iiMwe — — 
 HD 
 
 9070. 4 
 U5 
 
 1836 
 
 iii 
 
 lii 
 
 In 
 
 
 e: 
 
 I: 
 

V 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/cottoncultivatioOOunit 
 
24th Congress, 
 &'essioji. 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 Ho. OF Reps. 
 Treas. Dept. 
 
 COTTON. 
 
 CULTIVilTION, MANUFACTURE AND FOREIGN TRADE OF, 
 
 T T E U 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASEEY, 
 
 TRANSMITTING 
 
 Tables and ?iotcs on the Cultivation.^ Manufacture.^ and Foreign Trade 
 
 of Cotton. 
 
 March 4, 1836. 
 
 Eeferrod to the Committee on ManiifacUires, and 15,000 extra copies ordered to be printed 
 under the direction of tlie Secretaiy of the Treasury. 
 
 Treasury^ Department, Feb. 29, 1836. 
 
 Sir; Certain tabular statements and notes on the cultivation and maiui- 
 facture, together with the imports and exports of cotton, are herewith sub- 
 mitted to the House of Representatives, in compliance with their resolution 
 of the 12th instant: 
 
 Resolved, Tiuit the Secretary of the Treasurer be directed to transmit 
 to this House the tables indicated in a note to his annual report, showing 
 the progress in the cultivation and manufacture of cotton in the United 
 States, and in other countries ; also, showing the comparative quantity and 
 value of exports and imports of cotton, and cotton manufactures, in tlie 
 United States and other countries.” 
 
 In order that the true cliaracter of these tables may be understood, and 
 no expectation as to their contents be formed, which an examination of 
 them might disappoint, a brief explanation will be given of their origin, 
 progress, and present state of completion. 
 
 They were not commenced till the last year ; were at first very limited 
 in their object, and have been attended to since, oni}^ at a few brief inter- 
 vals of leisure. In the course of tliat year, while making official investi- 
 gations, they were begun, with a view to the collection of such general 
 statistical facts as might enable me to form a satisfactory opinion, upon the 
 extent of influence which the rapid increase of the growth and manufac- 
 ture of cotton in this country had exercised, and was likely to exercise 
 for a few ensufeg years, upon our revenue from foreign importations, and 
 from the sales of the public lands in the southwestern States and Territories. 
 
 In the pursuit of these inquiries, the influences of the trade in cotton, 
 whether raw or manufactured, on our exports of domestic products, on 
 our imports of cotton fabrics in particular, and generally upon all our 
 Blair & Rives, printer.s. 
 
o 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 foreign importation, as far as dependent on the amount of our exports ; 
 Mild, in fine, its effect upon our wliole foreign commerce, as well as on 
 many other branches of our national prosperity, became highly interesting 
 portions of the principal investigation. 
 
 Tliat investigation was also originally confined to the culture and maim- 
 facture of cotton in this country since the adoption of our constitution. 
 But m the course of my inquiries, finding that the cultivation of cotton 
 here, and the extent of onr exportations of it, were intimately connected 
 with the grovUh and exportation as well as the manufacture of it in other 
 countries, and that not only our foreign trade, but our foreign relations of 
 peace and war, wmuld probalily be hereafter nmch iniliienced by the com- 
 mercial connections which the growth and manufacture of cotton appeared 
 lo have established between tliem and us, I endeavored, incidentally, to 
 collect and preserve, and afterwards arrange, such general statistical facts 
 upon these points, during the same jierjcd, in relation to otlier countries, 
 but chieily England and France, as could be obtained amidst the pressure 
 of other business in the short time partially devoted to the investigation of 
 this subject. 
 
 Many of the statements m the columns from books and reports might 
 doubtless I lave been made fuller, could I have commanded greater leisure 
 lor tliis object, and especially migiit more have been added by way of esti- 
 mate from a fe^v important data embraced under several particular heads. 
 The wliole topic, likewise, of tlie domestic trade in raw cotton and its ma- 
 niifacUires, between different portions of the same country, and especially 
 oi tlie United ^S tat.es, might liave been usefully embraced, had it come more 
 directly within the scope of my inquiries, and had lime permitted. It 
 won Id 'throw much light on the coasting trade: communication by roads 
 and canals; difiorent habits and])ursuits of the people in different portions 
 of the same country, and their reciprocal dependence for certain rarv and 
 manufactured articles, tending so strongly, as for exa.mple it does here, to 
 preserve iret|uent, constant, and friendlv inteicourse, and to cultivate and 
 strengthen, for both conxmiiience and interest, the bonds of harmony and 
 union. 
 
 But unable to enlarge on that, my great solicitude xvas to obtain, m tlie first 
 ijlaco, pertinent facts, in as great a number as practicable, with a view* to form 
 afterwards such estimates and inferences connected with the general object 
 originally proposed, as miglit throw some new light upon it. The sources 
 whence inost of those facts were drawn I noted down, in order to determine 
 iifter\vards the dvcgree of reliance which should be placed on such as might 
 be found to appear doubtful. In the notes appended to the several tables, 
 the authorities for most of the facts are accordingly referred to. 'Where 
 the authorities are not given, the statements in tlie columns oi'e usually the* 
 result of my own computations, deduced from the best iriiormation at my 
 e.onmiaiKl. 
 
 Having proceeded far enough in the inquiries and statements to answer 
 the purposes originaily contemplated, I formed the general estimates, deduc- 
 uons, and opinions, upon the influence of the growth and manufacture of 
 cotton in this country over its rexmnue, commerce, and prospei'ity, which 
 were expuessed in several places in my last annual report, and xvhich, with 
 comparative^ statements connected with this subject, are, on account 
 .,).f tiieir intimate comiection, extracted and appended. (Marked Q,.) 
 
 Tiiose tables: l>eing now called for by tbe House of Representatives, they 
 
 THE 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] o 
 
 arc submitted \vitliout many of those detaiisj which exist on ali points, aii' 
 particularly on such as relate to the different species and localities of th 
 manufactures, and to the kinds of machinery employed in the several opeia 
 tions. These last were easily obtainable, and to some inquirers might b 
 very desirable. But as that minuteness did not come within the scop 
 ot my original examinations, what I have thus hastily collected an 
 presented must be regarded rather as a few general facts for comparisor 
 and as hints or suggestions to he followed out by others who enjoy mor 
 leisure, than ns a full compilation of statistics on the subject of cottor 
 Yet in their present imperfect and meagre state, under some heads, the 
 still contain under each, it is hoped, a few data which may prove usefu 
 since they bring together, in a condensed and systematic view, man 
 scattered details on a subject very important to the finances of the countr 
 at this time, as well as to its future prosperity in each of the three gren 
 branches of national industry — agriculture, commerce, and manufoctnrei 
 Any inferences or suggestions on the infiuence of tariffs, upon the growtJ 
 or manufacture of cotton, or on the propriety of protection to muimfac 
 tures, or otlier branches of our national interesfs, which have been so mud 
 agitated in tbrmer years, were studiouslv" avoided, as not called for by th 
 occasion, or the present condition of tfie country. 
 
 The notes contain numerous illustrations, additional explanations, ata 
 facts, which could not be conveniently incorporated into the tables ; am 
 some of wliicii are very material for deciding correcliy upon the accurac 
 of the figures and statements contained in the difterent columns. 
 
 'riie general arrangement of the tables and notes is cuch, as to preseii 
 first the facts and estimates on tlie growth or the crop of cotton, so far a 
 practicable, for a number of different years, in those countries in the work 
 where it is most cultivated. They exhibit next the foreign trade in rav 
 cotton, by giving the exports atid imports of it at several periods from am 
 to most of tlu,,' places abroad whore it coii.s’tiiutes an article of much com 
 m?.rce. ■ 
 
 The third set of tables shows the amount and condition of the mannfac 
 tnre of cotton, and its consumptioji at diiferent dates, in most of the couii 
 tries where it is extensively used ; and the last series shows the foreigi 
 trade in those manufactures, during a number of years, from and to main 
 of the principal places engaged in it. 
 
 A more minute explanation of the contents of each table and its note 
 is given, for convenience of reference, in the schedule annexed. 
 
 With these hasty explanatory remarks, 
 
 I liave t!ie honor to be, 
 
 \’ery res|)ectfiilly. 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 LEVI WOODBURY, 
 ^'ecretary of the Treasury. 
 
 Hon. .1,1. ,11'S Iv. PoLK^ 
 
 Speaker of the Htnisc of Representatives. 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 SCI1EDU1.E OF THE TABLES AND NOTES. 
 
 and Cj i^elate to the crop or growth of raw cotton, 
 
 gives the quantity supposed to be raised in the world at a few different 
 leriods, and in each country where it grows, 
 
 gives the quantity computed to be grown, at several dales, in each of the 
 mithern and southwestern States of this Union, 
 
 gives the prices of it iiere, and in England, for many years ; the capital 
 iiid the number of persons estimated to be employed in growing it, and, 
 he value of the whole crop here and elsewhere, 
 
 E, Ey G, Hy relate to th e foreign trade y or the ex^yorts and imports of 
 
 raw cotton. 
 
 gives the exports from the different quarters of the world chiefly en - 
 ^aged in that trade, at a few separate periods. 
 
 gives the exports from most of the important places in the United States* 
 vliere it is shipped. 
 
 gives the exports from, and to, most of the countries, engaged extensively 
 n this trade, 
 
 gives the imports of it into England, at several dates, and the amoiml 
 rom each of the most important countries raising it. 
 gives the imports into France, and whence, as well as the imports into 
 L number of other places, 
 
 Ky Ly relate to the manufacture and consumption of raw cotton, in 
 
 several coiintries. 
 
 pves the amount used and maiiuflictured in most of the countnes where 
 aw cotton is much worked np. 
 
 gives the value of the manufactui'es of it in several countries, and tiie 
 unount of capital employed in them, 
 
 gives the spindles and number of persons employed in the inamifactnre, 
 n some places, at difterent poriods, 
 
 M. Ny Oy relate to the foreign trade in cotton ynanvfacinres . 
 gives tlie exports of tliem from several countries, 
 
 gives the exports of them from England, and the am^imt.s exported 
 fience to several enumerated places, at difterent periods, so as to exhibit 
 n the same table the imports of them into tiiesame places from England, 
 gives the exports of them from several other countries, and whither. 
 
 \s the last of the fables, and merely presents an exhibit of the dates of 
 lie most important changes in the growth, manufacture, and foreign 
 glide of cotton, within the period ciiiefly referred to m the other tables. 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 INTRODUCTORY NOTES. « 
 
 uJ 
 
 111 the subsequent tables the quantity of raw cotton has been compir. | 
 m pounds, and when stated in the weights of other countries by the autli< | 
 referred to, the edition (1831) of Kelly’s Cambist has been followed ai [ki 
 guide about the contents of the kilogramme, maud, t icul, &c. The pri< | 
 and values, when found in the denominations of foreign currencies, ha p 
 also generally been reduced to dollars and cents, conij ting the pou | 
 sterling at $4 80; and the statements of all considerable ^yiantities a; ^ 
 amounts have usually been made only in millions and large i motions | 
 millions. This has been done for convenience and uniformity, a w I 
 supposed to be sufficient, if not better, for the comparative and gener | 
 purposes contemplated in the original formation of the tables, ' | 
 
 xls most persons in conversation, and most authors, speak of bales,” | 
 bags,” rather than pounds, of cotton, whether refering to the crop, tl | 
 inanufacture, or the exports and imports of it, some further explaiiatic f> 
 may be proper, to show why the term has not been employed in the stal | 
 meiits contained in any of these tables, ^ 
 
 It was early discovered, in the preparation of them, that many contr | 
 dictions and errors happened, from the uncertain quantity indicated I | 
 different persons in the use of those terms, and which might be obviate | 
 by always making the statements in pounds, and giving in a note tl w 
 amount computed to be contained in bales and bags in different countrir | 
 so that the pounds could, when desirable, be converted again readily in : 
 bales or bags. By pursuing this course of using only the term pounds, tl § 
 great object of comparison between the quantities of cotton grown or ma: | 
 
 ufactured or exported at different periods, and in different countries, con | 
 also be more clearly and quickly accomplished. ||j 
 
 In illustration of these remarks, and to furnish the quantity usually co; ijj 
 tained in each bale, bag, (fcc. it appears that in 1790 the bale or bag in tl | 
 United States was computed at only 200 pounds. (See Treasury Eepoi | 
 15th February, 1791.) In the Atlantic States it is now estimated often | 
 300 and 325 pounds, but in those on the Gulf of Mexico, at 400 and 4c | 
 pounds. Those used at Lowell in 1831 contained, on an average, 3( | 
 
 pounds (Pitkin’s Statistics, page 527, note.) | 
 
 At Liverpool the Sea Island bale was, a few years ago, estimated at 2f h 
 pounds, and the Upland at 320 pounds. The bales imported into Fran< 
 •are estimated at 300 pounds each, by Baines’s History of Cotton, page 52 | 
 
 In 1824 all the bales imported into Liverpool averaged 266 pounds, an fj 
 increased yearly, till in 1832 they weighed, on an average, 319 pound |j 
 (McCulloch, page 441). Though on the previous page he considers froi -i 
 300 to 310 pounds a fair average, and Burns, cited on same page, makes ll 
 310 pounds in 1832. The Egyptian bale contained once only 90 pound p 
 tlie Brazilian 180 pounds; (Pitk. 485;) the West Indian 350 pounds; ar p 
 the Colombian bale or quintal, 101 pounds. (Cyclop, of Com.) In 183: 1 
 
 Burns says the average of the United States hale or bag imported in j 
 England, was 345 pounds ; Brazilian 180 pounds; Egyptian 220 poimdi j| 
 West Indian 300 pounds; East Indian 330 pounds. (See McCulloch, 441 I 
 The amount of our own exports does not depend on computations froii |j 
 any of these data, but on the actual weight in pounds, sworn to at the cu ^ 
 tom house. " 
 
 I 
 
By the last animal report of tiie Liverpool market, made in January, 
 
 836, it appears that the bales have so altered in tlieir quantity, that the 
 
 stimate of the present bales or bags is: for the upland 321 pounds; for 
 
 )rleans and Alabama 402 pounds; for Sea Island 322 pounds; for Brazil 
 
 73 pounds; for Egyptian 218 pounds; for East India 360 pounds; and for 
 
 Jfest India 230 pounds. As improvements are made in pressing and 
 
 hacking closer, to save something in the expense of bagging and freight, 
 
 me constant tendencv has been here to increase the welo;ht in, a bale.. 
 
 •1 ^ ^ 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 7 
 
 A. 
 
 COTTON, RAW. 
 
 Crop of cotton grown in — [1] 
 
 
 The 4Torld. 
 
 United Slates. 
 
 Evazil. 
 
 "West Indies. 
 
 j 
 
 Rest of Africa. 
 
 1 
 
 India. i 
 
 Rest of Asia. ; 
 
 Mexico and >S. 
 America, ex- 
 cept Brazil. 
 
 1 j 
 
 ; i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. i 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 Ins. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. MilEns. 
 
 Mill’ns. 
 
 Milfns. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Miln7o’ 
 
 1789 
 
 „ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1790 
 
 „ 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1791 
 
 490 
 
 2 
 
 22 
 
 12 
 
 
 46 
 
 130 
 
 190 
 
 68 
 
 
 1792 
 
 [3] 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1793 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1794 
 
 _ 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1795 
 
 _ 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1795 
 
 _ 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 _ 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1798 
 
 _ 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1799 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1800 
 
 _ 
 
 35 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801 
 
 520 
 
 48 
 
 36 
 
 10 
 
 _ 
 
 15 
 
 160 
 
 160 
 
 56 
 
 15 
 
 1801 
 
 _ 
 
 55 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1803 
 
 _ 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801 
 
 _ 
 
 65 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1805 
 
 _ 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1805 
 
 _ 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1807 
 
 _ 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1808 
 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1809 
 
 _ 
 
 82 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1810 
 
 
 85 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1811 
 
 555 
 
 80 
 
 35 
 
 12 
 
 ] 
 
 44 
 
 170 
 
 146 
 
 57 
 
 n 
 
 1812 
 
 [3j 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1813 
 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1814 i 
 
 - 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1815 
 
 1 - 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1816 
 
 
 124 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1817 
 
 
 130 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1818 
 
 
 125 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 18! 9 
 
 j 
 
 167 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1820 
 
 1 
 
 160 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1821 
 
 630 
 
 180 
 
 32 
 
 10 
 
 G 
 
 40 
 
 175 
 
 13.5 
 
 44 
 
 8 
 
 18-22 
 
 
 210 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1823 
 
 ' 
 
 185 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1824 
 
 i 
 
 215 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1825 
 
 
 255 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1826 
 
 i 
 
 3.50 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1327 
 
 
 270 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1828 
 
 • 
 
 325 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1829 
 
 ! 
 
 365 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1830 
 
 1 
 
 350 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1831 
 
 1 820 
 
 385 
 
 38 
 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 36 
 
 180 
 
 115 
 
 35 
 
 ■ 4 
 
 1832 
 
 
 390 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 833 
 
 : 
 
 415 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1831 
 
 1 900 
 
 460 
 
 30 
 
 8 
 
 251 
 
 34 
 
 185 
 
 110 
 
 35 
 
 13 
 
 1835 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [12] 
 
 i 
 
 
 [4] 
 
 [5] 
 
 [6] 
 
 [R 
 
 [8] 
 
 [9] 
 
 j [10] 
 
 1 [ii'i 
 
s 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 [1.] it will be seen by the phraseology adopted, that the crop given against 
 each year is tliat grown, and not that brought to market in the year, and 
 that the year meant in tlie table is the calendar, and not the fiscal year. 
 'Fhis course has been pursued as more appropriate when applied to the 
 raising of a crop ; but in selling it, the crop of 1835,’’ for example, is 
 often spoken of by others when that, which grew in 1834, is the crop 
 alluded to. This explanation will enable all to make their comparisons 
 m the mode most convenient to them, and will remove some apparent con- 
 iradictions between certain authors. 
 
 [2,] In forming an estimate of the whole crop of cotton grov/n in the 
 world in any particular year, I have found no precedent to aid me except 
 for tlie single year of 1834, when evidence -was given before the Chamber oi 
 Peers, in I'rance, that it probably amounted to about 460 millions of pounds. 
 But this computation was so deficient, assigning none to Mexico, and none 
 to S. America, or Africa, except to Brazil 24 millions of pounds, and to Egypt 
 20 millions of pounds, and only 60 millions of pounds to India, and 350 mil- 
 lions of pounds to the United States, and the balance of 6 millions of pounds 
 to the A¥est Indies, that no safe reliance could be placed on it as correct for 
 the wdiole known world. My own course has been to ascertain from all 
 attainable sources the exports in raw cotton of each country ; to add to 
 those the probable amount consumed at home and not exported, looking to 
 the climate of the place, the habits of its population, and the scattered 
 facts on this point found in respectable authors, and then to compute 
 therefrom the whole quantity grown. Another general test of the correct- 
 ness of one of my conclusions, viz : that the whole crop in the woi'ld has 
 quite doubled in the last half century, and now equals quite 900 millions of 
 pounds, though the estimate before named is only 460 millions of pounds, 
 exists in the fixct that a greater increase than this has happened in tlie 
 <n‘op of the United States alone ; and though, nil some other countries, a 
 diminution has occurred in the exports of cotton from various causes, which, 
 need not here be detailed, yet the use of it has probably been reduced 
 in no country, and in many, within that period, it has, from greater cheap- 
 ness, by improvements in machinery and steam, with its healthfulness, com- 
 [lared with other clothing, largely increased, and in some been for the first 
 time introduced. Supposing that in warm climates, and in a population 
 not highly civilized as in Turkey, tv/o pounds of cotton per head for eaclr 
 person are yearly consumed, (see Urquhart on Turkey, page 150) and in the 
 south of China and India, not over one and a half pounds to each person, 
 and in the places near or under the equator still less ; and that in more 
 civilized countries where cotton is used, as in England, France, and the 
 United States, from eight to twelve pounds per head are consumed; and sup- 
 irosing that only a little more than half the population of the globe, estimated 
 a,t four hundred and fifty millions, use cotton, the consumption would, on an 
 average, at only two pounds per head, be quite equal to the estimated crop for 
 the whole world. For some years past it is supposed that the consumption of 
 cntton has been greater than the crop, and hence, that the old stocks on hands 
 have been more exhausted, and a larger portion of the new crop called for 
 early (see table I). This has sustained the price and required an 
 augmented crop of at least 20 millions of pounds per annum. See posty 
 and Evidence before the French Chambers, February, 1835. 
 
9 
 
 [ Boc. No. 146. ] 
 
 [3.] The crop as well as the export of cotton of the United States, from 
 1809 to 1815, was sensibly diminished by means of our commercial restric- 
 tions and war, and the crop of other countries was increased to supply the 
 place of ours in foreign consumption. Our crop has been estimated with 
 more care, and from better data, than the crop -of other portions of the 
 world. From 1821 to 1834 it has been estimated by others much lower 
 than in the table and as follows: 
 
 Years. 
 
 
 MiWs of lbs. 
 
 Years. 
 
 
 MiWs of lbs. 
 
 1821 
 
 - 
 
 Ill 
 
 1828 
 
 - 
 
 213| 
 
 1822 
 
 - 
 
 1214 
 
 1829 
 
 - 
 
 255|- 
 
 1823 
 
 
 136^ 
 
 1830 
 
 
 292 
 
 1824 
 
 1325 
 
 - 
 
 152| 
 
 169f 
 
 1831 
 
 1832 
 
 - 
 
 311f 
 
 2964 
 
 1826 
 
 - 
 
 211f 
 
 1833 
 
 - 
 
 360 
 
 1827 
 
 - 
 
 285 
 
 1834 
 
 - 
 
 320-4 
 
 Tlie above is from Marsfiall’s tables on the trade, manufectures, &c. of 
 England, page 110. In McCulloch’s Commercial Dictionary, page 434, 
 lleuss’ tables, page 270, and Baipes’s History of Cotton, page 303, similar 
 statements are made, but they are manifestly too low, as being often less in 
 quantity than our exports : and tlie^^ may difler occasionally from being 
 founded on the exports of a particular year, as 1825, and which were 
 dheliy made up of the smaller crop grown in a previous year, as in 1824. 
 They are incorrect even then, as our crop for many calendar years has been 
 ifom 50 to 90 millions of pounds more than the exports of each suc- 
 ceeding fiscal year ; this last being composed of the growth of the pre- 
 vious calendar year, with a small portion oi’ it brouglit to market from 
 the 1st of August to the 1st of October, omitted, and a like portion 
 of the subsequent calendar year included. The 50 to 90 millions of 
 pounds are the quantity consumed at home, and which quantity lessens 
 in amount as we go bfick to the periods when our manufactures were 
 fewer, and when we' consumed in them some cotton ot foreign growth. 
 See another estimate in tlie 3d volume of tlie Parliamentary Reports, 
 (1833) page 89. Another difference may arise from the bale made up here, 
 being abroad computed often at only 300 pounds, (see on this ante and 
 post). The crop in the United States in 1834, was injured in the northern 
 parts of the cotton growing States ; but so much new land was put into 
 cultivation, that the whole exports were a little larger, and the home con- 
 sumption is presumed also to have been more. The crop for the year 
 1835, has likewise been more seriously injured in the same quarters ; but 
 tire exports of it since September, have, from early ripening, high prices, 
 doc. been larger than either of the two previous years, and some think the 
 wliole crop was larger, while it is believed by a few that the whole crop will 
 turn out to be soinewliat less, though not so much as apprehended, the in- 
 crease of lands in cultivation has been so great. February 17,1 1836, 
 the exports ascertained, on the Atlantic, had been 377,420 bags; but to same 
 time in 1835, only 340,379: and in 1834, only 309,976. For a view of our 
 power in the United States to grow more cotton, see table B, note [2]. 
 
 [4.] Trie crop of Brazil is computed on its ascertained exports at dif- 
 ferent periods to England and elsewhere, and a home consumption in 
 a small ratio to its population. (See table on exports.) It lias been 
 
10 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. J 
 
 diminished of late years by importing cotton manufacUires for home coi3 ■ 
 S'Limption, as in 1833 and ’4, from England largely. See tables N and O, 
 and notes, and Pitkin, 384 and ’5, where are more details. Cotton was 
 lirst planted or cultivated in Brazil in 1781, for exportation. Smithersrs 
 History of Liverpool. 
 
 [5j The crop of the West Indies is estimated in a similar ]nanner ; after 
 deducting from their exports the probable portion of cotton brought tliere 
 from the Spanish Main, and thence re-exported. In 1812, it is said, that 
 the crop of all the West Indies did not exceed 54 millions, (Colqulioim 
 »378;) and chieliy in Barbadoes, Bahama islands, Dominico, and Granada : 
 4 Humbolt’s Per. Nar. 123 to fo, and notes. But this is believed to have 
 been underrated. England now exports there largely of cotton manufac- 
 tures. See 1833 and 1834, table N, and notes: and the United States 
 export there some of them yearly, as well as France. All this tends to 
 diminish the crop raised for home consumption, and probaldy that for 
 export. See exports of Mfts. table O. Cotton was grown lirst in i776, at St. 
 Domingo, for export. 2 v. Hist, of Colom. But earlier in other islands, and 
 the^r furnished a large part of tlnglish wants before 1785 ; Edin. Cyclop. 
 Art. “Cotton.” In 1789, Hayti, alone, exported over 7 millions of pounds: 
 about 21 millions of pounds in 1801. and since that, less than 1 jiiillion of 
 pounds yearly. See a table in McCuHoch, 926. in 1824, a little over 1 mil- 
 lion of pounds, and in 1832 about l .\ million. See McCulloch, 927. 
 
 [6] The supposed crop of Egypt, m former years, is predicated on tljc 
 authority of the Dictionary of Spanish Commerce and Finance, vol. 3, page 
 29. On her exports, (see exports) and for 1834, the New Monthly Maga- 
 zine for September, 1835. She imported cotton from Smyrna and Greece 
 till Within twenty years. See below note 9th. By the last advices her 
 crop grown, in 1835, is said to be short, not exceeding 18 or 20 millions of 
 pounds. 
 
