating tragedy over the preceding year and it simply continued on to their transport ships. "The large population of Irish, which comprehended, and the state of destitution in which the greater part of the country had embarked, presented features of inconceivable misery on their arrival in this [Canada]..."55 In addition, typhus was present in both Scotland and Ireland during the period. However, more Irish died despite the fact that they were ravaged by the very same disease. Perhaps, the Scots were simply in better health and of a higher class than their Irish counterparts. It would appear that most Scottish emigrants in fact arrived in good health and safely.56 In contrast to the Irish, fewer Scots left in that period than in previous years as seen in Figure 10.


Figure 10: All data used to construct figure was from: Stark, James. "Contributions to the Vital Statistics
of Scotland." Journal of the Statistical Society of London 14, no.1 (March, 1851): 48-87.

The same spontaneous reaction to emigration was not seen in the Scottish population as it was in the Irish due to the famine. This would suggest that the Scottish still had the choice to migrate as opposed to being driven out by famine and destitution. Their stable level of migration indicates that they were not affected in the same way that the Irish were in 1847 by terrible conditions at home. In fact, the whole period was marked by decreased emigration. From 1815-34, 2094 Scots left, however, between 1835-54 only 1382 left.57 The alternative explanation for why the death rate was lower on Scottish ships may have been the physical conditions on the vessels themselves. After previously inadequate standards existed, the British Parliament passed the Passengers Act in 1803.58 This was a result of the English ships having the "evil distinction"59 of having the highest mortality rate. This can be attributed to both the high number of Irish that they transported as well as the less stringent regulations in their ports.60 The act stipulated that ships could not carry more than three people per five tons of space, two children constituting one adult.61 However, these rules were not strictly enforced. There was no government body to oversee the implementation of the act. Ultimately the act was "ridiculously inadequate"62 as their enforcement was left up to the harbour officials. This may account for the significant variation between the different ports within one nation. With little to force the ports and captains to abide by the rules, conditions on the ships continued to deteriorate. Rates and prices of fare decreased until the British Passenger Act needed to be amended in 1855.63 These circumstances would have only further permitted the lack of consistency on contemporary ships. For the Scots however, there is "Irrefutable and extensive evidence... to show that the ships which they sailed on were generally of the highest quality."64 The variance between the Scottish and Irish mortality rates would indicate that there may have been a significant difference in the enforcement of conditions on passenger vessels.

During a period which was wrought with such tragedy stemming from famine, destitution and infectious diseases, perhaps it did matter where you came from. The experience of the emigrants in the 1840s speaks of a very different journey for the Scottish and Irish migrants. The Irish were forced to leave by conditions at home: a devastating famine. They left in startling numbers; their largest exodus of the period. However, as a result of their poverty, they still faced proportionately higher mortality rates than the other British nations. This may have been caused, or compounded by the individual standards of conditions at Irish ports. Their experience was dramatically affected by one or numerous factors that differed in Scotland. The steady stream of migration simply continued on throughout the decade, varying only slightly. This would imply that their reasons and motives for emigrating had changed little therefore the same type of migrants were leaving. The statistics allude to these being healthier people of a higher class than the Irish. However, perhaps as a result of the significantly lower volume of people and passenger ships, standards and conditions were more easily maintained in Scottish ports. The statistics suggest this different explanation for the mortality rates of the Irish and Scottish emigrants. As opposed to the high death rate being associated with long, crammed conditions, it would seem that this may not have been the ultimate factor. The home population seems to have affected the voyage more so than the conditions of the trip itself. This is most clearly seen in the example of Liverpool. Liverpool had an exceptionally high death rate when compared to the other British ports. However, when one learns that the populace was predominantly Irish, the rates are more appropriate. The variation in 1847 is not likely a result of one of these factors, but a combination of many. As a result of the records from Grosse Ile, our image of emigrant suffering should be altered slightly. Although typhus wreaked havoc among the passengers aboard the ships, it was the Irish by far that it impacted more. The haunting visions of sick, impoverished emigrants should be understood to be an Irish experience. The Scots had their tragic era a century earlier as a result of the clearances. However, in the nineteenth-century the Irish took their turn as the victims of emigration, searching for a better life.


