¹ Wood, William et al., The Storied Province of Quebec (Toronto, 1931), I, 429.Google Scholar

² Ibid., 179. For some details on crimping, see Journal of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, Session 1852–53, XI (8), App. CCCCGoogle Scholar; also Quebec Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1867, 9 Google Scholar, “The Shipping Office and the Crimping System.”

³ Butcher, W. F., “The ‘English’ of Quebec City,” Hermès, winter, 1954, 4.Google Scholar

⁴ SirLemoine, James, The Port of Quebec: Its Annals, 1535–1900 (Quebec, 1901)Google Scholar; also Lemoine, J. M., Quebec Past and Present, 1608–1871 (Quebec, 1876)Google Scholar; Rosa, N., La Construction des navires à Québec (Québec, 1897)Google Scholar; Wallace, F. W., Wooden Ships and Iron Men (New York, n.d.), 321.Google Scholar

⁵ Hutchins, J. G. B., The American Maritime Industries and Public Policy, 1780–1914 (Cambridge, Mass., 1941), chap. vii.Google Scholar

⁶ Quebec Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1864.Google Scholar

⁷ See vol. VI, 569 ff.

⁸ Annuaire du commerce et de l'industrie pour 1873 (Québec, 1873), 5–6.Google Scholar

⁹ Address of Joseph Shehyn at the Meeting of the Board of Trade, February, 1880 (Quebec, 1880), 25–7.Google Scholar

¹⁰ SirClapham, John, An Economic History of Modern Britain: Free Trade and Steel, 1850–1886 (Cambridge, 1952)Google Scholar; for details on this aspect, see Graham, G. S., “The Ascendancy of the Sailing Ship, 1850–85,” Economic History Review, IX, no. 1, 75–6.Google Scholar

¹¹ Fassett, F. G., ed., The Shipbuilding Business of the United States of America (New York, 1948), I, chap. IGoogle Scholar; also James, F. C., Cyclical Fluctuations in the Shipping and Shipbuilding Industries (Philadelphia, 1927), chap. iii.Google Scholar

¹² Hutchins, , The American Maritime Industries and Public Policy, 265.Google Scholar

¹³ Wallace, , Wooden Ships and Iron Men, 15.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid., 43–4.

¹⁵ Ibid., 71–4.

¹⁶ Ibid., 74.

¹⁷ Ibid., 85.

¹⁸ Quinn, William, Rapport sur le commerce des bois (Québec, 1861), 15.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Wallace, , Wooden Ships and Iron Men, 100.Google Scholar

²⁰ de Premio-Real, Comte, Divers Mémoires (Québec, 1879 ), II, 25–6.Google Scholar

²¹ Quebec Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1866.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., 1865, 15.

²³ For a discussion of those circumstances, see British Parliamentary Papers, 1844, VII, Report of the Select Committee on Merchant Shipping, 61–8Google Scholar; Clark, Arthur H., The Clipper Ship Era (New York, 1910)Google Scholar; Fry, Henry, The History of North Atlantic Steam Navigation (London, 1896), chap. iiGoogle Scholar; Graham, “The Ascendancy of the Sailing Ship.”

²⁴ Journal of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, session 1852–3, XI (8), App. CCCCGoogle Scholar; Firenzi, I. and Wilcox, W. F., International Migrations (New York, 1929).Google Scholar

²⁵ Albion, R. G., Square Riggers on Schedule: The New York Sailing Packets to New England, France and the Cotton Ports (Princeton, 1938)Google Scholar; Scherer, J. A. B., Cotton Trade as a World Power (New York, 1916).Google Scholar

²⁶ See Rapport sur le commerce des bois, 15. Quinn provides no quantitative evidence for Great Britain as a whole. The percentage of foreign to total timber imports rose much more slowly over the same period. See British Parliamentary Papers, 1867–1868, LXX Google Scholar, Statistical Abstracts for the Period 1855 to 1867.

²⁷ Ibid., 16.

²⁸ Canadian exports were more in the form of sawn or split woods. See Wood, Petry, Poitras & Co.'s Annual Circular, Nov. 30, 1866, in Quebec Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1867, 31.Google Scholar

²⁹ Quebec Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1865, 13–15.Google Scholar

³⁰ Statement based on Jenks, L. H., The Migration of British Capital to 1875 (New York, 1927)Google Scholar; Cairncross, A. K., Home and Foreign Investment, 1870–1913 (Cambridge, 1953), 182–6Google Scholar in particular.

