+------------+-------------------------+_Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Cosway, Richard" to "Coucy, Le Châtelain de" Volume 7, Slice 5

| +-------+---------+-------+-------+---------+--------+ Total in |

+------------+-------+---------+-------+-------+---------+--------+----------+

|1896 | 5.58 | 22.24 | 71.44 | 4.40 | 30.12 | 78.96 | 212 |

|1898-1899* | 5.42 | 21.57 | 71.37 | 3.86 | 30.44 | 77.64 | 210 |

|1901 | 4.98 | 21.10 | 68.98 | 3.10 | 30.98 | 81.68 | 211 |

|1896 | 7.54 | 18.79 | 75.81 | 11.87 | 49.19 | 151.34 | 315 |

|1898-1899* | 6.21 | 17.29 | 72.74 | 10.38 | 48.38 | 150.99 | 306 |

|1901 | 4.72 | 14.86 | 73.81 | 8.0 | 45.66 | 155.03 | 302 |

+------------+-------+---------+-------+-------+---------+--------+----------+

* Average for 1898 and 1899.

The figures in this table are not quite complete except for 1901; the

relations between the changes shown for each class should nevertheless

be accurately represented.

_Index Numbers of Money, Wages and Prices._

+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+

| |1840.|1855.|1860.|1866.|1870.|1874.|1877.|1880.|1883.|1886.|1891.| 1902.|

+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+

|Cotton operatives. | 50 | 54 | 64 | 74 | 74 | 90 | 90 | 85 | 90 | 93 | 100 |105 |

| eight trades | 61 | 61 | 73 | 81 | 83 | 97 | 94 | 89 | 92 | 90 | 100 |108.7*|

| index number | 103 | 73 | 99 | 102 | 96 | 102 | 94 | 88 | 82 | 69 | 72 | 69 |

| wheat per quarter| 66/4| 40/3| 53/3|49/11|46/11| 55/9| 56/9| 44/4| 41/7| 31/-| 37/-|28/1 |

+-------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+

* Average for a slightly different group.

_Weekly Wages in the Manchester and District Cotton Trade._

+--------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

| |1834.|1836.|1839.|1841.|1849.|1850.|1859.|1860.|1870.|1877.|1882.|1883.|1886.|

+--------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

| |s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|s. d.|

|Spinners' average |23 4 |23 11|22 1 |22 0 |21 7 |20 5 |24 1 |23 2 |27 8 |34 4 |31 6 |32 4 |35 7 |

|Big piecers' average|11 0 | 9 3 | 8 6 | 8 8 | 8 6 |13 0 |10 0 |10 0 |11 0 |12 4 |16 0 |16 0 |13 7 |

|Weavers' average |11 0 |10 2 | 9 6 | 9 6 |10 6 |10 3 |11 2 |10 8 |12 2 |15 1 |15 6 |15 0 |13 3 |

+--------------------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+

The most noticeable features of these tables are the decrease in the

proportion of children employed and the steady increase in the number

of operatives as a whole until recent years. The contraction of the

body of operatives of late years seems to have occurred primarily

among children and young persons (where the first check would

naturally be looked for), and secondarily among adult males. If

allowance be made for the smaller value of children as compared with

adults, and the census results be taken, it is not evident that there

has been any diminution in the amount of labour-power; and if the

factory inspectors' returns be accepted, the falling off in the number

of operatives cannot be proved to have taken place in either of the

chief branches of the industry at so rapid a rate as to have

occasioned the enforced dismissal of any hands. An industry which was

not recruited at all would have dwindled at a greater rate. At least

it may be inferred from these figures, when taken in conjunction with

the large increase in spindles and looms, that the output per head has

considerably advanced in spite of the rise in the average quality of

both yarns and fabrics produced. This rise in the value per unit of

the output accounts to some extent for the fact that wages have not

been adversely affected of late.

Wages and piece-rate lists.

Mr A. L. Bowley has calculated index numbers of wages for the leading

trades, including the manufacture of cotton. Those for the cotton

industry are given below, together with averages for cotton and wool

workers, the building trades, mining, workers in iron, sailors,

compositors and agriculturists (England), the numbers in each class

being allowed for in the average. Side by side with these figures,

Sauerbeck's index numbers of general wholesale prices are given,

together with the average prices of wheat per quarter.

It must be remembered that the figures given above for cotton workers

and average wages for eight trades do not measure the differences

between each, but only the differences between the movements of each.

