Cotton Manufacture

Cotton Manufacture. The antiquity of the cotton industry has hitherto proved unfathomable, as can readily be understood from the difficulty of proving a universal negative, especially from such scanty material as we possess of remote ages. That in the 5th century B.C. cotton fabrics were unknown or quite uncommon in Europe may be inferred from Herodotus’ mention of the cotton clothing of the Indians. Ultimately the cotton industry was imported into Europe, and by the middle of the 13th century we find it flourishing in Spain. In the New World it would seem to have originated spontaneously, since on the discovery of America the wearing apparel in use included cotton fabrics. After the collapse of Spanish prosperity before the Moors in the 14th century the Netherlands assumed a leadership in this branch of the textile industries as they did also in other branches. It has been surmised that the cotton manufacture was carried from the Netherlands to England by refugees during the Spanish persecution of the second half of the 16th century; but no absolute proof of this statement has been forthcoming, and although workers in cotton may have been among the Flemish weavers who fled to England about that time, and some of whom are said to have settled in and about Manchester, it is quite conceivable that cotton fabrics were made on an insignificant scale in England years before, and there is some evidence to show that the industry was not noticeable till many years later. If England did derive her cotton manufacture from the Netherlands she was unwillingly compelled to repay the loan with interest more than two hundred years later when the machine industry was conveyed to the continent through the ingenuity of Liévin Bauwens, despite the precautions taken to preserve it for the British Isles. About the same time English colonists transported it to the United States. Since, as transformed in England, the cotton industry, particularly spinning, has spread throughout the civilized and semi-civilized world, though its most important seat still remains the land of its greatest development.

As early as the 13th century cotton-wool was used in England for candle-wicks.1 The importation of the cotton from the Levant in the 16th century is mentioned by Hakluyt,2 and according to Macpherson it was brought over Early history in England. from Antwerp in 1560. Reference to the manufacture of cottons in England long before the second half of the 16th century are numerous, but the “cottons” spoken of were not cottons proper as Defoe would seem to have mistakenly imagined. Thus, for example, there is a passage by William Camden (writing in 1590) quoted below, in which Manchester cottons are specifically described as woollens, and there is a notice in the act of 33 Henry VIII. (c. xv.) of the Manchester linen and woollen industries, and of cottons—which are clearly woollens since their “dressyng and frisyng” is noted, and the latter process, which consists in raising and curling the nap, was not applicable to cotton textiles. John Leland, after his visit to Manchester about 1538, used these words—“Bolton-upon-Moore market standeth most by cottons; divers villages in the Moores about Bolton do make cottons.” Leland, it is true, might conceivably be referring to manufactures from the vegetable fibre, but it is exceedingly unlikely, since the term “cottons” would seem to have been current with a perfectly definite meaning. The goods were probably an English imitation in wool of continental cotton fustians—which would explain the name. Again we may quote from the act of 5 and 6 Edward VI., “all the cottons called Manchester, Lancashire and Cheshire cottons, full wrought to the sale, shall be in length twenty-two yards and contain in breadth three-quarters of a yard in the water and shall weigh thirty pounds in the piece at least”; and from the act 8 Elizabeth c. xi., “every of the said cottons being sufficiently milled or thicked, clean scoured, well-wrought and full-dried, shall weigh 21 ℔ at the least.”3 These are evidently the weights of woollen goods: further, it may be observed that milling is not applicable to cotton goods. The earliest reference to a cotton manufacture in England which may reasonably be regarded as pointing to the fabrication of textiles from cotton proper, is in the will of James Billston (a not un-English name), who is described as a “cotton manufacturer,” proved at Chester in 1578.4 It may plausibly be contended that James Billston was a worker in the vegetable fibre, since otherwise “manufacturer of cottons” would have been a more natural designation. But the proof of the will of one cotton manufacturer establishes very little.

The next earliest known reference to the cotton industry proper occurs in a petition to the earl of Salisbury, made presumably in 1610, asking for the continuance of a grant for reforming frauds committed in the manufacture of “bambazine cotton such as groweth in the land of Persia being no kind of wool.”5 But a far more valuable piece of evidence, discovered by W. H. Price, is a petition of “Merchants and citizens of London that use buying and selling of fustians made in England, as of the makers of the same fustians.”6 Its probable date is 1621, and it contains the following important passages:—

Here the date of the appearance of the cotton industry on an appreciable scale—it is questionable whether any importance should be attached to the expression “found out”—is given by those who would be speaking of facts within the memory of themselves or their friends as “about twenty years past” from 1621, and the annual output of the industry in 1621 is mentioned. Moreover, it is established by this document that for a time at least the cotton manufacture was “regulated” like the other textile trades. The date assigned by the petitioners for the first attraction of attention by the English cotton industry may be supported on negative grounds.

Baines assures us that William Camden, who wrote in 1590, devoted not a sentence to the cotton industry, though Manchester figures among his descriptions: “This town,” he says, “excels the towns immediately around it in handsomeness, populousness, woollen manufacture, market place, church and college; but did much more excel them in the last age, as well by the glory of its woollen cloths (laneorum pannorum honore), which they call Manchester cottons, as by the privilege of sanctuary, which the authority of parliament under Henry VIII. transferred to Chester.”7 It is significant too that in the Elizabethan poor law of 1601 (43 Elizabeth), neither cotton-wool nor yarn is included among the fabrics to be provided by the overseers to set the poor to work upon; though, of course, it might be argued that so short-stapled a fibre needed for its working, when machinery was rough, a skill in the operative which would be above that of the average person unable to find employment. However, a proposal was made in 1626 to employ the poor in the spinning of cotton and weaving wool.8

Prior to Mr Price’s discovery of the petition mentioned above, the earliest known notice of the existence in England of a cotton industry of any magnitude was the oft-quoted passage from Lewes Roberts’s Treasure of Traffic (1641), which runs: “The town of Manchester, in Lancashire, must be also herein remembered, and worthily for their encouragement commended, who buy the yarne of the Irish in great quantity, and weaving it, return the same again into Ireland to sell: Neither doth their industry rest here, for they buy cotton-wool in London that comes first from Cyprus and Smyrna, and at home work the same, and perfect it into fustians, vermillions, dimities and other such stuffs, and then return it to London, where the same is vented and sold, and not seldom sent into foreign parts.”9

Despite Lewes Roberts’s flattering reference, the trade of Manchester about that time consisted chiefly in woollen frizes, fustians, sackcloths, mingled stuffs, caps, inkles, tapes, points, &c., according to “A Description of the Towns of Manchester and Salford,” 1650,10 and woollens for a long time held the first place. But before another century had run its course cottons proper had pushed into the first rank, though the woollen industry continued to be of unquestionable importance. In 1727 Daniel Defoe could write, “the grand manufacture which has so much raised this town is that of cotton in all its varieties,”11 and he did not mean the woollen “cottons,” as he made plain by other references to the industry in the same connexion; but it was not until some fifty years later that the ousting of the woollen industry from what is now peculiarly the cotton district became unmistakable.12 As a rule the woollen weavers were driven farther and farther east—Bury lay just outside the cotton area when Defoe wrote—and finally many of them settled in the West Riding. Edwin Butterworth even tells of woollen weavers who migrated from Oldham to the distant town of Bradford in Wiltshire because of the decline of their trade before the victorious cotton industry. Much the same fate was being shared by the linen industry in Lancashire, which was forced out of the county westwards and northwards. The explanation of the three centralizations, namely of the woollen industry, the cotton industry and the linen industry, is not far to seek. The popularity of the fabrics produced by the rising cotton industry enabled it to pay high wages, which, indeed, were essential to bring about its expansion. This a priori diagnosis is supported by contemporary analysis: thus “the rapid progress of that business (cotton spinning) and the higher wages which it afford, have so far distressed the makers of worsted goods in that county (Lancashire), that they have found themselves obliged to offer their few remaining spinners larger premiums than the state of their trade would allow.”13 The best operatives of Lancashire were attracted sooner or later to assist the triumphs of art over the vegetable wool. At the same time the scattered woollen and linen workers of Lancashire were suffering from the competition of rivals enjoying elsewhere the economies of some centralization, and the demand for woollen and linen warps in the cotton industry ceased after the introduction of Arkwright’s water-twist. When the factory became common the economies of centralization (which arise from the wide range of specialism laid open to a large local industry) increased; moreover they were reinforced by the diminution of social friction and the intensification of business sensitiveness which marked the development of the 19th century. Once begun, the centralizing movement proceeded naturally with accelerating speed. The contrast beneath is an instructive statistical comment:—

Distribution of Cotton Operatives in 1838 and 1898-1899 (from Returns of Factory Inspectors).

	1838.	1898-1899.
Cheshire	36,400	34,300
Cumberland	2,000	700
Derbyshire	10,500	10,500
Lancashire	152,200	398,100
Nottinghamshire	1,500	1,600
Staffordshire	2,000	2,300
Yorkshire	12,400	35,200
England and Wales14	219,100	496,200
Scotland	35,600	29,000
Ireland	4,600	800
United Kingdom	259,300	526,000

The distribution of the industry has varied greatly in the two periods. If it had remained constant Lancashire would only have contained 300,000 operatives in 1899, instead of the actual 400,000. Scotland, on the other hand, only contained 30,000 instead of 70,000, and in Ireland the numbers were one-tenth of what they should have been. The percentage of operatives in Lancashire in 1838 was 58.5, but this increased to 75.7 in 1898.

