Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:08:34.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Indivisibility of Land: A Microanalysis of the System of Inheritance in Nineteenth-Century Ontario

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

David P. Gagan
David P. Gagan
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although they had recourse to both the perfectly partible and the perfectly impartible systems of inheritance, nineteenth-century Ontarion farmers commonly employed a unique English-Canadian variation on the perfectly impartible pattern. They devised their estates upon one, or occasionally two of their children, binding them to pay out of their inheritance or other resources the provisions for remaining survivors made in the will. The purpose of this system was to allow land rich and money poor agrarians to pass on their principal asset intact, and it reflects their belief that favorable man/land ratios were the essence of security and prosperity. At the same time, the system made the principal heir the instrument of the deceased parent's desire to treat all of his surviving dependents more or less equally in terms of the value of their inheritances. The system guaranteed that those who inherited land would acquire sufficient land to pursue time tested agricultural methods, but it promoted severe demographic and social dislocations.

Type
Papers Presented at the Thirty-Fifth Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 126 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Habbakuk, H. J., “Family Structure and Economic Change in Nineteenth Century Europe,” Journal of Economic History, 15 (1955), 1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Greven, Philip J. Jr., Four Generations: Population, Land, and Family in Colonial Andover, Massachusetts (Ithaca, 1970), esp. pp. 222–258Google Scholar; and see also Lockridge, Kenneth, “Land, Population and the Evolution of New England Society,” Past and Present, 39 (1968), 62–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some recent developments in the analysis of American probate records are discussed in Main, Gloria L., “The Correction of Biases in Colonial American Probate Records,” Historical Methods Newsletter, 8 (1974), 10–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Moodie, Susannah, Life in the Clearings Versus the Bush (New York, 1853), p. 138Google Scholar.

4 Jones, Robert L., History of Agriculture in Ontario, 1613–1880 (Toronto, 1946), 189–203Google Scholar.

5 Watkins, M. H., “A Staple Theory of Economic Growth,” Easterbrook, W. T. and Watkins, M. H., eds., Approaches to Canadian Economic History (Toronto, 1967), pp. 53, 61Google Scholar.

6 Chinguacousy Township, one of the five townships of Peel County and a principal wheat producing area in the 1850's. Data were computed from the microfilmed Abstracts of Deeds, Peel County, 1790–1950.

7 Day, Samuel P., English America: or, Pictures of Canadian Places and People, Vol. II (2 vols., London, 1864), p. 193Google Scholar.

8 Canada, Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, Report. Book 1: Canada 1867–1939 (Ottawa, 1940), p. 28Google Scholar.

9 Lower, A. R. M., Canadians in the Making (Toronto, 1969), p. 336Google Scholar.

10 See, for example, Strachan, James, A Visit to the Province of Canada in 1819, Reprint (New York, 1968), p. 60Google Scholar; Jameson, Anna, Winter Studies and Summer Rambles, Talman, J. J. and Murray, E. M., eds. (Toronto, 1943), p. 53Google Scholar. These aspirations, the so-called “inheritance motive,” evidently were strong influences on Canadian fanners' behavior, influences clearly constrained by the scarcity of land, See Marvin McInnis, “Childbearing and Land Availability: Some Evidence from Individual Household Data,” Mimeo of paper presented to Behavioral Models in Historical Demography Conference, Philadelphia, 1974, p. 11.

11 See Gagan, David, “The Security of Land: Mortgaging in Toronto Gore Township, 1835–1895,” Armstrong, F. H. et al. , eds. Aspects of Nineteenth Century Ontario (Toronto, 1974), p. 139Google Scholar.

12 Ibid.

13 Many contemporary writers commented on the subordination of Canadian farm children to the larger economic goals of the family. For example, Catermole, William, Emigration: The Advantages of Emigration to Canada (London, 1831), p. 166Google Scholar. The Peel County History Project has documented, on the basis of available marriage data, a mean age at marriage for males of 26.3 years across the period 1830–1870. Formal education for farmers' sons, according to census microdata, seems to have ended by age 13.

14 Gagan, “The Security of Land,” p. 143.

15 Laslett, Peter, “Mean Household Size in England Since the Sixteenth Century,” Household and Family in Past Time, Laslett, Peter and Wall, Richard, eds. (Cambridge, 1972), p. 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

16 Moodie, Life in the Clearings, pp. 291–292.

17 Shirreff, Patrick, A Tour Through North America (Edinburgh, 1835), p. 170Google Scholar.

18 Gagan, David and Mays, Herbert, “Historical Demography and Canadian Social History: Families and Land in Peel County, Ontario,” Canadian Historical Review, 54 (1973), 37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gagan, David, “Geographical and Occupational Mobility in a Nineteenth Century Canadian Community”(Great Lakes Regional History Conference,1975)Google Scholar.

19 Statistics of Canada, Vols. 4–5: Censuses of Canada, 1685 to 1871 (Ottawa, 1876)Google Scholar; Census of Canada, 1880–1881, Vol. 2 (Ottawa, 1883)Google Scholar; Census of Canada, 1890–91, Vol. 2 (Ottawa, 1893)Google Scholar.

20 Conant, Thomas, Upper Canada Sketches (Toronto, 1898), pp. 177, 241–243Google Scholar.

21 Gagan, “The Security of Land,” pp. 141–142.

22 Royal Commission on Dominion Provincial Relations, Report, Book 1, p. 28.