 [7] The crop of the rest of Africa is computed from her exports from 
 Morocco, Gambia, &c. and the habits and number of tier population, and 
 her soil and climate, where cotton is indigenous, and has always been 
 grown in many sections since lirst discovered. McCullocli, Die. 436. 
 Of late she imports oii tlie eastern side fewer cotton goods from India, and 
 more there and on the western side from England and tl]e United States, 
 See for 1833 and ’4, from Eng. table N, and notes. See exports from the 
 United States, table O. In the island of Mauritius, in 1806, nearly two 
 millions of pounds of cotton were raised, but it fell off gradually till in 
 1831, little or none was produced. 4 Montgomery's History of British 
 Col. page ,209. See table N, note [10.] 
 
 [8] In India, die estimate rests on her exports and vast population, loiiir 
 clothed chiefly in cotton of her own growth. McCulloch, Die. 437. The 
 Isle of Bourbon produced it of a quality almost equal to the Sea Island. 
 London Cyclop. Art. “ Cotton.” See her exports. Table D. But of late 
 years lier exports of manufactured goods liave declined, and her importa- 
 tions of them from England alone, exceed $TO,000,000 yearly. See 
 exports of manufactures from England and the United States, table N and 
 O, and evidence on the East India Company, 1832. appendix, page 287: 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 11 
 
 find on the g-rowth and use of cotton in tfie islands of the Archi- 
 
 pelago, see 1 Crawford, History'', 177, 207, and 449 : 2 /;"^4\vford, 350. 
 It is believed, that the cultivation of cotton for export i? on the increase; 
 labor is so low, and the trade of India having becon-e more tree. The 
 estimates tor tlie crop in India are probably not high enough, rather than 
 being too large. See exports, table E and 1^, and supplement to Cy^clop. 
 Brlttan. ^Tfotton.” 
 
 [9] Idle rest of Asia, including China, Japan, Persia, Arabia and 
 Turkey, from the mildness of its' climate, great population, and cus- 
 tomary clothing, is supposed not to be computed too jiigli. In 1766, it was 
 grown miicli about Smyrna. See Postlethwait’s Dictionary, ‘-(Jotton.'’ 
 Only about 6 millions of pounds in 1834, near Smyrna, and most of that 
 was shipped to Marseilles and Trieste. McCullocli, page 1069. 
 
 The cultivation of cotton, in China, began about the 13th century, lor 
 purposes of manufacture, though before raised in gardens for ornament. 
 The crop increased rapidly, and was very large, probably much beyond 
 the amount assigned in this column, till 1785 to 1790, when it began to be 
 considerably discontinued for the purpose of raising grain, during and in 
 consequence of famine. Much iias since been imported from India, though 
 now in the small statistical knowledge attainable on this point as to 
 (Jhina, she may raise more cotton than the large amount computed for 
 her, in connection witli Japan, Cochin-China, (fee. Supplement to Cyclop. 
 Brit. ” Cotton."' See exports of raw cotton, table 1). Travellers and 
 merchants see but little of China usually, except the soutli parts and the 
 sea board; and if in the great use of silk, furs, (fee. in tlie colder portions, 
 it is considered that 100 millions of her population use cotton, and from 
 their poverty^ only 14 pounds each, the whole amount would be 150 mil- 
 lions of pounds ymarly in China alone. 
 
 [10] This crop in South America and Mexico rests on similar principles, 
 as the chief clothing was cotton when the country was first discovered by^' 
 the Spaniards. It is now often of superior qualityn (See Humboldfs Per. 
 Nar. page 202.) The exports since have been considerable. (See exports.) 
 But of late yrears the crop must be less, as Mexico, a^s well as Peru and Chili 
 imports now from England y^'early many cottons, besides what they get 
 from the United States and elsewhere. (See exports of manufactures.) 
 Cotton began to be cultivated for export in Caraccas in 1782. The saw gin 
 is not yet used, but wooden rollers. 2 Hist, of Colomb. The plant is 
 found indigenous, (Mollierh travels in Colombia, page 12h, 4 Humb. Per. 
 N. 123.) In Halfs Columbia, page 27, it is said only^ about 4 millions 
 of pounds are grown in that Government ■y’^earlyx This is too small an 
 amount. Cultivated in Surinam since 1735. Smithers’s Hist. of Liverpool, 
 page 131. 
 
 [11] This column includes some remote islands, and the south of Spain, 
 Italy and Greece, and their islands, with the Canaries, where cotton was 
 former^ more raised, and still is considerably. See as to Spain and Italy, 
 2 Chaptal on French industry, page 6. From Italy and Egypt, in 1825, 
 when cotion was very high, over 23|- millions of pounds were exported. 
 McCulloch, 949. Some has been raised in New South Wales. McCul- 
 loch, Diet, of Com. 436 : Smithers's Hist, of Liverpool, page 126 ; and the 
 cultivation is said to be resumed in Itahu Though some exports were 
 
12 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 formei-xj described as from Portii 2 :al, little or no cotton grew there ; ai 
 
 the exports thence came chiefly from Brazil. 
 
 [12] Some cofl^ision has arisen from the diflerent use or application 
 the word ■•cotton.\ It is said to be a word of Arabic origin (Smither 
 History of Liv. 115)\but the application sometimes of the word “ linen | 
 and at others of the\ord ‘Avoollen,” to the vegetable of three or foi| 
 general varieties, and which produces the wool or down now called “ co 
 ton,” has led to some mistakes about its growth and use formerly in certai 
 countries, which it is now difficult to correct. McCulloch’s Diet, of Con 
 436 and ’8. Baines, 287 and ’96, note 66. But it was probably grow 
 and used largely in ancient times in Arabia, as well as India, Americ: 
 and Africa, except perhaps ' in Egypt, where linen, it is supposed, chiefli 
 superseded it, and can now be detected, but no cotton, in the clothinsf ( 
 
 the mummies, by the joints in the fibres of the stalk of the flax, bein 
 
 visible with a microscope, whereas the fibres of cotton from the pod hav 
 no joints. See Thompson’s paper in Baines’s appendix. London Cyclopjra 
 article “Cotton,” contra. The kind of cotton chiefly cultivated nowa ami 
 especially in the United States, is not the tree or shrub, but the annua, 
 and herbaceous varieties. London Cyclop, art. “Cotton.” 
 
13 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 B. 
 
 COTTON, RAW. 
 
 Crop of coUoii grown in — [1] — [2] 
 
 up 
 
 ^90 
 
 91 
 
 792 
 
 93 
 
 94 
 
 79(5 
 
 797 
 
 798 
 
 799 
 
 800 
 801 
 802 
 
 803 
 
 804 
 
 805 
 805 
 
 807 
 
 808 
 :809 
 ^10 
 '811 
 812 
 
 813 
 
 814 
 
 815 
 81(5 
 817 
 •il8 
 '819 
 ^820 
 821 
 822 
 
 823 
 
 824 
 
 825 
 ®2() 
 827 
 328 
 [82!) 
 
 830 
 
 831 
 
 832 
 S33 
 
 834 
 
 835 
 
 ro 
 
 Virginia. 
 
 North Carolina. 
 
 South Carolina. 
 
 Georgia. 
 
 ci 
 
 Ti 
 
 o 
 
 s 
 
 Alabama. | 
 
 Tennessee. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 bs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions, 
 
 1 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 I 
 
 Mill’ns. 
 
 1 
 
 Mill'ns.| 
 
 ] 
 
 5 ! 
 
 •1 
 
 20 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 10 1 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 1 1 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 7 
 
 40 
 
 1 
 
 20 
 
 - 
 
 I 
 
 ! 
 
 ! 
 
 1 _ 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 ! 
 
 10 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 50 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 45 
 
 1 - 
 1 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 i 20 
 
 1 
 
 20 1 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 i'‘ 
 
 i 25 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 . 18 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 79 
 
 75 
 
 1 2 
 
 1 
 
 [ « 
 
 45 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 n 
 
 i - 
 
 ' 10 
 
 t 
 
 ' 
 
 88 ■ 
 
 1 
 
 t 15 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 j 
 
 50 i 
 
 1 lU 
 
 i 9i 
 
 ^ 65i 
 
 ! 
 
 i 
 
 • [31 
 
 75 
 
 : 20 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 j ; 
 
 1 
 
 45 
 
 lbs 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 Mill’ns.lMiirn. 
 
 62 
 
 10 i 
 
 38 1 
 
14 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 [1] I have not been able to find any official returns of either the General 
 or the State Governments, which give the crops of cotton in each State, i 
 The present table has, therefore, been compiled from the best data in my 
 power: suck as the foreign exports of cotton from each State, the exports 
 coastwise, the cpiantity supposed to be exported from each not pj'own 
 within its limits, and the amount yearly consumed within its limits. 
 Many mistakes are made abroad, and some at home, by considering' all ' 
 the exports, of eacli State as its own crop, or by coiijpiiti ng the whole 
 foreign exports as the whole crop, or by estimating ail the bales in the 
 United States alike, and only at 300 pounds on an average. See such 
 mistakes in Reuss’s Tables on American Trade, 270 ; and Parliamentary 
 Evidence on Manuffictures, A. D. 1832, 
 
 But it is well known in this country, that the exports from New Orleans, 
 both foreign and domestic, are composed in part of tlie crops of Louisiana, 
 Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama. Part of the crops in each 
 of those States is consumed at home, part is exported coastwise to the 
 northern States, and the crops of tlie southwestern portion of Mississippi, and 
 ihe southern portion of Alabama, are chiefly exported from Mobile. In 
 addition to some of the aiiove remarks, applicable to the other cotton 
 growing States, it is proper to add, that part of the crop of Georgia is ex- 
 ported from Florida, and part from South Carolina: part of Florida from ! 
 Alabama; and part of North Carolina from Tirginia. i 
 
 For an explanation of some of the iinctnations in our exports in certain i 
 years, see table A, note [3]. 
 
 [2] From data given under the head of “ Cajiital,’’ in table C, note [3j, it j 
 will be seen that, in producing the whole cotton crop of the United i 
 States, only about two millions of acres of land are cultivated. In table I) | 
 it appears that all the foreign exports of cotton in the world do not probably ' 
 exceed 535 millions of pounds, and of which the United States now export ■ 
 about 3S4 millions of pounds ; a large portion of the residue is from the : 
 remotest parts of Asia, very little of it now coming to Europe. But if ne- | 
 cessary or profitable, we could raise tlie whole of the other 150 millions, by ! 
 putting into cultivation only about 500,000 acres more cotton land, am! ; 
 employing less than 100,000 more field lie.nds in tliis branch of industry. 
 
 But supposing that Asia, from her distance and habits, continues to use | 
 chiefly her own raw cotton, that the increase of pojuilation in the Finited I' 
 States should continue much as heretofore, and that the countries in Europe 
 and elsewhere, now supplied rv itli cotton mamifact’ures made chiefly from 
 our crops, should increase in popvdation, or in the use of cotton, as fast 
 as the United States does in population alone, and there would he required 
 to supply the increased annual demand only about 21 millions of pounds | 
 more of raw cotton, or the product in the Imited States of less than 70,000 i 
 acres more each year. This lias been nearly our average increase of crops 1 
 in the last ten years. See table and note in extract trom aiimial Treasury ^ 
 report. It has required about 11,000 more field laborers a year, or only 
 ^yth the annual increase of our Vv'hole population. But we probably , 
 hrwe now, not in cultivation, more acres of land suitable for cotton, than 
 would be sufficient to raise all the cotton now grown in the world ; as that 
 would require only three to five millions of acres. Hence it must he ob- ; 
 vioiis, that there is good cotton land enough in the United States, and at ; 
 low prices, easily to grow, not only all the cotton wanted tor foreign ex- 
 port in the world, but to supply th(^ increased demand for it. probably, for ; 
 ages. The omy preventive, ot wbicii there is much likelihood, seems to i 
 
15 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 !)e in the augmented price of such labor as is usually devoted to this cub 
 ture ; so that it may not be possible to raise tlie crop at so low a rate as to 
 keep possession of the European market against all competition. 
 
 In getting possession of that market so lully and rapidly heretofore, (as 
 shown in tlie extracts from the last annual report,) the United States liave 
 l)een much aided by the good quality of their cotton, the low price of land, 
 and the great improvements in cleaning cotton by Whitney’s cotton gin 
 since 1793. One person is able to perform with it in a day the work of 
 1,000 without it. Cox’s Digest of ManuEctures, page 667; Gales and 
 Seaton’s documents, 2d volume. Besides these advantages, the unusual 
 tndustr)-" and enterprise of our population, and its freedom from tax- 
 ation compared with the people of most other countries, and the wide ex- 
 tvont of our commerce, have promoted our unprecedented progress. Baines’s 
 History, 301 : 5 Malle Brun, page 193. 
 
 The old mode of cleaning it by wooden rollers, and witli tlie bow by 
 ’nand, is still used in India and Colombia, and it is there sown broad cast 
 instead of in drills, and much neglected afterwards. Baines 64 : see 3 
 Crawford’s History, 350. 
 
 The great vibrations in tlie prices per pound of raw cotton grown in the 
 United States, are very striking, as exiiibited in table C. Tlie imluence of 
 these on the sales of public land and our revenue, from both them and the 
 imports of foreign merchandise, has been briefly examined in the last 
 annual report, extracts from which are annexed. The further influence of 
 these on the prosperity of tlie south, on the rise in the value oi their slave 
 property, and on the great profits yielded by all their capital invested in 
 growing cotmn, must be very apparent to every carefld obseiwcr. The 
 single fact, that in no yeai' has the price been but a fraction below 10 cents 
 per pound, or a rate sufficient to yield a fair profit, vdiile it has, at times 
 ixieii as liigh as 29, 34, and even 44, and been, on an average, over 16 
 cents per poimd since 1802, and over 21 since 1790, is probably without a 
 jiarallel, in showing a large and continued profit. Further details on these 
 and similar considerations must be left to otlier persons and other occa- 
 sions [See table C, note 3.] 
 
 [3] In South Carolina, Geoi'gia, and Florida, tlie Sea Island cotton, 
 ('supposed to have come originally fi’om Persia,, and in 1786 from Bahama 
 to tlie U]iited States) succeeds ; but grows there to perfection only in cer- 
 tain districts near the seacoast. During the last 30 years the avera«'e 
 annual crop has been between 9 and LI million pounds. See exports and 
 prices, and a table in Scybert, 152-3: Smithers’s, 132. But the quality of 
 a part of it is inferior. McCulloch, 436. It ba,s taken tlie place in Europe 
 of tlic fme cotton from the isle of Bourbon, frondoii Cyclop, article -robt- 
 ton,” and is superior to that. Supplement to Cyclop. Brit, ^- cotton.” 
 
 [•i] Tlie growth of cotton in tlie United States began as early as 1787 
 even of the sea island, and of other kinds earlier still~in small quantities! 
 McCulloch, 440, says it began soon after the close of the wai- of tlie revo- 
 liition, though not exported till 1790. 
 
 T. Cox, cited in Rees’s Cyclopedia, in article United States,” says cot- 
 ton was raised here in gardens fieforo 1786, but not planters jis a crop, 
 emd before 1787 Ave never exported a liale. [He means of our oav.ii mowtb. 
 It is presumed. See table F, note 6.] We exported a little before 1787, viz : 
 1785, five bags ; and in 1786 six bags ; whicfi SmitJiers’s History of UiAxir- 
 pool, page 129. supposes Avas grown here, but see table P. note 9. 
 
16 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 C.— COTTON, RAW. 
 
 Crop of cotton grown in— [1] 
 
 
 Prices per lb. 
 
 Capital employed in con- 
 nection with growing. [3] 
 
 Persons employed 
 ill growing, and 
 dependent. 
 
 Value of whole 
 crop in 
 
 
 00 
 
 
 </■ 
 
 
 
 
 
 c/* 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 IV 
 
 
 V 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 ci 
 
 
 
 'c3 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 'T3 
 
 DQ 
 
 
 
 
 q3 
 
 03 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 Tb 
 
 
 V 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 C; 
 
 Ph 
 
 P 
 
 V 
 
 t 
 
 
 \ 
 
 y. 
 
 
 
 0 
 
 br. 
 
 W 
 
 H 
 
 
 E 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 1 ^ 
 K 
 
 a 
 
 a. 
 
 >-* 
 
 Gen's. 
 
 Pence. 
 
 Dollars, 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 
 
 i Dollars. 
 
 Dollars 
 
 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Mifons. 
 
 1780 
 
 
 12 to 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1700 
 
 14^ 
 
 12 to 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1791 
 
 26 
 
 13 to 30 
 
 3? 
 
 
 S3 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 4 ! 
 
 4Cj 
 
 1790 
 
 29 
 
 20 to 30 
 
 
 
 
 - U 
 
 
 
 
 1793 
 
 32 
 
 13 to 22 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 1794 
 
 33 
 
 12 to 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1795 
 
 36,^ 
 
 15 to 27 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1796 
 
 36i 
 
 12 to 29 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 34 
 
 12 to 37 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1798 
 
 39 
 
 22 lo 45 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1799 
 
 44 
 
 17 to 60 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1800 
 
 28 
 
 1 6 to 36 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 1801 
 
 44 
 
 17 to 38 
 
 80 
 
 _ 
 
 50 
 
 I 
 
 TTr 
 
 3 
 
 
 39i 
 
 1802 
 
 19 
 
 12 to 38 
 
 
 
 
 1 0 
 
 
 8 1 
 
 
 1803 
 
 19 
 
 8 to 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801 
 
 20 
 
 10 to 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1805 
 
 23 
 
 14 to 19 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1806 
 
 22 
 
 12 to 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1807 
 
 2U 
 
 10 to 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 1808 
 
 19 
 
 9 to 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1809 
 
 16 
 
 10 to 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1810 
 
 16 
 
 10 to 19 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1811 
 
 15i 
 
 7 to 14 
 
 134 
 
 1 
 
 f 0 
 
 58 
 
 J 
 
 i 
 
 12i 
 
 37 
 
 1812 
 
 101 
 
 11 to 14 
 
 
 
 
 ( 
 
 
 
 
 1813 
 
 12 
 
 16 to 26 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1814 
 
 15 
 
 28 av’rage 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1815 
 
 21 
 
 20i “ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1816 
 
 29'; 
 
 18i “ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1817 
 
 26 
 
 20 ‘ ‘ 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 1818 
 
 34 
 
 20 “ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1819 
 
 24 
 
 I3i ‘ ‘ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1820 
 
 17 
 
 lUr 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 
 1821 
 
 ! 16 
 
 
 ! 300 
 
 
 83 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 291 i 
 
 37 
 
 1822 
 
 ! 161 
 
 si “ 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 1823 
 
 10&12 
 
 8i “ 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 182^1 
 
 15 
 
 8.^ “ 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 
 1825 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1826 
 
 11 
 
 6f “ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1827 
 
 i 9V 
 
 6h “ 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1828 
 
 1 Ol- 
 
 61 “ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1829 
 
 io 
 
 i 5! “ 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1830 
 
 10 
 
 6| “ 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 1831 
 
 9i 
 
 5| ‘ ‘ 
 
 650 
 
 30 
 
 58 
 
 3 
 
 •1 
 
 
 
 29i 
 
 1832 
 
 10 
 
 6f “ 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 1333 
 
 i 11 
 
 7§ “ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1834 
 
 i 13 
 
 Si “ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 76 
 
 36r 
 
 1835 
 
 i 16i 
 
 12i “ 
 
 80<J 
 
 31 
 
 50 
 
 1 
 
 4 to i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 r 
 
 I [2], 
 
 i [3] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
17 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. j 
 
 [1] From 1802 to 1826, inclusive, the prices for the United States are 
 taken from Marshall’s tables, page 110. Since that date, from official re- 
 turns. 
 
 The prices, given for the United States, are those at the places of ex- 
 portation, and are the average during the year, and including all kinds ot 
 cotton : but the sea island cotton is worth usually two hundred and fifty 
 per cent, more than the other kinds (see below in note 2) ; and formerly the 
 difference was still greater, when the amount grown elsewhere was not 
 so large. The price of cotton for 1790 is from the Treasury report, 
 15th February, 1791. The prices from 1791 to 1801, inclusive, are from 
 Almy and Brown’s books at Providence, deducting one cent per pound 
 for freight, &c. The prices of raw cotton from 1789 to 1802, in the United 
 States, fluctuated largely, and are quoted somewhat differently in some of 
 the prices current during those years. See the United States Gazette and 
 Pennsylvania Mercury for that period. But the differences are not great if 
 an average be taken for the whole year. 
 
 Where rich lands and labor were low, as in Mississippi and Alabama a 
 few years ago, two cents per pound for cotton in the seed, or eight cents 
 when cleaned, would pay expenses. It is supposed to be a profitable crop 
 in the southwestern States at ten cents per pound. In Baines’s History 
 of Cotton, page 316, it is stated that the planter can make a profit at six 
 cents per pound. 
 
 In India, the Bengal cotton, of inferior quality, it is said, can be raised 
 for three cents per pound, and delivered in England for five cents. 
 ■See evidence on East India Company, 1832, page 286, appendix: Smithers’s 
 History of Liverpool, 116. It has since been said, that it will cost five 
 cents per pound to deliver it on the wharves at Bombay. It sold in India, 
 in 1831 and 1832, at eight to nine cents per pound. See McCulloch’s 
 Dictionary, page 238. In 1820, in 3 Crawford’s History, 351, it is said to 
 bring from eight to nine cents in the Indian islands. 
 
 [2] The prices in England are given in pence, as they are so much 
 oftener referred to in that form, but can easily be converted into cents; esti- 
 mating the pound sterling at ^4 80; by doubling the number of pence. 
 They are generally the prices at Liverpool; and from 1793 to 1797, and 
 from 1799 to 1814, are from Tooke on Prices, page 11, appendix; and are 
 of ‘‘‘ Georgia bowed cotton,” without the duty. The rest, except from 1789 
 to 1793, and 1834 and 1835, are from Marshall’s tables, page 114; and 
 Baines, page 352-3 : differing in some cases a little, and in Marshall giving 
 the prices of each kind of cotton separately. See a table in Smithers’s 
 History of Liverpool, page 149. Those from 1789 to 1793 are from Baines, 
 page 313, and are of West India cotton; and for 1834 and 1835, the Liver- 
 pool reports have been the guide. 
 
 As an illustration of the difference in value of different kinds of raw 
 cotton, I annex a statement of their prices at Liverpool, June 16, 1835: 
 
 d. d. 
 
 Uplands 
 Orleans 
 Alabama 
 ,Sea Island 
 
 Brazil 
 
 from 10 to 12| 
 
 “ 10 to 13 
 
 “ 9f to 12|; 
 « 23 to m 
 
 13f to 16 
 
18 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 Jurats • 
 Bengal 
 
 d. d. 
 
 from 7 to 
 
 Laguyra - 
 West Indies 
 
 U J1 
 
 “ isl to 14 
 “ 12J to 14J 
 
 See more on Prices in Edinburg Keview, 427, (1832.) McCulloch, page 
 437, 441. Tlie linest kinds of sea island often bring lour times as much 
 as the inferior qualities. McCulloch, page 437. In 1799 it sold in Liver- 
 pool for five shillings per pound. Smilhers, page 156. At Smyrna, before 
 1767, the price appears to have been six or seven cents per pound. 
 Postlewait’s Dictionary. At the river Gambia the price per poimd is 
 about four cents. Montgomery's Colonial History. In Demarara the 
 price (in 1815) is said to average about nine to ten cents per pound. Edin- 
 burgh Encyclopedia, article ‘‘cotton.'’ In Colombia in 1822 the price per 
 pound was about the same as in the United States, but it fluctuates there 
 and in other Spanish American Governments from eight to fifteen cents 
 a pound, with the quality and the year. See Humboldt and Mollier’s 
 Travels. 
 
 [3] Capital. The capital employed in growing cotton, with the income 
 it yields, is a question of much interest and iniportance. But very little 
 can be found concerning it in books, and the information obtained on it 
 from different correspondents in the United States is defective, and is 
 founded on quite different data in different States and by different persons. 
 
 The elements of any computation mu&t be, the average cost per acre of 
 cotton lands, wild or cleared, and if tlie former, the expense of clearing them ; 
 the amount of labor necessary per acre to produce a given quantity of raw 
 cotton ; the cost of labor, whether in the form of wages or otherwise ; th« 
 expense of tools, horses, &c. with salaries of overseer^.-, taxes paid, &c. Ax. 
 
 One mode of making the computation is as follows : The average cost 
 of cotton lands when wild, in the old States, did not probably exceed often 
 half a dollar per acre, including fees for patents, <fcc. In the new States it 
 has generally ranged from .|;1 25 to .$20 00 per acre, depending on its 
 quality, location, and tise price of cotton. The actual settlers, "in pur- 
 chasing of capitalists, liave generally been compelled to give an advance 
 from 50 to 100 jm- cent.; some times much more. 
 
 The ex|iense of clearing wild land averages from ten to fi^een dollars per 
 acre. Land in a condition to be cultivated, will, on an average, in the 
 United States, yield from 2501bs. to 3001bs. of clean ootton. In the old 
 iStates, 1251hs. clean, or GOOlhs. in the seed is an ordinary crop. (Cooper’sr 
 Polit. Econ. p. 9t>.) Gox, in 1810, estimated it at 1381 bs, and others at? 
 1201bs. (Rees's C’yclop. art. “ United States.”) 
 
 It is lielieved, that one ffeld hand or laborer, witli the aid liereafter named, 
 can cultivate, on an uTerage, eight acras. Some say fiye to seven, and others 
 ten. He will at the SiUhe lime assist in raising five to eight acres of corn. 
 
 It is usual to employ in this business slav4‘. labor, and the next element’ 
 in the calculation must be the capital invested in slaves ibr this ])urpo?x, 
 and the aimuki cost of their maintenance. . . 
 
