The American Cyclopædia (1879)/Cotton Manufacture
COTTON MANUFACTURE. The old method of spinning cotton into thread was to attach a bunch of the carded fibre to the end of a forked stick called a distaff, which was held under the left arm; with the right forefinger and thumb the cotton was drawn out and twisted, the size and quality of the yarn being regulated only by the delicacy of the touch as this was passed through the fingers. The thread was wound upon a stick called a spindle, as often as sufficient length was twisted for this to reach the ground. Such was the practice of the "spinsters" of old England up to the time of Henry VIII., when the spinning wheel was introduced which had long been in use in India. In this the spindle was made itself to give the twist as it also wound up the thread, being made to revolve rapidly as with the right hand a large wheel was sent round, which carried the spindle by a cord or belt with greatly increased velocity. To a projecting hook at the end of this the thread was attached, and passed thence to the bunch of cotton held upon the distaff in the left hand of the operative. The irregularity of the cotton threads made by the old method limited their use to the woof only of fabrics, the warp being made of linen threads; but even then it was difficult for the weavers to procure the supplies they required of the families in their vicinity who spun for them. The demand for yarns in the English cotton-spinning districts stimulated a workman named James Hargreaves to the invention, in 1767, of the spinning jenny, in which eight spindles at first were set in a frame and made to spin as many threads at one operation; the ends passing from the spindles through a fluted wooden clasp, which was held in the left hand, and could be made to close upon the threads and hold them fast, as it was moved to and from the spindles. The name of the machine is said to be from gin, a contraction of engine. The number of spindles was afterward increased to 80. Hargreaves, driven from his home by the other spinners, built a small mill at Nottingham to spin yarns by his machines. Richard Arkwright came soon after to the same place with a new invention of spinning by rollers, the effect of which was to draw out the slivers or rolls, as they came from the carding machines, and by the slight pull elongate and straighten the fibres left crooked or doubled in the carding. By bringing together to the rollers from the cards eight of the fleeces or card ends, and passing these through together and causing them to unite into one sliver, elongating this at the same time to eight times the original length, a fleecy ribbon is obtained of great uniformity, which quality is still further increased by uniting four of these into one, and repeating the process by drawing them out to four times the original length. This improvement, and the others introduced by Arkwright in the carding machines, enabled him to produce an even and firm thread, suitable as well for the warp as the woof. With others he built the first mill in which the machinery was run by a water wheel. The machinery was hence known as the water frame, and the yarn as water twist. For the finest threads the doubling of the fibres was many times repeated. To strengthen the loose open cord before spinning, Arkwright caused the cylindrical can into which the sliver coiled itself to revolve upon a pivot during this process; and thus the sliver was changed into an incipient thread called roving, which was either wound upon a bobbin as it was received in the can, or was afterward wound off as a separate process. By the ingenuity of these two inventors an immense impulse was given to the fabrication of cotton cloth in England, and factories were rapidly established throughout the country. In 1782 Arkwright had about 5,000 persons employed in his mills, and by the sale of his patents was rapidly acquiring a great fortune. In 1779 the invention of a machine was completed by Samuel Crompton of Bolton, which combined the jenny of Hargreaves with the roller spinning of Arkwright, and was called the mule, or mule jenny. The spindles in this were attached to a carriage or mule, which was run out on wheels about five feet, drawing out and stretching the roving as it was twisted at the same time into thread. As the mule was run back the spun threads were wound on the spindles, the processes of spinning and winding thus alternating. The original machines were designed for only 20 or 30 spindles; but as afterward enlarged they carried 2,200 spindles each, all of which were kept in operation by one attendant. This statement alone exhibits the enormous advance made upon the best method in use previous to these inventions, when a spinner with his wheel managed but one spindle. Single mills contain as many as 15,000 spindles, and from 300 to 400 looms for weaving. The demand for cotton produced by this increased capacity of working it off could never have been met except by the invention of a machine like Whitney's cotton gin, for cleaning the raw article with expedition, and thus preparing it for market. The inventions of the English gave them the monopoly of the manufacture, and were guarded with most scrupulous care, lest they should reach other countries.—The first machines for carding, roving, and spinning made in the United States were the work of two mechanics from Scotland, Alexander and Robert Barr, employed by Mr. Orr of East Bridgewater, Mass. The state made a grant in 1786 of £200 lawful money for the encouragement of the enterprise. The Beverly company in the same state commenced operations in 1787, and after expending £4,000 obtained in 1790 a grant of £1,000 from the legislature, by the aid of which they succeeded in introducing the manufacture of cotton goods, but with very imperfect machinery. In 1788 a company was formed in Providence, R. I., for making “home-spun cloth;” and they constructed their machinery from the best drawings to be obtained of the English models and plans, which were afforded them by Mr. Orr and the Beverly company. The carding and roving with these machines was effected in a very imperfect and slow manner by hand labor; the spinning frame with 32 spindles differed little from a common jenny, and was worked at first by a crank turned by hand. The machinery was sold to Moses Brown of Providence, who, together with Mr. Almy, had several hand jennies employed in private houses in Providence making yarns for the weft of mixed linen and cotton goods. Such operations could accomplish little in competition with the Arkwright machinery; and all attempts to procure plans of this failed. In November, 1789, there arrived in New York Samuel Slater, a young man just 21 years of age, who had spent about seven years in the cotton mills in Derbyshire, England, in various capacities up to that of general superintendent. He had qualified himself for the express purpose of removing to this country, and establishing the cotton manufacture by Arkwright's processes, even