Endnotes
  • up   1S.H. Cousens, "Regional Death Rates in Ireland during the Great Famine, from 1846 to 1851," Population Studies 14, no. 1 (July, 1960): 55.
  • up   2Cousens, 'Regional Death Rates,' 57.
  • up   3Andre Charbonneau and Doris Drolte-Dube, A Register of Deceased Persons at Sea and On Grosse Ile in 1847 (Ottawa: Canadian Heritage, 1997).
  • up   4D.M. Moir, Practical Observations on Malignant Cholera (Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Co., 1832), 1.
  • up   5Asa Briggs, "Cholera and Society in the Nineteenth Century," Past and Present, no. 19 (April, 1961 ): 76.
  • up   6Moir, 'Malignant Cholera,' 2.
  • up   7Moir, 'Malignant Cholera,' 12.
  • up   8Moir, 'Malignant Cholera,' 7.
  • up   9Moir, 'Malignant Cholera,' 17.
  • up   10I. Pidduck, "The Cause, Prevention, and Treatment of Tyohus Fever," The Lancet 50, no. 1250 (14 August, 1847): 176.
  • up   11Pidduck, 'Treatment of Typhus,' 176.
  • up   12Charlotte Grayosn, "Typhus," Medline Plus: Medical Encyclopaedia, (25 September, 2006).
  • up   13Grayson, "Typhus."
  • up   14Grayson, "Typhus."
  • up   15James Stark, "Contributions to the Vital Statistics of Scotland," Journal of the Statistical Society of London 14, no. 1 (March, 1851): 75.
  • up   16G. Melvyn Howe, "A National Atlas of Disease Mortality in the United Kingdom," The Geographic Journal 130, no. 1 (March, 1964): 15.
  • up   17Howe, 'A National Atlas,' 15.
  • up   18Lucille H. Campey, The Scottish Pioneers of Upper Canada, 1784-1855: Glengarry and Beyond (Toronto: Natural Heritage Books, 2005), 165.
  • up   19Board of Registration and Statistics. "Census of the Canadas, for 1851-2." (Quebece: Lovell and Lamoureaux, 1855), 36.
  • up   20"Census of the Canadas," 33.
  • up   21D.V. Glass, "Some Indicators of Differences between Urban and Rural Mortality in England and Wales and Scotland," Population Studies 17, no. 3 (March, 1964): 267.
  • up   22Glass, 'Differences in Mortality,' 266.
  • up   23Glass, 'Differences in Mortality,' 266.
  • up   24R.A. Cage, "The Standard of Living Debate: Glasgow, 1800-1850," The Journal of Economic History 43, no. 1 (March, 1983 ): 179.
  • up   25Cage, 'Glasgow,' 179.
  • up   26Cage, 'Glasgow,' 180.
  • up   27Cage, 'Glasgow,' 175.
  • up   28Cage, 'Glasgow,' 180.
  • up   29Gilbert Tucker, "The Famine Immigration to Canada, 1847," The American Historical Review 36, no. 3 (April, 1931): 533.
  • up   30Tucker, 'Famine Immigration,' 533.
  • up   31Tucker, 'Famine Immigration,' 535.
  • up   32A Naval Surgeon, "Irish Emigration Ships," The Lancet 57, no. 1445 (10 May, 1851): 533.
  • up   33A Naval Surgeon, 'Irish Ships,' 533.
  • up   34Tucker, 'Famine Immigration,' 535
  • up   35Roy MacLeod and Milton Lewis, Disease, Medicine and Empire: Perspectives on Western Medicine and the Experience of European Expansion (London: Routledge, 1988), 162.
  • up   36MacLeod and Lewis, 'Disease and Medicine,' 161.
  • up   37Charles M. Godfrey, The Cholera Epidemic in Upper Canada1832-1866 (Toronto: Seccombe House, 1968), 16.
  • up   38Godfrey, 'Upper Canada,' 16.
  • up   39Godfrey, 'Upper Canada,' 16.
  • up   40Godfrey, 'Upper Canada,' 17.
  • up   41MacLeod and Lewis, 'Disease and Medicine,' 163.
  • up   42Tucker, 'Famine Immigration,' 540.
  • up   43Charbonneau and Sevigny, 'A Record of Daily Events,' 12.
  • up   44Charbonneau and Sevigny, 'A Record of Daily Events,' 12.
  • up   45Charbonneau and Sevigny, 'A Record of Daily Events,' 1.
  • up   46Tucker, 'Famine Immigration,' 535.
  • up   47Thomas W. Page, "The Transportation of Immigrants and Reception Arrangements in the Nineteenth Century," The Journal of Political Economy 19, no. 9 (November, 1911): 734.
  • up   48Charbonneau and Sevigny, 'A Record of Daily Events,' 18.
  • up   49Charbonneau and Sevigny, 'A Record of Daily Events,' 13.
  • up   50Campey, 'Scottish Pioneers,' 35.
  • up   51Page, 'Transportation of Immigrants,' 732.
  • up   52Campey, 'Scottish Pioneers,' 168.
  • up   53Raymond L. Cohn, "Mortality on Immigrant Voyages to New York," The Journal of Economic History 44, no. 2 (June, 1984 ): 298.
  • up   54Charbonneau and Sevigny, 'A Record of Daily Events,' 14.
  • up   55Tucker, 'Famine Immigration,' 537.
  • up   56 Campey, 'Scottish Pioneers,' 196.
  • up   57Stephen J, Hornsby, "Patterns of Scottish Emigration to Canada, 1750-1870," Journal of Historical Geography 18, no. 4 (1992 ): 407.
  • up   58Campey, 'Scottish Pioneers,' 36.
  • up   59Page, 'Transportation of Immigrants,' 740.
  • up   60Page, 'Transportation of Immigrants,' 740.
  • up   61Page, 'Transportation of Immigrants,' 741.
  • up   62Page, 'Transportation of Immigrants,' 741.
  • up   63Page, 'Transportation of Immigrants,' 738.
  • up   64Campey, 'Scottish Pioneers,' 170.