 The price of field hands has nearly or quite doubled in ten years ; and 
 they now often cost eight Imndred or one thousand dollars, when formerly 
 four and five hundred dollars were the usual rate each. 
 
 The maintenance of them is another item very differently computed, 
 ^metimes it is done by tiie purchase of more land and cultivating it, put- 
 
19 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146 J 
 
 ting stock on it of cows, sheep, <fec. so as, with the aid of other slaves, kept 
 partly for that purpose and partly for the culture of cotton, to raise corn^ 
 pork, <fec. to feed, and other materials to clothe the wliole. In such case 
 the additional land put in cultivation, the additional slaves bought, and 
 the stock on the plantation, &c. must be considered as so much more 
 capital. 
 
 The additional slaves in such case, being more youthful, or more aged 
 ones, or infirm females, may be fairly computed at an equal number with 
 the field hands, but costing only about half the price. The additional 
 land should be for cultivation, about twenty acres for each field hand. 
 The capital in oxen, horses, sheep, tools for husbandry, ^c. about thirty 
 dollars to each slave on the plantation. 
 
 To these must be added the capital which may be deemed temporary, 
 and not as a permanent investment, and hence is to be all yearly returned^ 
 such as expense for extra clothing not made on the plantation, formedicine^ 
 overseers, tools for labor, taxes, freight, (fee. which may be forty-five dollars 
 to each slave. 
 
 l^iffering from these last data, in some respects, in substance, and wholly 
 Unlike in form, is another mode of computing all the capital invested except 
 that in the mere cotton lands. Instead of estimating the price of slave.s, 
 (fee. it may be considered that slave labor could be hired, with food, clothing, 
 medicine, (fee. at a cost for each field hand from one hundred to one hun- 
 dred and twenty dollars per year. That from thirty to forty dollars eacfi 
 would defray the annual expense of overseers, tools, horses for each, and 
 that the additional and etpial number of slaves, not prime field hands,, 
 could be hired and supported for less than half the annual cost of th« 
 others. 
 
 On these data the cotton crop, as estimated for 1835, at 480 million pounds, 
 would grow on 1,600,000 acres at 3001bs, per acre, or 1,920,000 at 250ibs. 
 each. Considering that some lands wear out quick and are changed, pro- 
 bably tlje whole quantity cultivated for cotton in the United States, at thiiK' 
 time, should be estimated at two millions or more of acre.s. 
 
 From the above elemonts the whole capital invested in growing the cotton 
 crop in the United States can be readily computed. On one hypothesis, 
 converting the whole capital into that which is permanent, and partly 
 invovsted in lands, slaves, imd tools, as fixed capital, and partly invested in 
 bank or other s-tocks, or in loans so as to yield an income, and not a capital 
 sufficient to defray those kinds of expenses which are usually deemed tem- 
 jiorary, and are yearly remunerated, or require what is called a circu- 
 lating or floating capital, and* the whole will amount to more than 9^0 
 millions of dollars. On another hypothesis, considering the capital, as it 
 generally is, divided into fixed and circulating ; tlie. capital as fixed, which 
 £s invested in lands, slaves, stocks of horses, tools, &c. and only alxmt 
 thirty millions of dollars lor other ex|jenses, as circulating or temporary, 
 and to be itself, and not iLs income or interest, used and repaid yearly, and 
 the whole capital of both kinds will not quite equal 800 million dollars. 
 
 This lo.st aniou ut accords nearly with a still different mode of testing: 
 the qiiaiitity of capital, by supposing that the whole crop of 480 million 
 pounds, at ten cents per pound, tSing 48 million dollars, would yield six 
 per cent, .on ail tlie money invested in any way in raising the crop: If tfw 
 
 <!apital used was all permanently invested, it would, on this hypothesig. 
 mnomU to near 800 million dollars ; but as from 25 to 30 million dollars is 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 temperariiy invested, and must itself be repaid yearly, the whole may, in 
 the usual mode of treating of capital employed in such business, be con^ 
 sidered rather under than over 800 million dollars. 
 
 That amount, however, has been assumed as about correct, in the table, 
 and is near enough for the estimate and comparisons at different periods in 
 this country, and at the same period between this and other countries. In 
 others, as in India, Brazil, and Egypt, the cost of labor is less, and perhaps 
 the value of land, though the latter is doubtful ; and the crop per acre, and 
 the amount of labor performed by each hand, is believed to be less, inde- 
 pendent of the failure there to use much the improved cotton gin. 
 
 Here, at 250 pounds per acre as an average crop, and eight acres an 
 average cultivation by one hand, the product would be 2,000 pounds per 
 hand, or at ten cents per pound, would be the average of two hundred 
 dollars per field hand. All the planter obtains over ten cents per pound 
 would yield him a large rate of interest above 6 per cent, to pay for the 
 greater risk and uncertainty of capital invested in this species of property. 
 (See table B, note 2.) The whole crop of 1834 was probably worth 75 
 million dollars at the actual market prices, though at 10 cents per pound 
 only 48 millions. 
 
 It is difficult to institute any just comparison between the profits of capital 
 invested here in the growing of cotton, and in the manufacture of it ; as 
 in the latter so much more in proportion is invested in temporary or circu- 
 lating capital to pay for wages and stock, and the whole of which is to be 
 annually repaid. Neither have I leisure for the details. 
 
 Indeed it might have comported better with the technical language of 
 political economy to have divided the whole expenditures in raising cotton 
 into three heads, viz: labor, capital and land; to yield in return, wages for 
 the labor, profit or interest on the capital, and rent for the land. (See 
 Senior’s Outline of Political Economy, page 165, from the Encyclopedia 
 Metropolitana.) It will be easy, for those who prefer it, to throw the calcu- 
 lation into that form; but the results then, would not be such as accord 
 best with the views proposed in this part of the table C ; which are, to pre- 
 sent to the community here, in plain terms, and in a form as intelligible as 
 possible to people at large, tlie amount of capital actually employed at 
 different periods in growing the cotton crop in the United States; whether 
 invested in the original purchase of lands, the clearing, or the culture of 
 them ; in the purchase of slaves, or in procuring an income for the pay- 
 ment, or in the actual payment of wages of free labor to raise the crop ; 
 for buying seed, tools, food, raiment, horses, (fee. and for payment of taxes, 
 overseers, or any other expense, incidental or direct, connected with the 
 production of the crop. 
 
 Two brief statements of a very general character are subjoined, in illus- 
 tration of some of the above remarks. 
 
 1st. The capital invested in cotton lands under cultivation, at two million 
 acres, and worth cleared, on an average, ^20 per acre, is - $40,000,000 
 
 The capital in field hands, and in other lands, stock, labor, 
 
 (fee. to feed and clothe them, at $100 per year, on 340,000 
 in numb«r, would require the interest or income of a 
 capital, at six per cent, of - - . , 544.000,000 
 
 The maintenance of 340,000 more assistants, 6cc, at $30 
 each per year, would require the income of a capital at 
 »ix per cant, of 167.000,000 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 21 
 
 Amount carried over - - - - - .f 75 f, 000, 060 
 
 Th6 capital to Bupply enough interest or income to pay for 
 tools, horses for ploughing cotton, taxes, medicines, over- 
 seers, <fec. at $30, for the first 346,000, would be - - 167,000,000 
 
 Making in all a permanent capital, if so used, equal to $918,000,000 
 
 2d. The capital in cotton lands, as stated above 
 Capital in the purchase of 340,000 field hands, at $800 each, 
 on an average ------ 
 
 Capital in the other 340,000 to aid, and to raise food, clothing, 
 (fee. at half price _ - - - - 
 
 Capital in horses, cattle, sheep, utensils, <fcc. for plantation, 
 about $30 to each person, to aid in making food and 
 clothing, (fee. ------ 
 
 Capital in other lands to support stock, raise corn, (fee. at 20 
 acres to each of the 680,000, worth $20 per acre cleared 
 Capital, temporary, or floating, to buy clothing not made on 
 plantation, pay taxes, overseers, freight, tools for cotton, (fee. 
 $45 to each 
 
 $40,000,000 
 
 272.000. 000 
 
 136.000. 000 
 
 20.400.000 
 272,060,000 
 
 30.600.000 
 
 $771,000,000 
 
 Making, in all, about $740,000,000 of capital permanently invested or 
 fixtjd, and about $30,000,000 temporarily or circulating. 
 
 The crop in Demarara, per acre, is said to be 400 pounds clean. Edin- 
 burgh Encyclopedia, article ‘‘Cotton,” 1815. But, in another place, the 
 crop in Guiana is computed, on an average, at only 200 pounds, and costs 
 14 cents (or 7 d.) per pound to raise it. 
 
 The capital, per acre, invested there in land, buildings, slaves, (fee. is 
 computed for 1814, at about $730, which is nearly double the amount com- 
 puted above for the United States. (See same book.) He states also the cost 
 of cotton land in Louisiana at about $12^- per acre, slaves at $430 each, and 
 assigns 30 for a plantation of 600 acres and over; horses and sheep for 
 same, costing about $2,250, or $75 for each slave. Those 30 slaves will 
 raise 1,000 pounds of cotton each; (and, it is presumed, maintain them- 
 selves from the land not in cotton, and stock on it.) The annual expenses of 
 overseers, physician, tools, clothing and taxes, with freight of cotton to 
 market, are computed at about $1,350, or $45 each per year; which, de- 
 ducted from the price of the cotton, valued at 21 cents per pound, or about 
 $6,450, leaves about $5,100 as a returnon the original investment of about 
 $22,500, (or at the rate of nearly 25 per cent.) viz: 
 
 600 acres at $12J per acre ----- $7,500 
 
 30 slaves, at $430 each ----- 12,900 
 
 Horses, sheep, &.c. - - - - - - 2,250 
 
 $22,650 
 
 [4] The number of persons is computed on similar data and principlef 
 to those suggested in the first mode of estimating the capital. Some allow 
 ances are made in certain cases, but for comparison there has been pre 
 
22 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 served, similar proportions in all the years for which the computation is 
 carried out in the table. 
 
 Thus two millions of acres, at one field hand to every six acres, would 
 require a bdlit 340,000 laborers; but many compute that ihe number in the 
 United States is over 550,000, who are chiefly, though not entirely, engaged 
 in field labor. Suppose the v/hole number to be double the field hands, as 
 above computed, or 680,000, who are engaged in field labor, picking and 
 otherwise assisting in the cultivation of cotton and corn, and the estimate of 
 laborers is complete at about 680,000. But allowing that a number more 
 .should be added, who are connected with the cultivators, as infirm women, 
 very young children, and too aged persons, &c. unable to labor in the field, 
 besides ovtu'seers, owners and their respective families, dependent on the 
 cotton crop, and it is presumed that then, a million of persons would be 
 considered as now engaged in the United States, directly and indirectly, in 
 the growing of cotton: but the actual laborers are only about t\vo-thirds of 
 that number. 
 
 The numbers are, for comparative views, in ail other countries stated on 
 the same principle, though they are doubtless more, in most nations, to 
 raise the same quantity of cotton for reasons too obvious for recital, and 
 especially where the saw gin and horse power are less used. 
 
 [5] The whole value is computed from the quantity of the crop in any 
 particular calendar year, and tiie price it bears here the next calendar and 
 fiscal year, which is the time most of it is sold. 
 
 The whole value of what is grown elsewhere is computed from the num- 
 ber of pounds, as estimated in table A, and rating it, on an average, at only 
 one-half the value per pound, at the difterent perods which the American 
 cotton, on an average, then bore at home. Considering the qualities of 
 each, their cleanliness, distances from a foreign market, the great propor- 
 tion of it in Asia, &c. this is supposed to be a high enough value. See 
 prices (note 2 above, and note 1) in India, and in Liverpool, of different 
 kinds of cotton. Our cotton is of a better species, and better cleaned, (Lc. 
 See 3 Crawford’s Hist, of Ind. Arch. 350 to 360. Though in 1791, its 
 y wa.s considered so inferior, that it ^vas supposed foreign cotton 
 must be imported to supply factories. Gales and Seaton’s Document, vol. 1. 
 Finance, peige 142. 
 
[ \dl-i I 
 
 
 
 'WKfl 
 
 
 
 ■j .Jsir>r^simA 
 
 ' I 
 
 
 ■,i<;>.i'.'.^ :JA 
 
 4:<'r; :■• .| 
 
 : .• a\!T ; 
 
 ii • 
 
 ... , ■ ,.. i 
 
 ' ..-nvuiu^' k'.ym4 
 
 
 I iM .- 1 :: ^ 
 
 • /Oi; 
 
 
 ,a 
 
 cfe' ■ 
 
 
 Oa 
 
 : os: .; ^-Si . ! 
 
 i .« . . 
 , - • ■<■ 
 
 ' ' t- 
 
 i. .|l 
 
 :t 
 
 •■ -J 
 
 
 
 ■:.■> 
 i,“ ' ■ 
 
 It- - 
 
 H Y' 
 
 '&r, 
 
 ■St 
 
 
 i,;,\ '5 
 
 t 
 
 ■ s 
 
 t-l» 
 
 •V, 
 
 ■i V 
 
 *-■ . 
 
 
 ;l 
 
 ' I 'Ami 7 
 
 -■y\ 
 
 iA 
 
 
 ,r 8 
 
 Oil 
 
 HT ^- 
 
 
 ,}§■■ 
 
 ' ' 
 
 t 8 r; , - 
 t'm- 
 
 M . . 
 
 (I r,.^MU 
 
 M , . ; 
 
 ■ - .1 -IP- 
 
 I ■.-'■'■’■■■ ' 
 
 I ■^. i'--' 
 
 ? t.’ . 
 
 I . 
 
 4181 , 
 BjH-r -., 
 
 ti3i.;,', 
 
 i: 
 
 ^;R‘ t 
 
 . iX-i| '• YV 
 
 V • ! 
 
 yyj 
 
24 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 D. 
 
 COTTON, RAW. 
 
 Exports of cotton from — [10] [11] 
 
 
 1 
 
 TJnited States. 
 
 Egypt and 
 Turkey. 
 
 Brafil. 
 
 India. 
 
 West Indies, 
 
 Spanish 
 
 America. 
 
 Elsewhere. 
 
 1 
 
 }bs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 1770 
 
 2,000 
 
 [8] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Millioiis, 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Milliom 
 
 1789 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1790 
 
 4 
 
 ] 0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1791 
 
 1 
 
 5 
 
 _ 
 
 20 
 
 - 
 
 12 
 
 - 
 
 5 
 
 1792 
 
 1 
 
 T 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1794 
 
 4 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1795 
 
 4 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 
 1796 
 
 6 ,V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 3f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1798 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1799 
 
 9J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1800 
 
 17f 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801 
 
 20 tV 
 
 
 24 
 
 30 
 
 17 
 
 - 
 
 7 
 
 1802 
 
 m 
 
 [ 2 ] 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 224 
 
 
 1863 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1804 
 
 38tV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1805 
 
 m 
 
 
 - 
 
 41^ 
 
 
 
 
 1806 
 
 374 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1807 
 
 661 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1808 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1809 
 
 531 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1810 
 
 93* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1811 
 
 62i 
 
 
 31 
 
 
 7 
 
 .. 
 
 13 
 
 1812 
 
 29 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1813 
 
 19i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1814 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1815 
 
 83 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1816 
 
 8 li 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1817 
 
 854 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1818 
 
 924 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1819 
 
 88 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1820 
 
 127a . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1821 
 
 124* 
 
 
 28 
 
 50 
 
 9 
 
 - 
 
 
 1822 
 
 1^4* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1823 
 
 173 N 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1824 
 
 I42i* 
 
 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1825 
 
 1764 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 75 
 
 
 
 
[ D^. No. 146. ] 2S 
 
 D — Coiitinvied. 
 
 COTTON, RAW. 
 
 Exports of cotton from — 
 
 Years. 
 
 United States. 
 
 Egypt and 
 Turkey. 
 
 Brazil. 
 
 India. 
 
 West Indies. 
 
 Spanish 
 
 America. 
 
 Elsewhere., 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 1826 
 
 1827 
 
 1828 
 1829 
 
 Millions. 
 
 2044 
 
 294 
 
 210 
 
 264f 
 
 298i 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 MiilioTiSi^ 
 
 1830 
 
 19 
 
 39 
 
 151 68 
 
 10 
 
 - 
 
 4 
 
 1831 
 
 1832 
 
 1833 
 
 277 
 
 322i 
 
 3244 
 
 20i 
 
 37 
 
 70 
 
 12 
 
 
 -i 
 
 1834 
 
 1835 
 
 384|- 
 
 3864 
 
 23 
 
 30 
 
 80 
 
 8 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 [1] 
 
 [2] 
 
 [3] 
 
 [ 4 ] 
 
 [6] 
 
 [7] 
 
 . 
 
 [8] 
 
 [91 
 
 [1] The exports of cotton, or, in other words, the foreign trade in raw 
 cotton, in the whole world, is small compared with the whole growtii^ 
 manufacture, and consumption of that article. It probably does not exceed 
 535 millions of pounds, and of that the United States export about 384 
 lions of pounds, or almost three-fourths. Our exports each year have ii®t 
 always corresponded with that part of the crop of the previous year not con- 
 sumed at home, as in 1808, 1812, &c. commercial restrictions and wat 
 caused the stocks on hand to accumulate, and the high prices in some othfgr 
 years have left much less on hand here than usual. 
 
 [2] Before 1802, the exports of cotton did not appear on the custom- 
 house books so as to show what was of foreign and what of domestic growtii ; 
 and hence, before that year, and ocicasionally since, to 1825, one or tw<® 
 millions a year of our exports may have been the growth of India or the 
 West Indies. Seyberfs Statistics, pages 152 and 257, and see table B, note 
 [4]. See when first begun, table F, note [9]. See amounts for some years?. 
 Seybert, 152 and 4. 
 
 [3] From 1821 to 1824, inclusive, from Egypt. See Urquhart on Turkey^ 
 page 179. The amount is too high, if the bag or bale was computed tm it 
 is now, at 218 pounds instead of 98, as formerly. No exports were from 
 Egypt before 1820 ; but previously the supplies in England were in a 
 considerable ratio from Smyrna and other parts of Turkey. See table F’ 
 and London Cyclopedia, article “ Cotton,” and Edinburgh Encyclopedia^ 
 
 Cotton.” See table A, note [6]. Her exports for 1835, as well as 1834^ 
 are said to be diminishing. 
 
26 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146, ] 
 
 [4] A great part of this is Irom the northern provinces of Brazil, and in- 
 cludes most of her crop. See Walsh’s Travels in Brazil. From one-half 
 million to one million is exported from Rio and Bahia. From 1809 to 1813 
 from 50,000 to 75,000 bags, averaging 180 pounds each, were exported 
 from Maranham alone, and about two-thirds to three-fourths of it to Eng- 
 land, (1 Roster’s Travels, page 227). From Pernambuco, the exports of 
 raw cotton were, from 1808 to 1813, on the increase, from 26,877 bags to 
 65,327. See Roster’s Travels, page 146 — note. See Smithers’s Tables in 
 History of lav. The exports from Brazil were often formerly described to 
 be from Portugal, as she was a dependency, and as most of it was under 
 her colonial system shipped first to Portugal, and then re-exported. Little 
 or none was raised in the mother country. London Cyclop, art. “ Cotton.” 
 Coffee and sugar are taking the place of cotton in her exports. 
 
 [5] The exports for 1830 from all places except the United States, are 
 given partly from data in Pitkin’s Stat. 484, which show tliat from India to 
 all Europe in that year they were about 25 millions of pounds ; from Egypt 
 and the Levant about 18|- millions of pounds, and from Brazil and West 
 Indies about 49|^ millions of pounds. Due additions have been made to 
 these for exports elsewhere than to Europe. 
 
 [6] Of this from India, 60 millions of pounds were shipped from Bombay, 
 
 and most of the rest from Calcutta. Evid. on East Ind. Comp, pages 13 
 and 287, appendix, 1832, A. D. See 1 Milbourn’s Orient. Com. It is sup- 
 posed that the exports of cotton from India will increase rapidly as her trade 
 is more free since 1833, though less restricted than formerly since 1823. 1 
 
 Smith’s Com. Digest, page 15. 
 
 Most of the raw cotton of the India islands has been consumed where 
 raised. McCulloch, page 437. Tlie quantities for all the years except 
 1805 and 1825, are estimates made by knowing the amount of exports to 
 England and the United States, with those in some of the years to China. 
 
 In London Cyclopedia, article “ Cotton,” tlie exports from India to China 
 alone, in 1818, are stated at 230 millions of pounds, which must be an 
 error, or all the other computations, as to both crops and exports, are inuch 
 too low in regard to India. 
 
 [7] The exports from the West Indies sometimes exceed their whole 
 crop, as it is imported from the Spanish Main, and re-exported. See table 
 A, note [5]. Colquhoiin, page 378, says sometimes double. In 1793 they 
 exported to England considerable cotton grown in the United States. 
 Smithers, page 1.56. See more on their exports, table A, note [5]. 
 
 [8] The exports of cotton from Spanish America in 1802, were chiefly 
 from Vera Cruz, collected there from other places. 1 Dict’y of Span. Com. 
 and Finance, pages 63 to 69. From 1804 to 1810 about 5-|- millions were 
 shipped from Venezuela yearly, (Mollier’s Travels in Colombia, 455 — note,) 
 and half a million from New Granada, Ditto, 456 — note. From Lagn^n'ay 
 in 1823, about one- fourth of a million exported. Hall’s Colombia, page 152. 
 In 1822, about one-half of a million exported from Caraccas, and 14 mill- 
 ions of pounds from all the Spanish provinces. 2 Hist, of Colombia, 1822. 
 
 The exports for 1834 are an estimate of my own. 
 
 Those for 1794 are from 4 Hiimboldt’s Personal Narrative, page 125 — note. 
 
27 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 ef which very nearly half was from Laguyra, (3 do. 192, 6 do. 202,) and 
 2^ millions of pounds before the revolution, exported from Yaragua, Mara- 
 caibo, and the Gulf of Cariaco. 
 
 See table P, note 9, as to the exports from English territories in America 
 before the revolution, and which were probably grown in the West Indies 
 or Spanish America. 
 
 [9] Among the places not enumerated which have exported some cotton, 
 it is said in Montgomery’s Hist, of Brit. Col. page 604, that 14,900 pounds 
 of raw cotton were exported from the river Gambia, in 1833. 
 
 In 1775 there was exported to Holland alone from Surinam one-eighth 
 of a million of pounds. 2 Dicfy of Spanish Coin. Smithers’s Hist, of Liv. 
 
 The countries more particularly included under “ Elsewhere,” though 
 not all, and about which much is known of their exports in cotton, are 
 Dernarara and Berbice. See imports into England, table G. The data 
 as to exports from Brazil, West Indies, and ^‘Elsewhere,” in last column, 
 are chiefly the ascertained imports from those enumerated places into other 
 countries. From Naples and Spain some cotton was, in 1817, exported to 
 France. 2 Chaptal, page 6. But probably most of the growth of other 
 places. See table A, note [9]. 
 
 [10] The cost of exportation or freight from the United States to Europe, 
 is usually less than two cents per pound. Smithers, page 139. Even this 
 has been reduced by the improvements which mark the spirit of the age, as 
 the cotton is so pressed in tire bales that it occupies less space in a vessel, 
 and the vessels in this trade are so constructed as to carry more when of 
 the same tonnage. 
 
 [11] A small duty is imposed on it in England and France. Baines’s His. 
 317 and 515. Yet in 1769 it was made free to aid the manufacturer. 3 
 McPhers. Com. 447. But the duty on raw cotton is remitted or allowed 
 in drawback, on exportation of the manulactured article in England, 
 Pebrier says in his tables in his work on England, though not if the raw 
 article is re-exported. 3 McPherson on Com. page 659. The duty was 6 
 per cent, ad valorem in England for some years before 1831 on foreign 
 cotton, then raised to 5s. 1.0d. per cwt. (1 Com. Dig. page 16, by Smith,) 
 and in 1833 reduced to 2s. lid. per cwt. On cotton from a British posses- 
 sion, the duty is only 4d. per cwt. See McCulloch, page 440. But for- 
 merly, as in 1799, it was from 85. 9d. per 100 pounds, to 12.9. 6d. from 
 different places : and from 1803 to 1815, from 16.9. 10c?. to 33.9. lOd. See 
 a table in Edinl). Encyciop. article Cotton.” 
 
 The duty in tlie United States on foreign cotton imported here is, and 
 always has remained since 1790, at 3 cents per pound. Though Mr. Ha- 
 milton recommended its reduction in 1791, to aid our manufactures. See 
 Rep. Dec. 30, 1791. 
 
 The duty in France varies, under various circumstances, from 10 to 16 
 percent. See McCulloch, page 639, “ Havre,” and 2 Com. Dig. 73, by 
 ^Smith. 
 
 ij There is said to be no duty on raw cotton in Switzerland. In England, 
 i! in 1833, it is stated to be 3 farthings per pound, or 10 per cent. West, 
 ij Rev. for April, ’33. 
 
 I 
 
28 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. J 
 
 E. 
 
 COTTON, RAW. 
 
 Exports of cotton from — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 eS 
 
 a'S 
 
 
 .S 
 
 
 1 
 
 .a 
 
 d 
 
 a 
 
 etj 
 
 S 
 
 'Sb 
 
 i-i 
 
 o 
 
 o .a 
 
 . 
 