without the use of plans, which could not be passed through the custom house in England. To him the country is indebted for the introduction of the means of successfully conducting this manufacture. He repaired to Providence in January of the next year, and immediately formed an engagement with Messrs. Almy and Brown to construct the improved machinery. In December, 1790, the first Arkwright machinery was set in operation, consisting of three cards, drawing and roving, and a frame of 72 spindles, worked by the water wheel of an old fulling mill. By this machinery a large stock of yarns was accumulated in less than two years, besides what could be woven and disposed of. In 14 months from the time they began to work Mr. Brown advised the secretary of the treasury that machinery and mills could now be erected in one year of capacity to supply the whole country with yarn, and render further importation unnecessary. A new mill of small size was built in 1793 by Almy, Brown, and Slater, at Pawtucket, which commenced with 72 spindles, and was afterward considerably enlarged. Mr. Slater must have failed for want of experienced workmen in constructing his machinery, particularly the cards, if he had not himself been thoroughly competent to do all the varieties of the work. From this beginning other mills were added in Pawtucket by the same parties and others also, with whom Slater associated himself; and the hands employed carried the processes to Cumberland, R. I., where another factory was built in 1798. In 1806 Slater was joined by his brother, John Slater, from England; and soon after the village of Slatersville, R. I., was projected, a place which has since continued to prosper like many others in New England established at later periods for the purpose of prosecuting the same branch of industry. By a report made to congress in 1816, it appears that the business had increased from the consumption of 500 bales of 300 lbs. each in 1800, to 10,000 in 1810, and 90,000 in 1815; that 81,000,000 yards of cotton cloth, costing $24,000,000, were then manufactured, about 100,000 operatives, men, women, and children, were employed, and an aggregate capital of $40,000,000 was invested in the business. The importations of foreign cottons in 1815 and 1816, amounting, notwithstanding this home production, to the value of about $180,000,000, greatly checked the progress of the American manufacture; but this was subsequently encouraged by the tariff acts of 1824, 1828, and 1832, which imposed an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent. upon imported cotton goods. Up to the year 1813 the mills that had been put in operation were designed only for spinning; and the twist was sold to the weavers, who made use of hand looms to convert it into cloth. In England also, though the power loom, the remarkable invention of a clergyman unskilled in mechanics, was in use, its employment was in establishments distinct from those in which the cotton was spun into yarn. The construction of this loom was unknown in the United States, and it was impossible to obtain any plan of it. In 1812 Francis C. Lowell of Boston, lately returned from England and Scotland, determined to introduce the weaving of the cloth in this country, and in conjunction with his brother-in-law, Patrick T. Jackson, set about the invention of a power loom. After numerous attempts, they succeeded in producing in the autumn of 1812 a satisfactory model; and procuring the services of a skilful mechanic, Paul Moody, afterward well known as the head of the machine shop at Lowell, they decided upon building a mill to work it. Finding it would be more profitable to combine the operation of spinning with the weaving, they built at Waltham, Mass., in 1813, a factory for about 1,700 spindles, and furnished it with looms also for weaving. This factory was probably the first in the world that combined all the processes necessary for converting the raw cotton into finished cloth. The first cotton mill in Lowell was erected in 1822.—The operations of preparing cotton for the loom are too numerous and complicated to admit of more than a very general description. As the bags or bales are opened at the mills, the first process is to mix thoroughly the cotton of the same staple and general qualities, that the result may be of perfectly uniform character. This is sometimes done in the following manner: The contents of a bale are spread uniformly over a space upon the floor prepared for it, and upon the layer thus made another bale is emptied and spread, and upon this another, and so on, the whole being continually trodden down by men and boys. The pile thus made is called a bing, and as the cotton is required for the mill it is raked down from the top to the bottom on one side of the pile, thus securing a mixture of the contents of all the bales. The mixing should be made with reference to the kind of yarn required, whether for warp or weft, coarse or fine, &c., and the sorting of the cotton for this purpose requires experience and good judgment. Some cottons, particularly those of long and short fibres, cannot be made to draw, rove, or spin well together. The cotton taken from the bing is too impure for spinning until it has been passed through several processes, by which the dirt is winnowed out and the matted lumps are opened and the fibres loosened and cleaned. Different methods are employed to effect this result, according to the quality of the fibre. The finest, which are intended for the most delicate yarns and laces, are beaten by hand with twigs upon a frame; the surface of the frame is a sort of network through which the dust and impurities fall. The cotton, thus beaten or batted, is called batting. Other qualities are passed through a hollow conical machine called a willow, or machines with other names that answer the same purpose, in which the cotton is pulled about and shaken by the action of spikes upon a revolving axis, the dust and impurities as they separate falling through a grating, and being blown through a shoot by a strong current of air created by a fan blower. The cotton at the same time is passed through another shoot to be subjected to the succeeding operations of further cleaning, or to be delivered to the carding machine. The further cleaning, called scutching, is similar in principle to the willowing, the operation being more thoroughly accomplished by beating with blunt knives upon an axis revolving with great rapidity. The cotton is regularly fed to the machine by being spread in equal quantities upon the feeding apron, which carries it on in a broad layer till it is taken up by a pair of rollers, and thus presented to the beating knives; in a second part of the machine the same operation is repeated, and as the cotton passes out it is received by the spreading or lapping machine, in which it is flattened into a filmy sheet of uniform thickness and then wound upon a roller. As one roller is filled it is taken away to the carding machine, and an empty one