Why, we may naturally inquire, did not the cotton industry localize in the West Riding or Cheshire and the woollen industry maintain its position in Lancashire? Accident no doubt partly explains why the cotton industry is Lancashire advantages. carried on where it is in the various parts of the globe, but apart from accident, as regards Lancashire, it is sufficient answer to point to the peculiarly suitable congeries of conditions to be found there. There is firstly the climate, which for the purpose of cotton spinning is unsurpassed elsewhere, and which became of the first order of importance when fine spinning was developed. In the Lancashire atmosphere in certain districts just about the right humidity is contained on a great number of days for spinning to be done with the least degree of difficulty. Some dampness is essential to make the fibres cling, but excessive moisture is a disadvantage. Over the county of Lancashire the prevailing west wind carries comparatively continuous currents of humidified air. These currents vary in temperature according to their elevation. Hot and cold layers mix when they reach the hills, and the mixture of the two is nearer to the saturation point than either of its components. The degree of moisture is measured by the ratio of the actual amount of moisture to the moisture of the saturation point for that particular temperature. Owing to the sudden elevation the air is rarefied, its temperature being thereby lowered, and in consequence condensation tends to be produced. In several places in England and abroad, where there is a scarcity of moisture, artificial humidifiers have been tried, but no cheap and satisfactory one has hitherto been discovered. To the advantages of the Lancashire climate for cotton spinning must be added—especially as regards the early days of the cotton industry—its disadvantages for other callings. The unpleasantness of the weather renders an indoor occupation desirable, and the scanty sunshine, combined with the unfruitful nature of much of the soil, prevents the absorption of the population in agricultural pursuits. In later years the port of Liverpool and the presence of coal supplemented the attractions which were holding the cotton industry in Lancashire. All the raw material must come from abroad, and an enormous proportion of English cotton products figures as exports. The proximity of Liverpool has aided materially in making the cotton industry a great exporting industry.

Before the localization of the separate parts of the industry can be treated the differentiation of the industry must be described. We pass then, at this stage, to consider the manufacture in its earliest form and the lines of its development. First, and somewhat incidentally, we notice the early connexion between the conduct of the cotton manufacture, when it was a domestic industry in its primitive form, and the performance of agricultural operations. A few short extracts will place before Early system of manufacture and organisation. us all the evidence that it is here needful to adduce. First Radcliffe, an eye-witness, writing of the period about 1770, says “the land in our township (Mellor) was occupied by between fifty and sixty farmers ... and out of these fifty or sixty farmers there were only six or seven who raised their rents directly from the produce of their farms, all the rest got their rent partly in some branch of trade, such as spinning and weaving woollen, linen or cotton. The cottagers were employed entirely in this matter, except for a few weeks in the harvest.”15 Next we may cite Edwin Butterworth who, though not an eyewitness (he was not born till 1812), proved himself by his researches to be a careful and trustworthy investigator. In the parish of Oldham, he recorded, there were “a number of master (cotton-linen fustian)16 manufacturers, as well as many weavers who worked for manufacturers, and at the same time were holders of land or farmers.... The number of fustian farmers who were cottagers working for manufacturers, without holding land, were few; but there were a considerable number of weavers who worked on their own account, and held at the same time small pieces of land.”17 Other passages might be quoted, but these two will suffice. Weaving was not exactly a by-employment of farm labourers, but many weavers made agriculture a by-employment to some extent, (a) by working small parcels of land, which varied from the size of allotments to farms of a very few acres, and (b) by lending aid in gathering in the harvest when their other work enabled them to do so. The association of manufacturing and weaving survived beyond the first quarter of the 19th century. Of the weavers in many districts and “more especially in Lancashire” we read in the report of the committee on emigration, “it appears that persons of this description for many years past, have been occupiers of small farms of a few acres, which they have held at high rents, and combining the business of the hand-loom weaver with that of a working farmer have assisted to raise the rent of their land from the profits of their loom.”18 One of the first lines of specialism to appear was the severing of the connexion described above, and the concentration of the weavers in hamlets and towns. Finer fabrics and more complicated fabrics were introduced, and the weaver soon learnt that such rough work as farming unfitted his hands for the delicate tasks required of them. Again, really to prosper a weaver found it necessary to perfect himself by close application. The days of the rough fabrics that anybody could make with moderate success were closing in. As a consequence the dispersion of the weavers becomes less and less. They no longer wanted allotments or farms; and their looms having become more complicated, the mechanic proved himself a convenient neighbour. Finding spinners too was an easier task in the hamlet or town than in the remote country parts. But there is no reason to suppose that agriculture and the processes of the domestic cotton manufacturer had ever been universally twin callings. There never was a time, probably, when weavers who did nothing but weave were not a significant proportion, if not the major part, of the class of weavers. All again were not independent and all were not employees. Some were simply journeymen in small domestic workshops; others were engaged by fustian masters or Manchester merchants and paid by the piece for what they made out of material supplied them; others again bought their warps and cotton and sold to the merchants their fabrics, which were their own property. The last class was swept away soon after the industry became large, when by the organization of men of capital consumers and producers were more and more kept in touch. In early days most weavers owned their looms, the great part of which they had frequently constructed themselves: later, however, a large number hired looms, and it was as usual in certain quarters for lodgings to be let with a loom as it is to-day for them to be provided with a piano. When it became customary for weavers to undertake a variety of work, the masters usually provided reeds (which had to vary in fineness with the fineness of the warp), healds, and other changeable parts, and sometimes they employed the gaiters to fit the new work in the looms.

Until the success of the water-frame, cotton could not be spun economically of sufficient strength and fineness for warps, and the warps were therefore invariably made of either linen or wool. Some were manufactured locally, others were imported from Germany, Ireland and Scotland. The weaver prepared them for his loom by the system of peg-warping,19 but after the introduction of the warping-mill he received them as a rule all ready for insertion into the loom from the Manchester merchant or local fustian master.

Guest says the system by which the weaver was supplied with warps and other material was substituted for the purchase of warps and cotton-wool by the weaver about 1740. No doubt the change was very gradual, especially as Aikin mentions the use of warping-mills in the 17th century. The weaver as a rule received his weft material in the form of cotton-wool and was required to arrange himself for its cleaning and spinning. According to Aikin,21 dealers tried the experiment of giving out weft instead of cotton-wool, but “the custom grew into disuse as there was no detecting the knavery of the spinners till a piece came in woven.” As it was impossible to unwrap the yarn and test it throughout its length, defects were hidden until it came to be used, and the complaints of weavers were not conclusive as to the inferiority of the yarn, since their own bad workmanship might have had something to do with its having proved unsatisfactory. It was therefore found best to saddle the weaver with full responsibility for both the spinning and weaving. Women and children cleaned, carded and spun the cotton-wool in their homes. The cotton had to be more thoroughly cleaned after its arrival in this country. The ordinary process of cleaning was known as “willowing,” because the cotton was beaten with willow switches after it had been laid out on a tight hammock of cords. The cotton used for fine spinning was also carefully washed; and even when it was not washed it was soaked with water and partially dried so that the fibres might be made to cling together.22 Most of the weaving was done by men, and until the invention of the fly-shuttle they cast the shuttle from hand to hand in the manner of their remotest ancestors. For the making of the broader fabrics two weavers were required when the width was greater than the easy stretch of a man’s arms. Sometimes cloths were woven wide and then split into two or more: hence the term “splits.” This became a common practice when the hand-loom workers were groaning under the pressure of competition from the power-loom.

We now reach the era of the great inventions. In order to ensure clearness it will be desirable to consider separately the branches of spinning and weaving: to pass from the one to the other, and follow the chronological order, The invention of machinery. might cause confusion. First emphasis must be laid upon the point that it was not mechanical change alone which constituted the industrial revolution. No doubt small hand-looms factories would have become the rule, and more and more control over production would have devolved upon the factory master, and the work to be done would have been increasingly assigned by merchants, had the steam-engine remained but the dream of Watt, and semi-automatic machinery not been invented. The spirit of the times was centralizing management before any mechanical changes of a revolutionizing character had been devised. Loom-shops, in which several journeymen were employed, were not uncommon: thus “in the latter part of the last (18th) and the beginning of the present (19th) century,” says Butterworth, describing the state of affairs in Oldham and the neighbourhood, “a large number of weavers ... possessed spacious loom-shops, where they not only employed many journeymen weavers, but a considerable proportion of apprentice children.” It is true that both the fly-shuttle and drop-box had been invented by that time, but the loom was still worked by human power. Specialism, however, was on the increase, the capitalist was assuming more control, and the operative was being transformed more and more into the mere executive agent. Further, as creative of enterprise, an atmosphere of freedom and a general economic restlessness, consequent upon the reaction against mercantilism, were noticeable. Great changes, no doubt, would soon have swept over Lancashire had a new source of power and big factories not been rendered essential by inventions in spinning.

The chief inventors were Lewis Paul and John Wyatt, James Hargreaves and Samuel Crompton. The two first originated the principle of spinning by rollers. Their patent was taken out in 1738, but no good came of it immediately, though Spinning and preparatory machinery. many trials were made and moderately large sums of money were lost. Ultimately Richard Arkwright brought forward the same plan improved:23 his first patent was dated 1769. Over the real authorship of the fundamental idea there has been much controversy, and it has not been absolutely proved that the second inventor, whether Thomas Highs, Arkwright or John Kay (a clockmaker of Warrington who assisted Arkwright to construct his machine and is said by some to have told him of an invention by Highs), did not hit upon the device afresh in ignorance of the work already done. Even as between Paul and Wyatt it is not easy to award due measure of praise. Probably the invention, as a working machine, resulted from real collaboration, each having an appreciable share in it. Robert Cole, in his paper to the British Association in 1858 (reprinted as an appendix to the 1st ed. of French’s Life of Crompton), championed the claims of Paul, but Mantoux, in his La Révolution industrielle au XVIIIe siècle, after studying the Wyatt MSS., inclines to attribute to Wyatt a far more important position, though he dissents from the view of Baines, who ascribes little or nothing to Paul.