³¹ Albion, R. G., The Rise of New York Port, 1815–1860 (New York, 1939)Google Scholar, provides a good background study towards this view; see in particular pp. 382–3.

³² A grievance expressed time and again from 1850 on; see in particular British Parliamentary Papers, 1859, XXII, 13, 42.Google Scholar

³³ As early as 1849 the British Packet Service regarded New York as best suited for a terminal in North America; see British Parliamentary Papers, Report of the Select Committee on the Contract Packet Service, 1849, XII.Google Scholar

³⁴ As quoted in Premio-Real, , Divers Mémoires, 75.Google Scholar

³⁵ Quebec Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1865, 13.Google Scholar

³⁶ Clapham, , An Economic History, 242.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid., 220.

³⁸ Grounded on Fassett, The Shipbuilding Business, and confirmed by Clapham, , An Economic History, 62.Google Scholar

³⁹ Clapham, , An Economic History, 69.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., 72, 74.

⁴¹ Ibid., 68. At that time the export of coal supported bulk cargo steamers in the Baltic and Mediterranean trades (p. 71), while wooden sailing vessels remained in use in other areas for the carrying of commodities which did not require to be delivered with speed and regularity. See interesting statements by Glover, John, “Tonnage Statistics of the Decade 1860–1870,” Journal of the Statistical Society, XXXV, Part IIGoogle Scholar, and compare with statement of same author, Journal of the Statistical Society, March, 1863. Shipyards had produced softwood vessels on a basis of decreasing costs and supply had run up in excess of demand in the late fifties ( Graham, , “The Ascendancy of the Sailing Ship,” 80 Google Scholar); production stayed high in the following decade as iron failed to supersede wood. The Board of Admiralty proved rather conservative in regard to innovation ( British Parliamentary Papers, XXI, 185 Google Scholar) as they regarded iron hulls as inferior to wooden ones in point of impact resistance. However, this conservatism, noted by Henry Fry (The History of North Atlantic Steam Navigation, chap, vi) and reinterpreted by Graham with reference to a broad technological context, matched Cunard's interests which have been described as a case of “State-created Ascendancy” prejudicial to the “natural development of British shipping.” See Meeker, Royal, History of Shipping Subsidies (New York, 1905), 11–12.Google Scholar On the technical feasibility of the “composite,” see Kirkaldy, Adam W., British Shipping: Its History, Organization and Importance (London, 1914), chap. iii.Google Scholar The “composite” was adapted to demand for trade with China and the East Indies, which involved swift voyages round Cape Horn. See Pollock, David, The Shipbuilding Industry: Its History, Practice, Science and Finance (London, 1905), 42.Google Scholar The demand for a “composite,” however, proved of short duration. See Graham, , “The Ascendancy of the Sailing Ship,” 81.Google Scholar

⁴² Clapham, , An Economic History, 67.Google Scholar

⁴³ The year 1857, however, marks a turning point in entrepreneurship on the Thames. Shipbuilding migrated to the Clyde and the east coast. By 1866, it was relying on marginal speculative and foreign orders and was drifting towards stagnation. See Pollard, S., “The Decline of Shipbuilding on the Thames,” Economic History Review, III, no. 1, 1950.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Canada, Sessional Papers, 1861, XIX (2), no. 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See Rosa's answer to Question 12 before the Select Committee on Merchant Vessels, Canada, Journal of the House of Commons, 1867–1868, I, App. 11.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Quebec Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1865, 15.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See statements and views of certain shipbuilders and shipowners of the country regarding the causes of the decline of the American foreign trade, submitted before the Joint Select Congressional Committee to inquire into the condition and wants of American shipbuilding and shipowning interests, House of Representatives, 47th Congress, 2nd Session, Report no. 1827, Dec., 1882 (hereafter cited Dingley Report), App., 257.