is set in its place. This process is conducted with such perfect regularity, that the weight of the cotton fed to the machine determines the fineness of the thread afterward produced. The carding process has already been referred to as perfected by Arkwright. It is one of the most ingenious of the operations of this manufacture. The improved machines consist of a large drum covered with cards of wire teeth revolving in a box, which is lined with cards of teeth that come nearly in contact with those upon the drum; or four small cylinders covered with cards are placed within the same box, and made to revolve in an opposite direction to the large cylinder and at a different velocity. Stationary cards are also fixed to a part of the upper lining of the box. The machine is fed by a pair of rollers, which unwind the sheet of cotton from the roller of the spreading machine, and pass it into the cards. These lay out the fibres in one direction, and leave behind upon the stationary cards lumps and imperfections that have escaped the other cleaning operations. As the fibres are carried over on the large cylinder, they are gathered and taken in a fine fleece by the teeth of another cylinder called a doffer, which revolves slowly in a contrary direction. When this has made half a revolution the cotton is stripped from it by a rapidly vibrating toothed knife or comb, that extends the whole length of the doffer. It removes the cotton in a fleecy ribbon, and this, called a card-end or sliver, is drawn through a small funnel which consolidates it, and then between rollers which compress and elongate it, and finally deliver it into a tin cylinder. Cards are of various degrees of fineness according to the quality of yarn required; and for fine spinning two machines are used, the one coarse, called a breaker, succeeded by another called a finishing card. But the finest work of this kind accomplished by machinery is done by the combing machine of Heilman, patented in France. With this the short fibres and all impurities are separated from the long-stapled cotton, and the most perfect wool is prepared suitable for the manufacture of the finest muslins and laces. The principle of drawing out the sliver and repeatedly doubling this to produce a uniform roving has already been explained. Various machines have been introduced for twisting this roving and winding it upon bobbins. The fly frame, which came into use in 1817, is one of the most ingenious and efficient, and has taken the place of the old roving machine of Arkwright. In this frame spindles are set vertically in one or two rows at equal distances apart, each passing through a bobbin which is loosely attached to it, and has a play equal to its length up and down the spindle. At the top of the spindle is suspended a fly with two dependent legs, one of which is solid, and merely a counterpoise to the other, which is hollow, and admits through it the roving, which enters the fly by an eye in the centre, immediately above the top of the spindle. As the spindle revolves it carries the fly with it, thus twisting and winding the roving at the same time around the bobbin. The supply by the rollers is exactly proportioned to the speed of the spindles, which is uniform, and thus the twist is even in equal lengths; but as the fly winds the roving around the bobbin, and this consequently increases in circumference, the loosely twisted yarn would be more and more strained in the winding, were it not for ingenious contrivances which give a varying revolution to the bobbin exactly adapted to the circumference it has attained. It has moreover an alternating motion up and down the spindle, by which the roving is wound upon it in perfectly even layers. This machine, in the perfect adaptation of its parts to each other, and the mathematical accuracy of its operations, furnishes a most instructive study in this department of mechanics. The rovings are next to be spun into yarn, and this is accomplished either by the mule jenny, already partially described, or by the throstle machine. This is similar to the bobbin and fly frame in principle. As the roving is unwound from the bobbins, it is again elongated by passing between three pairs of rollers which revolve at different velocities, and it then passes through an eye in the foot of another flyer, which carries it around another bobbin as it also twists it. This bobbin has no motion adjusted to that of the spindle, but revolves with some friction upon the spindle, being drawn round by the thread, as the pull becomes sufficient to overcome the friction. The revolutions of the spindle in some machines are 5,000 in a minute, and its production in a week is then estimated about 27 hanks of No. 32. In consequence of the uncertain strain in winding up on the bobbin, the yarns are more likely to break than when they are spun by the mule, and this machine has consequently proved best adapted for the finer qualities of yarn. On account of the extra attention it required, and the time lost in the interruption to the spinning, as the carriage was run back and the yarns spun in the drawing out were wound upon the cops, the throstle frame was regarded as the most economical for spinning the coarse qualities as low as No. 32; but the improved self-acting mule has proved so much more economical to attend that it is now advantageously employed for spinning even the coarser yarns. As long ago as 1792 yarns were spun with the mule in Manchester, of the fineness of 278 hanks to the pound of 840 yards each. It was sold to the muslin manufacturers of Glasgow at 20 guineas the pound. These hanks are prepared by the next process, called reeling. The cops from the mule, or the bobbins from the throstle frame, are set in a frame so that they can be wound off upon a large six-sided reel, extending along the top of the same frame. With a reel of the circumference of 1½ yard, 560 revolutions give the length of a hank. Many of these are wound along the length of the reel at the same time. When taken off they are weighed separately, and the weight of each designates the fineness of the yarn. The number expresses the number of hanks required to weigh a pound. The coarsest yarns weigh about half a pound to the hank; but the common qualities for coarse spinning run from 10 to 40 to the pound. The finest spinning seldom exceeds 300 hanks to the pound. No yarn finer than No. 350 was made in England previous to 1840. It has since been made as fine as No. 2,150, but even No. 600 is too delicate to be handled or to serve any useful purpose. The finer yarns are singed by being run through a gas flame; they are then passed over a brush, and run through a hole in a piece of brass just large enough to admit the yarn. Any knot or bulge stops the yarn, and the defect is immediately remedied. The hanks are made up into cubical bundles of 5 or 10 lbs., and pressed and tied, when they are ready for the loom or for being twisted into thread, properly so called. Of this there are several kinds, as sewing thread, lace thread, stocking thread, &c. They are all produced by doubling and twisting together two yarns or more, and by machines very similar to the throstle frame; the yarns as they are twisted are passed through water or a weak solution of starch, which gives more firmness and strength to the thread. For further data connected with this manufacture, see the articles Calico, Calendering, and Loom.