Actual average money wages in the cotton industry have probably been

approximately those stated in the second table beneath, but as these

figures are culled from various sources they must not be taken to

indicate fluctuations.[42]

The wage of fine spinners exceeds the average wage of spinners by

percentages varying from about 25 to 35. In the above figures the

earnings of three classes of spinners are averaged.

The highest wages are earned by mule-spinners (who are all males);

their assistants, known as piecers, are badly paid. Persons can easily

be found, however, to work as piecers, because they hope ultimately to

become "minders," i.e. mule-spinners in charge of mules. The division

of the total wage paid on a pair of mules between the minder and the

piecers is largely the result of the policy of the spinners' trade

union. Almost without exception in Lancashire one minder takes charge

of a pair of mules with two or three assistants according to the

amount of work to be done. Among the weavers there is no rule as to

the number of assistants to full weavers (who are both male and

female), or as to the number of looms managed by a weaver, but the

proportion of assistants is much less than in the spinning branches,

perhaps because of the inferior strength of the weavers' unions. For

the calculation of wages piece-rate lists are universally employed as

regards the payment of full weavers and spinners; some piecers get a

definite share of the total wage thus assigned to a pair of mules,

while others are paid a fixed weekly amount. Many ring-spinners are

now paid also by piece-rate lists, and all other operatives are almost

universally so paid, except, as a rule, the hands in the blowing-room

and on the carding-machines. Spinning and weaving lists are most

complicated; allowances are made in them for most incidents beyond the

operatives' control, by which the amount of the wage might be

affected. Still, however, they could not cover all circumstances, and

much is left to the manner of their application and private

arrangement. They should be regarded as giving the basis, rather than

as actually settling, the wage in all cases. The history of lists

stretches back to the first quarter of the 19th century as regards

spinners, and to about the middle of the century generally as regards

weavers, though a weaving list agreed to by eleven masters was drawn

up as early as 1834. There are still many different district lists in

use, but the favourite spinning lists are those of Oldham and Bolton,

and the weaving list most generally employed is that known as the

"Uniform List," which is a compromise between the lists of Blackburn,

Preston and Burnley. Under the "Particulars Clause," first included in

a Factory Act in 1891 and given extended application in 1895, the

particulars required for the calculation of wages must be rendered by

the employer. As in spinning there used to be doubts about the

quantity of work done, the "indicator," which measures the length of

yarn spun, is coming into general use under pressure from the

operatives. We ought to observe here that the Oldham Spinning list

differs from all others in that its basis is an agreed normal

time-wage for different kinds of work on which piece-rates are

reckoned. But in effect understandings as to the level of normal

time-wages are the real basis everywhere. If the average wages in a

particular mill are lower than elsewhere for reasons not connected

with the quality of labour (e.g. because of antiquated machinery or

the low quality of the cotton used), the men demand "allowances" to

raise their wages to the normal level. Advances and reductions are

made on the lists, and under the Brooklands Agreement, entered into by

masters and men in the cotton spinning industry in 1893, advances and

reductions in future must not exceed 5% or succeed one another by a

shorter period than twelve months. The changes as a rule now are 5% or

2-1/2%. In all branches of the cotton industry it is usual for a

conference to take place between the interested parties before a

strike breaks out, on the demand of one or other for an advance or

reduction.

Trade Unions.

Organization among the workers in the cotton industry is remarkably

thorough. Almost all spinners are members of trade unions, and though

the weavers are not so strongly united, the bulk of them are

organized. The piecers are admitted as members of piecers'

associations, connected with the spinners' associations and controlled

by them. Attempts to form independent piecers' unions have failed.

Weavers' assistants are included in the weavers' unions, which may be

joined in different classes, the benefits connected with which vary

with the amounts paid. One subscription only, however, is imposed by

each branch spinners' association, but in all branches it is not the

same, though every branch pays the same per member to the

amalgamation. All the trade unions of the chief workers in the cotton

industry are federated in the four societies: (1) the Amalgamated

Association of Operative Cotton Spinners (created in 1853 and reformed

in 1870), (2) the Northern Counties Amalgamated Association of Weavers

(founded 1884), (3) the Amalgamated Association of Card and

Blowing-room Operatives (established 1886), and (4) the Amalgamated

Association of Power-loom Overlookers (founded 1884). These were not,

however, the first attempts at federation, and the term "federation"

must not be taken in any strict sense. The distribution of power

between the central authority and the local Societies varies, but in

some cases, for instance among the spinners, the local societies

approximate as closely to the status of mere branches, as to that of

independent units federated for limited objects. We ought also to

mention the societies of warp-dressers and warpers, tape-sizers and

cloth-workers and warehousemen. There is no one federation of all

cotton-workers, but the United Textile Factory Workers has been

periodically called into being to press the matter of factory

legislation, and international textile congresses are occasionally

held by the operatives of different countries.