Bibliography
  1. A Naval Surgeon. "Irish Emigration Ships." The Lancet 57, no. 1445 (10 May,1851): 533.
  2. Board of Registration and Statistics. "Census of the Canadas, for 1851-2." (Quebece: Lovell and Lamoureaux, 1855), 1-304.
  3. Briggs, Asa. "Cholera and Society in the Nineteenth Century." Past and Present no. 19 (April, 1961): 76-96
  4. .
  5. Cage, R.A.. "The Standard of Living Debate: Glasgow, 1800-1850." The Journal of Economic History 43, no. 1 (March, 1983): 175-182.
  6. Campey, Lucille H.. The Scottish Pioneers of Upper Canada, 1784-1855: Glengarry and Beyond. Toronto: Natural Heritage Books, 2005.
  7. Charbonneau, Andre and Drolet-Dube, Doris. A Register of Deceased Persons at Sea and on Grosse Ile in 1847. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage, 1997.
  8. Charbonneau, Andre and Sevigny, Andre. 1847 Grosse Ile: a Record of Daily Events. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage, 1997.
  9. Cohn, Raymond L.. "Mortality on Immigrant Voyages to New York, 1836-1853." The Journal of Economic History 44, no. 2 (June, 1984): 289-300.
  10. Cousens, S.H.. "Regional Death Rates in Ireland during the Great Famine, from 1846 to 1851." Population Studies 14, no.1 (July, 1960): 55-74.
  11. Glass, D.V.. "Some Indicators of Differences between Urban and Rural Mortality in England and Wales and Scotland." Population Studies 17, no. 3 (March, 1964): 263-267.
  12. Godrey, Charles M.. The Cholera Epidemics in Upper Canada 1832-1866. Toronto: Seccombe House, 1968.
  13. Grayson, Charlotte. "Typhus." Medline Plus: Medical Encyclopaedia (25 September, 2006). http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001363.htm [Accessed November 18th 2007]
  14. Hornsby, Stephen J.. "Patterns of Scottish Emigration to Canada, 1750-1870." Journal of Historical Geography 18, no. 4 (1992): 397-416.
  15. Howe, G. Melvyn. "A National Atlas of Disease Mortality in the United Kingdom." The Geographic Journal 130, no. 1 (March, 1964): 15-22.
  16. MacLeod, Roy and Lewis, Milton. Disease, Medicine and Empire: Perspectives on Western Medicine and the Experience of European Expansion. London: Routledge, 1988.
  17. Moir, D.M.. Practical Observations on Malignant Cholera. Edinburgh: Ballantyne and Co., 1832.
  18. Page, Thomas W.. "The Transportation of Immigrants and Reception Arrangements in the Nineteenth Century." The Journal of Political Economy 19, no. 9 (November, 1911): 732-749.
  19. Pidduck, I. "The Cause, Prevention, and Treatment of Typhus Fever." The Lancet 50, no. 1250 (14 August,1847): 176.
  20. Stark, James. "Contributions to the Vital Statistics of Scotland." Journal of the Statistical Society of London 14, no.1 (March, 1851): 48-87.
  21. Tucker, Gilbert. "The Famine Immigration to Canada, 1847." The American Historical Review 36, no. 3 (April, 1931): 533-549.



Browse the resources at GlobalGenealogy.com:
Printed & Digital Books, Vital Records & Maps
Listed By Country or Topic








GlobalGenealogy.com Inc. 1992-2019
Sign up for our free newsletter!   |   Unsubscribe from our newsletter










































BMD Notices
Shawville Equity 1883-1916

(Pontiac County, Quebec)