—Cotton is distinguished from linen by the peculiar structure of its fibre when seen under a powerful microscope, the form being flattened, crooked, and shrivelled, while that of the linen fibre is round and straight with occasional cross knots or joints. Linen yarn also becomes yellow in a strong and hot solution in water of caustic potash, while cotton remains white, or is colored very slightly yellow. The two fibres may also be distinguished by the different effects produced upon them by concentrated sulphuric acid. The stuff to be tested must first be thoroughly cleaned by boiling and repeated washing in pure water. When well dried it is dipped in the acid and left from half a minute to two minutes. The cotton threads become immediately transparent, the linen remaining white. It is then taken out and put into water to wash out the gummy matter produced by the cotton. On being dried, if the experiment has been well conducted, the yarns of cotton will have disappeared; but if the immersion in acid has been too long, the linen also becomes transparent and eaten by the acid. Another method by which cotton is detected in unbleached linen is to place the stuff, after it is well washed in boiling water and dried, in a mixture of two parts of dried nitrate of potash and three parts of sulphuric acid, and leave it for eight or ten minutes. It is then washed and dried and treated with ether, to which a little alcohol is added. If cotton was present in the stuff, the ethereal liquid is thickened by the production of collodion. This may be separated, leaving the residue pure linen. When the fibre of cotton is thoroughly consumed, the remaining ash is found to be about 1 per cent. of the original weight.—The number of cotton factories in the United States in 1810 was reported to be 241, and the number of spindles estimated at 96,400, an average of 400 for each mill. According to a report of a committee of congress in 1815, $40,000,000 was then invested in cotton manufactures, and 100,000 persons were employed; 27,000,000 lbs. of cotton were consumed, producing 81,000,000 yards of cloth, valued at $24,300,000. In Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut were 165 mills, with 119,310 spindles; and it has been estimated that the total number of spindles at that time was 350,000. Power looms soon afterward coming into general use, as already stated, the number of spindles increased to 1,500,000 in 1830, and 1,750,000 in 1835. Complete and trustworthy statistics of cotton manufactures seem to have been first reported by the census of 1840. There were then in the United States 1,240 mills, with 2,284,631 spindles, and 129 dyeing and printing establishments. These establishments employed 72,119 hands, and produced goods valued at $46,350,430. The amount of capital invested was $51,102,359. The leading cotton manufacturing states were Massachusetts, having 278 mills with 665,095 spindles; Rhode Island, 209 mills with 518,817 spindles; New York, 117 mills with 211,659 spindles; and Connecticut, 116 mills with 181,319 spindles. There were no cotton mills in Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, or the District of Columbia. The following totals for the United States, from the federal census, will afford a comparison of this most important industry with its condition prior to the civil war:
| MILLS, &c. | 1870. | 1860. | 1850. |
| Establishments | 956 | 1,091 | 1,094 |
| Looms | 157,810 | 126,313 | .......... |
| Spindles | 7,132,415 | 5,235,727 | .......... |
| Hands | 135,369 | 122,028 | 92,286 |
| Capital | $140,706,291 | $98,585,260 | $74,500,931 |
| Wages | $39,044,132 | $23,938,236 | .......... |
| Raw cotton, lbs. | 398,302,257 | 422,704,975 | 288,558,000 |
| All materials | $111,736,936 | $57,285,534 | $34,835,056 |
| All products | $177,489,739 | $115,68l,774 | $65,501,687 |
A comparison of the figures of 1870 with those of 1860 presents several notable circumstances, chief among which is a falling off in the number of establishments in 1870 of about 12⅜ per cent. This may be attributed to the natural tendency of industries of this nature to concentrate in great establishments; and also to the fact that at the beginning of the war many cotton factories were transformed into woollen mills. This view is strengthened by the fact that the number of looms was 24½ per cent., and the number of spindles more than 28 per cent., greater in 1870 than in 1860. The increase in the amount of capital employed was about 30 per cent., which has been attributed to the increased value of land, buildings, and machinery, while the increase in the wages paid amounted to nearly 43 per cent. There was a decrease in the quantity of raw cotton consumed amounting to 24,402,718 lbs., or nearly 6 per cent., while there was an increase in the value amounting for all materials to $54,451,402, or more than 94 per cent. The increase in the total cost of labor and raw materials amounted to $69,557,296, or about 85 per cent. The value of the goods produced in 1870 was $61,807,965, or 53 per cent. greater than in 1860. Direct comparison cannot be made between the quantities produced in 1870 and 1860, owing to the paucity of the details in the returns of the latter year; but the following statement shows that in 1870 a greater quantity of goods was produced from a smaller amount of raw material, which is explained by the average lighter weight of the fabrics:
| 1870. | 1860. | |
| Products, stated in lbs. | 67,005,978 | 60,209,559 |
| Products,“ stated in yards | 1,146,607,262 | 1,148,252,406 |
| Products,“ stated in pieces | 3,262,952 | .......... |
| Products,“ stated in dozens | 11,560,241 | .......... |
In 1870, 13,341 more hands were employed to manufacture into goods 24,400,000 lbs. less cotton than in 1860. The average annual wages was $288 per capita in 1870, and $196 in 1860, showing an increase of $92 per head per annum, or 47 per cent. In 1870 the value of the product per head of operatives was $1,341, and in 1860 $948, showing an increase in value of the per capita production of $363, or 38½ per cent. With this gain of 38 per cent. in the value of the product of each hand, the average hand gets 47 per cent. more wages. The condition of the cotton manufacturing interest in the United States in 1870 is shown by the following table from the census report, which is regarded by leading authorities as very accurate:
| STATES. AND TERRITORIES. |
Establishments. | Steam engines, horse power. |
Water wheels, horse power. |
MACHINES. | Hands employed. |
Males above 16. |
Females above 15. |
Youth. | Capital. | Wages. | ||
| Looms. | Frame spindles. |