 -C t« 
 
 o i 
 
 IS 
 
 
 "3 
 
 Q 
 
 
 a 
 
 <u 
 
 O '~d 
 . C 
 
 (D 
 
 o 
 
 
 J 
 
 tc 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 a 
 
 J2; Cd 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 <u 
 
 , lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 DoilaTS- 
 
 1789 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions, 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 1790 
 
 1791 
 
 1792 
 
 1793 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 — 
 
 48,285 
 
 52,000 
 
 51,470 
 
 160,00© 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 1794 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 X 
 
 1795 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 •24 
 
 1796 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2t¥ 
 
 1797 
 
 1798 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 li 
 
 1799 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1800 
 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 1801 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 9 1 
 
 1802 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 1803 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 ’'1 
 
 1804 
 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 1805 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 1806 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 8x 
 
 1807 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 14| 
 
 1808 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 1809 
 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 1810 
 
 ~6 
 
 40 
 
 
 20 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 4 
 
 15i 
 
 1811 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 1812 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 1813 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1814 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 1815 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 1% 
 
 1816 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24i 
 
 1817 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ! — 
 
 22^ 
 
 1818 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 -- 
 
 
 3H 
 
 1819 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 21 
 
 1820 
 
 30 
 
 37 
 
 8 
 
 25 
 
 28 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 22i 
 
 1821 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 20r 
 
 1822 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 24 
 
 1823 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 23| 
 
 1824 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 211 
 
 1825 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 38| 
 
 1826 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 25 
 
 1827 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 29i 
 
 1828 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 S2| 
 
 1829 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 26f 
 
 1830 
 
 lioi 
 
 551 
 
 24 
 
 49 
 
 37to 
 
 Hi 
 
 3 
 
 29s 
 
 1831 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 25t 
 
 1832 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 311 
 
 1833 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 36 
 
 1834 
 
 164 
 
 671 
 
 511 
 
 561 
 
 301 
 
 in 
 
 3 
 
 49i 
 
 1835 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 6U 
 
 [1] 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fS] 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 2a 
 
 [11 The exports from each State are the foreign ones, and for 1830 and 
 183^ from official data ; but prior to that they are estimates from the crop, 
 consumption at home, (fee. 
 
 See table F, note [6], as to some exports before the revolution. 
 
 The first cotton supposed to be of American growth, brought to New 
 York city, for foreign export, it is said, came from Savannah in 1792, and 
 consisted of only two bags. The amount of exports coastwise has not 
 been ascertained, for reasons stated in the report. Those for foreign coun- 
 tries from any particular State often include more than the crop of that 
 State, as from New York, which raises no cotton, and from Louisiana 
 which raises but a small part of her exports. See table B, note 1. 
 
 [2] The portion exported of sea island cotton, was, in 1834, 8,085,935 
 pounds, and in 1835, was 7,752,736 ; and was chiefly from South Carolina 
 and Georgia. See official returns. 
 
 Its cultivation was, as remarked in a former table, introduced into South 
 Carolina as early as 1787, from Bahama, and the export of it during the 
 last 20 years has been on an average not far from 8 millions of pounds. 
 It may be cultivated more extensively, it is supposed, in Florida. See j>rices 
 ill table C and notes, and B, note 3. 
 
 It is now exported chiefly to England, say seven-ninths, over one-ninth to 
 France, and the rest elsewhere. See McCulloch, page 440. It has taken 
 the place of the fine cottons formerly from the isle of Bourbon. 
 
 See a table of exports of it from 1802 to 1816, inclusive, going in some 
 years to nearly 10 millions of pounds, and to others short of one million ; 
 but, as before named, being generally about 8 millions of pounds. Seyb. Stat. 
 pages 152 and 4. 
 
 [3] The value has been computed from the quantity and average price 
 through each year, so far as obtainable from official data. 
 
 In Seyb. Stat. page 147, is a table of the values from 1803 to 1817, 
 inclusive. 
 
30 
 
 [ l>oc. No. 146. 3 
 F. 
 
 COTTON, RAW. 
 
 Exports of, to what places. 
 
 
 S 
 
 
 p 
 
 
 
 ! 
 
 
 .1 
 
 VI 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 'Ss 
 
 K 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 ie 
 
 B 
 
 
 § 
 
 c 
 
 r/i 
 
 B 
 
 B 
 
 m 
 
 tiled States to c 
 places. 
 
 1 
 
 ’bo 
 
 fl 
 
 W 
 
 G 
 
 s 
 
 IS 
 
 Q 
 
 © 
 
 rS 
 
 'So 
 
 c 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 'n 
 
 p 
 
 0 
 
 w 
 
 ■S 
 
 'S 
 
 G 
 
 w 
 
 © 
 
 aziland West I 
 to France. 
 
 ypt and Turkt 
 England. 
 
 ypt and Turkt 
 France. 
 
 1 «ther places 
 England. 
 
 
 
 
 tD 
 
 P 
 
 
 a 
 
 p 
 
 
 PQ 
 
 bo 
 
 P 
 
 bX) 
 
 W 
 
 < 
 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 1770 
 
 2,000 
 
 [9] 
 
 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Mi! Vs, 
 
 1787 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 — 
 
 
 6| 
 
 _ 
 
 H 
 
 
 n 
 
 1789 
 
 Ratio of 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 , Mil’s. 
 
 Ratio of 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 
 
 
 [8] 
 
 1790 
 
 herimpon& 
 
 from tJ. S. 
 
 
 
 
 imports 
 from Braz. 
 
 
 
 
 1791 
 
 1 
 
 1 ¥ 0 0 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1792 
 
 1 
 
 T 2 6 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 1793 
 
 1 
 
 2 T 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1794 
 
 1 
 
 1 f 7 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 3 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 1795 
 
 1 
 
 2 S 
 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 „ 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 1796 . 
 
 J 
 
 T- 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 
 __ 
 
 li 
 
 _ 
 
 ¥ 
 
 i 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 17^98 
 
 i 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 __ 
 
 3 
 
 J 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 1799 
 
 lbs.' 
 
 1 
 
 f 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 7 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1800 , 
 
 ,16 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 J 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801 
 
 19 
 
 
 .3. 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 3 
 
 T 
 
 
 
 
 
 1802 
 
 23J 
 
 
 2 
 
 _ 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 |- 
 
 1 
 
 e 
 
 
 
 
 
 1803 
 
 27\ 
 
 5. 
 
 4 
 
 „ 
 
 li 
 
 _ 
 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 
 
 
 
 1804 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 
 
 
 
 1805 
 
 32-1 
 
 [ 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 « 
 
 ■ 5 - 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 
 
 
 
 1806 
 
 24j 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 1807 
 
 53J 
 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 3j 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 1 
 
 IT 
 
 
 
 
 
 1808 
 
 8 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 5j 
 
 „ 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 1809 
 
 13f 
 
 _■ 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 1810 
 
 36 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 1811 
 
 46| 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 i> 
 
 T 
 
 1 
 
 2 e j 
 
 
 
 
 
 1812 
 
 26 
 
 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 tV ! 
 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 1813 
 
 _ 
 
 
 iOi 
 
 
 
 „ 
 
 3 
 
 S 
 
 tV I 
 
 
 
 
 
 1814 
 
 
 
 1|: 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 i 
 
 TT 
 
 
 
 
 
 1815 
 
 45| 
 
 20 
 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 
 
 
 
 1816 
 
 573- 
 
 . 1 . 
 
 18 
 
 „ 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 3 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 1817 
 
 51 
 
 j 
 
 
 _ 
 
 36 
 
 __ 
 
 
 1 
 
 Tef 
 
 
 
 
 
 1818 
 
 58^ 
 
 
 - j 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 
 
 
 
 1819 i 
 
 51| i 
 
 , 1 
 
 - ' 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 F — Continued. 
 COTTON, RAW. 
 
 21 
 
 Exports of, to what places. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 'd , 
 
 10 
 
 0) 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 
 
 'C 
 
 J=s 
 
 W 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 o 
 
 d 
 
 Q] 
 
 o 
 
 CJ 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 s s 
 
 d 
 
 'bi5 
 
 d 
 
 
 d 
 
 J5 
 
 tiO 
 
 d 
 
 W 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 Trj 
 
 d 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 <u 
 
 d 
 
 'Q a> 
 
 hi. 
 
 ^ d 
 C3 
 
 O) 
 
 i-, . 
 
 d T3 
 
 'd Y'a 
 
 >, 
 
 a; 
 
 d 
 
 "d d 
 
 2 
 
 d . 
 
 
 i 
 
 C/5 
 
 05 
 
 m d. 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 d Pm 
 2 
 
 d d 
 
 d w 
 
 d Cm 
 
 
 
 iD 
 
 m 
 
 s 
 
 c3 
 
 d 
 
 d 
 
 'n 
 
 C3 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 'n 
 
 d 
 
 m 
 
 Si) 
 
 W 
 
 w 
 
 0 
 
 w 
 
 s 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Mil’.s. 
 
 j Mil’s. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Miirni?. 
 
 1820 
 
 90 
 
 — 
 
 
 23 
 
 - 
 
 29 
 
 
 — 
 
 1 i 
 
 - 
 
 2i 
 
 1821 
 
 93| 
 
 27i 
 
 n 
 
 9 
 
 — 
 
 191 
 
 7 
 
 - 
 
 i 
 
 - . 
 
 2f 
 
 1822 
 
 101 
 
 2H 
 
 8| 
 
 4+ 
 
 - 
 
 24f 
 
 101 
 
 
 1 4 
 
 1 0 
 
 - 
 
 2 
 
 1823 
 
 142^ 
 
 25 
 
 8+ 
 
 15“ 
 
 - 
 
 23i 
 
 7 
 
 - 
 
 li 
 
 - 
 
 2 
 
 1824 
 
 92 
 
 40^ 
 
 
 16-i 
 
 — 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 T'tV 
 
 - 
 
 2 
 
 1825 
 
 140 
 
 30“ 
 
 Y 
 
 20i 
 
 
 33 
 
 s 
 
 - 
 
 19 
 
 - 
 
 
 1826 
 
 131 
 
 62+ 
 
 8| 
 
 21 
 
 - 
 
 9A 
 
 4| 
 
 - 
 
 10 
 
 -- 
 
 1 
 
 1827 
 
 217 
 
 70| 
 
 Hi 
 
 20 
 
 
 20f 
 
 7 
 
 - 
 
 5 
 
 - 
 
 1.1 
 
 1828 
 
 151| 
 
 53^ 
 
 101 
 
 32^ 
 
 25 
 
 29 
 
 6 
 
 - 
 
 7 
 
 - 
 
 1-1 
 
 1829 
 
 157 
 
 67+ 
 
 23 
 
 25 
 
 (qii*) 
 
 29 
 
 41 
 
 - 
 
 6 
 
 - 
 
 
 1830 
 
 211 
 
 75 
 
 13A 
 
 I2i 
 
 i — 
 
 33 
 
 Q1 
 
 7 
 
 *^To 
 
 8 i 
 
 6 
 
 -1 
 
 1831 
 
 205| 
 
 46 or 50 
 
 9“ 
 
 96 
 
 1 664 
 
 31+ 
 
 2+ 
 
 H 
 
 1 74 
 
 )-i 
 
 1832 
 
 217| 
 
 73 or 77+ 
 
 16 
 
 35 
 
 I 58 
 
 20 
 
 2 " 
 
 3-1 
 
 9 1 
 
 1 8^ 
 
 
 1833 
 
 227J 
 
 76f 
 
 n 
 
 32i 
 
 1 - 
 
 281 
 
 2 
 
 
 1 i 
 
 ! " 
 
 1-1 
 
 1834 
 
 266| 
 
 79-,^. 
 
 20 
 
 oo 
 
 1 40 
 
 18 
 
 4 
 
 4 
 
 u 
 
 1 7 
 
 
 1835 
 
 252 
 
 lOOlj 
 
 16-1 
 
 ! 42-4 
 
 (qu.) 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 [1] 
 
 
 
 [2J i 
 
 1 
 
 1 [ 8 ] 
 
 jW 
 
 [5] 
 
 [7j 
 
 
 [6]l 
 
 ; 
 
 < 
 
 i 
 
 s 
 
 [1] The eX|X)rLs to England from diflorent places are given chiefly from 
 Marshall’s tables, page iU); London Cyclop, article “Cotton.” As to 
 those from the Unit^ States, since 1820, see our own commercial tablesr. 
 A slight diflerence sometiraes occurs front a reference by some to the ex- 
 ports to Liverpool alone, or to England aloiie, not including Scotland or 
 Ireland. The exports from the United States to them all were. 
 
 Year. 
 
 1831 
 
 1832 
 
 1833 
 
 pf lbs. 
 
 :228 
 
 238i 
 
 Year. 
 
 1834 
 
 1835 
 
 MUVs of id.'’: 
 
 284 
 26 
 
 See Porter’s official tables, page 125. Those for 1817, from India to 
 England, are from R-ees’s Cyclop, article “United States,” in a note, They 
 
Bt [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 aire believed to be too high. The quantities are given in pounds, where 
 .aa.'certainable with accuracy, and where not so, the proportions are stated 
 from table G, which are founded on the imports into England, from the 
 United States and other countries. (See Marshall, page 110, and Smithers, 
 146.) The actual quantities exported from the United States to all 
 Great Britain, before 1800, cannot be obtained by me; but the number of 
 Wes to liiverpool alone, can be, and, as a matter of some curiosity, are 
 annexed: 1791, 64; 1792, 503; 1793, 111; 1794, 348; 1795, 2,147; 1796, 
 4,668 1797, 5,193; 1798, 12,163; 1799, 13,236; 1800, 24,138. See 
 more in books cited. 
 
 [2] The exports from the United States to England and France, are 
 so'metimes taken from their official reports of imports, and sometimes from 
 onrs of exports, occasionally differing a little by losses at sea, imperfect 
 returns, and in the former, not always including Scotland and Ireland. 
 The proportions are given in a few cases where the exact quantity was 
 imcertain, on the principle in table G. For 1813 and ’14, see that table. 
 But the quantities given for 1834 and 1835, are from our own returns. In 
 fespect to the other places to which our exports go, a statement is annexed, 
 giving the details since 1820, while our returns have been made up ac- 
 curately and in more detail. 
 
 ■^‘TATEMENT of the quantity of Colton exported from the United States to other places, than 
 Great Britain and France, m the year ciuiin§ September 30, 1821, to 1835, inclusive. 
 
 ncj 
 
 55 
 
 >< 
 
 To Russia. 
 
 Holland 
 & Belgium. 
 
 Spain, j 
 
 Spanish 
 
 W. I. 
 
 Trieste. 
 
 Hanse 
 
 Towns. 
 
 Italy and 
 Malta, 
 
 Ail other 
 places. 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Pounds, j 
 
 Po^mds. 
 
 Pounds.. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 1^21 
 
 304,680 
 
 4,186,096 
 
 284,832 
 
 772,296 
 
 34,976 
 
 748,110 
 
 8*97,804 
 
 2 ,506 , 777 
 
 mt2 
 
 713,789 
 
 1,970,258 
 
 
 445,964 
 
 210,138 
 
 2,955,581 
 
 1,9-56,253 
 
 450,762 
 
 1823 
 
 309,678 
 
 4,650,548 
 
 
 
 177,789 
 
 2,356,594 
 
 217,683 
 
 833,332 
 
 1824 
 
 501,645 
 
 432,976 
 
 
 3~853 
 
 _ 
 
 292,852 
 
 
 221,529 
 
 1825- 
 
 133,934 
 
 1,420,225 
 
 
 
 
 577,109 
 
 980 
 
 509,031 
 
 m*2S 
 
 15,262 
 
 4,592,439 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 33,311 
 
 2,012,679 
 
 _ 
 
 1,820,116 
 
 1827 
 
 247,101 
 
 5,861,400 
 
 7,990 
 
 
 183,204 
 
 3,389,514 
 
 148,170 
 
 1,440.547 
 
 18:18 
 
 649,791 
 
 3,780,988 
 
 
 
 980,354 
 
 3,386,108 
 
 407,068 
 
 1,072; 448 
 
 1&29' 
 
 227,883 
 
 9,595,337 
 
 
 
 4,071,247 
 
 6,857,796 
 
 1,056,387 
 
 1,261,925 
 
 1830 
 
 111,376 
 
 8,561,193 
 
 32,210 
 
 _ 
 
 2,814,477 
 
 4,123,047 
 
 235,265 
 
 638,877 
 
 1831. 
 
 761,735 
 
 972,659 
 
 555,098 
 
 
 2,778,858 
 
 2,416,765 
 
 305,695 
 
 2,243,741 
 
 1832 
 
 838,951 
 
 3,920,016 
 
 2,283,875 
 
 
 1,654,775 
 
 4,075,122 
 
 580,974 
 
 2,250,190 
 
 18331,447,405 
 
 2,673,253 
 
 758,216 
 
 
 1,107,600 
 
 1,870,620 
 
 
 1,759,615 
 
 1834 
 
 1,260,494 
 
 6,096,462 
 
 892,967 
 
 _ 
 
 3,805,312 
 
 6,612,895 
 
 190,842 
 
 1,153,382 
 
 1835 
 
 974,801 
 
 5,694,358 
 
 878,219 
 
 - 
 
 4,943,061 
 
 2,788,147 
 
 12,952 
 
 1,493,760 
 
 [3] The exports to England from other places than the United States for 
 1834 and ’5, are from the last annual report, in ^nuary, 1836, at Liver- 
 pool, It is said, in Smithers’s History of Liverpool, page 124, that the first 
 imports from India were in 1798, and proved to be very profitable; but 
 they began five or six years earlier to London, if not to Liverpool. See 
 table G, and note's, and same pag» in Smithers,|that Surats were imported 
 111 1783 ; in page 1^5? he says, that 53^ millions of pounds in one of the 
 late years, being then 1824,,’ were shipped from Calcutta to England, but 
 official Hibles are lower. 
 
33 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146, ] 
 
 [4] Of the exports from India to China, in 1828, over 121 millions of 
 pounds were from Calcutta alone. Evidence on East India Company, 
 page 13, 1832. For 1834, see Baines’s History page 32, which is 
 too low. For other years except 1831 and ’2, see 1 Milbourne’s Oriental 
 Comm, page 281. The cotton trade to China began in the last half century, 
 or about 1787, and the reasons for it are stated m table A, note 9. The 
 exports for 1831 and ’2, are from McCulloch, pages 237 and ’8. China has 
 raised and manufactured cotton since the 13th century, though less since 
 1787. See table A, note 9. In London Cyclop, article ‘-Cotton,” it is said, 
 that in 1818, about 230 millions of pounds were exported from India to 
 China; but it is probably an error. In supplement to Encyclop. Brit. art. 
 “Cotton,” it is supposed to be one-half what had been yearly consumed m 
 England, (1824) or 50 to 60 millions of pounds, which is higher than 
 Milbourne, but it agrees substantially with McCulloch, whose statement 
 is from official returns; it is the greatest article of trade from India to 
 China, except opium. See McCulloch, page 236; 3 CraAvford, Hist, of Ind, 
 Ar. 350. 
 
 [5] The exports from Brazil to England, began in 1781. Smithers’s Hist, 
 of Liverpool, 124, and are often included till 1808, under the head of Por- 
 tugal. Smither.s, 146. See table D. 
 
 [6] Tlie exports from Egypt alone to England, it is said, did not com- 
 
 mence till 1823, (Smithers’s Hist, page 136,) and consisted of 2,108 bags, or 
 short of one-quarter of a million of pounds, as their bags then weighed. 
 See London article “Cotton,” which says, that before 1790, nearly 
 
 6 or 7 millions of pounds yearly, were exported to England from Smyrna. 
 
 [7| Under West Indies, the years 1834 and ’5, include Deinarara, and 
 elsewhere, not enumerated, as they are not discriminated in the last annua] 
 report at Liverpool, which is the authority. 
 
 [8] The exports of 1787, from “ all other placets ” to England,^ inciude If 
 niillion of pounds from Demarara and Berbic^. 
 
 [9] I’he ex|x>rts in 1770, were from the then provinces of New York, 3 
 hales; from Yirginia, four bags ; and from North Carolina, 3 barrels. 
 Smithers’s History, page 153. It was probably ail of foreign growth, i. e. 
 of the Spanish Main, or of the West Iridieq as was, it is presumed most, 
 if not all, of the eight brigs from “.America,” seized in 1784. Smithers’s 
 Hist. 124 and 156. See table B, note. First exports of our own cotton 
 were in small packages from the United States, called “pockets.” Smithers’js 
 Hist. 135. 
 
 It would seem, that late as 1794, Mr. Jay, when Eiaking the treaty with Eng- 
 land, was not aware that any cotton was exported from the United States. 
 In Seyb. Stat. page 92, it is said, that the first export of cotton of our 
 growth toolc place in 1791 . See table E, note 4 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 G. 
 
 COTTON, RAW. 
 
 Imports of 
 
 Where from. 
 
 - 1 
 t- 
 
 1 
 
 CO 
 
 -CD 
 
 
 © 
 
 yj 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 ■ , , 1 
 
 'cje 
 
 Ul 
 
 
 g ^ 
 
 
 C3 ^ 
 
 
 'p. 
 
 ! 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 iTi 
 
 ^ © 
 
 
 © 
 
 
 © 
 
 "3 
 
 
 
 o> 
 
 b^; B 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 w 
 
 p s 
 
 
 P H 
 
 P 
 
 6 
 
 ^ i 
 
 !*S 1 
 
 lbs. 
 
 
 ibs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 
 Ib.s. 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 Milliofis. 
 
 1701 ! 
 
 or To 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1710 ! 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1720 1 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1730 1 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1741 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1751 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1764 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1766 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1780 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1784 
 
 11 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1787 
 
 22 
 
 
 21-1 
 
 
 6| 
 
 5f 
 
 - 
 
 6 
 
 1789 i 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1790 
 
 1 314 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 Ratia 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 1791 
 
 281 
 
 
 i 
 
 - 
 
 jL 
 
 3 
 
 - 
 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 1792 
 
 3o" 
 
 T2^ 
 
 1 
 
 — 
 
 i 
 
 - 
 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 1793 
 
 19 
 
 1 
 
 ■5 2" 5 
 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 2l 
 
 1 
 
 8 
 
 1794 
 
 1795 
 
 244 
 
 26| 
 
 1 
 
 T i_e 
 2l 
 
 3 
 
 I 6 
 
 a 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 “ 
 
 1 
 
 1 0 0 
 
 1 
 
 Too 
 
 1 
 
 1 T 
 1 
 
 4 2 
 
 1796 
 
 32 
 
 1 
 
 1 TT 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 sT 
 
 f 
 
 - 
 
 44 
 
 1 
 
 5 • 
 
 1797 
 
 23-1 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 t 
 
 1 
 
 1 9 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 1 
 
 2 # 
 
 1798 
 
 31i 
 
 1 
 
 ¥ 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 1 4 
 
 ¥ 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 1 5 
 
 TTT 
 
 1799 
 
 431 
 
 X 
 
 9 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 - 
 
 1. 
 
 TT 
 
 1800 
 
 56 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 9 
 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 T 
 
 1 
 
 ] 3 
 
 1801 
 
 56 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 TJ 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 1 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 
 
 3 3 
 
 1802 
 
 60i- 
 
 f 
 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 1 T 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 
 
 1 3 i 
 
 1803 
 
 63-1 
 
 1 -i 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 Ter 
 
 1 
 
 1 0 
 
 ^ - 
 
 1 
 
 sT 
 
 1 
 
 7 T 
 
 1804 
 
 6ii 
 
 4 
 
 a 
 
 T' 
 
 ¥ 
 
 I 
 
 I 3 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 2 0 
 
 1 
 
 TTT 
 
 1805 
 
 591- 
 
 58| 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 f 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 2'1 0 
 
 1 
 
 8 « 
 
 1806 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 a 
 
 9 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 1 
 
 T 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 2 2 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 1807 
 
 75 
 
 i 
 
 ! _T. 
 
 ( 1 8 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 I 1 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 1 
 
 1 1 a 
 
 1808 
 
 -434 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 ' 1 
 
 1 
 
 J 4 
 
 2 
 
 T 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 2 4 
 
 1809 
 
 92| 
 
 
 T¥ 
 
 TT 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 ! 1 * 
 
 1 
 
 3 8 
 
 1810 
 
 1324 
 
 t 
 
 1 i 
 
 1 
 
 1 5 
 
 _ 1 _ 
 
 - 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 4 S 
 
 1811 
 
 914 
 
 ■9 
 
 a 
 
 ! T 
 
 1 
 
 S 
 
 1 
 
 2 9 
 
 - 
 
 j 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 1812 
 
 63 
 
 I 4 
 
 0 
 
 i I 
 
 1 
 
 ¥ 
 
 1 
 
 3 3" 
 
 — 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 IS 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 G — Oontimied. 
 COTTON, RAW. 
 
 
 1824 
 
 1825 
 
 1826 
 
 1827 
 
 1828 
 
 1829 
 
 1830 
 
 1831 
 
 1832 
 
 1833 
 
 1834 
 
 1835 
 
 1474 
 
 244 i 
 
 170 ^ 
 
 2641 
 
 222 ? 
 
 Imports of 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 c§ 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 
 
 
 
 Millions 
 
 
 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 1813 
 
 51 
 
 i 
 
 1814 
 
 73 f 
 
 f 
 
 1815 
 
 96 |- 
 
 
 1816 
 
 97 ^ 
 
 4 
 
 1817 
 
 1 26 )- 
 
 i 
 
 1818 . 
 
 174 " 
 
 1 
 
 1819 
 
 1374 
 
 i 
 
 1820 
 
 1474 
 
 4 
 
 1821 
 
 1264 
 
 T ■ 
 
 1822 
 
 1414 
 
 4 
 
 1823 
 
 183 | 
 
 
 Where from. 
 
 ■f- 
 
 Y 
 
 to 1 
 to 4 
 
 [tN] 
 
 i 
 [ 5 ] 
 
 ib$. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 I 
 
 TT 
 
 t‘t 
 
 I 
 
 A to j- 
 
 tV 
 
 1 
 
 tV 
 
 tV 
 
 II 
 
 ll 
 
 ibs. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 1 
 
 TO 
 T -T 
 
 tV 
 
 T 
 
 24 
 
 tV 
 
 1 
 
 4 5 
 
 1 
 
 3 2 
 
 TT 
 
 lbs. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 I ■ 
 
 TT 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 sV 
 
 TT 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 TT 
 
 To 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 ) 
 
 TT 
 
 i 
 
 TT 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 tV 
 
 tV 
 
 1 
 
 T¥ 
 
 tV 
 
 trV 
 
 1 
 
 OT 
 
 TTT 
 
 ibs. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 1 
 
 TTT 
 
 TJJ 
 
 3JW 
 
 tIt 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 tV 
 
 J 
 
 5 0 
 
 tS’ 
 
 i 
 
 TT 
 
 TT 
 
 J 
 
 TT 
 
 Ttt 
 
 TOT 
 
 lbs. 
 