Arkwright’s prospects of financial success were much greater than those of his predecessors, because, first, there was more need in his time of mechanical aids, and secondly, he was highly talented as a business man. In 1775 he followed up his patent of 1769 with another relating to machinery for carding, drawing and roving. The latter patent was widely infringed, and Arkwright was compelled to institute nine actions in 1781 to defend his rights. An association of Lancashire spinners was formed to defend them, and by the one that came to trial the patent was set aside on the ground of obscurity in the specifications. Arkwright again attempted to recover his patent rights in 1785, after the first patent had been in abeyance for two years. Before making this further trial of the courts he had thought of proceeding by petition to parliament, and had actually drawn up his “case,” which he was ultimately dissuaded from presenting. In it he prayed not only that the decision of 1781 should be set aside, but that both patents should be continued to him for the unexpired period of the second patent, i.e. until 1789. In his “case” (i.e. the petition mentioned above) Arkwright stated that he had sold to numbers of adventurers residing in the different counties of Derby, Leicester, Nottingham, Worcester, Stafford, York, Hertford and Lancaster, many of his patent machines, and continued: “Upon a moderate computation, the money expended in consequence of such grants (before 1782) amounted to at least £60,000. Mr Arkwright and his partners also expended in large buildings in Derbyshire and elsewhere upwards of £30,000, and Mr Arkwright also erected a very large and extensive building in Manchester at the expense of upwards of £4000. Thus a business had been formed which already (he calculated) employed upwards of five thousand persons, and a capital on the whole of not less than £200,000.”24 It is impossible to discover exactly the rights of the matter. Certainly Arkwright had been intentionally obscure in his specifications, as he admitted, and for his defence, namely that it was to preserve the secret for his countrymen, there was only his word. He may have hoped to keep the secret for himself; and as to the originality of both inventions there were grave doubts. But Arkwright has received little sympathy, because his claims were regarded as grasping in view of the large fortune which he had already won. He began work with his first partners at Nottingham (when power was derived from horses) and started at Cromford in 1771 (where the force of water was used). Soon he was involved in numerous undertakings, and he remained active till his death in 1792. He had met throughout with a good deal of opposition, which possibly to a man of his temperament was stimulating. Even in the matter of getting protective legislation reframed to give scope to the application of the water-frame, a powerful section of Lancashire employers worked against him. This protective legislation must here be shortly reviewed.

In 1700 an act had been passed (11 & 12 William III. c. 10) prohibiting the importation of the printed calicoes of India, Persia and China. In 1721 the act 7 George I. c. 7 prohibited the use of any “printed, painted, stained or dyed calico,” excepting only calicoes dyed all blue and muslins, neckcloths and fustians. This act was modified by the act 9 George II. c. 4 (allowing British calicoes with linen warps). Thus the matter stood as regards prints when Arkwright had demonstrated that stout cotton warps could be spun in England, and at the same time the officers of excise insisted upon exacting a tax of 6d. from the plain all-cottons instead of the 3d. paid by the cotton-linens, on the ground that the former were calicoes. Arkwright’s plea, however, was admitted, and by the act 14 George II. c. 72 the still operative part of the act of 1721 was set aside, and the manufacture, use, and wear of cottons printed and stained, &c., was permitted subject to the payment of a duty of 3d. per sq. yd. (the same as the excise on cotton-linens) provided they were stamped “British manufactory.” The duty was varied from time to time until its repeal in 1832.

Some more powerful force than that of man or horse was soon needed to work the heavy water-frames. Hence Arkwright placed his second mill on a water-course, fitting it with a water-wheel, and until the steam-engine became economical most of the new twist mills were built on water-courses. On rare occasions the old fire-engines seem to have been tried.

As early as 1788 there were 143 water-mills in the cotton industry of the United Kingdom, which were distributed as follows among the counties which had more than one.26

Lancashire	41	Flintshire	3
Derbyshire	22	Berkshire	2
Nottinghamshire	17	Lanarkshire	4
Yorkshire	11	Renfrewshire	4
Cheshire	8	Perthshire	3
Staffordshire	7	Midlothian	2
Westmorland	5	Isle of Man	1

The need of water to drive Arkwright’s machinery, and its value for working other machinery, caused a strong decentralizing tendency to show itself in the cotton industry at this time, but more particularly in the twist-spinning branch. Ultimately the steam-engine (first used in the cotton industry in 1785) drew all branches of the industry into the towns, where the advantages of their juxtaposition—i.e. the external economies of centralization—could be enjoyed. Out of the crowding of the mills in one locality sprang the business specialism which has continued up to the present day. Here it will not be out of place to notice the appearance of the new power, electricity, in the cotton industry, the extension of which may involve striking economic changes. The first electric-driven spinning-mill in Lancashire, that of the “Acme” Spinning Company at Pendlebury, the work of which is confined to the ring-frame, was opened in 1905. Power is obtained from the stations of the Lancashire Power Company at Outwood near Radcliffe, some 5 m. distant.

The chief principle of the water-frame was the drawing out of the yarn to the required degree of tenuity by sets of gripping rollers revolving at different speeds. This principle is still applied universally. Twist was given by a “flyer” revolving round the bobbin upon which the yarn was being wound; the spinning so effected was known as throstle-spinning. The plan is still common in the subsidiary processes of the cotton industry, but for spinning itself the ring-frame, which appears to have been invented simultaneously in England and the United States (the first American patent is dated 1828), is rapidly supplanting the throstle-frame,27 though the “ooziness” of mule yarn has not yet been successfully imitated by ring-frame yarn. The great invention relating to weft-spinning was the jenny, introduced by James Hargreaves probably about 1764, and first tried in a factory four years later.28 Hargreaves unfortunately was unable to maintain his patent, because he had sold jennies before applying for protection. Crompton’s mule, which combined the principles of the rollers and the jenny, was perfected about 1779. Both jennies and mules were known as “wheels,” because they were worked in part by the turning of a wheel. As they could be set in motion without using much power, being light when of moderate size, for a long time they were worked entirely by hand or partially with the aid of horses or water. The first jenny- and mule-factories were small for this reason, and also because skill in the operative was a matter of fundamental importance,29 as it was not in twist-spinning on the water-frame. The size of the typical weft-spinning mill suddenly increased after the scope for the application of power was enlarged by the use of the self-actor mule, invented in 1825 by Richard Roberts, of the firm of Sharp, Roberts & Co., machinists, of Manchester. In 1830 Roberts improved his invention and brought out the complete self-actor. Self-actors had been put forward by others besides Roberts—for instance by William Strutt, F.R.S. (son of Arkwright’s partner), before 1790; William Kelly, formerly of Lanark mills, in 1792; William Eaton of Wiln in Derbyshire; Peter Ewart of Manchester; de Jongh of Warrington; Buchanan, of Catrine works, Scotland; Knowles of Manchester; and Dr Brewster of America30—but none had succeeded. And Roberts’s machines did not immediately win popularity. For a long time the winding done by them was defective, and they suffered from other imperfections. Broadly speaking, until the American Civil War the number of hand-mules in use remained high. It was for the fine “counts” in particular that many employers preferred them.31 About the end of the ’sixties, however, and in the early ’seventies, great improvements were effected in machinery, partly under the stimulus of a desire to elevate its fitness for dealing with short-staple cotton, and it became evident that hand-mules were doomed. Here we may suitably refer to the scutching machine for opening and cleaning cotton, invented by Mr Snodgrass of Glasgow in 1797, and introduced by Kennedy32 to Manchester in 1808 or 1809; the cylinder carder invented by Lewis Paul and improved by Arkwright; and the lap-machine first constructed by Arkwright’s son.

We now transfer our attention to that accumulation of improvements in manufacturing (as weaving is technically termed) which, taken in conjunction with the inventions already described, presaged the large factory system which Weaving machinery. covers Lancashire to-day. Gradually, for many years, the loom had been gathering complexities, though no fundamental alteration was introduced into its structure until 1738, when John Kay of Bury excited the wrath of his fellow-weavers by designing and employing the device of the fly-shuttle. For some unfathomable reason—for the opposition of the weavers hardly explains it, though they expressed their views forcibly and acted upon them violently—this invention was not much applied in the cotton industry until about a quarter of a century after its appearance. The plan was merely to substitute for human hands hammers at the ends of a lengthened lathe along which the shuttle ran, the hammers being set in motion by the jerking of a stick (the picking peg) to which they were attached by strings. The output of a weaver was enormously increased in consequence. In 1760 John Kay’s son Robert added the drop-box, by the use of which many different kinds of weft could be worked into the same fabric without difficulty. It was in fact a partitioned lift, any partition of which could be brought to a level with the lathe and made for the time continuous with it. The drop-box usefully supplemented the “draw-boy,” or “draught-boy,” which provided for the raising of warps in groups, and thereby enabled figured goods to be produced. The “draw-boy” had been well known in the industry for a long time; in 1687 a Joseph Mason patented an invention for avoiding the expense of an assistant to work it,33 but there is no evidence to show that his invention was of practical value. Looms with “draw-boys” affixed, which could sometimes be worked by the weavers themselves, later became common under the name of harness-looms, which have since been supplanted by Jacquard looms, wherein the pattern is picked out mechanically.