Mule spindles. | ||||||||||
| The U. States | 956 | 47,117 | 99,191 | 157,310 | 3,694,477 | 3,437,938 | 135,369 | 42,790 | 69,637 | 22,942 | $140,706,291 | $39,044,132 |
| Alabama | 13 | 175 | 824 | 632 | 19,802 | 8,244 | 1,032 | 303 | 445 | 284 | 931,000 | 216,679 |
| Arkansas | 2 | 15 | 10 | ........ | 125 | 1,000 | 17 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 13,000 | 4,100 |
| Connecticut | 111 | 860 | 10,840 | 11,943 | 294,760 | 302,382 | 12,086 | 4,443 | 4,734 | 2,909 | 12,710,700 | 3,246,783 |
| Delaware | 6 | 500 | 370 | 771 | 18,634 | 10,900 | 726 | 225 | 286 | 215 | 1,165,000 | 190,069 |
| Georgia | 34 | 290 | 2,920 | 1,887 | 74,148 | 11,454 | 2,846 | 1,147 | 1,080 | 619 | 3,433,265 | 611,866 |
| Illinois | 5 | 47 | 90 | 16 | 1,856 | ........ | 98 | 26 | 31 | 41 | 151,000 | 25,500 |
| Indiana | 4 | 1,081 | 80 | 448 | 17,360 | ........ | 504 | 119 | 179 | 206 | 551,500 | 113,200 |
| Iowa | 1 | 6 | ...... | ........ | ........ | ........ | 6 | 3 | 3 | ........ | 1,500 | 275 |
| Kentucky | 5 | 330 | 60 | 72 | 7,060 | 674 | 269 | 77 | 71 | 121 | 405,000 | 57,951 |
| Louisiana | 4 | 255 | ...... | 292 | 10,200 | 2,884 | 246 | 123 | 57 | 66 | 592,000 | 60,600 |
| Maine | 23 | 320 | 8,018 | 9,902 | 259,594 | 200,178 | 9,439 | 2,606 | 6,246 | 587 | 9,839,685 | 2,565,197 |
| Maryland | 22 | 1,510 | 1,991 | 1,947 | 82,212 | 6,900 | 2,860 | 688 | 1,452 | 720 | 2,734,250 | 671,983 |
| Massachusetts | 191 | 17,217 | 32,310 | 55,343 | 1,255,552 | 1,363,989 | 43,512 | 13,694 | 24,065 | 5,758 | 44,714,375 | 13,589,305 |
| Mississippi | 5 | 270 | 96 | 152 | 2,526 | 1,000 | 265 | 78 | 88 | 99 | 751,500 | 61,833 |
| Missouri | 3 | 375 | ...... | 415 | 16,015 | 700 | 361 | 107 | 154 | 100 | 489,200 | 120,300 |
| New Hampshire | 36 | 915 | 17,777 | 19,091 | 447,795 | 302,048 | 12,542 | 3,752 | 7,490 | 1,300 | 13,332,710 | 3,989,853 |
| New Jersey | 27 | 1,799 | 1,260 | 2,176 | 107,542 | 93,038 | 3,514 | 1,086 | 1,745 | 683 | 2,762,000 | 1,009,351 |
| New York | 81 | 4,898 | 5,202 | 17,218 | 131,380 | 361,193 | 9,144 | 2,608 | 4,546 | 1,990 | 8,511,836 | 2,626,131 |
| North Carolina | 33 | 120 | 1,533 | 618 | 37,957 | 1,940 | 1,453 | 258 | 916 | 279 | 1,030,900 | 182,951 |
| Ohio | 7 | 305 | 81 | 208 | 14,320 | 8,920 | 462 | 216 | 147 | 99 | 555,700 | 113,520 |
| Pennsylvania | 138 | 7,440 | 1,983 | 12,862 | 232,528 | 201,718 | 12,730 | 3,859 | 6,097 | 2,774 | 12,550,720 | 3,496,986 |
| Rhode Island | 139 | 7,391 | 10,726 | 18,075 | 503,797 | 539,445 | 16,745 | 5,583 | 8,028 | 3,134 | 18,834,300 | 5,224,650 |
| South Carolina | 12 | ...... | 955 | 745 | 34,683 | 257 | 1,123 | 289 | 508 | 326 | 1,337,000 | 257,680 |
| Tennessee | 28 | 470 | 676 | 313 | 22,485 | 5,438 | 890 | 252 | 463 | 175 | 970,650 | 178,156 |
| Texas | 4 | 268 | ...... | 235 | 8,478 | 400 | 291 | 184 | 52 | 55 | 496,000 | 68,211 |
| Utah | 3 | ...... | 39 | 11 | 1,020 | ........ | 16 | 10 | 2 | 4 | 42,000 | 6,300 |
| Vermont | 8 | 50 | 600 | 628 | 16,582 | 12,236 | 451 | 125 | 242 | 84 | 670,000 | 125,000 |
| Virginia | 11 | 210 | 750 | 1,310 | 76,116 | 1,000 | 1,741 | 921 | 507 | 313 | 1,128,000 | 229,750 |
The amount of cotton used, the value of all materials, and the amount of the most important products, together with the value of all products, were as follows:
| STATES AND TERRITORIES. |
MATERIALS. | PRODUCTS. | All products. |
Value of all products. | ||||||
| Cotton used. |
Value of all materials. |
Sheetings, shirtings, and twilled goods. |
Lawns and fine muslins. |
Print cloth. |
Yarn not woven. |
Warps. | Ginghams and checks. | |||
| Pounds. | Dollars. | Yards. | Yards. | Yards. | Pounds. | Yards. | Yards. | Pounds. | Dollars. | |
| The U. States | 398,308,257 | 111,786,936 | 478,204,513 | 34,533,462 | 489,250,053 | 30,301,087 | 73,018,045 | 39,275,244 | 349,314,592 | 177,489,739 |
| Alabama | 3,249,523 | 764,965 | 4,518,403 | .......... | .......... | 548,750 | .......... | 1,039,321 | 2,843,000 | 1,088,767 |
| Arkansas | 66,400 | 13,780 | .......... | .......... | .......... | .......... | .......... | ......... | 53,125 | 22,562 |
| Connecticut | 31,747,309 | 8,818,651 | 52,655,693 | 8,338,677 | 34,279,875 | 1,281,780 | 11,367,664 | 1,671,309 | 27,296,710 | 14,026,334 |
| Delaware | 2,587,615 | 704,733 | 2,396,000 | .......... | .......... | 1,475,600 | .......... | 306,600 | 2,437,649 | 1,060,898 |
| Georgia | 10,921,176 | 2,504,758 | 13,739,847 | .......... | .......... | 4,097,167 | .......... | 1,653,434 | 9,596,800 | 3,648,973 |
| Illinois | 857,000 | 177,525 | .......... | .......... | .......... | .......... | 1,305,000 | ......... | 739,000 | 279,000 |
| Indiana | 2,070,318 | 542,875 | 3,831,059 | .......... | .......... | 74,880 | 3,600,000 | ......... | 1,779,481 | 778,047 |
| Iowa | 20,000 | 4,950 | .......... | .......... | .......... | .......... | .......... | ......... | 18,000 | 7,000 |
| Kentucky | 1,584,625 | 375,048 | .......... | .......... | .......... | 637,000 | 530,000 | ......... | 1,389,000 | 498,960 |
| Louisiana | 748,525 | 161,485 | 438,800 | .......... | .......... | 112,000 | .......... | 926,000 | 629,025 | 251,550 |
| Maine | 25,887,771 | 6,746,780 | 65,614,092 | .......... | .......... | 490,450 | 78,000 | ......... | 23,627,155 | 11,844,181 |
| Maryland | 12,693,647 | 3,409,426 | 18,839,625 | 2,358,454 | .......... | 1,247 | 90,550 | 564,246 | 10,496,677 | 4,852,808 |
| Massachusetts | 130,654,040 | 37,371,599 | 22,123,147 | 12,434,858 | 229,613,105 | 2,108,952 | 33,712,996 | 13,690,000 | 113,803,458 | 59,493,153 |
| Mississippi | 580,764 | 123,568 | 407,788 | .......... | 1,712 | 275,461 | .......... | 206,202 | 529,573 | 234,445 |
| Missouri | 2,196,600 | 481,745 | 2,150,000 | .......... | .......... | 1,044,000 | 14,000 | ......... | 1,949,900 | 798,050 |
| New Hampshire | 41,469,719 | 12,318,867 | 89,326,701 | 75,000 | 40,843,969 | 132,200 | .......... | 1,845,199 | 35,003,432 | 16,999,672 |
| New Jersey | 7,920,035 | 1,964,758 | 4,174,000 | 2,442,000 | 11,000,000 | 1,729,075 | 3,120,950 | 880,000 | 6,728,748 | 4,015,768 |
| New York | 24,783,351 | 6,990,626 | 25,382,532 | 1,327,336 | 82,335,833 | 250,076 | 5,097,000 | ......... | 22,113,630 | 11,178,211 |
| North Carolina | 4,238,276 | 963,809 | 3,954,607 | .......... | .......... | 2,180,062 | 1,486,000 | ......... | 3,444,166 | 1,345,052 |
| Ohio | 2,226,400 | 493,704 | 1,294,500 | .......... | .......... | 957,900 | 810,000 | ......... | 1,918,000 | 681,835 |
| Pennsylvania | 32,953,318 | 10,724,052 | 65,706,865 | .......... | 9,704,795 | 4,510,486 | 2,944,335 | 15,101,170 | 32,494,857 | 17,490,080 |
| Rhode Island | 44,630,787 | 13,268,315 | 77,973,206 | 7,557,137 | 75,183,628 | 6,155,692 | 6,281,150 | ......... | 38,503,060 | 22,049,203 |
| South Carolina | 4,756,823 | 761,469 | 8,273,900 | .......... | .......... | 808,781 | 260,000 | ......... | 4,125,210 | 1,529,937 |
| Tennessee | 2,872,582 | 595,789 | 1,976,450 | .......... | .......... | 1,229,098 | .......... | ......... | 2,381,477 | 941,542 |