As to employers, four extensive associations include almost all the

organization among them, two concerned chiefly with spinning and two

with weaving. The former two are the Federation of Master Cotton

Spinners' Associations with local associations and including

21,000,000 spindles, and the Bolton Master Cotton Spinners'

Association with 7,000,000 spindles; the latter two are the North and

North-East Lancashire Spinners' and Manufacturers' Association,

covering about 3,000,000 spindles in addition to a large section of

the looms of Lancashire, and the United Cotton Manufacturers'

Association.[43]

Factory Acts.

Factory legislation began in the cotton industry, and in no industry

is it now more developed. The first acts were those of 1802 and 1819,

both of which applied only to cotton-mills, and the former of which

related only to parish apprentices. The first really important measure

was that of 1833, which curtailed the abuse of child-labour, enforced

some education and provided for factory inspectors, of whom there were

at first only four. The next act of importance, that of 1844, was

chiefly remarkable for its inclusion of all women among young persons.

The proportion of women, young persons and children engaged in the

cotton industry is so high, that most regulations affecting them, e.g.

those relating to the hours of labour, must practically be extended to

all cotton operatives. This act killed night work for "young persons,"

and children were not allowed to work at night. The year 1847 saw the

introduction of what was known as the Ten Hours Act--after the 1st of

May 1848 the hours of young persons (women included) and children were

not to exceed ten a day and fifty-eight a week. A further limitation

of hours to 56-1/2 a week was secured in 1874, and this was cut down

by another hour (the concession of the 12 o'clock Saturday) in 1901.

"Young persons" now includes all who are not half-timers and have not

attained the age of eighteen, and all women. The rules as regards the

employment of children, which have steadily improved, are at present

as follows. No child under twelve may be employed. On attaining the

age of thirteen the child may become a full-timer if he has obtained

the prescribed educational certificate (i.e. fifth standard attainment

or three hundred attendances each year for five consecutive years).

Failing this he must wait till he is fourteen before he can be

employed full time. Half-timers may be employed either (a) on

alternate days, which must not be the same days in two successive

weeks, or (b) in morning and afternoon sets. In the case of

arrangement (a), the child when at work may be employed during the

same period as a young person or woman, which in Lancashire is almost

universally from 6 to 6 with two hours for meals.[44] In the case of

arrangement (b), which is the system generally adopted in Lancashire,

a half-timer in the morning set works from 6 to 12.30, with half an

hour for breakfast, and in the afternoon from 1.30 to 6 except on

Saturdays, when the hours are from 6 till 11.30 for a manufacturing

operative, or till 12 for other work, for instance, cleaning. The

child must not work two consecutive weeks in the same set (that is, in

mornings or afternoons), nor on two successive Saturdays, nor on

Saturday at all if during any other day of the same week the period of

employment has exceeded 5-1/2 hours (i.e. a child in the morning set

does not work on the Saturday). Other important features of factory

legislation relate to the fencing of dangerous machinery and its

cleaning when in motion (the regulations being strictest in the case

of children and most lax in the case of male adults), and conditions

of health, including the amount of steaming allowed, which was first

regulated by the Cotton Cloth Factories Act of 1889.

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 figures[46] 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.

+-----------------+--------------+----------+-------------+

| | In Millions. | in 1909. | |

+-----------------+--------------+----------+-------------+

| 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._

+--------+---------+---------+--------+----------+--------+

+--------+---------+---------+--------+----------+--------+

| 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 lb.

United Kingdom 295

Continent of Europe 143

United States 79

_Average Annual Consumption of Cotton in the Period 1900-1905._

Millions of lb.