The principle of the fly-shuttle was a first step towards the complete mechanizing of the action required for working a loom. The second step was the power-loom, the initial effort to design which was created by the tardiness of weaving as contrasted with the rapidity of spinning by power. After the general adoption of the jenny, supplies of yarn outran the productive powers of the agencies that existed for converting them into fabrics, and as a consequence, it would seem, some yarn was directed into exports which might have been utilized for the manufacture of cloth for export had the loom been more productive. The agitation for the export tax on yarn at the end of the 18th, and in the first years of the 19th century, is therefore comprehensible, but there was no foundation for some of the allegations by which it was supported. For a large proportion of the exported yarn, fabrics could not have been substituted, since the former was required to feed the hand-looms in continental homes and domestic workshops, against much of the product of which there was no chance of competing. The hand-loom was securely linked to the home of the peasant, and though he would buy yarn to feed his loom he would not buy cloth and break it up.34

Cartwright’s loom was not the first design adapted for weaving by power. A highly rudimentary and perfectly futile self-actor weaving machine, which would have been adapted for power-working had it been capable of working at all, had been invented by a M. de Gennes: a description of it, extracted from the Journal de sçavans, appeared in the Philosophical Transactions for July and August 1678, and again in the Gentleman’s Magazine in 1751 (vol. xxi. pp. 391-392). It consisted of mechanical hands, as it were, that shot in and out of the warp and exchanged the shuttle.35 Another idea, which however proved fruitful, was that of grinding the shuttle through the warps by the agency of cog-wheels working at each end upon teeth affixed to the upper side of the shuttle. Though shuttles could not in this fashion be set in rapid movement, the machine turned out to be economical for the production of ribbons and tapes, because many pieces could be woven by it at once. These contrivances were known as swivel-looms, and in 1724 Stukeley in his Itinerarium curiosum wrote that the people of Manchester have “looms that work twenty-four laces at a time, which was stolen from the Dutch.” Ogden says also that they were set up in imitation of Dutch machines by Dutch mechanics invited over for the purpose. Another interesting passage relating to the swivel-looms will be found in the rules of the Manchester small-ware weavers dated 1756, where the complaint is made that the masters have acquired by the employment of “engine or Dutch looms such large and opulent fortunes as hath enabled them to vie with some of the best gentlemen of the country,” and it is alleged that these machines, which wove twelve or fourteen pieces at once, “were in use in Manchester thirty years ago.”36 One power-factory at least was devoted to them as early as 1760, namely that of a Mr Gartside at Manchester, where water-power was applied, but the enterprise failed.37 Cartwright’s invention was probably perfected in its first form about 1787, but many corrections, improvements and additions had to be effected before it became an unqualified success. Cartwright’s original idea was elaborated by numerous followers, and supplementary ideas were needed to make the system complete. Of the latter the most important were those due to William Radcliffe, and an ingenious mechanic who worked with him, Thomas Johnson, which were patented in 1803 and 1804. They related to the dressing of the warp before it was placed in the loom, and for the mechanical taking up of the cloth and drawing forward of the warp, so that the loom had not to be stopped for the cloth to be moved on and the warp brought within play of the shuttle to be sized. Looms fitted with the latter of these devices were known as “dandy” looms. The looms that followed need not be described here, nor need we concern ourselves with the degree in which some were imitations of others. It is of interest to note, however, in view of recent developments, that one of Cartwright’s patents included a warp-stop motion, though it was never tried practically so far as the writer is aware. Looms with warp-stop motions are now common in the United States, as are also automatic looms, but both are still the exception in Lancashire for reasons that will be sketched later.

Power-looms won their way only very gradually. Cartwright and others lost fortunes in trying to make them pay, but the former was compensated by a grant of £10,000 from government. In 1813 there were 2400 only in the whole of the United Kingdom; in 1820 there were 14,000, beside some 240,000 hand-looms; in 1829, 55,500; in 1833, 100,000; and in 1870, 440,700.38 To-day there are about 700,000 in the cotton industry. The beginning, and the final consequences, of the competitive pressure of the power-looms may be read in the reports of official inquiries and in Rowbotham’s diary.39 It was upon the fine work that the hand-loom weavers retained their last hold. In 1829 John Kennedy wrote in his paper to the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society on “The Rise and Progress of the Cotton Trade,” “It is found ... that one person cannot attend upon more than two power-looms, and it is still problematical [even in 1829, observe] whether the saving of labour counterbalances the expense of power and machinery and the disadvantage of being obliged to keep an establishment of power-looms constantly at work.” It was not easy to obtain a sufficiency of good hands for the power-looms, because the operatives, who had acquired their habits under the domestic system, hated factory life. This, in conjunction with the ease with which the art of coarse weaving could be acquired and the cheapness of rough looms, helps to explain the wretched straits into which the hand-loom weavers were driven.

Improvements in machinery, which ultimately affected every process from cleaning the cotton to finishing the fabric, and the application of water and steam-power, so lowered the cost of production as to render Lancashire the cotton Growth. factory of the world. Figures are quoted in the table to show the rate of growth in different periods of England’s imports and exports as regards the raw material and products of this industry. It is important to remember when reading the last 6 columns that the value of money was the same in 1831-1835, 1851-1855 and 1876-1880: the sums of Sauerbeck’s index numbers for these periods were 454, 451 and 444 respectively. In the last two periods there were considerable depressions in prices. If prices had remained constant, in the periods 1891-1895 and 1896-1900 the figures of exports would have been £90 millions and £91 millions respectively. The growth in trade has been partly occasioned by the enormous increase in the volume of cotton goods consumed all over the world, which in turn has been due to (1) the growth of population, (2) the increase in productive efficiency and well-being, and (3) the substitution of cotton fabrics for woollen and linen fabrics. The rate of growth between the periods 1771-1781 and 1781-1791 (which is not shown in the above table) was particularly remarkable, and reached as high a figure (when measured by importations of weight of cotton) as 320%.

Year.	Imports of Raw Cotton, Million ℔.	Raw Cotton re-exported, Million ℔.	Exports of Cotton Yarns and Manufactures, Million £.			Imports of Cotton Yarns and Manufactures, Million £
			Yarns.	Manu- factures.	Total.	Yarns.	Manu- factures (excluding Lace).	Total.
1700-1705	1.17	· ·	· ·	· ·	· ·	· ·	· ·	· ·
1771-1775	4.76	· ·	· ·	· ·	· ·	· ·	· ·	· ·
1785-1789	· ·	· ·	· ·	· ·	1.07*	· ·	· ·	· ·
1791-1795	26.00	· ·	· ·	· ·	2.09*	· ·	· ·	· ·
1816-1820	139.00	10.00	2.5	13.8	16.30	· ·	· ·	· ·
1831-1835	313.00	23.00	4.8	14.2	19.00	· ·	· ·	· ·
1851-1855	872.00	124.00	6.8	24.9	31.70	· ·	· ·	· ·
1876-1880	1456.00	180.00	12.4	56.1	68.30	· ·	2.29	2.29
1891-1895	1746.00	217.00	9.7	56.6	66.30	.42	2.78	3.20
1896-1900	1798.00	223.00	8.9	58.2	67.10	.26	4.27	4.53
1901-1905	1920.00	265.00	8.4	70.7	79.10	.22	5.10	5.32
* Official values.

Nothing is more interesting in the cotton industry than the processes of differentiation and integration that have taken place from time to time. Weaving and spinning had been to a large extent united in the industry in its earliest form, Differentiation and Integration. in that both were frequently conducted beneath the same roof. With mechanical improvements in spinning, that branch of the industry became a separate business, and a substantial section of it was brought under the factory régime. Weaving continued to be performed in cottages or in hand-loom sheds where no spinning at all was attempted. Cartwright’s invention carried weaving back to spinning, because both operations then needed power, and the trouble of marketing yarn was largely spared by the reunion. Mr W. R. Grey stated in 1833 to the committee of the House of Commons on manufactures, commerce and shipping, that he knew of no single person then building a spinning mill who was not attaching to it a power-loom factory. Some years later the weaving-shed split away from spinning, partly no doubt because of the economies of industrial specialism, partly because of commercial developments, to be described later, which rendered dissociation less hazardous than it had been, and partly because, in consequence of these developments, much manufacturing (as weaving is termed) was constituted a business strikingly dissimilar from spinning. The manufacturer runs more risks in laying by stocks than the spinner, because of the greater variety of his product and the more frequent changes that it undergoes. The former, therefore, must devote more time than the latter to keeping his order book and the productive power of his shed in close correspondence. The minute care of this kind that must be exercised in some classes of businesses explains why the small manufacturer still holds his own while the small spinner has been crushed out. It also explains to some extent the prevalence of joint-stock companies in spinning, and their comparative rarity in manufacturing. Here we should notice, perhaps, that the only combination of importance in the cotton industry proper (apart from calico-printing, bleaching, &c., and the manufacture of sewing-cotton) is the Fine Cotton Spinners and Doublers Association, founded in 1898, which is practically coextensive with fine spinning and doubling.

The specialism of the two main branches of the industry has been followed by the specialism of sub-branches and by the localization of specialized parts. Of the localization of certain sections of the cotton industry Localization of branches of the industry. the late Mr Elijah Helm, who spoke with the authority of great local knowledge, has written as follows:—

The present local distribution of the cotton industry, as far as it is displayed statistically, is revealed in the table beneath, based upon the figures of spindles and looms given by Worrall and those of operatives in the census returns of 1901.