| Texas | 1,077,118 | 216,519 | 739,778 | .......... | .......... | 46,175 | .......... | 1,261,769 | 887,695 | 374,598 |
| Utah | 23,500 | 7,051 | 700 | .......... | .......... | 21,280 | .......... | ......... | 23,195 | 16,803 |
| Vermont | 1,235,652 | 292,269 | 142,000 | .......... | 6,287,136 | .......... | 2,320,400 | ......... | 1,051,000 | 546,510 |
| Virginia | 4,255,383 | 937,820 | 12,544,820 | .......... | .......... | 132,975 | .......... | 130,000 | 3,456,569 | 1,435,800 |
The details of this industry were more fully reported by the census of 1870 than at any former period. Besides the items in the above tables the following are given:
| Materials used: | |
| Cotton yarn | 6,222,189 |
| Cotton warps | 136,100 |
| Cotton waste | 5,234,260 |
| Total, lbs. | 409,900,806 |
| Mill supplies, value | $10,910,672 |
| Products: | |
| Spool thread, dozens | 11,560,241 |
| Bats, wicking, and wadding, lbs. | 11,118,127 |
| Table cloths, quilts, and counterpanes, number | 493,892 |
| Seamless bags, number | 2,767,060 |
| Cordage, lines, and twines, lbs. | 5,057,454 |
| Flannel, yards | 8,390,050 |
| Thread, lbs. | 906,068 |
| Cotton waste, lbs. | 7,921,449 |
| Tape and webbing, lbs. | 484,400 |
| Seamless bags | 405,585 |
| Cassimeres, cottonades, and jeans, yards | 13,940,895 |
| Other products, lbs. | 10,811,028 |
In 1869 Mr. B. F. Nourse, after a careful computation, reported the following results relating to the manufacture of cotton in this country: That the average annual consumption of cotton in the United States was at the rate of 65 lbs. per spindle; 60.7 lbs. per spindle in the northern and 138.12 in the southern states. The average size or number of yarn produced was 27½ in the United States, 28 in the north and 12⅞ in the south. This indicated a constant tendency to finer work as labor became more skilled and raw material more costly in proportion. Until within a few years the number of yarn was as coarse as No. 14 in a large part of the northern production; the average size of yarn was estimated to be No. 23 in 1860, No. 23 in 1850, and No. 20 in 1810.—Although England was among the latest of all countries to receive the cotton manufacture, it is now without a competitor in this industry. This has been attributed in a large measure to the abundance of fuel and iron which exist in combination in several English counties, but more especially in Lancashire, the great seat of the cotton manufacturing industry. The better machinery now affords a higher rate of production for the same yarn than was formerly attainable. The exact period when the manufacture was introduced into England is uncertain; but as early as 1641 it had become established in Manchester, and even then cotton goods were exported. Its growth has been rapid and steady until the capital invested, by a recent estimate, has reached the sum of nearly £60,000,000. The number of cotton factories, machines, hands, &c., as reported by the government inspectors of factories in 1871, were as follows:
| FACTORIES. | Number of factories. |
Number of carding machines. |
Number of combing machines. |
Number of spinning spindles. |
Number of doubling spindles. |
Number of power looms. |
Number of power loom weavers. |
Amount of moving power. |
Persons employed. | |||
| Steam. | Water. | Male. | Female. | Total. | ||||||||
| Factories employed in spinning only: | ||||||||||||
| England | 1,085 | 32,308 | 1,449 | 17,292,982 | 2,564,848 | ...... | ...... | 120,229 | 3,663 | 55,651 | 64,036 | 119,687 |
| Scotland | 20 | 2,078 | 70 | 648,392 | 11,333 | ...... | ...... | 3,675 | 935 | 903 | 3,497 | 4,400 |
| Ireland | 3 | 98 | 99 | 79,992 | 422 | ...... | ...... | 475 | 20 | 59 | 174 | 233 |
| Total | 1,108 | 34,484 | 1,618 | 18,031,366 | 2,586,603 | ...... | ...... | 124,379 | 4,618 | 56,613 | 67,707 | 124,320 |
| Factories employed in weaving only: | ||||||||||||
| England | 649 | ..... | .... | ........ | 5,318 | 175,432 | 57,555 | 22,552 | 376 | 29,453 | 50,674 | 80,127 |
| Scotland | 36 | ..... | .... | ........ | 1,600 | 13,678 | 6,845 | 2,512 | 16 | 1,238 | 8,327 | 9,565 |
| Ireland | 8 | ..... | .... | ........ | ...... | 2,184 | 1,181 | 352 | 30 | 414 | 1,355 | 1,769 |
| Total | 693 | ..... | .... | ........ | 6,918 | 191,294 | 65,581 | 25,416 | 422 | 31,105 | 60,356 | 91,461 |
| Factories employed in | ||||||||||||
| spinning and weaving: | ||||||||||||
| England | 513 | 30,342 | 233 | 15,309,505 | 845,785 | 235,904 | 93,808 | 135,974 | 2,505 | 85,844 | 126,234 | 212,078 |
| Scotland | 17 | 760 | 1 | 540,594 | 10,528 | 11,435 | 4,807 | 7,156 | 526 | 1,411 | 7,721 | 9,132 |
| Ireland | 2 | 168 | .... | 44,912 | ...... | 1,253 | 683 | 410 | 240 | 923 | 1,142 | 2,065 |
| Total | 532 | 31,270 | 234 | 15,895,011 | 856,313 | 248,591 | 99,298 | 143,540 | 3,271 | 88,178 | 135,097 | 223,275 |
| Factories not included in either | ||||||||||||
| of the above descriptions: | ||||||||||||
| England | 124 | 59 | 28 | 1,144 | 75,376 | ...... | ...... | 1,847 | 59 | 845 | 2,233 | 3,078 |
| Scotland | 25 | 147 | 26 | 67,700 | 207,724 | 790 | 462 | 5,282 | 20 | 1,596 | 6,267 | 7,863 |
| Ireland | 1 | .... | .... | ...... | 603 | ...... | ...... | 16 | .. | 60 | 30 | 90 |
| Total | 150 | 206 | 54 | 68,844 | 283,703 | 790 | 462 | 7,145 | 79 | 2,501 | 8,530 | 11,031 |
| Total of cotton factories: | ||||||||||||
| England | 2,371 | 62,709 | 1,710 | 32,613,631 | 3,491,327 | 411,336 | 151,363 | 280,602 | 6,603 | 171,793 | 243,177 | 414,970 |
| Scotland | 98 | 2,985 | 97 | 1,256,686 | 231,185 | 25,903 | 12,114 | 18,625 | 1,497 | 5,148 | 25,812 | 30,960 |
| Ireland | 14 | 266 | 99 | 121,104 | 1,025 | 3,437 | 1,864 | 1,253 | 290 | 1,456 | 2,701 | 4,157 |
| Grand total | 2,483 | 65,960 | 1,906 | 34,695,221 | 3,523,537 | 440,676 | 165,341 | 300,480 | 8,390 | 178,397 | 271,690 | 449,087 |
The “doubling spindles” are for a secondary process, and add nothing to the consuming capacity of the factories. Of the total number of factories above given, 1,789 were in Lancashire. Of the persons employed, 43,281 were children under 13 years of age, including 20,139 girls. The following table shows the number of spinning spindles running, the total weight of cotton spun, and the pounds per spindle in each year named:
| YEARS. | Spindles. | Total lbs. cotton spun. |
Lbs. per spindle. |
| 1850 | 20,977,017 | 611,000,000 | 29.13 |
| 1866 | 28,010,217 | 866,700,000 | 30.94 |
| 1861 | 30,430,467 | 978,300,000 | 32.15 |
| 1868 | 32,000,014 | 993,489,000 | 31.05 |
| 1869 | 30,000,000 | 941,586,000 | 31.38 |
| 1870 | 32,000,000 | 1,052,470,000 | 32.89 |
| 1871 | 33,750,000 | 1,145,455,000 | 33.94 |
| 1872 | 35,800,000 | 1,170,600,000 | 32.07 |
The exports of cotton manufactures from Great Britain for a series of years are shown in the following table. Of the plain piece goods exported in 1871, £9,824,865 worth was sent to British India, £4,778,608 to China, £2,956,705 to Egypt, and £1,276,431 to the United States; of cotton yarn and twist, £4,054,942 to Holland, and £3,846,980 to Germany; of printed goods, £2,093,528 to the United States.