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 lb., 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 lb. as compared with some 300,000,000 lb. 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:--

"In 1853 the average English production per weaver of 8-1/4 lb. shirting

was 825 yds. per week of sixty hours. In 1878 the working hours had

fallen to fifty-seven, and the production had risen to 975 yds. An

increased production of 23% is thus due to improvement in the

processes of manufacture. In 1865 there were 24,151 persons employed

in Massachusetts in the production of cotton goods, and they produced

175,000,000 yds. In 1875 the operatives numbered 60,176, and their

product was 874,000,000 yds. The operatives had increased 150% and

their products had increased 500%. The increase of production due to

improved methods was thus in England 23%, and in Massachusetts 100%. I

do not, of course, suppose that the American manufacturer is in

advance of his English rival to the extent of this difference, for I

presume that he started upon the career of improvement from a lower

platform. But a progress so greatly more rapid than ours will be

admitted to cast much light on the change which has occurred in our

relative positions."

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 lb. 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 7-1/2% _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 1903[50] 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 |

| lb. 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 |

| 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 7-1/4 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 lb. each._

+-----------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+

+-----------+----------+----------+---------+----------+---------+

| 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 persons[56], 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:

+------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

+------------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+

| 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.

Character of the American Industry.

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. 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. (aA[alpha])(bB[beta])(cC[gamma]).

IV. (a)(A)([alpha], b)(B)([beta], c)(C)([gamma]).

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.

_Other Parts of America._--Little need be said of the cotton industry

in other parts of the New World. In Canada in 1909 there were,

approximately, 855,000 Spindles, and in Mexico in 1906, where the

first factory was established in 1834, 450,000 Spindles. In Brazil

also there is an appreciable number of spindles, distributed (in 1895)

among 134 factories, which are located chiefly in Rio de Janeiro and

Minas Geraes, and are run for the most part by turbines and

water-wheels.

_Germany._--In Germany the cotton industry is by no means so intensely

localized as in England, but three large districts may be

distinguished:--

1. The north-west district, which consists of the Rhine Province and

Westphalia and contained 1-3/4 million spindles in 1901.

2. The country north of the mountain ranges of northern Bohemia

comprises the middle district, which contained 2-1/2 million spindles

in 1901. In Saxony the industry has been carried on for four

centuries.

3. Alsace, Baden, Wurttemberg and Bavarian Swabia make up the

south-west district, to which some 3-1/2 million spindles were

assigned. It is in close proximity to the cotton districts of east

France, Switzerland and Vorarlberg.

According to Oppel (1902) the German spinning industry is chiefly

localized in--

Prussia with 2020 thousand spindles

Saxony " 1870 " "

Alsace " 1600 " "

Bavaria " 1390 " "

The spindles of Wurttemberg, which stands next, do not much exceed

half a million. Only sixteen places in Germany (shown in tabular form

on p. 169) contained as many as 100,000 spindles in 1901.

+------------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+

+------------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+

| Mulhausen | 471 | Chemnitz | 195 |

| Augsburg | 373 | Gebweiler | 187 |

| Gronau | 274 | Leipzig | 182 |

| Werdau | 249 | Crimmitzschau | 168 |

| Rheydt | 248 | Logelbach | 141 |

| Munchen-Gladbach | 216 | Bocholt | 128 |

| Rheine | 198 | Bamberg | 125 |

| Hof | 196 | Bayreuth | 100 |

+------------------+-------------+---------------+-------------+

The history of the hand industry in Germany runs back some centuries.

At the time when it flourished in the Netherlands we may be sure that

it was prosecuted to some extent farther north and east. The start

with the machine industry was not long delayed after its economies

had been learnt in England. It was fostered by protection against the

cheap products of Lancashire, and in the course of time stimulated by

every step taken towards the economic unity of the German States which

broke down local barriers and therefore enlarged the German market.

Duties upon cotton goods, however, were not immoderately high until

the measure of 1879, the policy of which was carried to a further

stage in 1885. Slight reactions were brought about in 1888 and 1891,

largely by the complaints, not only of the consumers of finished

goods, but also of manufacturers whose costs of production were kept

up by the high prices of home-spun yarns and the tax on imported

substitutes. According to the investigations made by the Board of

Trade, the general ad valorem impact of German duties on British goods

stood somewhat as follows in 1902:--

_Statement showing the Average Incidence_ (ad valorem) _of the Import

Duties levied by Germany on British Cotton Goods._

+-------------------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+

| | in 1902. | | |

+-------------------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+

| " " bleached | 2.46d. " |1.09d. " | 44 |

| " " printed | 2.68d. " |1.31d. " | 49 |

| " " dyed, &c. | 3.46d. " |1.31d. " | 38 |

| Grey | 10.49d. " |0.98d. " | 9 |

| Bleached or dyed | 11.23d. " |1.63d. " | 15 |

+-------------------------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+

The duties are not prohibitive--they are much less than those of the

United States at the same time--but they are heavy on the classes of

goods which come into competition with home-made goods. The general

principle of the tariff is to treat easiest commodities which are made

with least success at home, or are in the highest degree raw material

for a home manufacture. Therefore yarns are not taxed very heavily,

and of these the finest counts escape with slight discouragement.