Distribution of Cotton Operatives in Lancashire and the Vicinity according to the Census Returns of 1901, together with the Number of Spindles and Looms according to Worrall.

	No. of Operatives.	No. of Spindles (in Thousands).	No. of Looms.
Blackburn	41,400	1,325	75,300
Bolton	29,800	5,035	20,100
Oldham	29,500	11,603	18,500
Burnley	27,900	687	79,300
Manchester and Salford	27,200	2,666	24,200*
Preston	25,000	2,036	57,900
Rochdale	14,800	2,168	25,100
Darwen	12,500	336	28,700
Nelson	12,400	23	39,000
Glossop**	· ·	968	15,400
Bury	10,700	818	22,200
Stockport	9,700	1,803	8,700
Ashton-under-Lyne	8,600	1,839	11,500
Accrington	8,300	417	36,400
Colne	7,300	140***	20,500
Heywood	7,300	869	6,400
Stalybridge	7,100	1,106	7,100
Todmorden	6,900	261	15,800
Rawtenstall	6,600	356	8,800
Hyde	6,500	553	7,900
Chadderton	6,400	· ·	· ·
Haslingden	6,100	148	12,000
Bacup	5,900	315	9,300
Chorley	5,900	547	17,900
Farnworth, near Bolton	5,700	738	10,600
Leigh	5,000	1,667	5,900
Great Harwood	4,900	72	12,400
Middleton	4,900	511	2,500
Radcliffe	4,800	157	8,900
* Manchester only.
** The number of operatives in places in Derbyshire is not separately specified.
*** Includes Foulridge with Colne.

Local markets have steadily lost in importance, partly owing to railway development, and it is now almost entirely in Manchester, on the Exchange, that dealing in yarns and fabrics takes place, and arrangements are made for export. The old Manchester Exchange, built in 1729, was taken down in 1792. A new Exchange, reared on a contiguous site, was opened in 1809, the first stone having been laid in 1806. The present building was erected in 1869. The great bulk of the exports of cotton goods proceeds from Liverpool, though London used to be the leading port, and Liverpool is still the chief English market for raw cotton, though now from one-sixth to one-eighth of English cotton supplies come up the Manchester Ship Canal.

To understand the present organization of the cotton industry the reader must begin by mentally separating the commercial from the industrial functions. By the industrial functions are meant the arrangements of factors in Modern organization. production—choosing the most suitable machinery and hands, combining them in the most economical system, adapting the material used to this system, and keeping its working at the highest attainable level. The commercial functions consist in business which is not industrial. Analysis will show that there are, broadly speaking, two classes of commercial functions, namely (1) arranging for purchases and sales, and (2) the bearing of risks. The character of the former is apparent; it consists, as regards yarn, in discovering for each manufacturer which spinner makes the yarn which is best adapted to his requirements at the lowest cost, and in finding the most suitable customers for spinners. Risk-bearing is a commercial function of another kind. Every business that involves anticipation involves commercial risks. Thus the spinner who sells “forward” yarn, trusting that the price of cotton will not rise, is taking commercial risks, and so is the spinner who produces for stock, trusting that the class of yarn that he is making will continue in demand. These two instances will suffice to indicate what is meant by the carrying of commercial risks. To make the rest of our argument clear it will be well to write down formulae. Let A and B represent respectively the industrial operations of spinning and manufacturing. Let a and α represent respectively the commercial operations implied by the separate existence of A, that is, the buying of cotton and the selling of yarn; and let b and β stand for the commercial operations associated with manufacturing, that is, the buying of yarn on the one hand, and the finding of customers and arranging for their purchases on the other hand. Then, A and B being distinct businesses, it is obvious that a range of schemes is possible of which the extremes may be roughly represented as follows:—

1. (aAα), (bBβ) 2. (a), (A), (αb), (B), (β),

where the brackets signify independent businesses. In case 1 each spinning business would be engaged with three problems, namely, (i.) buying material at the most favourable time, (ii.) producing at the lowest cost, and (iii.) finding buyers and selling at the highest price, including the arranging for the performance of the most remunerative work. But in case 2 the spinner would confine his attention to purely industrial matters, while the problem of finding cotton and arranging for the bearing of the risks as to future prices would rest with other persons, and the business of bringing spinner and manufacturer together and taking such risks as may be involved in ordering or disposing of yarn would be the function of yet others. In case 2 the commercial functions may be said to have differentiated completely from the main body of the industry. We need hardly give illustrations of the intermediate arrangements that formally lie between cases 1 and 2. A may retain commercial risks but find customers through intermediaries; in such an event there would be only partial differentiation of the commercial functions. The reader must be reminded also that for the sake of simplicity in the formulae we have overlooked different classes of A and of B, omitted bleaching, dyeing, printing and finishing, and drawn no distinction between the various classes of commercial work covered by one letter, for instance, selling in the home market and selling abroad.

It may help the reader to appreciate the organic growth of the cotton industry if we now run over the main lines of its evolution. Originally the industrial units were held together in one homogeneous commercial setting. The Manchester merchants bought cotton and warps, put them out to the weavers, and arranged for the finishing of the cloth and then for its sale, so far as they had not been acting on orders already received. There were variations of this system—for instance, in early years weavers sometimes bought their own yarns and cotton and sold their cloth—but just before the industrial revolution the arrangement sketched above was the most usual. Adverting to our formula, the Manchester merchants, we observe, performed functions a (in conjunction with importers), b (as regarded warps), and β. Weft the weaver had to get spun by his family or outsiders. So, broadly speaking, there was one single commercial setting. After the appearance of the factory, the commercial work as between the water-twist mills, the mule-spinning businesses and the manufacturers, so far as the businesses were distinct, appears to have been done by the several producing firms concerned. It was not at once that (αb) began to differentiate, β was already a separate business in the hands of Manchester merchants and the foreign houses who had established themselves in Manchester to direct the export trade. At the present time an advanced stage of commercial specialism has been reached. From the risks connected with the buying of cotton the spinner may if he please escape entirely.41 Selling work is now done usually through intermediaries, but there is no one uniform rule as to the carrying of the commercial risks involved. This appears to be now to some extent a matter of arrangement between the persons concerned, but ultimately no doubt the risks will have to be borne by those most qualified by experience to bear them, namely, the commercial specialists. In no other trade in England, and in no other cotton industry abroad, has commercial specialism been carried so far as in the cotton trade of Lancashire. It is partly in consequence of the difference in this respect between the cotton industry in Lancashire and abroad that the separation of spinning from weaving is far more common in England than elsewhere. Elsewhere producers are deterred from specializing processes further in distinct businesses by the fear of the worries of buying and selling as between them.

The explanation of differences in respect of the degree of commercial specialism in different places and industries can be formulated only very generally. Time is required for the differentiation and localization to take place. The English cotton trade had not advanced very far in the “’thirties,” if we are to judge from the evidence given to commissions and parliamentary committees. The general conditions under which commercial specialism evolves may be taken to be a moderately limited range of products which do not present many varieties, and the qualities of which can be judged generally on inspection. In such circumstances private markets need not be built up, as they must be, for instance, for a new brand of soap which claims some subtle superiority to all others. Soaps under present conditions must be marketed by their producers. Broadly stated, if there be little competition as to substitutes, though there may be much as to price in relation to quality, commercial functions may specialize. On the whole this is the case in the cotton industry; in so far as it is not and firms produce specialities, they undertake much of the marketing work themselves.

The advantages of commercial specialism are numerous. Firstly it allows of differentiation of industrial processes, and this, of necessity, is accompanied by increasing returns. When weaving dissociates from spinning, both the number of looms in each business and the number of spindles in each business tend to increase; more division of labour is therefore secured, and lower costs of production are reached, and there is a further gain because producers concentrate their attention upon a smaller range of work. Again when producers are freed entirely, or to some extent, from commercial worries, they can attain a higher level of efficiency at the industrial task of mill organization, and a more perfect accommodation of capacity to function will be brought about. If the business unit is (aAα), a particular person may retain his place in the market by reason of his excellence at the work a or α, though as works organizer (i.e. at the performances of function A) he may be incompetent. The heads of businesses will succeed according to their average capacities at the three tasks a, A and α, and there is no guarantee, therefore, that any one of these tasks will be performed with the highest attainable efficiency in our present somewhat immobile economic system. But if the three functions are separated there is more certainty of a person’s success in the performance of each determining his continued discharge of it. The problems that arise when specialized markets become very highly developed are dealt with in the article Cotton: Marketing and Supply.

The Cotton Industry outside England.

A brief survey will now be made of the cotton industry in parts of the globe other than the British Isles, and as a prelude the following broad estimates of the numbers of spindles and looms in the chief national seats of the cotton industry may be put forward.45 The table is further supplemented by other figures46 for the number of spindles at different times in the United Kingdom, the United States and the continent; and finally we may add the figures of cotton consumed.

The different average fineness of counts spun in different places must be borne in mind when the consumption of each district at the same time is being considered, but the relations between the amounts consumed in the contrasted districts in the two periods would not be affected much by this difference.

	Estimated Population in 1902. In Millions.	Million Spinning Spindles in 1909.	Thousand Power- Looms about 1906.
United Kingdom.	42	53.5	700
United States	79	27.8	550
Germany	58	9.8	215
France	39	6.8	110
Russia	139	7.8	150
India	294 (1901)	5.8	45
Austria	26.7	4.2	80
Spain	18.6 (1900)	1.9	69
Italy	33	4.0	100
Switzerland	3.4	1.5	30
Japan	46	1.7	· ·
Belgium	· ·	1.2	· ·

Cotton Spindles (including Doubling Spindles) in Millions.