 Ratio. 
 
 T 
 
 tV 
 
 TT 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 TT 
 
 1 
 
 TT 
 
 ¥ 
 
 A 
 
 i 
 
 tV 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 r 
 
 w 
 
 i 
 
 [4] 
 
 ibs. 
 
 Ratio, 
 
 iiV 
 
 sV 
 
 tV 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 TTS- 
 
 lie- 
 
 T.¥ 
 
 tV 
 
 4 
 
 - i 
 
 3 
 
 TT 
 
 ■1 
 
 TT 
 
 [l] For the early imports of cotton into England, see more in B.nire’s 
 
 McCulloch, 438; and Seyb. Stat. 92, ttote. in 1787 the importrset « 
 as trom 1 urkey and B,a;ypt, were entirely from the former, Smyrna Greece 
 &c.and none from the last unli! 1820 and 1823, and since that mostlv 
 from Egypt 1 he ‘fother places” were cnie% French .and Spanish coll 
 nies m 1737; but mdude India and Turkey where those columns ara 
 
56 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 Mank. See a table in >Smithers’s History, page 146. The early imports of 
 raw cotton, after the manufacture increased much in England, were from 
 the West Indies, Surinam, and isle of Bourbon. Smithers’s History of 
 Liverpool, 123. Those from Brazil, &c. in 1824. See in Smithers, page 
 454. 
 
 [2] The proportions are given from the imports into Liverpool alone; 
 but will not viOT much for the whole kingdom. They are stated in the 
 present form to aid in the comparison, at different periods' in the same, and 
 different countries. The fractions are very near the true proportion, but 
 occasionally are the nezt highest or lowest to the exact sum for convenience 
 in calculation, as is the case in fraclions often in ail these tables. See Mar- 
 
 • shall, page 110; Smithers, 147. 
 
 [3] The whole imports into England, Scotland and Ireland, are included 
 in the above column; as some of the writers discriminate between those 
 into England alone, and some do not. See Porter’s Official tables, 125 : 
 McCulloch, 439. See a table in Smithers page 146 ; making the imports 
 into Ireland one to two millions of pounds yearly, after Irom 1791 to 1817. 
 In Baines, the quantities often differ a few millions, and are higher in most 
 cases. See also Edinburgh Review, page 19, (1827). The usual quantity 
 imported into Ireland and Scotland, as contradistinguished from England, 
 has been, during the last ten years, about 10 to 15 millions of pounds per 
 annum, it is believed. In 1834, it was about 20 millions of pounds : in 
 1835, it was about 18 millions of pounds. Most of that used in Ireland is 
 believed to be re-exported from England, or included in English imports ; 
 and no separate tables have been kept of Irish imports since 1825, when 
 those of cotton exceeded 6| millions of pounds. Baines’s History, page 430. 
 The largest amounts tor 1834 and 1835 are taken from the Liverpool re- 
 ports of January, 1836; and the smaller ones,- in the second lines, from 
 other sources of not so recent date- 
 
 [4] Most of the above ratios from India, between 1793 and 1809, corres- 
 pond with 1 Milbourne’s Orient. Com. page 281, and may differ some from 
 the tables as to Liverpool imports alone. 
 
 [5j The imports from the the United States in 1792, 1793, <fcc. were . 
 said to !)e diieffy through the British West Indies. Smithers, 157. Our 
 ratio, it will be seen by the sums in the second line for 1834 and 183.5, will 
 vary as the English accounts differ concerning the whole actual or esti- 
 mated amoiiot of her yearly imports. 
 
i 
 
 1789 
 
 1790 
 
 1791 
 
 1793 
 
 1793 
 
 1794 
 
 1795 
 
 1796 
 
 1797 
 
 1798 
 
 1799 
 
 1800 
 
 1801 
 
 1802 
 
 ■1803 
 
 1804^ 
 
 1805 
 
 1803 
 
 1807 
 
 1808 
 
 1809, 
 
 1810 
 
 1811 
 
 1812 
 
 1813 
 
 1814 
 
 1815 
 
 1813 
 
 1817 
 
 1818 
 
 1819 
 
 1820 
 
 1821 
 
 1822 
 
 1823 
 
 1824 
 
 1825 
 
 1823 
 
 1827 
 
 1828 
 
 1839 
 
 1830 
 
 1831 
 
 1832 
 
 1833 
 
 1834 
 
 1835 
 
 m 
 
 [ Doc. Mo. 146. ] 
 
 H.— COTTON, RAW. 
 
 21 
 
 )rts of 
 
 lbs. 
 
 Where From. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 25 
 
 44| 
 
 61 
 51 
 'Toh 
 6U 
 93 
 87 
 611 
 72s 
 84| to 91. 
 35i to 61 
 77 to 85- 
 91 
 83 to 9 11 
 911 
 
 _J!L 
 
 Imports of 
 
 United States. 
 
 Egypt & Turkey. 
 
 1 
 
 'Brazil and the 
 I West Indies. 
 
 Into Saxony, Prus- 
 sia, Trieste, and 
 Russia. 
 
 Into Switzerland. 
 
 , ! 
 Into Spain.. . ■ 
 
 Into China. 
 
 % 
 
 •a - 
 
 ll 
 
 s 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. ■ 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 ibs. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 - 
 
 ■ 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 ~ 
 
 - 
 
 97,357 
 
 Millions.. 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 “ j 
 
 - 
 
 i 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 ~ 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 2f 
 
 i 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - - 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 21 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 „ 
 
 — 
 
 ' ■ _ 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 «. 
 
 41 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 *- 
 
 34 
 
 j 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 * 
 
 
 3| 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 31 
 
 _ 
 
 „ 
 
 , - 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 4-1 
 
 1 
 
 _ 
 
 „ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 — 
 
 
 4t 
 
 2 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 3t 
 
 4 
 
 „ 
 
 
 „ 
 
 
 •21 
 
 
 .3 
 
 6 
 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 1 * 
 
 31 
 
 4f 
 
 ■ - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 21 
 
 7 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 ■25 
 
 ■ 21 
 
 6 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 _ 
 
 
 ' _ 
 
 _ 
 
 3i 
 
 9 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 
 41- 
 
 ~ 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 ■- 1 
 
 
 - 
 
 • “ 
 
 l 
 
 - 
 
 ~ 
 
 - ■ 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 1 
 
 _■ 
 
 
 k 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 t 
 
 lOi 
 
 
 , _ V. 
 
 - 
 
 ... 
 
 _ 
 
 _ : 
 
 if 
 
 ,11 , 
 
 - 
 
 ~ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 20 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 i 
 
 13 
 
 - 
 
 ~ 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 1 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 „ 
 
 _ 
 
 — 
 
 
 3 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 „ 
 
 111 
 
 - ' 
 
 - 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 j ~ 
 
 - 
 
 
 15 
 
 _ J 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 1 
 
 27f 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 i 6 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 1 
 
 25 . 
 
 „ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 401 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 30' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■1 
 
 624 . 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 30?- 
 
 i- 
 
 5?r ■ 
 
 1 ' 
 
 
 “ " 
 
 < 
 
 - 
 
 
 : 1 
 , i 
 
 % ■ 
 ■ i 
 
 G7i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 75 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 38 
 
 ,, 171 
 
 
 
 43 to 50 
 
 71 
 
 31 
 
 • 39 
 
 
 _ 
 
 38 to 68 
 
 7o to 7 /1 
 
 81 
 
 3i : ■ 
 
 "48 7 
 
 19| 
 
 
 60 
 
 1 
 
 761 
 
 
 
 36 - 
 
 19 
 
 
 
 -1 
 
 78to.81| 
 
 7 ' 
 
 4 
 
 _ ■ 
 
 • 194 
 
 2 
 
 45? 
 
 1 
 
 ! 91 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 „ 
 
 
 
 
 If 
 
 ( 
 
 
 [3] 
 
 [4] 
 
 [5] 
 
 ffi] . 
 
 [7] 
 
 L.[gLM 
 
S8 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. J 
 
 [1] The value of the imports of raw cotton into each country it has not 
 heen deemed necessary to give in detail, as the quantity, and the prices in 
 the United States and Liverpool, with those in India, and some other 
 places occasionally, are presented, and will enable any person easily to 
 make a computation of tlie whole value of the imports into any particular 
 country. 
 
 [2] The imports into any country during any particular year, sometimes 
 fall short of the actual consumption in that year, if a large stock from any 
 particular cause be on hand at the begining, or a very small stock at the 
 end of the year. The whole amount imporled into any place, and the 
 amount from each country, differ a little occasionally, by mistakes in copy- 
 ing or misprints probably. For imports of 1820 and 1821, into France, 
 see Quarterly Review, (1824-5). For those of 1834, see tables of French 
 Com. fbr’345 and for 1810, Edinburgh Review, page 61, (1829) which states, 
 those for 1828-9, at 80 or 90 millions of pounds; for 1806, see London 
 Cyclop, article “Cotton.” Baines, 515. From 1822 to 1832, see a table 
 in McCulloch’s Diet, page 448, which is given below in bags. In 1819, in 
 vol. 3, Diet, of Com. and Fineince for Spain, page 244, the value of im- 
 ports of raw cotton is estimated at only $2,000,000, into France, but it 
 must be too low. Those for 1833, and the smallest for 1834 and for 1835, 
 are from manuscript. Annexed are the quantities in bales, and the stocks 
 on hand each year, from 1822 lo 1835 inclusive, from another and similar 
 source, as to the three last years ; the previous ones are from McCulloch. 
 See table T, note [2], as to stocks on hand in England. 
 
 Statement of the general imports and stocks of Cotton in France in 
 1835, compared with those of the thirteen preceding years: 
 
 i Years. 
 
 
 Imports. ■ 
 
 
 Stocks, Dec. 31 . 
 
 1822 
 
 bales 
 
 205,861 
 
 - 
 
 42,545 
 
 1823 . 
 
 u 
 
 169,845 
 
 - 
 
 40,078 
 
 1824 
 
 i'. 
 
 251,074 
 
 - 
 
 47,194 
 
 1825 
 
 u 
 
 204,572 
 
 - 
 
 35.306 
 
 1826 
 
 Ci. 
 
 320.174 
 
 - 
 
 74;479 
 
 1827 
 
 a 
 
 290,617 
 
 - 
 
 85,403 
 
 1828 
 
 u 
 
 206,132 
 
 
 51,812 
 
 1829 
 
 : U 
 
 242,230 
 
 - 
 
 29.292 
 
 1830 
 
 
 282,752 
 
 - 
 
 61^260 
 
 1831 
 
 u 
 
 218,393 
 
 - 
 
 35,810 
 
 1832 
 
 a 
 
 259,159 
 
 - 
 
 22,506 
 
 1833 
 
 a 
 
 305,633 
 
 - 
 
 51,753 
 
 1834 
 
 U - 
 
 274,307 
 
 - 
 
 24,407 
 
 1835 
 
 a 
 
 324,425 
 
 - 
 
 40*096 
 
 [3] See Pitkins’s Stat. page 485. 
 
 [4] Those for Saxony, Prussia, and Trieste, are given from Pitkins’s 
 Statistics, 485. About one-third comes from the United States, and some 
 of it through France and HoHniid; from Brazil and the West Indies, one- 
 fourth; from Egypt and Turkey, one-fifth; and from India, one-fourth. See 
 mote 8, below, and McCulloch’s Lict. 442. In Saxony and Prussia, the 
 
[ Doc. No. 146, ] 30 
 
 I 
 
 manufacture of cotton cloth is considerable, but is chiefly from English 
 yarn. See exports of manufactures from England, and supplement to 
 Encyclop. Brittanica, article -‘cotton.’’ The spinning is slowly increasing 
 by machinery. In 1831 Prussia exported one-fourth more of cotton cloths 
 than in 1826, being 17 millions of yards. Blackwood’s Magazine, for 
 January, 1836. 
 
 [5] Of the imports into Switzerland, quite six millions pass in some 
 years through France. Genoa imported in 1830, two and one-half million ; 
 in 1831, four and one-tenth millions ; 1832, five and one-tenth. Half of this 
 probably goes to Switzerland, and nearly half the imports into Trieste. (See 
 below.) Switzerland has long imported cotton, but it has chiefly been spun 
 by the distaff Supplement to Encyclop. Brittanica, “Cotton.” See more 
 Westminster Review, for April, 1833, 
 
 [6] Those into Spain were chiefly from provinces in America. 1 Diet, 
 of Fin. and Com. 
 
 [7] Except the large sum for 1831, and that for 1832, which are founded 
 on a table in McCulloch, the imports into China are computed from 
 other writers on the exports thither from India, with a small addition from 
 other places, chiefly islands. See tables D and F, and 3 Crawford’s History. 
 Most of the exports from India go to China, except what went to the United 
 States formerly, and then and now to England. Table G. It is feared 
 tliat they are not usuaily stated high enough. Supplement to Encyclop. 
 Brit, “cotton.” 
 
 [8] The imports into the United States are taken from official returns, 
 and have been very fluctuating in amount; they have come chiefly from 
 India. See Seybert, 92, where he sa,ys, that before 1825 we consumed two 
 millions of pounds of it yearly. For a table of imports and exports of 
 foreign raw cotton, from 1800 to 1814, see Seyb. St. page 257. 
 
 [9] Other countries of Europe than those enumerated, import consider- 
 able quantities of raw cotton : e. g. Holland and Belgium, about 10 or 12 
 millions of pounds, of which, a part passes into Germany, and 5 or 6 mil- 
 lions of pounds is from the United States. So into Germany direct is im- 
 ported at Trieste alone, from the United States about 4 to 5 millions, and 
 some from Egypt and Turkey; in all, making in 1830, 12J million of 
 pounds; 1831, 19| million of pounds; and 1832, 25| million of pounds. 
 McCulloch, page 442. Into the Hanse towns are imported from here 2 to 6 
 millions of pounds more yearly, and about 1 million of pounds to Russia, 
 See. Sec. , See exports, table F, note 2. Russia imported into Petersburg, 
 in all, 1830, 24 million of pounds; 1831, seven-tenths million of pounds; 
 T822, one and eight-tenlhs' million of pounds. In 1834, Belgium is said, 
 
 . by Mr. Alexander, to have imported 12f million of pounds of raw cotton. 
 It is said in Westminster Review, for April, 1835, that Lombard^r alone con- 
 sumes four million pounds of raw cotton yearly. 
 
40 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 I. 
 
 COTTON, RAW. 
 
 CluaDtit}^ consumed and manufactured in 
 
 
 TS 
 
 i 
 
 S , 
 
 France. 1 
 
 ■ i 
 
 1 
 
 United Slates. 
 
 China and 
 India. 
 
 S. America 
 and Mexico in- 
 cluding Brazil. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 Turkey and 
 Africa. 
 
 ”l 
 
 S 
 
 p , 
 
 Xfl 
 
 Prussia. | 
 
 S 
 
 a 
 
 Years 
 
 lbs. 
 
 . lbs. . 
 
 lbs. 
 
 Ihs. 
 
 lbs. ■ 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Alillions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Mils.' 
 
 Mils. 
 
 Mils. 
 
 1780 
 
 134 in the three countries. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1784 
 
 lU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1789 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1790 
 
 204 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1791 
 
 28 
 
 10 
 
 5i 
 
 285 
 
 50 
 
 15 
 
 52 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 60 
 
 1793 
 
 334 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1793 
 
 171 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1794 
 
 23 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1795 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1796 
 
 SI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 22i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1798 
 
 31 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1799 
 
 42 . 
 
 101 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1800 
 
 51 
 
 6-1, 
 
 8 TtVI 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801 
 
 53f 
 
 11 
 
 L 1 0 J 
 
 9 
 
 280 
 
 ‘ 45 
 
 -22 
 
 50 
 
 3 ■ 
 
 5 
 
 50 
 
 1802 
 
 564 
 
 15tV 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1803 
 
 51| 
 
 151 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 1804 
 
 66^ 
 
 171 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 1805 
 
 58f 
 
 184 
 
 11 [^J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1806 
 
 574 
 
 2U 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1807 
 
 724 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1808 
 
 414 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1809 
 
 874 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1810 
 
 126 
 
 25 
 
 16 [34] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1811 
 
 891 
 
 23 
 
 17 
 
 270 
 
 48 
 
 25 _ 
 
 48 
 
 5 
 
 C 
 
 50 
 
 1812 
 
 591 
 
 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1813 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1814 
 
 524 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1815 
 
 92 
 
 _ 
 
 314 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1816 
 
 884 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1817 
 
 1164 
 
 30 or 26 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1818 
 
 172 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1819 
 
 1321 
 
 
 \ . 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1820 
 
 142 
 
 44 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1821 
 
 114 
 
 47 
 
 50 
 
 260 
 
 42 
 
 30 
 
 45 
 
 8 
 
 ”7 
 
 45 
 
 1822 
 
 120i 
 
 61 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1823 
 
 177 
 
 504 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1824 
 
 131 
 
 75 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ , 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 1825 
 
 206 
 
 60 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1826 
 
 1501- 
 
 96 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1827 
 
 2504 
 
 87 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1828 
 
 2081 
 
 61 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1829 
 
 1901 
 
 714 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1830 
 
 255 
 
 871 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 l831 
 
 257 
 
 654 
 
 774 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i832 
 
 260 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i833 
 
 2841. 
 
 87 
 
 80 to 85 
 
 242 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 42 
 
 10 
 
 20 
 
 40 
 
 }834 
 
 297 
 
 80 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [10] 
 
 7835 
 
 3201 
 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [0] 
 
 ’a] 
 
 [2] 
 
 [3] 
 
 [R 
 
 [U] 
 
 [8] 
 
 
 [5] 
 
 [^] 
 
 [b] 
 
 [12] 
 
41 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 [1] It is important to bear in mind that this table does not show the con- 
 sumption of Qnanufactured QOiXoTi] but only the consumption and manu- 
 facture of cotton in its rata state. Hence it includes the quantity of raw 
 cotton raised in cany country and not exported, with the additional quan- 
 tity imported and not re-exported, allowing' the quantities on hand at the 
 commencement and termination of each year to be similar. Most of the 
 quantities include what is used in all ways, and made in families as well as 
 in manufactories. It also includes what is consumed in a raw state, which 
 is calculated to be, in England, quite yhth. The whole consumption in 
 Europe, in 1830, was about 337 millions of pounds, (Pitk. Slat. 484); or less 
 than tlie present exports of the United States. The consumption in manu- 
 factures of raY\^ cotton in all Europe, in 1803, was estimated at only 60 
 millions of pounds. Dictionary of Spanish Commerce; and in London 
 Cyclopedia, article ‘‘Cotton,” computed at only 18 .millions of pounds in all 
 Europe, except England and France. Till 1773 the warp in the web of 
 wheat was called cotton cloth in Englaud was lineif. McCulloch, 438. 
 (See table A, uote 9.) See below, note [12]. 
 
 [2] The alcove quantities for Enghmd are generally taken from Mar- 
 shall's tables, which are copied amd approved by Pitkin. But Porter, in 
 his tables, makes the quaiitity from 1820 to 1832, karger by 5 to 10 millions 
 of })0imd3 per oimum. Part of the difference may grise from including 
 Ireland, and part by sometimes looking only to tlie imports, and deducting 
 the quantity re-exported; when, in fact, the quantity on hand at thebegin- 
 niiig and end of the year, or the actual quantity entered for home con- 
 sumption, was essentially different. About 10 to 20 millions of pounds 
 yearly, or often as little vJ gC /^th of what is imported is re-exported 
 from England. See Baines, 347, and, in Marshall and Pitkin’s, schedules 
 of it. An estimate for 1830, made in France, vras only 241 millions of 
 pounds; and in Chamber of Peers for 1834, was 320 millions of pounds; 
 and by 1 Smith’s Com. Dig. page 16, for 1832, was 288 millions of pounds; 
 while the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England, in his late speech, 
 states the quantity for hc-me consumption in 1834 was 320 millions of pounds, 
 and in 1835, 320^ millions of pounds. But by the annual liverpool report in 
 February, 1836, and other sources, the consumption In 1835 is estimated 
 higher than 1834 b}^ 13|- millions of pounds. Oihers put 1834 at 303 
 millions of pounds, and 1835 at 330 millions. In the Edinburgh Review, 
 page 433, (1832) a table is given from Freeman cuid Cook’s Com., of G. Brit, 
 from 1822 to 1831 inclusive, which is as follows: 1822,'144yC millions of 
 pounds; 1823, 147^Vr -824, 174-^V^ ^825, 169ff_; 1826, 164|-; 1827, 
 201^V; 1828, 217|:; 1829, 221f; 1830, 242 ; 1831, 25U. The consump- 
 tion in Scotland separately, and in part from English imports, exceeded in 
 1835, 32 millions of pounds. Since 1823, when changes occurred in the 
 duties, Ireland has made considerable cotton cloth; in 1825, quite 64 mil- 
 lions of yards. But .it was clileiiy from ^T-ani. spun in England;' (McCul- 
 loch, 444;) or from raw cotton exported there froin England; which, from 
 1821 to 1825, inclusive, was from i-l to 24 million's of pounds per annum. 
 See tables on this in Smitliers, 150 a.nd 151.- London Cyclopedia, article 
 “Cotton.” In same article see a table on imports and consumption, and 
 stock on hand, same years; at the close of 1823, in England, it was 92 
 millions of pounds. See Liverpool annual report, where the stock on hand 
 at the close of 1834 was 594 millions of pounds, and 1835 was 734 mil- 
 lions of pounds. In 1833 it was about 60 millions of pounds, and liad 
 
42 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 diminished gi’adually since 1826, when it was 100 millions of pounds. 
 (Baines, page 318.) See table H, note 2. 
 
 [3] See on France, Baines, page 525. But the quantity of imports is 
 generally higher ihan consumption by 5 or 6 millions of pounds (unless the 
 stock on hand is very large when the last is sometimes highest) ; as, of late 
 years especially, France re-exports to the neighbouring countries, by land, 
 8 or 9 millions of pounds per annum, occasionally. (French Tables of 
 Commerce, page 156, for 1832-3.) About of these re-exports are to 
 Switzerland, and tlie rest to Sardinia, Genoa, &-c. As far back as 1789 
 Frajice used but little cotton, except in household manufactures. Quar. 
 Rev. (1824-5) page 394. For 1815, see Baines, page 515, and for 1806- 
 see London Cyclopedia, article ‘‘Cotton.’^ In the French Chamber of Peers 
 it was testified, that the consumption in 1834 was 80 millions of pounds. 
 In the Edinburgh Review, page- 432, (1832) is a table of raw cotton con- 
 sumed yearly in France from 1822 to 1831, in -which the quantity is 
 dilferent from 1 to 10 or 12 millions in difierent years, some less and some 
 more, e. g. 
 
 Years. 
 1822 - 
 
 
 
 M. lbs. 
 
 644 
 
 Years. 
 
 1827 - 
 
 
 
 M. lbs. 
 
 84 
 
 1823 - 
 
 - 
 
 - ■ 
 
 5ll 
 
 1828 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 72 
 
 1824 - 
 
 
 
 73 -? 
 
 1829 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 794 
 
 1825 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 65 
 
 1830 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 75| ■ 
 
 1826 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 -844 
 
 1831 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 Those in tlie table from 1798 to ISOG, and 1817, are from Sup. to Ency. 
 Brit. ‘-Cotton.” See table K, into what articles ‘the cotton is made, com- 
 parative prices, (Lc. 
 
 [4] The large estimates for 1790, 1800 and 1$05, in the United States 
 were made myself, and the small ones, with that for 1815, are from a 
 report of a Committee of the tionse of Ilepresenta fives, February 13, 1816. 
 That for 1810 is from Seybert’s Statistics, page 92, and includes what cot- 
 ton was used in household manufactures^ as do my own . Mr. Gallatin 
 made a similar one for 1810. Pitkin, 487. Some estimates of earlier 
 date, probably did not include wdiat w^as used in dwelling houses. Before 
 1835 we cpnsiirned often 2 millions of pounds a year, of Taw cotton grown 
 abroad,. (Seyb.-357 and 92) ; and one-fourteenth of the imports and crop in the 
 United States and England is used or consumed in its raw state without 
 being ma,de into either yarn or cloth. Table H. In Coxe’s report on Man- 
 ufactures for 1810, he gives the manufiictures of cotton in families at five 
 millions of dollars- value, and number of yards 16| millioiis; which, at 50 
 cents, the worth of coarse -cloth to each pound of cotton in it, would make 
 8 or 10 millions of pounds used. Coxe reports a few large manufacto- 
 ries, but without any data to show their consumption of raw cotton; but 
 sec table L, spindles, note. They probably used 6 to 8 millions of pounds 
 more. In the French Chamber of Peers the estimate v/as only 36 millions 
 of pounds consumed in the Plnited States in 1834 (see below). The whole 
 manufacture of cotton in the Uiiited States must be as large as the esti- 
 mate, thong'll beyond tlie usual computation, if we look to tlie number of 
 spindles, and to the great ho'asehoid manufacture of it in the families ot 
 tlie South and West, tor all purposes. 
 