| MANUFACTURES. | 1867. | 1868. | 1869. | 1870. | 1871. |
| Cotton yarn | £14,871,617 | £14,714,899 | £14,095,449 | £14,671,135 | £15,061,204 |
| Piece goods, white or plain | 33,477,117 | 31,095,692 | 30,264,123 | 33,922,022 | 33,303,025 |
| Piece“ goods,“ printed dyed or colored | 19,389,101 | 18,933,824 | 19,367,794 | 19,086,746 | 19,563,937 |
| Piece“ goods,“ of mixed materials (cotton predominating) | 261,945 | 235,600 | 290,525 | 339,437 | 765,772 |
| Lace and patent net | 470,420 | 475,466 | 632,213 | 839,048 | 969,559 |
| Stockings and socks | 387,127 | 364,572 | 325,316 | 292,630 | 291,630 |
| Thread for sewing | 1,115,315 | 1,113,977 | 1,159,406 | 1,208,147 | 1,224,969 |
| Hosiery and small wares | 864,341 | 752,742 | 991,128 | 1,057,180 | 1,641,315 |
| Total | £70,836,983 | £67,686,772 | £67,116,954 | £71,416,345 | £72,821,411 |
The leading facts of the cotton manufacturing industry in Great Britain are exhibited in the following tables compiled by Mr. Nourse from the circulars of Ellison, Tibbitts, and co. of Liverpool, which are commended for their accuracy by English cotton merchants:
| CONDENSED EXHIBIT OF THE COTTON MANUFACTURE AND TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN FOR 36 YEARS. | |||||||||||||
| YEARS. | Raw cotton actually consumed, pounds. |
Cost of cotton in dollars, $4 80 per £ sterling. |
Exported goods and yarns, pounds. |
Home consumption, goods and yarns, pounds. |
Value of goods and yarns produced, dollars. |
Ratio of value of cotton used to the value of goods and yarns made from it. |
Amount of difference or value added by manufacturing, dollars. | ||||||
|
371,475,000 | 63,522,672 | 212,176,715 | 116,047,465 | 193,604,015 | 100 @ 305 | 130,051,343 | ||||||
| 509,902,000 | 56,641,920 | 284,636,665 | 166,627,039 | 204,208,892 | 100 @ 362 | 147,566,972 | |||||||
| 576,780,000 | 59,101,920 | 337,065,453 | 174,384,848 | 202,132,666 | 100 @ 342 | 143,030,746 | |||||||
| 765,900,000 | 83,981,280 | 413,933,262 | 210,788,222 | 245,804,910 | 100 @ 298 | 161,823,630 | |||||||
| 1855 | 839,200,000 | 94,175,462 | 528,029,766 | 227,250,234 | 262,785,295 | 100 @ 279 | 168,559,833 | ||||||
| 1856 | 856,700,000 | 106,220,075 | 562,952,000 | 208,078,200 | 273,959,290 | 100 @ 258 | 167,739,215 | ||||||
| 1857 | 825,027,000 | 119,040,000 | 588,110,000 | 156,000,000 | 287,222,400 | 100 @ 241 | 168,182,450 | ||||||
| 1858 | 907,836,000 | 119,092,800 | 652,663,000 | 158,000,000 | 312,803,200 | 100 @ 254 | 183,710,400 | ||||||
| 1859 | 977,633,000 | 132,369,600 | 693,072,000 | 172,000,000 | 346,670,400 | 100 @ 262 | 214,300,800 | ||||||
| 1860 | 1,079,321,000 | 138,768,000 | 740,113,000 | 173,000,000 | 386,822,400 | 100 @ 279 | 248,054,400 | ||||||
| 1861 | 1,005,477,000 | 154,484,000 | 674,132,000 | 174,000,000 | 356,788,800 | 100 @ 231 | 202,204,800 | ||||||
| 1862 | 449,821,000 | 128,323,200 | 412,684,000 | 102,000,000 | 205,084,800 | 100 @ 160 | 76,761,600 | ||||||
| 1863 | 476,445,000 | 195,307,200 | 392,239,000 | 93,000,000 | 287,016,000 | 100 @ 147 | 91,708,800 | ||||||
| 1864 | 561,196,000 | 251,817,600 | 403,999,000 | 110,000,000 | 366,273,600 | 100 @ 146 | 114,456,000 | ||||||
| 1865 | 718,651,000 | 226,833,601 | 475,920,000 | 150,000,000 | 399,676,800 | 100 @ 176 | 172,843,199 | ||||||
| 1866 | 890,721,000 | 249,398,400 | 625,602,000 | 145,000,000 | 493,262,400 | 100 @ 198 | 243,864,000 | ||||||
| 1867 | 954,517,000 | 198,057,600 | 693,700,000 | 145,000,000 | 418,516,800 | 100 @ 212 | 220,459,200 | ||||||
| 1868 | 996,197,000 | 196,747,200 | 753,166,000 | 160,000,000 | 440,241,600 | 100 @ 224 | 243,494,400 | ||||||
| 1869 | 936,019,000 | 210,105,600 | 704,713,000 | 125,000,000 | 413,745,600 | 100 @ 197 | 203,640,000 | ||||||
| 1870 | 1,071,770,000 | 202,296,000 | 802,300,000 | 140,000,000 | 447,096,000 | 100 @ 221 | 244,800,000 | ||||||
| VALUE OF THE GOODS PRODUCED, AND COST OF PRODUCTION. | |||||||
| YEARS. | Value of goods produced. |
Value of cotton used. |
Wages and other expenses paid. |
Total cost. | Leaving for interest of capital and profits. |
Same in dollars. |
Ratio of cost of cotton used to wages and other expenses. |
| 1858 | 63,084,000 | 24,811,000 | 27,910,000 | 52,721,000 | 10,363,000 | 49,742,400 | 100 @ 112 |
| 1859 | 72,223,000 | 27,577,000 | 30,330,000 | 57,907,000 | 14,316,000 | 68,716,800 | 100 @ 110 |
| 1860 | 80,598,000 | 28,910,000 | 33,600,000 | 62,510,000 | 18,088,000 | 86,822,400 | 100 @ 116 |
| 1861 | 74,331,000 | 32,205,000 | 31,360,000 | 63,565,000 | 10,766,000 | 51,676,800 | 100 @ 97 |
| 1862 | 42,726,000 | 26,734,000 | 14,520,000 | 41,254,000 | 1,472,000 | 7,065,600 | 100 @ 54 |