In the cotton industry, as well as in numerous other industries of

Germany, almost feverish activity was shown after the Franco-German

War. Previously great advance had been made, but it was not until the

last quarter of the 19th century that Germany forced herself into the

first rank. As measured by the annual consumption of cotton the German

industry increased as follows:--

_Metric Tons of Cotton per Annum._

(In Thousands.)

1836-1840 9

1856-1860 46

1876-1880 124

1886-1890 201

1899-1903 324

It must be remembered that the spindles and looms of Alsace and

Lorraine were reckoned as German after the war: they amounted in 1895

to one and a half million spindles and nearly forty thousand looms.

In the 'seventies there was no dispute as to England's substantial

lead in respect of efficiency. Alexander Redgrave, the chief factory

inspector, made inquiries on the continent both in 1873, when

Lancashire was anxious as to the comparative cost of production abroad

because of the short-time bill then before parliament, and previously,

and reported most unfavourably upon the state of the industry in

Germany. Hours were long, the skill of the hands was inferior, speeds

were low and time was wasted. In several important respects his views

were corroborated by M. Taine in his _Notes on England_, and by the

evidence adduced before the German commission upon the cotton and

linen industries in 1878. A marked contrast is noticeable between the

sketches drawn of this period and the careful picture presented by

Professor Schulze-Gaevernitz of the early "'nineties," but even in the

latter the advantage of England is represented as substantial in every

essential respect. The gap which existed has narrowed, but it is

still unmistakable. To give one example, according to Dr Huber's

figures there were in Saxony at the end of the 19th century 106

spindles to an operative and about as many weavers as looms, whereas

in England there were about twice as many spindles to an operative and

twice as many looms as persons engaged in weaving sheds.[61] As

regards manufacturing, the character of the product may partly explain

the difference, but it will not entirely. The reader need hardly be

warned that the comparison drawn is exceedingly rough. German cotton

operatives taken all round are certainly less efficient than English

labour of the same kind. The reason is partly that the proportion of

the German workpeople who have been for long specialized to the

industry, and look forward to continuing in it all their lives, is not

high. Complaint is constantly made of the number of vacancies created

in the mills each year by operatives leaving, and of the impossibility

of filling them with experienced hands. Many of the vacancies are

caused by the return of workpeople to the country parts. Sometimes the

mills are in the country, or within easy reach of it, and labour is

obtained from the unoccupied members of peasants' families. In these

cases the factories do not always succeed in attracting the most

capable people, and work in the factory is not infrequently looked

upon as a makeshift to supplement a family's earnings. Among

Lancashire operatives far more pride of occupation may be met with. In

many of the industrial parts of Germany English conditions are

evolving, but they are not generally the rule. An American consul may

be taken to report to his own country without prejudice as to the

rival merits of German and English conditions: one such wrote in

1901:--"The task of educating labour up to a high degree of efficiency

is difficult, and many generations are necessary to achieve that

result. The English cotton spinners have attained such a degree of

skill and intelligence that, for the most part, no supervision is

necessary. In Germany the presence of a technical overseer is

indispensable. Another advantage which England enjoys is the cheap

price of machinery. Germany imports the major part of her machinery

from England, and German wholesale dealers in these machines have not

been able, by placing large orders, to overcome the difference caused

by freight and tariff." Wages reflect the efficiencies of countries,

not of course perfectly, but in some degree. They are much higher in

Lancashire than in Germany, as is made evident by an article from the

pen of Professor Hasbach in _Schmollers Jahrbuch_ (vol. ii., 1903).

The author tries to show that Germany is not so far behind England

industrially as is generally believed, and the contrast drawn by him,

greatly to the advantage of Lancashire, is not likely to exaggerate

the superiority of English conditions. It is calculated by Professor

Hasbach that the daily wages of spinners are about 5/10 to 6/10 at

Oldham, 6/6 at Bolton and 5/6 in Stalybridge and neighbouring places.