43 
 
 I Doc. No. 14S. ] 
 
 Again it is to be deduced from the fact, that in the great cheapness and 
 healthfulness of cotton manufactures, our population consume each five to six 
 dollars worth of them yearly, for clothing, bedding, sails, &c. &c. which, 
 at a census of 14 millions, would be from 70 to 84 millions of dollars in 
 value. In England the consumption is computed to be only a fraction less* 
 than that, and in France it is ^4 per head. In Belgium, Alexander com- 
 putes it at 20 francs, or a little over $3| per head. As we import from 
 England, France and Germany, about 7 millions of dollars of cotton man- 
 ufactures more than we export, and those articles are finer than our own, it 
 is a fair estimate, that we manufacture in this country, from 50 to 70 mil- 
 lions of dollars worth of cotton manufactures ; which, at two pounds of 
 raw cotton or near it per dollar of manufactured cloth, on an average, 
 would, in all, equal about 100 millions of pounds or more of raw cotton 
 manufactured here. (If this,- about 5 to 21) millions of dollars worth are 
 made in domestic form; and 45 to 50 millions of dollars in factories m A. 
 D. 1835. 
 
 In 1831, the convention in New York estimated that only 26 millions of 
 dollars worth of yarn and cloth were made in manufactories; and in 1834, 
 Pitlun, page 484, estimated all manufactures of cotton in the United States 
 at 40 millions of dollars value yearly. This would require in 1831, as in 
 the table, about 77 milJions of pounds of raw cotton, as estimated in the 
 convention at New York, for manufactories in 12 States. See McCulloch, 
 448, who supposes it was a committee of Clongress. 
 
 As our population is increasing from 1830 to 1840 at the rate of nearly 
 4 per cent, or quite 400,000 persons per annum, and as 10 to 12 pounds of 
 raw cotton are required per head, and oiir imports of cotton manufactures 
 do not increase, we must add yearly to our rnarinfactures about 4 to 5 mil- 
 lions more of raw cotton This would make an addition from the esti- 
 mate in 1830, so that the whole consumption would, in 1835, equal 100 mil- 
 lions of pounds of raw cotton. An intelligent merchant and manufacturer 
 of the north thinks the consumption now is 106 millions of pounds. Tlie 
 quantity manufactured here in 1827 is estimated by Renss, in his tables on 
 American Trade, at only 31 millions of pounds, and in 1828 at 36 millions 
 of pounds ; but they must be too low, as are the usual estimates for the last 
 three or four years, at only 80 and 85 millions of pounds, or they must in- 
 clude only wb.at was v/orked up iu factories, and the former estimate not ail 
 of that, bn the great consum]}tioii of cotton in household manufactures in 
 the United States, and the opinion entertained in 1791 on the importance 
 and expectations of success in the establishment of maiuifactnres by ma- 
 chinery, and its influence on tiie growth of cotton in the United States, see 
 more in Hamilton's report, A. D. 1791. 
 
 ft 
 
 [5] See Urqiibart on Turkey, page 150 and 179, that two pounds per head 
 is manufactured there ; and also that 50 millions of dollars worth of mus- 
 lins alone were yearly consumed there and in Africa. They v/ere not all, 
 however, of domestic maimfactnre, it is presumed. 
 
 In Egypt it lias been estimated, that from 8 to 9 millions of pciinds ot 
 the crop of 1835 will be consumed in that country. See table A, note 9. 
 
 [6] This statement for Russia in 1824 is from Porter’s tables, 545 ; see 
 Baines, 406. In the southwestern parts of Russia, bordering on Germany, 
 manufactories and macliinery have been considerably introduced, and yarn 
 
44 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 from England is woven there, as in India and elsewhere, as well as raw 
 cotton, imported chiefly from the United States, either direct or through 
 the ports on the Baltic. See exports of raw cotton, table F, note. A 
 few others have been established southeast of Moscow. See Lon. Cyclop, 
 article “Cotton,” and one cotton mill is in operation in St. Petersburgh. 
 
 [7] Used up mostly into calicoes, tapes and galloons. Spain in 1803. 
 1 Dictionary of Spanish Commerce, 63 ; 3 do. 148 ; made 5,640,810 yards 
 of cotton cloth, 51,900 pair of cotton stockings, and 2,686,142 yards of tape. 
 
 [8] In Puebla in Mexico, in 1803, were manufactured IJ millions of 
 pounds of raw cotton. (4 Dictionary of Spanish Commerce, page 178.) 
 In Campeachy the manufactures are most extensive. 2 Hist, of Colombia. 
 
 [9J Among the other places is Switzerland, which, in 1831, consumed’ 
 near 19 millions of pounds of raw cotton. Baines, 526; see imports. 
 That country began to use machinery for cotton in 1798, but the progress 
 has been slow, and the establishments are small, though active. London 
 Cyclop, article “Cotton.” Muslins have been made there, it is said, a cen- 
 tury and a half. But beside England and France, the cotton spun in the 
 rest of Europe m 1823 was estimated at only 18 millions of pounds. 
 London Cyclop, article “Cotton.” See table K, note. In 1834, it was 
 estimated by Mr. Alexander, that Belgium consumed 12f millions of pounds 
 of raw cotton. See table, exports of manufactures and notes. 
 
 [10] The statements for 1833, 1821, 1811, 1801., and 1791, are generally 
 computations made from other data as to the crops in the different countries 
 named, which v/ere grown and not exported, and the quantities of raw cot- 
 ton imported into each : beyond this, they are rather conjectures than esti- 
 mates, founded on very satisfactory facts. 
 
 [11] The quantities computed to be manufactured in India and China are 
 very large; but, perhaps, they are below rather than above the truth. Sec 
 Supplement to Ency. Brit, article “Cotton,” and tables A and F on growth 
 of cotton and exports. In the Indian islands most of their raw. cotton is 
 made up, though a little is exported to China. 3 Crawford's History, 350. 
 
 [12] A table is annexed of the consumption of raw cotton in all Europe, 
 from 1831 to 1835, inclusive, compiled by Lambert & Co. of Liverpool, 
 and distinguishing the estimated portion of it from this country. 
 
 Consimvption of cotton in Europe^ reduced to bales of 300 pounds. 
 
 1831, bags 
 
 1832, “ - 
 
 1833, “ - 
 
 1834, “ - 
 
 1835, “ - 
 
 1,272,176, of which 
 1,372,079, 
 
 1,409,786, “ 
 
 1,502,559, “ 
 
 1,581,501. 
 
 928,520 American. 
 
 - 1,015,280 “ 
 
 - 1,066,240 “ 
 
 - 1,205.043 
 
 - 1.254,586 
 
45- 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 K. 
 
 COTTON, MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 
 (V 
 
 1789 
 
 1790 
 
 1791 
 1T92 
 
 1793 
 
 1794 
 
 1795 
 179G 
 
 1797 
 
 1798 
 
 1799 
 
 1800 
 1801 
 1802 
 1883 
 
 1804 
 1365 
 
 1805 
 
 1807 
 
 1808 
 
 1809 
 
 1810 
 1811 
 1812 
 
 1813 
 
 1814 
 
 1815 
 
 1816 
 
 1817 
 
 1818 
 
 1819 
 
 1820 
 1821 
 1822 
 
 1823 
 
 1824 
 
 1825 
 
 1826 
 
 1827 
 
 1828 
 
 1829 
 
 1830 
 
 1831 
 3832 
 
 1833 
 
 1834 
 
 1835 
 
 ✓ 
 
 Whole value of, yearly, in — 
 
 Capital employed in manufacturing by 
 
 
 
 
 machmery in — 
 
 
 England. 
 
 France. 
 
 United States. 
 
 England. 
 
 France, 
 
 United States, 
 
 Dollars, 
 
 Dollars, 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars, 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 j 
 
 • 24 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 40 
 
 j 
 
 i 
 
 m \ 
 
 i 1 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 \ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 72 
 
 i ' i 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 
 
 355 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 148 to 190 
 
 
 * 
 
 ■ (, 
 
 
 
 171 
 
 
 
 mi 
 
 
 
 
 “ 1 
 
 
 
 
 1 ^ 
 
 - . 
 
 1 
 
 ' 1 
 
 i m i 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 40|- OF 62 
 
 
 ' *- ' i 
 
 
 216 
 
 
 
 144 
 
 U ■ 
 
 1 
 
 160 
 
 
 Uk 
 
 < 178 ) 
 
 \ 
 
 
 p60 M 
 
 Uii 
 
 1 (149) 1 
 
 \ 
 
 j 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1601 
 
 62 1 
 
 
 250 
 
 
 j 
 
 
 - i 
 
 ; 45 to 5® 
 
 185 
 
 
 1 80 
 
 (13 
 
 m \ 
 
 ! 
 
 1 
 
 1 m 
 
 [ 
 
 m 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 1 m m 
 
46 
 
 [ Doe. No. 146. ] 
 
 [1] The values in England in the tables are taken, for 1834, from 
 McCulloch and Aiken, Edin. Rev. 472, (1835,) and Baines, 412 ; for 1833, 
 in 1st line, from Pebrier on Eng. page 314 ; for 2d line, for 1827, from 
 Edin. Rev. page 22, (1827.) The first edition of McCulloch agreed with 
 Pebrier, but in the second edition he lowered the amount. Baines, 398, 
 and note. That for 1823 was by Mr. Huskisson. Baines, 399. That for 
 1824 is from Supplement to Eiieyclop. Brit. “ Cotton.”. 
 
 In McCnlloclfs Dicky of Com. and Baines, 406, and Pitkin, 486, it is 
 computed that the present value of the cotton manufacture equals about 
 twice the amount of it exported. It is said that only 37 per cent, is con- 
 sumed of what is made. Aiken’s Lectures. See exports. In 1766 Eng- 
 land made about three times as much as she exported of cotton goods, 
 though Edin. Rev. page 166, (1830,) says she then made only one million 
 of dollars worth. Do. page 18, (1827.) The estimate for 1815 is in 
 Edinb. Encyclop. art. “ Cotton.” The items for computing the value of 
 the annual manufacture, are given in Edin. Rev. (1827) page 22, and in 
 Edin. Rev. page 472, (1835,) and in Fames, 412. 
 
 In Scotland alone it is said the manufacture of cotton in 1835 equalled 
 in value 11^^- millions of dollars ; but in 1832, was estimated by Kennedy at 
 .12J, though prices higher ; and in Ireland at millions of dollars. Baines, 
 409, thinks the exports are nearly that before named from Scotland, and 
 tile manufacture double. Page 410. 
 
 [2] The values in France for 1817 are too high, and that for 1828 too 
 low, it is believed ; but were extracted, the first from 2 Chaptal on French 
 Industry, page 150, and Sup. to Encyclop. Brit. “ Cotton,” and the last from 
 some author not remembered. Estimated at 111 millions of dollars by 
 Minerel, but too high. Baines, 521. 
 
 Those for 1832 and 4 are estimates made on the number of spindles, &c. 
 
 [3] The value for 1830, in the United States, is from N. Y. Conven. and 
 includes but 12 States and no household goods, otherwise it would equal 
 40 millions. Pitkin, 483. 
 
 The whole value in 1835 is my estimate from the quantity of cotton 
 worked up, &c. Pitkin, 482. 
 
 The v^^luo for 1815 is by a Committee of Congress, and is confined to 
 croods made in factories. The wliole value of cotton, woollen and flax 
 rnanufivctures in 1810, was computed at only 40 millions of dollars~the 
 value of cotton alone in 1830. 
 
 [4| The value of manufactured cottons, when the quantity of raw cotton 
 in them is the same, difiers greatly according to different periods of time in 
 the same country, and according to the quality of the raw material, and the 
 machinery used, and tlie skill employed. See table M, note [2]. 
 
 Thus in Phigland, in 20 years after Arkrighfs invention in spinning, 
 raaniifaetiired cottons fell nearly eight-ninths of their former price. Every 
 ten years since, some have computed their fall in price as equal to 50 per 
 cent. In the American Encyclopedia, article “Cotton,” it is said, that, from 
 1815 to 1829, the coarse cloths fell two thirds. See in Pebriers views of 
 Enoland, page 343, a table slioAving the fall there at different periods. See 
 table M, note [3], on ofiicial and real prices at different periods. In 1810, 
 yarn, on an average, was v/orth ,12-| per pound. Report by Gallatin. Seo 
 
47 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 prices ©f other articles in his report, in 1S14 it was estimated under $1 per 
 pound by Cox. In 1832 it was said that the cost of making most species 
 of yarn had been reduced since 1812 about a half, and that of weaving by 
 power looms, <fcc. still more. See Edin. Rev. 427, (1832,) a list of prices. 
 Some of the diliereiices as to the whole value of manufactured goods spring 
 from not adyerting to all the fall in prices, though the yarn and cloth have 
 increased in quantity. See a table of reduction in prices of spinning. In 
 1786 it cost 10^. per pound of No. 100, in 1824 only 8d. or only 16 cents 
 instead of 240 cents. Supplement to Cyclop. Brit. Cotton.” 
 
 [5] The best cotton goods are supposed to be made in Switzerland, where 
 the skill and machinery are good, and the climate congenial. But the raw 
 material, being carried so far by land, is expensive, and the mani^cturer 
 cannot compete with England, though 20 per cent, cheaper than in France. 
 Baines, 524. 
 
 In France many fine goods are made by skill and experience ; but tlie 
 machinery is poorer, and costs more. Edinb. Rev. page 61, (1829.) Hence 
 the prices in those two countries " the cloth made Ifom a pound of raw 
 cotton, exceed on an average, 50 cents, while in England they are about 
 50 cents, and in tiie Uuited States are now somewhat less. In 1806 the 
 cotton was made chiefly into velveteens, nankeens, crapes, muslins, c^c. 
 See at length London Cyclop, art. Cotton.” 
 
 But in 1810 our cotton cloths made in houses and manufactories, on an 
 average, were estimated at 33 cents per yard in Coxe’s Tables, page 10. 
 The prices are now lower, notwithstanding the introduction so exteirsively 
 of flner cloths and of printing calicoes. 
 
 We make more coarse and substantial cloths of cotton now than Eng- 
 land, and they can be afforded cheaper by two or three cents per yard. They 
 are in greater demand abroad. Am. Quart. Kev. (1834) page 25i h 3 Par- 
 liamentary Reports, (1833) page 332. We put more staple into them, the 
 raw material being cheaper here. But the English laces, being made chiefly 
 of sea island cotton, with a very little silk, enhance the value of each pound 
 to over $5 ; and the whole manufacture of it equals nine millions of dollars 
 per annum, (McCulloch, page 744.) and 30f millions of square yards. 
 
 The coarse India cottons are made of the worst materials and less smooth, 
 being chiefly spun by hand, and tb.e raw material poorer. Baines. But 
 the thread so spun is softer and the cloth more durable. Report on Affairs of 
 India, (1832,) appendix, page 310. But the power to spin a fine thread 
 tiiere has lieen carried almost as far as in England, See table L, note [5],. 
 
 ON’ CAPITAL. 
 
 16] Capital invested is computed on very different principles and data by 
 different persons, and the price of machinery has of late fallen much per 
 spindle. See notes on spindles. In the computation of capital in manu- 
 facturing cotton, there is generally included only what is in factories. 
 
 [7] The real capital has doubtless increased in England since 1827, 
 tlioiigli in the table there is an apparent diminution. I’hat and other dif- 
 ferences often arise from the estimates being made by different persons, and, 
 on data somewhat unlike, as well as from changes in the value of ma- 
 chinery, and in its increase. 
 
 Tire computation for 1827 is by the Edin. Rev. page 22, 1827 : that for 
 1830 is by some writer not rioted ; that for 1831 in 1st edition of 
 
48 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 McCulloch’s Eict’y, Pitk. Stat. 486, for 1833, by Pebrier, page 315, in 1st 
 line, and m 2d line by Baines, 415, and Edin. Rev. page 472, (1835,) and 
 2d edition of McCulloch ; and for 1834 by Aiken, who places buildings 
 and machinery, or the fixed capital at only about half the value of that in 
 Edin. Rev. (1827) page 22, or at about 97 millions of dollars instead of 181 
 millions. 
 
 The ratio adopted for 1827 was, capital in 
 
 buying raw material - - c€ 9 millions, and for 1834 £ 4 
 
 Capital in paying wages - - 19 “ 10 
 
 Capital in mills, machinery, looms, 
 shop, &c. - - - 37 “ “ 20 
 
 £65 “ “ £34 
 
 So Kennedy in Baines, 413, differs again, making fixed capital only about 
 15 million pounds, &c. The present value of capital invested in buildings, 
 water privileges, and machinery, is often less than their original cost, and is 
 another source of difference. 
 
 [8] The capital in 1815, for the United States, is computed by a Committee 
 of Congress, and is not any too high. Report, Feb. 13, 1816. That in 1830 is 
 by the New York Convention, and is correct according to the number of spin- 
 dles compared with England and her capital, and is in fact at 40 million dol- 
 lars for fixtures alone, and about 22 million dollars for the rest. Not too high. 
 That for 1832 is from Reuss on Am. Trade, page 274. The whole capital 
 here, in proportion to each spindle, is more for mills and machinery together 
 than in England, and more for wages. Hers is sometimes higher for addi- 
 tional machinery and workmen for finer kinds of manufacture. The average 
 value of her capital to each spindle, as computed by me for 1835, would be 
 about $20 to each ; which would, on the same dfoa, make our capital then 
 equal to $35 per spindle. But in the New York Convention, in 1830, are 
 given the details of their estimafos, and the buildings and machinery alone 
 cost here, on their computation, near $35 per spindle, and it requires to pay 
 wages, furnish raw cotton and other materials, superintendence, <fcc. quit© 
 $11 more per spindle, making the wliole $46 each, or now near 80 million 
 dollars capital. In 1810, it was estimated that $60 per spindle wa.s necessary. 
 See Coxe and Gallatin. It is now $60 in some factories at Lowell. This 
 agrees nearly with the older computations in England ; and as goods become 
 finer, and machinery still cheaper, in the United States, the approximation 
 will be still closer. See table L, note. But another striking cause of dif- 
 ference arises from the kind of goods made here compared with England^ 
 requiring there less capital for machinery, looms, 6cc. Besides, that th© 
 spindles there are cheaper, and le^s capital is needed for workmen, when th© 
 immlx;r of spindles is the same, to tend }>ower looms, color and stamp dfes, 
 in proportion, than in the United Stat^. Because there, in 1833, only a littW 
 over one-half of tiie cotton spun was made into cloth in the factories, or only 
 76^ millions of poundv, out of 145 millions of pounds. Tiie rest was sold oV 
 exported as yarn and thread. See Baines, 607. And in another estimate, 
 one-half the exports are in yarn. See table M, note [1]. Baines, 409. 
 While in 1830, in the United States, the computation ©t yarn sold, com- 
 pared with cloth made, was not one-tenth of the w^eight. In 1810 it 
 exceeded one-ludf Gallatie. Another cause of Uie difftrenc© is, perhaps, 
 
49 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 that much of the fine weaving of ginghanis, muslins and mixed cloths there 
 is done in hand looms not "belonging to the factories. See Baines, 418, 
 In the computation before stated, of the capital per spindle for 1830, in the 
 United States, it may be useful to exhibit it in another form. According to 
 Pitk. page 482. 
 
 The capital in mills and fixtures was - - - millions. 
 
 Do. in other machinery about _ - - 4_4_ u 
 
 Capital in mills and machinery - - - . 
 
 Which at 1^^ millions of spindles is about $35 to each. 
 Capital fioating or circulating, in paying wages, was near 
 Capital circulating, in buying stock, &c. - 
 
 45 millions. 
 
 12 millions. 
 2 - 
 
 14 
 
 About $11 more per spindle, or $46 for every spindle. 
 
 The valuation placed on machinery should now be less, though most 
 of that in use cost high. See spindles. The English proportion now" is about 
 $12 capital per spindle invested in mills, machinery, and all fixtures con- 
 nected, or not much over one-third the proporiion here. But it is about $8 
 to each spindle in the floating -capital, for wages, stock, &c. or over two- 
 thirds the proportion here. More of their fine spinning is also done on the 
 mule spindle, which costs but little over half what the throstle spindle does, 
 and wiiich last has been equally as much used here as the other, and of 
 late years, it is believed, far more than the other. In 1831, in England, 
 in Lancashire, the number of mule spindles was more than 12 times that of 
 the throstle. Baines, 209 — note. Her capital in mills and machinery alone 
 is said not to exceed $4,16 to each spindle. See Baines, 414 and 368, 
 But that must exclude Avater privileges and steam engines, probably, anfl 
 all looms, out-houses, shops, &c. and refer chiefly to the mule spindle. 
 
 In 1824 it was considered in England tliat we employed too many per- 
 sons and too much capital per spindle. Sup. to Cyclop. Brit. art. Cotton,” 
 
 [9] The advantages of different countries for the cotton manufacture^ 
 -depend, in a great measure, on their natural condition — long habits and 
 laws. England is superior to most in the abundance and cheapness of 
 iron for machinery; in coal for warming buildings and moving steam 
 power ; in suitable climate ; ingenuity, experience, and skill of mechanics 
 from great division of labor, &c. ; in greater commerce to find best markets ; 
 capital at Ioav interest, and wages not high ; and property secure. But 
 taxes there and raw material are high, and living is more expensive than 
 in some other places. Edinb. Rev. (1835) page 466. McCulloch, 446. A 
 great increase is supposed to have taken place the past year in erecting 
 cotton factories in England, 
 
 The United States^ by numerous and cheap water falls, have a good 
 substitute for steam, and will soon have coal as low for warming ; have 
 etpual ingenuity, and probably now superior merit in machinery ; but iron 
 and cotd are dearer, and raw material and living both lower, and property um 
 secure ; wages and capital higher ; much less taxation ; and a protective 
 tariff. It is said in Amer. Cyclop, art. “ Cotton,” that the introduction of 
 tjie power loom in 181i has given great permanency and prosperity to mir 
 
50 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 cotton establishments. See table L, notes to spindles, and notes above in 
 this table for something more on England and United States. 
 
 As to France, Switzerland, India, &c. it is not necessary nor convenient 
 here to enter into details beyond what is stated in other parts of these notes. 
 But it may deserve notice, that the increase in the use of raw cotton has been 
 at a much more rapid rate in England than in France. Edin. Rev. (1832) 
 page 433. See Baines, 525 and ’6, and 515, on these points. Sec table I — 
 note. See below, note [11.] 
 
 The vaiue of cotton manufactures in England is. comparatively, equal 
 to two-thirds of all her public revenue, and to nearly all her exports of 
 other articles. Table M, note 3. In 1797, the cotton manufacture, it is 
 said in Seybert, page 92. took the lead of any other in England. But in 
 1816 she consumed no more yaw cotton than the United States do now. 
 
 [10] The capital of France invested in cotton manufactures, is given for 
 only one year, and computed at a medium betweei\ ^20 per spindle, as in 
 England, and $46 per spindle in the United States. As I have no French 
 estimates on this subject beyond the data given in Baines and other authors, 
 as to the number of spindles merely, and their cost at different periods, the 
 computation has not been extended to other years. Baines, 517 and 518, 
 Sfives estimates showing that France requires 28 per cent, more capital than 
 England to produce the same manufactures, according to some persons, 
 and according to others 75 per cent. But Doct. Bowring estimates the 
 difference at about 30 to 40 per cent. Baines, 520. 
 
 [11] The subject of wages in the different kinds of manufacture, and in 
 • different countries, has not been discussed in detail. But see on it Wade’s 
 
 Hist, of Mid’g Classes, 570 to 576. It may be interesting to many to know 
 that the average wages in 1832, in .the United States, of all employed in a 
 cotton factory, were about 14^. 11c?. sterling per week; in England, about 
 10.?., sometimes 12^. ; in France, only 5s. 6d. ; in Switzerland, 4^. 5d . ; in 
 Austria, 3s. 9d. ; in Saxony, 3^. 6c?. ; and in India from Is. to 25. per week. 
 Ditto, page 576, and Westminster Review for April, 1833. In Niles’ Re- 
 gister, November, 1817, page 156, it is said to be only two cents per day in 
 India 3 but that is probably too low. 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 5L 
 
 L.— COTTON, MANUFACTORIES OP, 
 
 Persons employed, connected with factories 
 chiefly, number of, 
 
 Spindles employed in factories, number of, 
 
 f 
 
 Years. 
 
 In England 
 
 U. States. 
 
 France. 
 
 \ 
 
 In England 
 
 U. States. 
 
 France. 
 
 Switzerla’d. 
 
 1750 
 
 20,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1760 
 
 16,000'? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1770 
 
 30,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - 
 
 1784 
 
 80,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1787 1 
 
 '162, 000 to 
 260,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1789 ^ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 49,500 
 
 
 
 
 1790 
 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 1791 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1792 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1793 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1794 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1795 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1796 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1798 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1799 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1800 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1802 
 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 
 
 1803 
 
 . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1804 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1805 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 4,500 
 
 
 
 1806 
 
 
 _ 
 
 120,000 
 
 
 
 81,000 
 
 
 1807 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 8^000 
 
 
 
 1808 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1809 
 
 800*000 '] 
 
 _ 
 
 
 — 
 
 31,000 
 
 
 
 1810 
 
 qe. 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 87,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 
 
 1811 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 80,000? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 query. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 1812 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 4H 
 
 _ 
 
 1 
 
 
 1813 
 
 
 
 
 ^query. 
 
 
 
 
 1814 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 122,646 
 
 
 
 1815 
 
 _ 
 
 100,000 
 
 
 
 130,000 
 
 
 
 1816 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 6f 
 
 
 
 ' - 
 
 1817 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 6f 
 
 
 
 
 1818 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 1_2_ 
 
 
 1819 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1820 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 220,000 
 
 
 
 1821 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 230,000 
 
 
 
 1822 
 
 427,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1823 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1824 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 61 
 
 _ 
 
 
 259,200 
 
 1825 
 
 
 
 
 query. 
 