⁴⁸ As evidenced by statements before the Select Committee of the House, 1867–8, Canada, Journal of the House of Commons, 1867–1868, I, App. 11Google Scholar; see also Quebec Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1869, 4.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ See statements by Charland and Oliver, before the Committee of the House, ibid.; also Quebec Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1868, 9.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ View of Henry Fry, noteworthy as representative of an enduring problem in the history of Canadian shipping, for the significance of which see in particular Journal of the Legislative Assembly, Session 1852–3, XI (8), App. CCCC.Google Scholar

⁵¹ See Wallace, , Wooden Ships and Iron Men, 263.Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid., 267–8.

⁵³ Ibid., 269, 263, 268.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 269. See statement by Norcross, J. W., Dingley Report, App., 255.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Bigelow, E. D., Dingley Report, App., 27–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Dingley Report, App., 30–1.

⁵⁷ Ibid., 61, 63.

⁵⁸ Wright, C. W., Economic History of the United States (New York, 1941), 787–8.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Ibid., 438.

⁶⁰ For a general discussion of the trend, see ibid., chaps, xxvii, xxxii.

⁶¹ Dingley Report, 267.

⁶² As a pointer to this aspect, see Wright, C. W., “Convertibility and Triangle Trade,” Economic Journal, 09, 1955.Google Scholar

⁶³ For some aspects of this problem, see Glover, “Tonnage Statistics of the Decade 1860–1870”; also Pollock, , The Shipbuilding Industry, 68 Google Scholar in particular.

⁶⁴ Knowles, L. C. A., The Industrial and Commercial Revolutions in Great Britain during the Nineteenth Century (London, 1930), 193.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Jenks, The Migration of British Capital to 1875, chaps, v–vi.

⁶⁶ See Rostow, W. W., The British Economy in the Nineteenth Century (Oxford, 1948).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ According to the writer's compilation of data relating to the import-export business at the ports of Quebec and Montreal to 1867. For a series of incoming vessels at the port of Quebec 1764–1866, see Quebec Board of Trade, Annual Report, 1867, 83–4Google Scholar; but “no reliable mode has ever been adopted of securing correct and regular returns of the imports by Sail, Barge and river Steamer at the Port of Quebec,” ibid., 9–10. The grain trade supported a traffic to Montreal; see Patterson, W. J., Descriptive Statement of the Great River Highways (Montreal, 1874), App. 4.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Hutchins, , The American Marine Industry and Public Policy, 401.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Meeker, , History of Shipping Subsidies, 178–81.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Brebner, J. A. B., Journal of Economic History, VIII, 59, 73, 75 Google Scholar; Pollard, S., Economic History Review, 2nd series, V, no. 1.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Evidence given before the Dingley Committee, App., 94.

⁷² Ibid., 114.

⁷³ Ibid., 266.

⁷⁴ Rostow, , The Process of Economic Growth, 2–3.Google Scholar Rostow's view is that the historian “finds that the long-period factors are much with him, however short the historical time period he may choose to consider.” A similar view may obtain in regard to space as may be shown in the treatment of some historical materials by H. A. Innis; see, for example, “Liquidity Preference as a Factor in Canadian Economic History” in Political Economy in the Modern State (Toronto, 1949), chap, ixGoogle Scholar; also Perroux, F., L'Europe sans rivages (Paris, 1954)Google Scholar, provides a broad introduction to the concept of economic space.

⁷⁵ For a general discussion of that aspect, see Frankel, Herbert, “De quelques manières de concevoir l'évolution technique,” Bulletin international des sciences sociales, IV, no. 2, 1952.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Wallace, , Wooden Ships and Iron Men, 92.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Wood, , The Storied Province of Quebec, I, 177.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Canada and its Provinces, X, 579.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See evidence produced by Rosa, , Labbée, , Forsyth, , and Charland, before the Select Committee, Canada, Journal of the House of Commons, 1867–1868, L, App. 11.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid., statements by Rosa and Labbée.

⁸¹ The Storied Province of Quebec, I, 179.Google Scholar

⁸² According to Rosa, statement before the Select Committee, Canada, Journal of the House of Commons, 1867–1868, 1, App. 11.Google Scholar

⁸³ The press in general was adverse to labour action. For an earlier statement of the labour problem in the Quebec yards, see Duquet, J. N., Le Véritable Petit-Albert (Québec, 1861), 74–5.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ The Storied Province of Quebec, I, 177.Google Scholar