| 1863 | 59,795,000 | 40,689,000 | 15,690,000 | 56,379,000 | 3,416,000 | 16,396,800 | 100 @ 39 |
| 1864 | 76,307,000 | 52,462,000 | 18,680,000 | 71,142,000 | 5,165,000 | 24,792,000 | 100 @ 36 |
| 1865 | 83,266,000 | 47,257,000 | 23,850,000 | 71,107,000 | 12,159,000 | 57,363,200 | 100 @ 50 |
| 1866 | 103,121,000 | 51,958,000 | 31,288,000 | 83,246,000 | 19,875,000 | 95,400,000 | 100 @ 60 |
| 1867 | 87,191,000 | 41,263,000 | 33,338,000 | 74,600,000 | 12,591,000 | 60,436,800 | 100 @ 81 |
| 1868 | 91,717,000 | 40,989,000 | 34,940,000 | 75,929,000 | 15,357,000 | 73,713,600 | 100 @ 85 |
| 1869 | 86,197,000 | 43,772,000 | 32,045,000 | 75,317,000 | 11,754,000 | 56,419,200 | 100 @ 73 |
| 1870 | 93,145,000 | 42,145,000 | ......... | ......... | ......... | ......... | ......... |
One of the most important incidents in the history of the cotton industry was the great depression produced in the English manufactures by the civil war in America, known as the “cotton famine.” In 1860, immediately preceding the beginning of the war, this industry had attained in England a degree of prosperity not before known. The imports of raw cotton for that year reached the unprecedented amount of 1,390,938,752 lbs., valued at £35,756,889, of which 1,140,599,712 lbs. were retained for home consumption. The number of cotton mills in Great Britain was 2,650 (of which 1,920 were in Lancashire), with more than 30,000,000 spindles and 350,000 power looms, and employing 440,000 hands, of whom 56 per cent. were females and 10 per cent. were children. The capital invested in mills and machinery was £54,000,000, while the wages paid in that year amounted to £11,500,000. The cotton goods manufactured for home consumption were valued at £24,000,000; and the exports, consisting of calico, muslin, yarn, hosiery, &c., amounted to £52,000,000; making the total value of all cotton manufactures £76,000,000, a sum which exceeded the total imperial revenue for that year. Of the vast amount of cotton imported in 1860, 1,115,890,608 lbs. came from the United States. This, the greatest source of supply, was now cut off by the war, which opened early in 1861. The price of American cotton rose rapidly from £3 4d. per cwt. in 1860 to £10 2s. 4d. in 1862, £11 5s. 8d. in 1863, and £13 11d. in 1864; and there was a corresponding advance in the price of cotton from other countries. The extent of this increase in value is better indicated by a comparison of the quantities and values of the total imports of cotton during the years of the depression:
| YEARS. | Total imports, lbs. | Value. |
| 1860 | 1,390,938,752 | £35,756,889 |
| 1861 | 1,256,984,736 | 38,653,398 |
| 1862 | 523,973,296 | 31,093,045 |
| 1863 | 670,084,128 | 56,282,294 |
| 1864 | 894,102,384 | 78,219,401 |
| 1865 | 978,502,000 | 66,041,400 |
| 1866 | 1,377,514,096 | 77,530,118 |
Moreover, the extended operations of the factories in 1860 had produced in the markets a supply of manufactured goods far beyond the demand. This fact, in conjunction with the unprecedented increase in the price of the raw material, rendered manufacturing less profitable than before, and led to the closing of many mills and the reduction of the hours of labor in others. Many persons were thus deprived of employment, and great suffering ensued. In November, 1862, there were 208,000 persons in the Lancashire district receiving out-door parochial relief, and 144,000 others received aid from subscribed funds; there were at the same time 20,000 mill girls at the sewing schools which had been organized to teach them sewing as a means of subsistence. The subscriptions to meet the distress reached the sum of £2,000,000, while more than £1,200,000 had been advanced by the government for public works in the cotton districts, chiefly to yield £600,000 or £700,000 wages to the unemployed cotton hands. No precise date can be given as the termination of this depression, since the change to the normal state of affairs was gradual. In 1866, however, the usual supply of cotton was again received from the United States. The losses for three years consequent on this calamity were estimated by Dr. Watts of Manchester, in his work on the “Facts of the Cotton Famine,” at £66,225,000; being £28,500,000 losses by employers, £33,000,000 by employees, and £4,725,000 by shopkeepers. Other authorities estimated the money losses at £70,000,000. The great decrease in supply of American cotton caused a marked increase in the imports from other countries, India, Egypt, Brazil, and the West Indies, as indicated in a preceding table; but as the cotton from these countries is inferior to American cotton for manufacturing purposes, Great Britain is still supplied mainly from the United States.