 800,000 
 
 
 
 1826 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1827 1 
 
 705,000 to 
 1,000,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 
 1828 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 I- 
 
 _ 
 
 li to 1 
 
 
 
 1829 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 1830 
 
 - 
 
 5 179,000 ) 
 1 175,146 5 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 1831 
 
 _ 
 
 200,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 Ih to 8i 
 
 
 
 
 1832 1 
 
 1,200,000 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 1833 i 
 
 1,500,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1834 1 
 
 _ 
 
 
 600,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 1835 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 li 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 [4] 
 
 
 [5]" [6] 
 
 [9] 
 
 
 [8] 
 
 .1 
 
 [2] 
 
 
 
 [11] [12] 
 
 
 
 [10] 
 
52 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 [1] The early computations of the number of persons employed are 
 very loose and contradictory. That for 1750, is from Smithers’s History of 
 Liverpool, page 154 ; that for 1760 and 17 70, by Edinburgh Review (1827); 
 for 1784, by Smith, and Baines, 218. The more recent estimates for 1809, 
 are too high, and are by Seyb. page 92, and for 1827 in 2d line, arc from 
 Edin. Rev. page 13, (1827,) and page 427, (1835) and McCulloch, 443, and 
 Baines 431. The last make the actual laborers only 900,000. As the cloth 
 made is finer, more persons are required to a given number of spindles. So 
 if it is stamped or printed (see below). It is computed, that in 10 years after 
 machinery was introduced into the nianufacture of cotton, the number of per- 
 sons employed in it, was still augmented tenfold; some have said forty times, 
 which is loo high. But if no maciiineiy Jrad been used in j 826, beyond what 
 was used in 1760, it would have required from 42 to 53 millions of persons 
 to perform what was then done in the cotton manufacture. (Q.uar. Review, 
 1826 and Brownring’s Great Britain, pages 232.) They say one man 
 now equals by machinery, 120 in A. D. 1780, or 200 according to Kennedy 
 cited in Edinburgh Review, page 18, (1827,) Smithers 127 ; or in 1815, one 
 equals from 40 to 60. Edinburgh Encyclop. ^-cotton.” In 1633, Pebre]-, page 
 314, estimates, that 80 millions of persons would be needed in the cotton 
 manufactories without machinery. See on some of above, London Ency- 
 clopedia, article, ^‘cotton,’’ printed 1829, and in Edinburgh Cyclopedia, 
 article cotton, (1815) where the number of persons employed is estimated 
 at one million ; but too high. See below, note [11.] 
 
 [2] In Spain, in 1803, it v/as computed, that 6,792 persons were employed 
 in the manufacture of cotton goods. 1 Dictionary of Spanish Comi. 65; and 
 in Sudtzerland, in 1831, about 28,000 persons. West. Rev. for- April, 1833. 
 
 [3] The number in France for 1834, is from Baines, page 621. Many 
 there engage in agriculture a part of the yea*r as Jii India. The number 
 for 1806, is from data in I.ondon Cyclopedia, article ‘‘ cotton,” and sup- 
 plement to Eiicy. Brit: “ cotton” where in 22 departments the number of 
 persons engaged in spinning is said to be 28,460, and in weaving 31,107 
 persons, arid the spindles 800,724. These must include most in France, and 
 the other persons incidentally engaged must be alniost double to constitute 
 the recent number of 6 or 7 persons to a spindle in makiiig hire and colored 
 cloths. The number for 1831, is from the West. Rev. April, 1833, page 397. 
 
 [4] In the United States, the estimate for 1815, was made by a commit- 
 tee of the House of Representatives, February 13, 1816. The number 
 includes all engagedin the manufacUn e, or in making the mills, machinery, 
 &c. and not those alone inside of the mills. These last in 1832, were com- 
 puted by Reuss, on Am. Trade, page 274, at only 28,683, but by McCulloch’s 
 Dictionary, page 448, at 57.466. In 1830, by lNe\v ATrk Convention, at 
 57,520, arid dependants at 117, 626 persons, or 175,146 in all, as in 2d line 
 of the table, 
 
 [5] Spindles. 'Bhe spindle is the most convenient article in the cot- 
 ton manufacture, by which to calculate the extent ol it The power of any 
 one establishment, its cost, the number of persons employed, the quantity 
 
 raw cotton cousumcR, the yarn or cloth made, and most other impor 
 
53 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 tant results can, by the help of a few general data, be very nearly deduced 
 from the number of spindles. 
 
 On the great gain in substituting for the distaff and the spindle used by 
 hand, the present machinery for spinning and other processes to complete 
 the manuhicture of cotton, whether moved by horse power, water or steam,- 
 some illustrations have already been given in the first note to this table, 
 and in table K. 
 
 With a view to furnish a few more details, which may possess some useful- 
 ness and interest, it may be remarked on the power of the spindle, that by 
 improvements in machinery it is said that one now sometimes revolves 8 , 001 ) 
 times in a minute, instead ot only 50 times as formerly, and that one will 
 now spin on an average from one-sixth to one third more than it did 20 years 
 ago, (below, note 12). Indeed, in 1834, it is said that one person can spin 
 more than double the weight of yarn in a given time than he could in 1829. 
 Senior’s Outline of Political Econ. page 198. The quantity of raw cotton 
 spun by one spindle, depends of course, on the fineness of the thread and 
 quality of the machinery. In England, where a considerable portion of the 
 the yarn is finer the average is about 84 ounces weekly, or from 27 to 281bs. 
 yearly : (McCulloch, 441 note,) while the average in the United States is 
 about 50 pounsris yearly, of yarn number 20 and 25 in fineness and about 
 26 pounds, of number 35 and 40. In 1808 the average was computed at 
 45 pounds per spindle, of cotton yielding 38 pounds of yarn. (Report to 
 Congress, 1810.) The difference in weight between the cotton and the 
 yarn by loss from dirt and waste is usually estimated from one twelfth to 
 one-eighth. . (Baines, 376) At Lowell 100 pounds of cotton yields 89 
 pounds of cloth, (Lowell Statistics, 1836,) though the average here used 
 to be estimated at only 85 pounds, (Niles S.egister, (1827) page 211,) when 
 cotton rvas not so well cleaned and machinery less perfect. One spindle 
 at Lowell produces through looms &c. on an average cloth, 
 
 daily ; but this result must differ greatly with the fineness of the thread, 
 excellence of the looms, rvidth of the'clPth, (fee. 
 
 In 1830, it was computed, that 37 spindles were necessary to supply one 
 loom : though in 1827, at Lowell, the actual proportion was only 26, at 
 Exeter in 1831, it was 29, and now at Lov/ell it is 31. The number of 
 looms, in England in 1 832 was only 1 to about 40 spindles, so miicli more 
 3 mm is made and not woven there, (McCulloch 441) and those were mostly 
 hand looms. But in 1834, the number of them rvas about 100,000 power 
 looms and 250,000 hand looms or in all, about 1 to 30. (Baines, page 237.) 
 One loom formerly v/ove daily, about 20 y: .rds of cloth of the ordinary seven- 
 eighths width, more of the 26 inches in width used for calicoes, and less of 
 the 5 quarters wide. The average now is Lorn 30 to 40 yards of No. 20. At 
 Lowell in 1835, it was 38 to 49 yards of No. 14, and 25 to 30 yards of No. 
 30. It requires from 4 to 5 yards of cloth of Nos. 20 to 25 yarn, to weigh 
 one pound, and 5 to 6 yards of Nos. 36 and 40. 
 
 The power of the spindle, as connected with the number of persons 
 actually employed in factories, is, that, in making plain cloth of ordinary 
 width and fineness, one person is needed to conduct all the business from 
 . the raw cotton to the finishing of the clofli for, every 20 spindles. If the 
 cloth be colored , and printed or stamped, one person will be wanted for 
 every -7 spindles. This would be about 250 persons for all' purposes in a 
 factory of 5,000 spindles, making plain brown cloth. One person can 
 manage from 2 to 3 power looms. 
 
54 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 The proportion of spindles to a factory was formerly very small, both 
 in England and this country. Before 1806, it was only one or two 
 hundred sometimes, and seldom exceeded 1,000. Soon after that some 
 mills were built, containing 4,000 spindles. The average in new mills is 
 now from five to 6,000. In Lowell, 1836, in 27 mills they have 129,828 
 spindles, or a little under 5,000 to each, though they print, &c. in some. 
 
 A factory with 5,000 spindles, must be about 155 feet long and 45 
 wide, 4 stories in height, and contain about 140 looms, with other suitable 
 machinery for picking, warping, sizing, &c. Such an one with a few shops 
 and out-houses appurtenant and land and water privilege, would cost from 
 $140,000 to $220,000, according to the materials for building, whether 
 wood, brick or stone, and the distance from navigable waters, so as to affect 
 cost of privilege, freight, &c. with other circumstances too numerous for 
 recital. If bleaching or printing cloths be added, more expense will be ne- 
 cessary, and more persons than 250, the average for such an establishment 
 including machinists. 
 
 This would be a permanent investment of capital in buildings, water 
 power, machinery and all appurtenances equal to $28 or $44 per spindle, 
 independent of the temporary investment of capital to buy raw cotton, pay 
 wages, &c. It would oftener reach, and even exceed the latter sum than 
 only the former. (See table K, on capital.) In 1810 it was computed, 
 that the capital actually invested in machinery and real estate, averaged 
 $60 per spindle. (Report of 1810.) It is not proposed here to go into any 
 comparisons of this expense now with former periods, or with other coun- 
 tries, except in regard to to the spindie alone, and the macliinery as a 
 whole. For the rest see table K. 
 
 In 1806, when machinery could not by law be exported from England, 
 and the machinists here were unskilful and few, the spindle and its appur- 
 tenances from the picker to the loom inclusive, it is computed, cost $30 
 each ; or 3 to 400 per cent higher than it cost at that time in England, and 
 over double its present cost in the United States. 
 
 The great fall in its cost and value since, with various improvements in 
 machinery, has been the cause of much loss to many capitalists em- 
 ployed in the manufacture. By A. D. 1820, the machinery cost only about 
 double its then value in England. In 1826, the machinery was made here 
 on an average, for about $14 per spindle, and though now lower it still 
 costs from 40 to 60 per cent more than in England. The whole machi- 
 nery there and the mill cost only $4,1 6 per spindle. (Baines 368, 414.) 
 But that includes probably no looms, &c. and merely the building without 
 the water or steam power, and the mule spindle, moved by hand, and costing 
 less than half what the throstle spindle costs, and v/hich is driefly in use 
 here. In France, in 1832, the spindie alone, which is about half the ex- 
 pense of all the machinery, cost $8. It used to cost there $10. (See 
 Hocklin’s Evid.) Now the spindle alone costs here about $4^ if of the 
 throstle kind, and $2^ if of the mule kind. In some places in the United 
 States 5 per cent higher. The former alone cost here, late as 1826, it 
 is said, $8 each. The spindle used in the filling frame, quite extensively 
 at this time, costsabout $6. 
 
 These may constitute useful andsuflicient data for further computations. 
 As a matter of some curious interest it may be added that one ])omid of cotton 
 usually makes 8 yds. of coarse muslin, and is then increased m value from 
 the raw cotton eiglit-fold. But if spun into the finest yarn, it is worth 5 
 
55 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 guineas, and in 1780, if woven into muslin and tamboured was worth 
 ^15. (5 Anderson’s History of Com. 878.) It may now be converted 
 
 into a piece of lace worth 100 guineas. Senior s Outline of Polit. Econ. 
 162, 178. In India, in 1786, they could spin cotton threads over 115 miles to 
 the pound ; in England they have since been spun 167 miles long from a 
 single pound. Baines, page 59. Niles’ Keg. page 181, March 24, 1821. One 
 pound of cotton spun into No. 100 yarn, extends about 84,000 yds. in length. 
 Smithers’s His. of Liv. page 127. llie yarn spun yearly in England would 
 reach round the globe 203,775 times or over 600 times each day. Baines, 
 page 431. 
 
 They use flour for sizing, &c. in cotton manufactures, 42J- pounds to each 
 spindle per annum., or four pounds weekly to each loom. In this country but 
 one pound weekly to each loom. McCulloch, 448, as to report of 1832. 
 But at Lowell, 3,800 barrels to 4,197 looms yearly, or near four pounds 
 each per week. In England three times as many spindles and factories 
 are moved by steam as by water. Edin. Rev. page 472 (1835). In the 
 United States not one in a Imndred factories is moved by steam. The 
 power to move all the cotton mills in England, equals that of 44,000 horses, 
 of which only 11,000 is by the water wheel. Baines, 395. In 1824, the 
 whole power was estimated at only 10,572 horses. Sup. to Encyclop. Brit. 
 ‘‘Cotton.” Each factory, of common size and employment, requires from 
 60 to 80 horse power here, or about 114 horse power to 1,000 spindles. 
 
 [6] For the number of spindles in England, in 1789, see Smithers’s 
 History of Liverpool,' page 124. For 1812, Edinburgh Encyclop. arti- 
 cle “Cotton;” for 1817, Edinburgh Rev. (1827); for the rest, in 1811 
 and in 1824, Sup. to Cyclop. Brit. “Cotton;” and the others, Baines’s Hist. 
 368, and McCulloch, 441, &c. &c. The above numbers include Scotland. 
 The first cotton mill built in Ireland, was in 1780. London Cyclop, article 
 “ Cotton,” and Sup. to Encyclop. Brittan. “ Cotton.” In 1824, Ireland had 
 145,000 spindles. Sup. to Encyclop. Brittan. “ Cotton.” 
 
 [7] For 1812, in France, see Q,uart. Rev. page 397, (1824 ’5,) and 
 
 French Industry, by Cliaptal, page 15, who says, they then spun only 
 about 30 millions of pounds; this was a large number for the cotton spun, 
 as the spindles were poor and imperfect. For 1832, see Niclio. Koechlin’s 
 evidence before the Chamber of Peers ; that is from one-half to one million 
 too high, as grounded on an English estimate, which was too large, too 
 many for the quantity of cotton spun; for 1818, from 2 Cliaptal, page 145, 
 who makes 220 factories. Very little spining by machinery, in France, 
 till after 1785. (Quarterly Review, 394, (1824 ’5). First in 1787, (Sup. to 
 Cyclop. Brit. “Cotton,”) though cotton had been spun on wheels since 1767. 
 See 2 Chaptal’s Industry of France, page 4. And the cotton cloths were 
 chiefly made from thread or yarn imported from England, Switzerland, 
 and the Levant. There were large numbers of cotton pocket handker- 
 chiefs made at Rouen, Montpelier, &c. early as 1789. 2 Chaptal’s Indus- 
 
 try of France, page 4. 
 
 France had, in 1818, 70,000 looms for cloth, and 10,500 for spining 
 hosiery. 2 Cliaptal on French Industry, page 150. But his estimates on 
 all these subjects are considered high. In 1806, her looms for cloth in 
 twenty-two departments are stated at only 28,634. Ijondon Cyclop, art. 
 “Cotton,” In 1806, the estimate, as to the number of spindles, is from the 
 
56 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 London Cyclop, art. “ Cotton;” it is increased a little, for the rest of France 
 not included in the above article, and is about one spindle to 25 pounds of 
 raAV cotton spun that year, which is a fair proportion, when the goods made 
 are fine, and the machinery is not of the best quality. See note above, 
 and supplement to Encydop. Brit. art. Cotton.” Power looms are not 
 much used yet in France, West Rev. Ap. \33. 
 
 [8] Some spindles and looms moved by machinery have been introduced 
 
 into India ; but most of the cotton manufactured there is by women and 
 in households : the men, who aid in weaving, are also often laborers on the 
 land. Report of the committe on the aifairs of the East India Com. App. 
 310, 1832. Wade on Midd. Classes, page 576. Yarn is often imported 
 from England, it is there spun, so much cheaper by machinery. Smithers, 
 127. So in Saxony, Russia, &c. Supplement to Cycloped. Brit. “ Cot- 
 ton,” In China, it is said, cotton mills with spindles. &c. have been 
 forbidden. In Egypt they have been introduced, but do not succeed 
 v/ell from the dryness of the air, its impurities by fine sand, and want 
 of skill; (Hodgden,) but they are still used by the Government. In 
 Spain, in 1802, were 3,705 work shops for cotton or small manufac- 
 tories, and 1,494 looms. 1 Diet, of Com. 65. 3 do. 198, larger. In. 
 
 Switzerland, the first mill with machinery, was built in 1798 ; London 
 Cyclop, art. “ Cotton,” where is some notice of a few spindles in other parts 
 of Europe, viz: Saxony, Russia, Prussia, &c. So in Sup. to Encydop. 
 Brit. “Cotton.” And in West. Rev. for App. 1833. The number in the 
 table is from Sup. to Encydop. Brit. “ Cotton.” 
 
 [9] The number of spindles in the United States can be computed from 
 the data before given. For those before 1835, see Pitk. Stat. 526, and 
 McCulloch, page 448, and Reuss. Am. Tr. 270. Those for 1809^nd 1810, 
 the last too high in his table — see Gallatin’s Report for the number in 1807 
 and 1811. Those at some other dates are from manuscript. Gales and 
 Seaton’s Documents, 2 Finance, page 432. Those for 1814, are from 
 Cox’s tables. Ditto, page 694, and Seybert Statistics, page 7, and were re- 
 turned between 1810 and 1814. For 1820 and 1822, Niles’ Register, page 
 35, March. 1823. Tiiose for 1835, are estimated by me on former data. 
 In 1810, Cox in his tables returns 269 mills, but too many, if over one- 
 eighth of them were for cotton Very fev/ spindles v/ere in each of those 
 built before 1807 and ’8. The spindles in 1830, are from the manufac- 
 turers’ convention, gnd only 12 States, but included most of the manufac- 
 tories. Those had 33,506 looms, to about million of spindles, or near 
 1 to 40. At Lowell, 129,828 spindles exist to 4,197 looms, or 1 to 32. 
 This is near one-thirteenth of all the spindles in the United States. Lowell 
 Statistics, 1836. The first milhbuilt there was in 1822, and in 1826, only 
 2,500 spindles. See Boot’s letter to Carey. About 78,000 spindles a year 
 should be added here to make cotton cloth sufficient to meet the demand 
 of the present annual addition to our population. The spindles have in- 
 creased somewhat faster than that ratio the last five years, and have increased 
 beyond the exports of cotton goods. Of the number of spindles liere at dif- 
 ferent periods in factories, those in 1790 or 1791, wmre in one mill at Provi- 
 dence, erected by Slater and Brown ; those in 1805 were mostly, if not all, in 
 Rhode Island^ and two in Massachusetts, and only 8 or 10 mills. One was 
 begun at New Ipswich, in New Hampshire, as early as 1803, it is believed 
 
57 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 and one or two in Massachusetts, and one in Connecticut before 1808, 
 one near Philadelphia before 1798, making in all, at that time, 15 mills. 
 Of the spindles in 1815, about 118,000 were in the same State. Galla- 
 tin’s Rep. 1810; New tiarapshire Gazetteer, article “New Ipswich.” The 
 Waltham factory in Mdssachu setts was not erected till 1810 or 1814, 
 and heis since devoted much capital to making machinery. There was 
 a great increase in 1806 and ’7; again during the war of 1812; again 
 from 1820 to 1825 ; and in 1831 and ’2. If prices continue high as 
 the past year, and the raw material falls, or is stationary, the new markets 
 in Asia, and increased demands in Europe and America, by increased use 
 of cotton, and increased population, will enlarge the number of factories 
 here ; but it is very easy, with our extensive water power, and cotton lands, 
 to overstock the market. 
 
 It seems that tAvo machines for spinning and carding were, Avith much 
 difficulty, obtained in this country, at Philadelphia, early as 1788. One 
 carded 40 pounds of cotton a day, and the other had 50 spindles, and the 
 growth of cotton was’ urged on the southern States, and the use of these 
 machines in families recommended. In 3 Care^ds Museum see the descrip- 
 tion more at large. In 5 Carey’s Mi'isemn, (A. I). 1790,) it is said, a rnodei 
 of a cotton mill and machineiy, (fee. as used in Enc-land, had been obtained 
 at Philadelphia, by the society for promoting manufactures and useful arts. 
 It would seem that T. Cox, Esq. took an active part in urging the cultiva- 
 tion and manufacture of cotton on the country early as 1787. Rees’s Cy- 
 clop. art. “United States,” and Gales and Seaton’s Doc. page 676, vol. 2, of 
 Finance. The English prohibited the export of the cotton machinery, as 
 Avell as the emigration of their mechanics, under such penalties as delayed 
 the introduction of it here, and caused the price of machinery for many 
 years to be so high here as to retard, and almost defeat successful competi- 
 tion. See before. 
 
 [10] For a detailed account of the different kinds of machinery used 
 in the cotton manufactories, the inventors of them, improvements in them, 
 (fee. See London Cyclop, art. “ Cotton,” and same article in the New 
 Edinb. Eocyclop. and supplement ffi Encyclop. Brit. “Cotton.” 
 
 [11] The change of late years in some places in England, from the hand 
 to the poAver loom, has caused some distress, and the employment of a 
 larger portion of females and children ; novv about one-hfth there are men, 
 one-third .women, and the rest children. - Wades’ Hist, of the Middling 
 Classes, pages 570 and ’1. The number of hand, looms in England, in 
 '1820 and 1830, Avas about the same, viz: 240,000, but that of power looms 
 had increased from 14,000 to 55,000. Each of the latter performs as much 
 as three of the former. Wade, 261. Parliamentary papers, in 1830. In 
 1834 the power looms had become 100,000. Baines, 237. 
 
 [12] The American throstle spindle revolved 7,500 times before 1833^ 
 though it used to run in England only 4,500, and afierAvards only 5,400» 
 West. Rev. for April, 1833, page 403. Machinery and skih, a^'id the raw 
 material have so improved, that where some 3 ^ears ago the .threads broke at 
 the rate of 13 per cent., they break noAV only 3 per cent. Do. Many 
 modern improvements in machinery in England are from America. West. 
 Rev. Ap. 1833. 
 
58 ' 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 M. 
 
 COTTON, MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Values of exports of their own, from — 
 
 
 Eng 
 
 land. 
 
 France. 
 
 Germany. 
 
 Spain. 
 
 Turkey and 
 Africa. 
 
 India. 
 
 U. States. 
 
 China. 
 
 Years 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dolls. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Mil’ns. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 Offi. Value. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1789 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1790 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1791 
 
 9 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1792 
 
 9i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1793 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1794 
 
 lU 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1795 
 
 111 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1796 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1798 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1799 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1800 
 
 261 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1802 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 1803 
 
 34 
 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 
 
 1804 
 
 41 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 1805 
 
 45 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1806 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 1807 
 
 48 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1808 
 
 61 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1809 
 
 92 
 
 
 
 ’ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1810 
 
 90 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1811 
 
 68 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1812 
 
 78 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1813 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 
 
 Real 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 or dec. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 value. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1814 
 
 84 
 
 95 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 1815 
 
 106 
 
 98 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 ! 
 
 1816 
 
 86 
 
 74 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1817 
 
 101 
 
 76 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 1818 
 
 98 
 
 89h 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1819 
 
 88i 
 
 70 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1820 
 
 107i 
 
 79 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 3 
 
 1821 
 
 113 
 
 77 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1822 
 
 128 
 
 82 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1823 
 
 137 
 
 82| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 1824 
 
 143 
 
 86 
 
 6h 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1825 
 
 135 
 
 86 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1826 
 
 119 
 
 7H 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 Ito 
 
 If 
 
 1827 
 
 157 
 
 831 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 1828 
 
 1591 
 
 81 
 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 ^To 
 
 
 1829 
 
 197 
 
 83| 
 
 4| 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 li 
 
 
 1830 
 
 188 
 
 81 
 
 10 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 n 
 
 
 1831 
 
 208 
 
 83 
 
 101 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 1832 
 
 209 
 
 831 
 
 10^ 
 
 , _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 1833 
 
 222 
 
 881 
 
 11 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 i 
 
 1 23 
 
 
 1834 
 
 
 98h 
 
 10 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 2—*^ 
 
 
 
 
 (88) 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 1835 
 
 
 88| 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [8] [9] 
 
 [1] 
 
 [2] 
 
 [3] 
 
 [4] 
 
 [9] 
 
 [5] 
 
 [10] 1 
 
 [^] 
 
 U] 
 
 [11] 
 
59 
 
 ^ [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 [1] The exports of English manufactures in 1833 and 4, were about 
 one-third in value in yarn. See Edinburgh Review, 472, (1835) Baines’s 
 and Official Reports. See table K, note on capital. Some years yarn com 
 stitutes one-half in weight. 
 
 From 1814 to 1823 inclusive, the value of yarn exported compared with 
 the value of other cotton goods increased slowly, from being about one- 
 seventh and one-sixth, to be about one-fifth. London Cyclopedia, article 
 Cotton.” The proportional increase of yarn has been even greater since. 
 See Parker’s speech in Parliament, February, 1836. The yarn exported 
 is understood to be generally coarse ; between No. 18 and 40. From 
 half to three-quartefs of the lace made is exported chiefly to the continent. 
 It is mostly made of sea-island cotton, and equals near 9 millions of dollars 
 in value yearly, McCulloch, page 744. 
 
 [2] The diffeience between the official value on exportation, and the 
 declared value is given above. But the declared, or what is sometimes called 
 the real value, in the 2d column is still usually from 2^ to*5 per cent, under 
 the actual market value. (Baines, page 403.) The official value is founded 
 on the quantity, computing the price as it was about the close of the 17th 
 century, or A. D. 1689. The market value 
 official in some arti cles than in others, e. g. 
 
 In 1829, calicoes plain per yard 
 
 has changed more from the 
 
 calicoes printed per yard 
 
 u u u u 
 
 cotton yarn and twist per cwt 
 
 £10 
 
 7 
 
 Is. 
 
 0 
 
 1 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 5 
 
 3d. 
 
 6 
 
 6 
 
 8i 
 
 0 
 
 0 
 
 Official. 
 
 real. 
 
 official 
 
 real. 
 
 official 
 
 real. 
 
 (Baines, page 351.) See more on prices of manufactures, table K, note 1. 
 
 The sum entered for 1835, is only for the year ending 5tli Jan. 1835, 
 and not any subsequent; and the second sum for 1834, is for the year 1834 
 only to 5th Jan. while the first sum for 1834, is. probably for the whole 
 fiscal year. Some discrepancies occasionally arise by the statements being 
 made with difierent terminations for the year, as some end in April, and 
 some in January, &c. See returns. 
 