	United Kingdom.	Europe.	United States.	Other Countries.	Total.
1870	37.7	13	7.1	· ·	57.8
1880	44.5	21	10.6	2	78.1
1890	44.5	26	14.2	4	88.7
1900	46.2	32	19	7	104.2
1903	47.9	33	22.2	7.5	110.6

Average Annual Consumption of Cotton in the Period 1831-1835.

	Millions of ℔.
United Kingdom	295
Continent of Europe	143
United States	79

Average Annual Consumption of Cotton in the Period 1900-1905.

	Millions of ℔.
United Kingdom	1634
Continent of Europe	2486
United States	1995

Roughly the consumption of cotton per spindle in the three areas to-day is, in ℔, 35 for the United Kingdom, 70 for the continent, and 95 for the United States.

Before the cotton industry in other countries is described it will be necessary to explain how it could have developed there on a large scale at all. Of course this growth is to be accounted for very largely by the natural protection of cost of transport aided by tariffs. But it would be a mistake for Englishmen to imagine that all foreign cotton mills are the product of a forcing culture, and that if the favourable conditions created by import duties were removed they would totally disappear. No doubt some of the growth is artificial, but much is natural and would have taken place under universal free trade conditions. Much of it, indeed, would have appeared in these circumstances even were cost of production a negligible quantity, difficult though it may be at first to reconcile this statement with certain ordinary conceptions of the operations of the law of increasing returns. Lancashire secured an immense lead at the beginning of the 19th century, and if the cost of production may be represented as varying inversely as the magnitude of the industry, every addition to her success increased her advantages. How could the small industry, with a high cost of production because it was small, compete with Lancashire? The answer is to be found in the peculiar conditions governing international trade and a closer analysis of “increasing returns.” “Increasing returns” in any place are a function of two variables, (1) the magnitude of the world market under conditions of world commerce, and (2) the magnitude of the industry in the spot in question. The economies connected with the first variable, which in such an industry as the cotton industry are enormous, and govern ultimately the limits of business specialism, are shared by every national section of the industry whether it be great or small. If Haiti started a cotton factory she might import all her specialized machinery—the specialism involved in producing which is dependent upon the exportation of some of it—and restrict narrowly the work undertaken by her one factory. The cotton goods outside this range she would still import, and if her specialized product were in excess of local demand she could export some of it, if she were favourably placed in respect of cost of carriage, for cost of production in Haiti would not be impossibly high, since machinery and the general system of production would be quite up to date though labour might be highly inefficient. Of course, the country with a large industry enjoys high local economies, and it might be thought that these alone would be a menace to the stability of the small industry, because if the industry in the favoured locality increased these would increase also and the small industry would be undersold. The answer to this difficulty is that foreign trade depends upon ratios between ratios, that is, upon the ratios between the costs of production of all the products of each country in relation to similar ratios for other countries. Relatively, therefore, diminishing returns operate in every country. In every country there must come a time, the utility of commodities being taken into account, when a unit of labour and capital provides less utility when applied to the creation of cotton goods, say, than when applied to producing something else for home consumption or for export in exchange for commodities wanted at home. It becomes apparent, therefore, that cotton industries of widely varying sizes dispersed throughout the world can settle into relations of perfectly stable equilibrium, as that term is understood by the economist. Slow changes, of course, in their relative volumes might be looked for with changes in a mutable world, but very sudden collapses would be impossible unless the general course of human affairs were revolutionized.

The United States.—The machine-cotton industry was carried to North America almost as soon as it evolved in England. Models of Arkwright’s machines were smuggled across the Atlantic in 1786—Arkwright’s first mill had not been started in England until 1769—and these with a jenny and stock-card were publicly exhibited. From these models a great mass of machinery was soon constructed. The first mill was erected in 1788 (that of the Beverly Association), the second appeared in 1790, the third five years later, and in 1798 Samuel Slater started with some of his wife’s relatives the first mill in which the principle of the water-frame was carried throughout. It is said that it was not until 1814 that power-loom manufacturing was commenced, but in England success with the power-loom was long delayed. As early as 1831, however, there were in the United States—mainly in the New England states—800 factories, a million and a quarter spindles, 33,500 looms and 62,200 operatives. At this time the annual consumption of cotton was about 77,000,000 ℔ as compared with some 300,000,000 ℔ in England at the same date, and 2,000,000,000 approximately in the United States at the present time.47 Writing in 1840, James Montgomery said that, in respect of cost of production, the American industry was 19% behind that of England apart from the cost of raw material, which was then a good deal less to the Americans. In 1878, when there was much interest in the question of British efficiency in the cotton industry because the passage of the Factory Act of 1874 had cut down the working hours, the Economist contrasted the result of twenty-five years’ growth in England and America:—

The contrast no doubt was not perfect, as indeed it could not be in view of the varieties of product and their changes, but it proves at any rate that Americans were making vast strides in industrial efficiency even before the period when American methods and American enterprise were monopolizing in a wonderful degree the attention of the business world.48 About a dozen years later the low real cost of production of simple fabrics in the United States was universally admitted, and also that American manufacturers were making more use of machinery than their European rivals. In a typical weaving shed in Massachusetts, for instance, of which particulars were published, twenty women “tended” as many as eight looms apiece, forty-three managed seven, two hundred and thirty-two managed six, and only eleven had five only.49 Since then, moreover, advance has been rapid, and the sudden development of the South has astonished the business community of other centres of the cotton industry.

Before the lines of development in America are specifically dealt with, and particularly the industrial phenomena in the South, a few words must be said of the general extension of the industry. The consumption of cotton in the United States in million ℔ was about 75 in 1830, 390 in 1860, 1100 in 1890 and nearly 2000 on an average of the five crop years from 1900-1901 to 1904-1905: active spindles advanced from 1,250,000 in 1830 to 10,653,000 in 1880 and about 21,250,000 in 1905. Looms which numbered 33,500 in 1830 had reached 226,000 in 1880 and nearly 550,000 in 1905. At the same time population, it must be remembered, was growing at a phenomenal rate: from 31.4 millions in 1860 it had passed to 38.6, 50.2, 62.6 and 76.3 at the succeeding decennial censuses, the decennial rates of increase being in order 22.5, 30, 25 and 20.5 as compared with 8.5, 10.5, 8 and 9 as shown by the corresponding censuses in the United Kingdom. Protection was of course contributory to the growth of the American cotton industry. It may be remarked incidentally that the New World, including the West Indies and the Chinese empire, take the bulk of American exports, which for so large an industry are inconsiderable. The imports have always been well in excess of the exports. The encouragement of home industries by tariffs was definitely aimed at after the war with England during the Napoleonic struggles, and although a sensible reduction of duties was experienced after 1845 the reaction to protection that followed the Civil War was never significantly departed from except by the single act of 1883. In 1790 the duties on cotton goods were 7½% ad valorem, and they rose gradually until they reached 25% in 1816. Slight reductions some seventeen years later were followed in the early ’forties by a tariff of 30%. Diminutions were succeeded by oscillations, though at no point was a low level touched. Severe charges were imposed in 1890, and after some relaxation in 1894 the policy of restrictiveness was restored in 1897. According to the calculations made by the English Board of Trade in 190350 no fabrics were admitted at a charge equivalent to less than 68% ad valorem, and no yarns were admitted at a charge lower than 45% ad valorem. Cotton thread is subjected to a rate equivalent to 375%51

The character of the growth of the cotton industry in the United States, as revealed by recent census returns, is peculiarly interesting:—

	Thousands				Percentage Increase
	1880.	1890.	1900.	1905.	1880-1890	1890-1900	1900-1905
Active Spindles	10,653	14,188	19,008	23,156	33.8	34	21.8
Looms	226	325	451	541	43.90	38.7	20
℔ cotton consumed	750,344	1,117,946	1,814,003	1,875,075	48.99	62.3	3.3
Wages	$42,041	$66,025	$85,126	$94,378	57	28.9	10.9
Capital	$208,280	$354,021	$460,843	$605,100	70	30.2	31.3
Employees not officers and clerks	174.7	218.9	297.9	310.5	25.3	36.1	4.2

Cotton small wares are included in the totals for 1880 and 1890, but excluded from those for 1900 and 1905. We must observe further that “capital” is a vague term. Recent events in the United States afford a valuable empirical indication of the effect that improved machinery actually has upon wages. The new automatic looms caused a saving of labour per unit of product which recalled the complete subversion at the industrial revolution of the proportions in which the several factors in production were organized. Displacement of labour and falling wages might not unreasonably have been looked for temporarily, but wages stuck at their old level or rose. The rise was caused by numerous converging forces which brought their united weight to bear. First, prices so fell as the result of the new machinery that the increased volume of commodities which the market could absorb more than counterbalanced, it would seem, the labour-saving of the new machinery, the cotton industry being taken as a whole. It must be remembered that to increase the output from the subsidiary processes where labour had not been saved more hands had to be drafted in. Thus, a contraction of the body of weavers was accompanied by an expansion of the body of cotton operatives. Again weavers’ wages were naturally raised in a special degree because automatic machinery called for quick, trustworthy and intelligent hands, endowed with versatility, especially in the days when the machinery was still in the semi-experimental stage. The American employer tries to save in labour but not to save in wages, if a generalization may be ventured. The good workman gets high pay, but he is kept at tasks requiring his powers and is not suffered to waste his time doing the work of unskilled and boy labour. There is, certainly, in the American labour problem no serious grievance on the question of wages. If there is any abuse it consists in excessively fierce work. Mr. T. M. Young, who visited the American cotton districts in 1904 with an informal commission of Lancashire spinners and manufacturers, did not think that the cause of the high wages—allowance being made for the purchasing power of money, they are above those of England, though cotton operatives in England are well paid relatively—was the superiority of the American cotton worker; neither did the representatives of the English cotton operatives who accompanied the Moseley Commission. As often as not “the cotton operative in the United States is a French Canadian, a German, an Italian, a Hungarian, an Albanian, a Portuguese, a Russian, a Greek, or an Armenian.” It is the extensive “exploitation” of machinery seemingly, together with the speed of work, which keep wages high, combined with the horizontal and vertical mobility of American labour, which prevents it from accumulating in pools, and causes streams of the best hands to be flowing continuously to other callings and places, and no insignificant proportion to climb the social ladder. The remainder naturally profit, for a local or trade congestion of labour is avoided, and the voluminous recruiting of enterprise by the intensified competition among employers keeps the demand for labour high.