With these he compares the 3.70 to 3.80 marks paid in the Rhine

Province and Leipzig, and the 3 to 3.15 marks paid in the Vogtland,

Bavaria and Alsace, and mentions an exceptionally high wage of 4-2/3

marks, which was earned by an operative who worked a new and long

doubling mule. The wage paid to the big piecer in England, Dr Hasbach

goes on to show, is not much greater than that received by a good

assistant in Germany. This comparison as it stands will probably give

some readers an idea that English advantages are greater than they

actually are, because it may be overlooked that the great difference

between wages in the case of English and German spinners is not

repeated among the piecers. Taking a spinner and his first assistant

as the unit, we should have a joint average daily wage of about 8/6 in

England and 6/6 in Germany. In the case of weavers, comparison of wages

is more difficult to draw, but the advantage of England would seem to

be but little less. However, in instituting a comparison between two

countries, as regards the relative efficiency of labour in some

industries, we should do well to remind ourselves that efficiency is a

somewhat transitory thing, dependent upon education and experience as

much as upon aptitude. In respect of the capacity of labour for the

task required in the cotton industry, we could not (writing in 1907)

make the statement that England leads significantly with the assurance

with which we can assert her superiority in respect of present

attainments. The cotton industry has not been prosecuted on a large

scale in Germany so long as in England, and the Germans have not,

therefore, had the same opportunity for developing their latent

powers. But the thoughtfulness and carefulness of the German workman

are beyond dispute, and these qualities will procure for him a leading

place where work is not mechanical. Already in the cotton industry it

is said that the operatives are displaying quite striking powers of

undertaking a wide range of work and changing easily from one pattern

to another. Hence German firms feel little hesitation in taking small

orders on special designs; they do not experience any great difficulty

in getting their factors accommodated to produce the required

articles.

Apart from the efficiency of labour, reasons exist for the lower real

cost of production in England in the organization of the industry. The

German industry is not only less localized, but, as we might perhaps

infer from that circumstance, less specialized. A German factory will

turn out scores of patterns where an English firm will confine itself

to a few specialities. Time is wasted in accommodating machinery to

changes and in accustoming the hands to new work. The German producer

suffers from the undeveloped state of the market. In England

specialized markets with specialized dealers have greatly assisted

producers both in their buying and selling. A German manufacturer may

have to find his customers as the English manufacturer need not; at

least, so Professor Schulze-Gaevernitz has assured us, and conditions

have not been wholly transformed since he made his careful analysis.

He wrote:--"But especially disadvantageous is the decentralization in

respect to the sale. Here also the German manufacturer stands under

the same disadvantages with which the English had to struggle in the

'thirties. The German manufacturer still seeks his customers through

travellers and agents, and in many instances through retail sellers,

whose financial standing is often questionable, whose necessity for

credit is always certain. Hence the complaints about the bad

conditions of payment in Germany which crop up continually in the

_enquete_. The manufacturers had to wait three, four or six months,

and even twelve months and longer for payment. In reality there

existed 'termless terms,' a 'complete anarchy in the method of

payment.' ... The manufacturer cannot be at the same time commission

agent, banker, merchant and retail dealer; he needs sound customers

capable of paying. He fares best if the sale is concentrated in one

market, and 'change' prices simplify the struggle between buyer and

seller. The search for customers, foreign as well as home, and the

bearing of all possible risks of disposal, are in any case difficult

enough to necessitate the whole strength of a man. The wholesale

merchant alone is in a position to pay the manufacturer in cash or on

sure, short terms. But especially where export is in question is the

dispersal of sales an extreme impediment. The manufacturer cannot

follow the fashions in Australia and South America; the foreign buyer

cannot travel from mill to mill."

It is the want of commercial development in Germany which accounts for

the more frequent combination of weaving and spinning there than in

England. But in Germany to-day economic enterprise is flourishing, and

commercial development may confidently be looked for together with

advance in other directions. It is not many years since the typical

German cotton factory was comparatively primitive; now mills can be

exhibited which might have been erected recently in Oldham. Between

the early 'eighties and the 'nineties the expansion of the German

industry was enormous--the imports of cotton-wool rose by nearly

70%--yet the number of spinning-mills was actually reduced from 6750

to 2450, while the number of weaving-sheds fell from 56,200 to 32,750.