One noticeable point in the table quoted above is that until recently cotton consumed increased much faster than the number of spindles. This might be explained in a variety of ways. Average counts remaining constant, the average speed of the spindle might have risen; or the latter remaining constant, counts might have been getting finer. Speeds have certainly gone up a good deal of late on some counts. And it is quite likely, too, that concentration on the manufacture of coarse goods for export, with stout warps to keep down the breakages and raise the output per loom, may be reckoned as one cause.

Despite the recent sensational growth in the South, the New England States still remain the most prominent seat of the American cotton industry. They contained in 1905 about 14 million spindles as compared with 7.7 millions in the South and West, and their relative possession of looms approaches, though it does not quite reach, the same proportion. The leading States in the South in order of importance are South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia and Alabama, and in the North, first Massachusetts with an enormous lead, then, in order, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey. The bulk of the cotton industry in the North is contained within a small area. A circle around Providence, Rhode Island, of 30 m. radius includes, according to the twelfth census, nearly 7¼ million spindles,—there were only 58,500 spindles in this area in 1809. Of the chief towns Fall River stood first in 1900 in value output, and was followed in order by Philadelphia, New Bedford, Lowell, Manchester and Pawtucket. The climate of Fall River is very similar to that of English spinning districts. Its population in 1900 was 105,000, and of these only 14,600 were of American parentage. Of the remainder, 16,700 were English, 17,800 Irish, 29,600 French Canadians and about 5000 Portuguese. Among the rest of foreign parentage, Armenians, Russians and Italians are numerous. But Massachusetts is famous for the number of immigrants it attracts. It is almost incredible, but nevertheless a fact according to a recent statistical report, that in 1903 as many as 91% of the cotton operatives of the State were of foreign descent—chiefly French Canadian and Irish. In 1902 there were nearly 90 mills at Fall River with 3,000,000 spindles and 16,000 looms. The spindles amount to about one-third of all in Massachusetts, but Fall River’s share of the looms of the State is not large. The spindles exceed in number those possessed by any State except of course the one in which it is placed. In comparison with a great spinning town in England, nevertheless, Fall River does not appeal strongly to the English imagination. It has little over a quarter of the spindles of Oldham, or three-fifths of those of Bolton,—among English towns it would stand third, i.e. between Bolton and Manchester and Salford, which, in spite of the movement of spinning to the hills, still holds in England a leading place. The whole of Massachusetts, it is of interest to observe, has fewer spindles than Oldham, and only about half those of Oldham and Bolton together. Originally it was the river which attracted the mills to Fall River, and as the water-power available was almost inexhaustible, it was possible for the mills to congregate together and for a town to grow up. In England, when much of the industry was dependent for power upon water, decentralization was entailed, for the thin streams of Lancashire could not support more than two or three mills at most in proximity. Hence in England, after Watt’s steam-engine had succeeded, the economies of centralization led eventually to the desertion of the mills on the water-courses. But at Fall River the perfecting of the application of steam-power merely involved its use to supplement the water-power on the old site. The presence of water-power explains half the success of New England. In the six States 35% of all the power used is derived from water, and in the cotton-manufacturing of these States water provides 32.6% of the power. For industrial purposes generally the river most exploited is the Merrimac, upon which stand the leading cotton towns of Lowell, Lawrence and Manchester. Hitherto little has been done in the way of using water to generate electric power.52

The two most striking features of the American industry to-day are the introduction of the automatic looms, already briefly referred to, and the development of the South. The Northrop Loom Company has spent a fortune in pushing its loom on to the market. It has not hesitated to share risks, and it has run one “advertisement” mill at least, namely that at Burlington, Vermont, with 55,000 spindles and nearly 1300 looms. In this mill the labour-saving is shown by the following figures, the looms being of two sizes, 32 in. and 44 in. Of the former, 3 weavers run 18 each, 39 tend 16 each, only a few odd weavers tend less than 16, and learners even are at work on 8 to 11 each; on the latter, of 29 weavers 17 mind 16 looms each and 12 mind 12 (on stripped fabrics).53 Of course a high level of efficiency would be expected in this show mill. That American employers have readily been converted to a belief in the economy of the new machinery we are not astonished to learn in view of the American temperament, the intensity of competition among business leaders, and the prevailing spirit of adventure. Thousands of workable old looms have been scrapped, and probably at the present time there are 100,000 automatic looms running in the United States. No other country can point to a rate of substitution which approaches that in the United States. The causes, apart from the temperamental and social to which reference has already been made, are probably (1) that there is disagreement as to the present economy of automatic looms on many fabrics,54 (2) that Americans aim at frequency of renewal of plant, and avoid making their machinery so durable as to prove ultimately, perhaps, a handicapping inheritance, and (3) that a greater bulk of American work is appropriate for the new looms than of English or continental work. But automatic machinery is being used increasingly in Lancashire.55 And the operatives ultimately benefit. It is the half-developed machine, to which labour must actually be linked as an essential part, which is responsible for monotonous work and creates the dislike of mechanical aids.

Now we turn to the recent development of the Southern States. Never has an industry grown faster than that of the two Carolinas, Georgia and Alabama. Some of the earliest experiments with the machine industry were conducted in South Carolina, but from that time till the end of the 19th century nobody imagined the possibility of a great Southern expansion. In 1880 the South contained less than half a million spindles—i.e. about as many as Hyde, Middleton or Chorley, and one-twenty-third of the numbers in Oldham. Twenty years later they had increased twelvefold and the Southern States, in respect of the number of spindles, had taken precedence of Bolton. To-day probably about eight and a half millions might be counted. In addition there are some two hundred thousand looms, or nearly as many as in the three leading cotton-weaving towns of England—Burnley, Blackburn and Preston. The rapid oncoming of the South may also be traced by its consumption of cotton—which as an index, however, is not perfect. This on an annual average was, in thousand bales, 164, 269, 453, 717 and 1233 in each of the periods 1876-1880, 1881-1885, 1886-1889, 1891-1895 and 1895-1900 successively. The consumption since then, as compared with that of the Northern States, Great Britain and the European continent, has been as follows. It must be remembered that the consumption per spindle varies greatly from place to place.

Consumption of Cotton in Thousand Bales of about 500 ℔ each.

	Southern States.	Northern States.	Total United States.	Great Britain.	Europe.
1900-1901	1583	1963	3546	3269	4576
1901-1902	2017	2066	4083	3253	4836
1902-1903	1958	1866	3824	3185	5148
1903-1904	1889	2046	3935	3017	5148
1904-1905	2270	2292	4562	3620	5148

The densest distribution of mills in the South is along the line of the Southern railroad, in the district known as the Piedmont. Of this group Charlotte in North Carolina is the natural centre: roughly, half the spindles and half the looms in the Southern States would be included within a circle around Charlotte of a radius of about 100 m. Of the remainder a large proportion is scattered over a wide area.

Much interest has been excited by this newly created Lancashire of a new type, and much speculation as to the causes that account for it has been elicited. An informal commission of Lancashire spinners and manufacturers crossed the Atlantic to make inquiries in 1902 and investigations have been undertaken by other persons56, and much has been written on the subject. A general explanation can now be framed without much difficulty, as in all probability most of the relevant facts have been brought to light. First and foremost the general development of the cotton industry in the United States must be emphasized. The industry was unquestionably foredoomed to expansion at this time, and the only question was where the expansion should take place. It was plain that the growth might be so great as to present the appearance of a new industry created with new labour rather than an extension of an old industry. It was not altogether surprising, therefore, that the exploitation of a new field of labour was thought of. The labour market of the North was comparatively exhausted; in less developed parts of the country larger supplies of intrinsically good labour might be looked for at lower wages. Skill was not a matter of much moment, because in the North it would have been necessary to incorporate much labour without previous experience in the industry, the work was intended to be of the rough kind upon which manual skill is least important, and it was intended to repose reliance for economy upon machinery in the main. The choice of new fields meant at the outset the sacrifice of some of the economies of localization, but so large an expansion was looked for that projectors did not despair of creating fresh industrial localization of sufficient magnitude to produce such economies as are derived from it, which, it must be observed, are inconsiderable in America, and have declined relatively with falling cost of transport and the adoption, as regards machinery, of the principle of interchangeable parts. And at any rate a new local industry would have a slight advantage in supplying markets in proximity to it.

These were the main general considerations, and the scale was turned in favour of the new locality (a) by the advantage of nearer supplies of cotton, and (b) by the known presence of much half-occupied white labour in the vicinity of otherwise suitable sites close to the cotton-fields. It must be borne in mind that the whole calculation had not to be reared merely upon an intangible theoretical basis. Cotton mills already existed in the South, and comparisons of costs of production, as things were then, afforded some groundwork for judgment.

As regards the first of the two special advantages mentioned above, the saving in the cost of carriage of the raw material is not commonly held to be high. Transport to the cotton ports is so well organized and sea-carriage is so cheap that Lancashire’s distance from the source of her raw material is not a very appreciable handicap. A good deal of the cotton that must be used in some of the Southern mills cannot be supplied locally because it is not grown in the neighbourhood, and the requirements of these mills are met by transport arrangements which at present cost a sum not altogether out of relation to similar costs in the New England States and Lancashire. The percentages of freight charges on raw material in 1900 were $2.18 in Georgia, $1.59 in North Carolina, $1.17 in South Carolina, and the amazingly low figure of $1.20 in Massachusetts, but of course some part of the explanation is the somewhat higher quality of cotton on an average that is worked up in Massachusetts. For some years, however, the saving in labour has been a most important economy. Large supplies of half-occupied white labour existed in the Southern States among the families of small farmers who flocked South after the Civil War, and in the districts of the decayed hand industry in the mountains of Kentucky and North Carolina. For small money wages much of this labour could be attracted to the mills. Negroes do not work in the mills; the reason is said to be partly their own disinclination and partly that they are not very efficient at factory work. As outside labourers, however, they have afforded important aid at a very trifling cost, but the expense of outside labour to a mill is never an item of much weight. The halcyon days to employers, when keen workers could be had for low wages, are now said to be past. The demand for labour was considerable, and as time went on additional supplies could be enticed only with the offer of better pay. In 1904 it was reported that some mills were unable to get fully to work for want of hands even at the improved rates. Again the Southern operatives have been visited by emissaries from the operatives of the New England States, which explains partly the present aspect of the wages question. Mr Pidgin, in his official report to the Massachusetts Bureau of Labour Statistics, questions whether a saving in wages can be expected to continue, and points out that though wages have been low the average efficiency of the operatives has not been high. Some, indeed, were sent to gain experience in Northern mills in the hopes that on their return they would spread the tradition of working at high pressure. Mr Pidgin is at some pains to measure labour efficiency in the South and North as far as it is possible to do so, but no simple sets of figures will prove very much. The value of the product per operative in 1900 was $1200 in Massachusetts, $1010 in Georgia, $937 in North Carolina and $984 in South Carolina, but the value of the product per operative depends as much upon the fixed capital charge per operative as upon the latter’s efficiency. And the amount of machinery used per head is higher in the South than in the North. The percentage of operatives to machinery in Massachusetts being expressed as 100, that of Georgia was 53, that of North Carolina 43 and that of South Carolina 55 in 1900. These figures must be borne in mind when the average numbers employed in a mill in different States are being considered: in 1900 the averages were 565 for Massachusetts, 273 for Georgia, 171 for North Carolina and 378 for South Carolina. Measured by quantity of machinery the sizes of mills would stand in quite different relations. Hours of work in the South are bound to fall and the abuse of child labour, which had unquestionably crept in, may be expected to discontinue entirely. The factory conditions of children are better now than they were, but in some places they are still very bad. In Georgia no children under twelve are employed, but infants without fathers may begin work at ten years of age, and according to Mr Pidgin’s report, “it certainly seemed as though the intention was honoured more in the breach than in the observance, or that there must be many widows in the neighbourhood of the cotton mills.” In North and South Carolina the employment of children under twelve is illegal, but in these States also conditions are recognized under which it is possible to employ them earlier. According to figures relating to 1900 the dependence on child labour in the Southern States is very striking. The proportions engaged at different ages in the three chief cotton-manufacturing Southern States and Massachusetts are as follows:

	Men, 16 Years and over.	Women, 16 Years and over.	Children under 16.
Massachusetts	48.98	44.59	6.43
Georgia	39.98	35.52	24.50
North Carolina	42.22	34.23	23.55
South Carolina	44.43	28.72	26.85

It might be said that children are more useful when the work is rough, but this argument can hardly be regarded as accounting altogether for the great discrepancy as between Massachusetts and the South. The work is much rougher in the South: in 1900 the counts spun respectively in Massachusetts, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina were 25.10, 14.37, 18.83, and 19.04, and on the showing of the American census of 1900 spinning was getting finer over the last decade of the 19th century.

As contributory to the influences already recorded as accounting for Southern success it has been hinted that in the North employers have been less ready to welcome the new machinery, though in comparison with European rivals they would seem at first to have acted rashly. However this may be, the South enjoyed the important advantage that its industry began just after a great technical advance had been made. When Northern mill-owners were anxiously deliberating about the destruction of good machinery merely because it was antiquated in design, the fortunate Southern mill-proprietor was getting to work with appliances up to date in every particular. It will be easier to balance comparative advantages as between North and South when undertakers in the newer district are confronted by problems concerning replacements and alterations. The rapidity of Southern growth need not astonish those who have watched the operations by which new mills are frequently set up in Lancashire and remember that the American business man is more daring than his British cousin. Company promotion in the great financial centres, payment for machinery and other plant in shares, or partially in shares, a general diffusion of risks and pledging of credit, would explain even more rapid growth of industries of even greater magnitude.

Broad generalizations are difficult to frame, hard to establish and liable to be misleading; some generalizations relating to the features of the American cotton industry taken as a whole the author is tempted to venture nevertheless. Character of the American Industry. The characteristics of labour have already been incidentally commented upon. We have also noticed that the bulk of the work done is of a rough and simple character. In spite of American nationalism and the prevalence of protective sentiments it is said that there is still a prejudice in the United States against home-made fine cotton goods.57 “The product of the American system is a cloth which is, on the whole, distinctly inferior in appearance, ’feel’ and finish to that produced by the Lancashire system. To equal a Lancashire cloth in these respects an American cloth must not only be made of better cotton, but must contain more of it—perhaps 5% more. To this rule of inferiority there are, it is needless to say, exceptions, notably some of the American drills made for the China market. But the American home market, which absorbs nearly the whole of the product of American looms, is less exacting in these matters than the markets in which Lancashire cloths are sold.”58 It follows that the average counts spun in the United States are lower than in England, though they have been rising somewhat. Another feature of American spinning as compared with English is the high proportion of ring-frames to mules. In New England between 1890 and 1900 mule-spindles advanced by 100,000 and ring-spindles by nearly 2,000,000: in the South mule-spindles increased only from 108,500 to 180,500, while to the ring-frames 2,700,000 were added. To the general rule Rhode Island is the sole exception; here mule-spindles have increased and ring-spindles decreased; but in Rhode Island much of the fine spinning—for instance that for hosiery—is congregated.59 One explanation of the preponderance of ring-spinning is to be found in the character of American fabrics. Again most of the operatives are not of a kind likely to acquire great excellence at mule-spinning. To the Americans we largely owe the ring-frame, because their encouragement helped it through the difficult period when its defects were serious, though it appears to have been discovered independently in both countries.

American organization display intense specialism, but of a type different from that in England, where businesses are specialized by processes; in America they are specialized by products but hardly at all by processes. Independent spinning, independent manufacturing, independent bleaching, dyeing and finishing are the significant features of English industry to the bird’s-eye view; in the United States the typical firm will spin, make up its own yarn, and perhaps complete its fabrics for the market; but the mills, it must be remembered, are intensely specialized as to the range of their product, so that the statement that American mills are less specialized than English mills must be received with caution. For some reasons we should expect to find the American method applied even in England for fabrics of the highest qualities, because in their case the adaptation of the yarn to the fabric, and finishing to the fabric, are of great importance, and actually where the American plan is followed in England the explanation is frequently the speciality of the product which is associated with the particular firm producing it. When a firm manufactures a speciality of this kind it cannot always trust bought yarn, or the finishing applied to fabrics in the ton. But for other reasons specialized processes might be looked for where qualities were highest, as by specialism alone can the greatest excellence be attained. The final selection of method depends upon the relative importance for high qualities in the finished product of the connectedness of processes and the perfection of parts; and to these considerations must be added cost of transport between the works devoted to distinct processes, and the development of the commercial functions by which specialized process businesses are kept functioning as a whole. Probably it is the high development of British industry on the commercial side which chiefly explains the arrangements found in England. Attention should also be directed to the huge magnitude of American businesses. This is partly a consequence of American ambition in business, and partly a consequence of the undeveloped commercial ligaments by which producing businesses are brought into union. American producers in both North and South are too widely scattered for one town, like Manchester in the English cotton district, to be visited frequently by them for the purpose of making purchases and effecting sales. Even if the Americans did possess a convenient commercial centre, the high cost of transport between works distributed over a very wide area would prevent much specialism of businesses by processes from appearing. Writing capital letters for industrial processes and small letters and Greek letters for commercial functions, the possible arrangements in the cotton industry may be represented broadly as follows, brackets indicating the scope of businesses:60

I.	(a,A,B,C,d)
II.	(a)(A,B,C)(d).
III.	(aAα)(bBβ)(cCγ).
IV.	(a)(A)(α,b)(B)(β,c)(C)(γ).

The American industry approximates to the first type, while the English approximates rather to the last. Differences in respect of specialism by range of product are not shown in the formulae.

---

---