At the same time the factories devoted to mixed goods declined from

25,200 to less than 16,350. From these figures we may gather how

rapidly the average size of mills and weaving-sheds enlarged in the

period. One cause, no doubt, was that improved economies in the new

businesses forced antiquated factories to shut down and make way for

still newer erections. There were recently about twice as many persons

engaged in weaving as in spinning, but the largest numbers of

all--slightly in excess of those in weaving-sheds--were the persons

occupied in the manufacture of cotton-lace, trimmings, &c. As we might

imagine, Germany's exports of cotton goods are not high. Including

yarns they amounted to L13.7 million per annum in 1899-1903. In order

of value their largest exports are (1) coloured goods, (2) hosiery,

(3) lace and embroidery, (4) yarns, and (5) trimmings, &c.

_France._--Into the industrial conditions of the two leading rivals of

England we have entered in some detail; the state of affairs in the

rest of the world must be dealt with more briefly. Of France more

ought to be said than we can find place for, though in respect of the

magnitude of her cotton industry, as measured by the quantity of

spindles, she stands now not fourth, but fifth, Russia taking

precedence. But the work of the French is incomparably superior to

anything that is turned out from Russia. France suffered a severe blow

when the industry of Alsace and Lorraine was lost to Germany, but the

inexhaustible originality of French _design_ will always secure for

her goods a place in the first rank. As regards _artistic_ results

France leads, but the real cost of her spinning and weaving cannot

approach in lowness that of Lancashire. After costly strikes the

French workmen have succeeded in shortening their hours to ten and a

half a day; and here it may be remarked that the International

Association of Textile Operatives tends to equate continental

industrial conditions to those of England. The French industry has

been fostered by tariffs. When the Board of Trade calculation was

made, French tariffs were found to bear upon British cotton goods with

about the same severity as those of Germany, except that the former

treated more hardly yarns and cotton thread for sewing. French

protectionism has kept down her exports; such as they are the majority

proceed now to her colonies. Normandy, the north and east, in order,

are the chief seats of the industry. In Normandy the leading city is

Rouen, and Darnetal, Maromme, Sotteville, Havre, Yvetot, Dieppe,

Evreux, Gisors, Falaise and Flers are important places. The north

contains the important towns of Lille, Tourcoing, Roubaix, St

Quentin, Amiens and Hellemmes. The Vosges is the chief district of the

east, and the leading towns are Epinal, St Die, Remiremont, Senones,

Val d'Ajol, Cornimont and La Bresse. The following towns which are not

included in any of the districts mentioned above are also

noteworthy:--Troyes, Nantes, Cholet, Laval, Tarare, Roanne, Thizy and

Villefranche upon the Saone. Cotton arrives at Havre and Marseilles;

at the latter chiefly the product of Egypt and the East. Havre used to

be the most important cotton port in continental Europe, but to-day

more spindles are fed from Bremen than from Havre. France's

consumption of cotton annually in the period 1899-1903 was 215,000

metric tons.

_Russia._--Power-spinning was carried into Russia by Ludwig Knoop, who

had learnt the trade in Manchester, and to his efforts its early

success was due. The growth, largely the result of very heavy

protectionism--according to the Board of Trade report, from 50 to more

than 100% more severe than that of Germany,--has been rapid, as the

following table bears witness:--

_Average yearly Importation of Cotton wool and Yarn into Russia._

+-----------+----------------+----------------+

| | Raw Cotton in | Cotton Yarn in |

| | thousand tons. | thousand tons. |

+-----------+----------------+----------------+

| 1824-1826 | .9 | 5.4 |

| 1836-1838 | 4.6 | 10.1 |

| 1842-1844 | 8.4 | 9.5 |

| 1848-1850 | 21.4 | 4.5 |

| 1889-1891 | 117.4 | 3.4 |

| 1899-1903 | 180.0 | 2.9 |

+-----------+----------------+----------------+

_Table showing approximately the Growth of Spindles and Looms in

Russia._

+---------+---------------+----------------+

| | Spindles. | Looms. |

+---------+---------------+----------------+

| 1857 | 1,000,000 | |

| 1877 | | 55,000 |

| 1887 | 4,000,000 | 85,000 |

| 1900 | 6,000,000 | 146,000 |

| 1909 | 7,800,000 | |

+---------+---------------+----------------+

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Cosway, Richard" to "Coucy, Le Châtelain de" Volume 7, Slice 5 · 第 13 / 18 题

+------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+----------+