 [3] The exports of cotton manufactures from England are now, and for 
 some years have been, nearly equal to one half of her exports of every 
 kind. The above sums for England are from Baines, page 350. The re- 
 cords for 1813 and before that, for the declared value were burned. Those 
 sums do not include Ireland, amounting from one-tenth to three-tenths of 
 a million yearly. Aikin.says 63 per cent, of what is made in England is 
 exported, and Edinburgh Review, page 472, says, in 1833, that the exports 
 from England were about 18|- million pounds sterling, and consumption 
 about twelve and one-tenth million sterling. See for 1831,-2 and 3, 
 McCulloch, 675. 
 
 [4] The exports from France in 1823 and 4, are from 2 Dictionary 
 Spanish Commerce, page 148. In 1829, from Edinburg Review, page 62, 
 (1829.) In 1833, from Baines 525, note, and in 1831 and 2, from the 
 French tables of commerce, with a slight addition or variation, it is be- 
 lieved, in some cases in the value of the franc. In 1830 from Westmin- 
 ster Review, April, 1833, and Wade on Working Classes, 575, and that 7 
 millions were printed goods. 
 
60 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 [5] Those from Spain in 1803, were chiefly from her possessions in 
 India and America. Dictionary of Spanish Commerce. Spain of late 
 imports largely of cotton manufactures. See table O, note 1, and table N. 
 The Moors introduced this manufacture into Spain, early as the 9th or 10th 
 centuries. Baines, page 38. 
 
 [6] Those from India are estimates, and might be extended, from the fol- 
 lowing data. Her islands and she have long had a domestic trade in cotton 
 goods. 3 Crawford’s Hist, of Ind. Archip. 350. It then spread to other 
 parts of Asia, to the eastern coast of Africa, and next to Europe. 
 
 India in 1813, exported to England alone 10 millions of dollars worth 
 of her cotton goods, and now impoi'ts as much from England. Montgo- 
 mery’s Anglo. East. Emp. But she still exports certain kinds to England 
 valued in 1831, at about 2 millions of dollars ; in 1832, at 1|- milhons ; and 
 in 1833, at 1 million. Some ’of these are re- exported. McCulloch, page 672 
 and 676 ; Evid. on East Ind. Comp page 310, App. In 1802, 3, and 4, the 
 United States imported cotton goods of India origin, worth nearly 3 million 
 dollars per year. • Seyb. page 218. Hence the exports of cotton manu- 
 factures from India formerly were large. But they have fallen off greatly, 
 and especially since 1816, to the United States. Pitk. Stat. 188 and 9. She 
 often exports raw cotton of late years, instead of cotton manufactures. 
 Supplement to Encyclop. Britt. Cotton.” See Seyb. Stat. page 289, on our 
 whole imports thence in 1814, and chiefly cottons. See above. 
 
 [7] Those exports from the United States are from official tables. They 
 doubtless would have increased much more rapidly, had the demand for 
 them at home not been so great, by means of their good quality, cheapness 
 and oiir increasing population. 
 
 [8] The wliole exports of cotton goods from China to England and her 
 dependencies in 1832, were valued at about ^ million of dollars. McCul- 
 loch, 237, article “ Cotton,” and page 240, where is given the pieces of nan- 
 keens so exported from 1793 to 1831, which alone at 50 cents each, would 
 range from |ith to ^ million of dollars yearly. In page 813, he thinks 
 the exports of nankeens have been on the increase to different quarters. 
 
 From China the exports of cotton goods consist chiefly of chintzes and 
 nankeen, and the amounts in the table are estimates. The former have 
 greatly diminished' of late years. Supplement to Encyclop. Britt. Cotton.” 
 She imports now both English and xMnericaii cotton goods. (See exports 
 of them.* Tables N, and O. 
 
 In 1802, 3, and 4, the United States alone, it is estimated, imported 
 Chinese cotton goods valued from 1 million of dollars to 1-^ million 
 yearly. See official returns of all articles imported from China, Gales and 
 Seaton’s Doc. page 599 in 1 vol. on Com. and Nav. Formerly the United 
 States imported largely of nankeens, so as some years to export mil- 
 lion of dollars of tliern as in A. D. 1792, Gales and Seaton’s Doc. page 
 144, vol. 1, Com. and Nav. But our official returns since as well as 
 before 1821, do not discriminate the cotton goods imported. From 1818 to 
 1827, they fell off from about 1 million to million. Pitk. Stat. 305,- 
 McCulloch, page 242. 
 
61 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 [9] The exports of cotton goods from Germany are chiefly by land and 
 not extensive. This trade could not have existed at all formerly, and the 
 estimates are too uncertain for much reliance. 
 
 In and near Vienna are established considerable cotton manufactures by 
 machinery. Supplement to Ency. Britt. Cotton.” According to McCul- 
 loch Diet, page 448, the cotton exports from Austria are chiefly in yarn. 
 They are on the increase. See Wade on Working Classes, page 576. 
 
 [10] From Turkey, including th-e products of Smyrna and the neigh- 
 borhood as well as Barbary and Morocco, there have been frequently ex- 
 ported in former years, various articles of cotton manufacture ; but not of 
 great value as a whole. This manufacture was introduced into Turkey 
 in Europe in the 14th century by the Turks. Some cotton cloth was im- 
 ported from the coast of Africa to England about the close of the 16th 
 century. The growth and manufacture of cotton were diffused much by 
 the Mahometan conquests. 2 McPherson’s Com. 193 ; Baines 32. 
 
 [11] The barrenness of this table is another illustration of the small 
 extent in the foreign trade of cotton goods except by England, France and 
 the United States. It presents also a singular illustration of the recent 
 date of their progress in it, and of the difficuity in knowing mucli of the 
 ancient or older business of India and China in this branch of their trade, 
 with such accuracy as to deserve reliance ; though more leisure might 
 probably have enabled me to present some more statistical facts on that 
 subject, than I have yet met with. See the diffusion of this manufacture 
 by the Mahometans from Arabia &c. note (10) in this table, and. (5). 
 
 In 1825, the Dutch exports and imports at .fapan, are given (McCul- 
 loch, page 812,) and the former as well as the latter contained a few cotton 
 goods, from 5 to $8,000 in value. 
 
62 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 N. 
 
 COTTON— MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Exports of their own — to what places — values of. 
 
 
 England to United States. 
 
 England to France. 
 
 England to Germany. 
 
 England to Netherlands. 
 
 England to India & China, 
 
 England to S. America and 
 Mexico, except Brazil. 
 
 Various places to Spain. 
 
 1 Various places to Russia. 
 
 England to Brazil. 
 
 yj 
 
 . Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars, 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dol’s. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dol’s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Millions, 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions 
 
 Mill’s. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 1789 
 
 - • 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1790 
 
 - 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1791 
 
 - 
 
 ^1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1792 
 
 - 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1793 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1794 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1795 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1796 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1797 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1798 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1799 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1800 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1801 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1802 
 
 
 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 
 1803 
 
 - 
 
 _ 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 — 
 
 20 
 
 
 
 1804 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 % 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1805 
 
 Real 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Offi. or dec. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1806 
 
 17 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1807 
 
 17 21 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1808 
 
 11 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1809 
 
 
 ‘ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1810 
 
 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 
 
 
 
 1811 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1812 
 
 — 
 
 to ^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1813 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1814 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1815 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1816 
 
 — 
 
 / ■ 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 1817 
 
 — 
 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 1818 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 3i 
 
 
 
 
 
 1819 
 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 
 
 
 
 
63 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 N. — Continued. 
 
 COTTON-MANUFACTURES OF. 
 
 Exports of their own — to what places — values of. 
 
 Years. 
 
 England to United States. 
 
 [ England to France. 
 
 England to Germany. 
 
 England to Netherlands, 
 
 England to India & China. 
 
 England to S. America and 
 Mexico, except Brazil, 
 
 Various places to Spain, 
 
 1 V arious places to Russia. 
 
 England to Brazil. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars, 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars, 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars, 
 
 DoFs. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dol’s, 
 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Mil’s. 
 
 
 
 Real 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Offi. or dec. 
 
 Whole sum. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1820 
 
 - 
 
 8.700 
 
 20 
 
 5 
 
 4 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 
 
 1821 
 
 
 8,500 
 
 18 
 
 5 
 
 5i 
 
 
 
 
 
 1822 
 
 
 18,000 
 
 19 
 
 
 54 
 
 
 
 
 
 1823 
 
 7 
 
 22,000 
 
 14| 
 
 7 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 1824 
 
 
 55,000 
 
 13i 
 
 H 
 
 
 — 
 
 _ 
 
 2tV 
 
 
 1825 
 
 11 
 
 57,000 
 
 154 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 1826 
 
 
 119,000 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1827 
 
 8 
 
 122,000 
 
 14| 
 
 6f 
 
 
 6| 
 
 
 
 
 1828 
 
 8| 
 
 110,000 
 
 13| 
 
 6| 
 
 
 5i 
 
 
 
 
 1829 
 
 
 122,000 
 
 14i 
 
 6i 
 
 - 
 
 71 
 
 * 4 
 
 
 
 
 1830 
 
 
 50,000 
 
 14 
 
 6 
 
 — 
 
 81 
 
 
 
 
 1831 
 
 13 
 
 240,000 
 
 Hi 
 
 64 
 
 9f 
 
 nm 
 
 — 
 
 -■ 
 
 3* 
 
 1832 
 
 8tV 
 
 318,000 
 
 16| 
 
 
 8| 
 
 
 - 
 
 6 
 
 64 
 
 1833 
 
 ^-To 
 
 450,000 
 
 Hi 
 
 9tV 
 
 8 
 
 64 
 
 - 
 
 64 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 00 
 
 ,o, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1834 
 
 8r\ 
 
 730,000 
 
 16i 
 
 10 
 
 n 
 
 ■ 8 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 
 1835 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ll] 
 
 [10] 
 
 [4] 
 
 [9] 
 
 [2] 
 
 [5] 
 
 
 [6] 
 
 m 
 
 [8] 
 
 
 [3] 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [9] 
 
 [1] This table shows chiefly the exports of cotton goods from England 
 to different places, and from 1820 to 1833 the values are mostly taken from 
 official documents. Porter’s tables, 161-7, page 300. The statements in 
 different books sometimes differ from referrins: to different terminations of 
 the year. 
 
 [2] Since 1832 Belgium has taken, in that year and 1833, about 1|- mil- 
 lions of the amount of what is placed to the whole Netherlands from En- 
 gland. In 1834, it is said by Alexander, she imported of cotton goods, 
 from all places, about 2J millions of dollars, and smuggled twice as much 
 more, that did not appear on the official returns. 
 
64 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146 ] 
 
 [3] The exact consumption of manufactured cotton goods in each coun- 
 try is seldom attainable. But an approximation to the quantity or value 
 can be easily made from the data given in the tables. Thus the quantity 
 of cotton manufactured in each and not exported, will, with the imports of 
 cotton manufactures not afterwards re-exported, constitute nearly the true 
 amount. 
 
 Another general mode of computation might be, that in such countries 
 as Turkey, it has been estimated that only two pounds of raw cotton per 
 head, made into manufactures, is consumed. (Urquhart’s Views, page 150.) 
 In warmer, and still poorer countries it v/ould be less. In France, each 
 person is estimated to consume $4 v/orth of cotton goods per year; in 
 England, $5; and here probably $6. 
 
 The exports to Germany and Netherlands are from one-third to one-half 
 in twist and yarn, and are woven there. Porter’s tables, page 300, and 
 Baines, 416. So in a great proportion to Russia. Sup. to Encyclop. Brit. 
 ‘‘^Cotton;” and some even to India. See table O. So chiefly to Prussia. 
 Blackwood’s Magazine, for January, 1836. 
 
 [4] The exports to France from 1789 to 1793 are computed at 5 millions 
 of dollars yearly, in Quar. Review, 394-9 (1824-5). See official returns 
 for the table, and McCulloch, page 644. But it must include all smuggled, 
 and is then not too high. It equals the whole amount of all the regular 
 imports of cotton goods into France at that time from all quarters. 2 Chap- 
 tal’s Industry of France, page 9. The sums in the table for 1789, &c. are 
 from Bowring’s Report, page 52, who says that 10 millions of dollars 
 worth of English manufactures, and chiefly cotton, are of late years smug- 
 gled from England to France. See also Baines, 517, note. The whole 
 imports of such goods into France in 1823 were 9 millions of dollars; in 
 1824, 12 millions of dollars. In 1806, about 14^- millions of dollars worth 
 were smuggled. Sup. to Encyclop. Brit. ‘‘Cotton.” See 2 Dictionary of 
 Spanish Commerce, page 214. In 1812 all the legal imports of cotton 
 goods into France were less than a third of a million of dollars. 2 Chaptal, 
 page 9. Of those smuggled, in late years, quite 2 millions of dollars worth 
 were in bobbinet laces. McCulloch, 1054. 
 
 [5] The exports to India include the islands, and for 1831 and 1832 are 
 from McCulloch, page 446, and the others mostly from official tables. See 
 more in McCulloch, 235, as to tlrat part by the East India Company. The 
 trade in cotton manufactures has increased greatly since the first opening 
 of it in 1814. Do. 533-4, and 539, another table, 
 
 [6] These exports to Spain were chiefly from England, France and 
 Italy, and some from Spanish America. (Dictionary of Spanish Commerce.) 
 Those direct to Spain from England, in 1833 and 1834, were only about 
 -j-t- million of dollars. But England exported to Gibraltar, in those years, 
 from 1 to 14- millions of dollars in cotton goods, (see official tables) and 
 which found their way in part into Spain. McCulloch, Die. page 600. 
 The sum for 1834 is a computation only on the tibove data, and the fact that 
 Franco exports therefrom 2 to 2^ millions of dollars yearly. See table O, 
 note [Ij. 
 
 [7] The imports into Russia in 1832 were almost wholly from England. 
 Porter’s tables, 545 ; Baines, 416. In 1833, from Eiigland, 6 millioBS of 
 
65 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 dollars; and in 1834 only 5-J- millions of dollars. Some of them go to 
 places in the Black Sea, &c. McCnlloch, 859. Russia excludes certain 
 cotton cloths,^ but not yarn. Blackwood’s Magazine, for February, 1836, 
 page 62. On others her tariif is high. 2 Smith’s Com. Dig. 
 
 [8] Exports to Brazil, &c. See McCulloch, 446; Baines, 416; and Offi- 
 cial Reports for 1834 and 1835. 
 
 [9] England exports largely cotton goods also to Italy and Italian islands : 
 in 1833, 7 millions of dollars; and in 1834, 10 millions of dollars. See 
 more in IdcCuilocli, page 814, and page 1212, some to Yenice, now yY a 
 million. 
 
 The ratio of tills kind of exports from England, in 1834, was as follows: 
 1. Germany; 2. Italy ; 3. United States ; 4. India and China ; 5. Holland; 
 6. Brazil; 7. Russia; 8. Turkey and Greece, in 1833 and 1834, over 4 
 millions of dollars each, year; 9. .Portngjil and islands, in some years 3 to 
 4| millions of dollars; 10. British West Indies ditto, 3 to 3|- millions of 
 dollars; 11. Chili alone 24 to 3 millions of dollar?; 12. States of Rio de 
 la Plata alone 14 to 24 millions of dollars. See official returns, and Baines, 
 416. These for Germany go iargehy to Trieste. McCnlloch, 1186. 
 
 The whole exports to Germany in 1833, were estimated to be so divided 
 that from 10 to 11 millions of dollars were in cloths and laces, and the re- 
 mainder in yam, being 35 millions of pounds. Beside Trieste, part of 
 tiiese exports pass tiiroiigh the Haiise towns, and others throngh Rotterdam 
 and Antwerp. Blackwood’s Magazine, for Janiiary, 1836. 
 
 [10] Tliose exports to the United States are obtained chiefly from our 
 own official returns of imports, tliough some, and especial! v tiie earliest, 
 are from Eiiglish tables. 
 
(6 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 O. 
 
 COTTON, MANUFACTURES OF, 
 
 1787 
 
 1789 
 
 1790 
 
 1791 
 
 1792 
 
 1793 
 
 1794 
 
 1795 
 
 1796 
 
 1797 
 
 1798 
 
 1799 
 
 1800 
 1801 
 1802 
 
 1803 
 
 1804 
 
 1805 
 
 1806 
 
 1807 
 
 1808 
 
 1809 
 
 1810 
 1811 
 1812 
 
 1813 
 
 1814 
 
 1815 
 
 1816 
 
 1817 
 
 1818 
 1819 
 '1820 
 
 1821 
 
 1822 
 
 823 
 
 France to the 
 United Slate.s. 
 
 France to 
 England. 
 
 France 
 
 to her colonies. 
 
 O . 
 
 a 1 
 
 3 'S 
 
 i 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 .^Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. I 
 
 Exports of their owh, to what places, values of, 
 
 x\fiIlions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 O 
 
 • in O 
 & 0-1 
 
 0 ) . 
 
 ‘3 CO S 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 United States to 
 India & Africa. 
 
 United States to 
 China. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 s 0 
 _i 
 
 2 0 
 
 2 « 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 United States to 
 the West Indies. 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] CT 
 
 O, — Continued. 
 
 COTTON, MANUFACTURES OF, 
 
 Exports of their own, to what places, values of, 
 
 
 1 
 
 Fiance to the 
 United States, 
 
 France 
 to England. 
 
 France - 
 to her Colonies. 
 
 German)^ to the 
 United State.s. 
 
 1 
 
 United States to 
 So. America 
 and Mexico. 
 
 United States to 
 India & Africa. 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 United Stales to 
 China-. 
 
 United States to 
 . the West Indies, i 
 
 i ! 
 
 1 i 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions. 
 
 Millions.: 
 
 
 
 
 1824 
 
 1 
 
 .3 
 
 _ 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 1825 
 
 1 
 
 r> 
 
 - 
 
 - 
 
 4 
 1 0 
 
 
 Whole 
 
 sum 
 
 stated. 
 
 1826 
 
 i 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 i 
 
 s 
 
 1 0 
 
 10,000 
 
 14,000 
 
 99, (K>® 
 
 1827 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 3 
 
 T a 
 
 9 
 
 1 0 
 
 13,000 
 
 9,000 
 
 66, (KW 
 
 1828 
 
 1 
 
 ■2 
 
 - 
 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 3 0 
 
 22,000 
 
 14,900 
 
 46,000 
 
 1829 
 
 1 i 
 ’2’ 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 3 0 
 
 1 E 
 1 0 
 
 37,000 
 
 26,000 
 
 49,000 
 
 1830 
 
 
 — 
 
 — 
 
 4 
 
 1 
 
 75,000 
 
 56,000 
 
 47,000 
 
 1831 
 
 l-g- 
 
 1 
 
 2 0 
 
 — 
 
 _9_ 
 
 9 
 
 1 0 
 
 66,000 
 
 49,000 
 
 41,000 
 
 1832 
 
 H 
 
 9 
 
 1 (i 
 
 — 
 
 
 9 
 
 1 0 
 
 83,000 
 
 88,000 
 
 53,000 
 
 1833 
 
 i 
 
 JL V 
 
 
 1 
 
 6 
 
 1-?- 
 ^ 1 0 
 
 120,000 
 
 215,000 
 
 86,006 
 
 1834 
 
 UV 
 
 - 
 
 1 to 3 
 
 3 
 
 1 0 
 
 nv 
 
 186,000 
 
 152,000 
 
 127,00® 
 
 1835 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 [4].l 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 [2] 
 
 
 
 __ _ [3] 
 
 [1] Over half of the exports of France, in her cotton manufactures, ^ 
 to her own colonies, according to Baines, 525, note ; but this is too liiMcIi 
 for 1831 and ’2. France exports also, about $1,000,000 of them per 
 
 to Holland land Belgium, one-half million to Germany, two and a half mii - 
 lion to Spain, and one million to Sardinia. See Tables of French Gem- 
 nierce, for 1832. In 1831, the export was short of a million to IIollaiiiL 
 and Belginm, Sardinia and Germany each, about two millions to SpaiiHg 
 over 11 to Mexico, and only aboih one milhon to her own colonies, wilit 
 one-fourth of a million to Hayti. Her exports to England given in the. 
 table, are from her official tables for 1831 and ’2. Besides that some is 
 smuggled. 
 
 [2] Those exports from the United States are compiled from officisl 
 tables, as far as they go back, discriminating to what country. Those te 
 the United States, from France and Germany, are from our own officM 
 returns. 
 
 [3] Tariff or duty on cotton manufactures. The exports of eottom 
 manufactures to any particular country are often influenced by the rate of 
 duty imposed on their importation. A detail of the several tariffs of 
 
QS 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. j' 
 
 those countries, in respect to cotton goods, would be tedious, and might 
 be supposed to bear on the question of protection, &c. in the United States, 
 and which question, it is not proposed in these tables or notes, to agitate. 
 
 It may be added, that the average duty imposed in France, at this time, 
 on tlie imports of most cotton goods, is very high, amounting almost to a 
 prohibition, except for re-export So in Russia. Blackwood's Magazine, 
 for January, 1836. In England, it is considered to lae about 20 per cent, 
 though low as 10 on some articles. Before 1826, it was much higher, 50 
 and 67 per cent. See 1 Com. Digest, by Smith, page 98, and Huskisson’s 
 speeches, in 1825, in Parliamentary Debates. McCulloch, page 1117. In 
 the Ihiited States, the duty in 1790^ was about 7^ per cent, on the value of 
 most cotton goods ; in 1794, raised to 12-i per cent.; in 1816, to 25 per cent, 
 and a minimum ; in 1824, the same with a certain minimum valuation, 
 making the duty larger ; in 1828, increased still more by raising the mini- 
 mum; in 1832, reduced again. See the different acts of Congress on the 
 tariff, and Pitk. Stat. page 188. 
 
 This makes the average duty in 1833, on most cotton cloths, and as com- 
 puted by some, about 42 per cent, and thus exposes it to a biennal reduc- 
 tion till 1842, when, by the existing laws, it will become only 20 per cent. 
 Campbell on Tariff, page 120. The duty on British cotton manufactures has 
 latel}^ been increased in Java, by the Dutch, from 6 per cent to 25 per cent. 
 Blackwood’s Magazine, January 1836, page 51. 
 
 [4] More could be given on the exports of cotton manufactures 
 from a few of the above countries at otlier periods, but the amount 
 and value of them were so small as to deserve very little notice, and the 
 increases of late years, compared with their meagre and blank condition, 
 in this respect, a quarter and a third of a century ago, are striking indica- 
 tions of tiie revolution going on in Europe and the United States in the 
 manufacture of cotton. 
 
w 
 
 [ Doc, No. 146. ] 
 
 P. 
 
 COTTON. 
 
 £h&ies of the most imp(rrtant changes in the cultivation^ manufacture, and 
 trade of cotton, chiefly witlim the feriod to which these tables generally 
 extend. 
 
 p;i 
 
 STiO 
 
 1^] 
 
 IXM 
 
 m 
 
 1750 
 
 iim 
 
 PI 
 
 m 
 
 17131 
 
 11SS 
 
 nm 
 
 1772 
 
 ITU. 
 
 m 
 
 1179 
 
 17B1 
 
 PI 
 
 m2 
 
 I085 
 
 m 
 
 l'Td7 
 
 in© 
 
 IISO 
 
 IWl 
 
 rm 
 
 rm 
 
 1796 
 
 1797 
 
 ms 
 
 ITS® 
 
 mm 
 
 iwi 
 
 First ctton yarn spun in England by machinery, by Mr. Wyatt. Smiihers, 153. 
 
 Cotton first grown in Surinam by the Dutch, or perhaps first exported thence. 
 
 A patent first taken out by Lewds Paul for an improved method in carding, and the 
 fly shuttle invented by John Kay. Stock cards were first used for colten by J. Har- 
 grave in 1760, and cylinder cards were not invented till 1762, and were first used by 
 Robert Peel. Carding not brought to perfection till 1775. Baines, 170. 
 
 First mill for spinning cotton built at Biimingham; moved by mules or horses; but 
 not successful. ' 
 
 The fly shuttle was brought into general use in England in wearing, though some 
 postpone the date to 1760. Eaines, 116. 
 
 Cotton velvets and quillings first made in England. 
 
 Arkwright obtained his fi'nst patent for the spinning frame, though he made further 
 improvements in 1768. Becanie free 1784. Baines .says his first patent was in 1769. 
 So does Wade, and that his second patent was in 1771. 
 
 Two years after, Thomas Highs claims to have invented the spinning jenny, which J. 
 Hargrave claims also in 1767. Smithers and McCulloch, 436. Edinb. Encyclop, 
 art. “Cotton;” or, according to Baines, in 1764. 
 
 The stocking frame applied to make lace % Hammond. 
 
 The feeder invented by Lees, and the crank and combs by Hargrave. 
 
 A bill passed to prevent tire export of machinery used in cotton factories. Smithers, 155. 
 And slill in force, though not strictly executed. Blackwood’s Mag. for Jan. 1836. 
 
 Mule spinning invented by Hargrave, or rather perfected by Crompton. Baines, p. 199. 
 
 First imports c«f rarv cotton into England from Brazil; poorly prepared; and in three 
 to nine years after, fir.st from United Stales of their owngrowuh; and from India 
 and Bourbon about 1785. See table F— note, and Smithers, 156. 
 
 Watt took out his patent for the steam engine, though some sa}" in 1769 the first one ; 
 and got into general use to move machinery in 1790., He begun his improvemmnts in 
 1764, according to Wade’s History of the Middling Classes, page 82. 
 
 A bounty granted" in England on the export of certain cotton good.?. 4 McPkers. 42 and 56. 
 
 Powmr looms invented by Doct. Cartrvright ; though previous to that some similar 
 models had existed which had not been patented or used. Baines, 228. Supplement 
 to Encyclop. Brit. art. “ Cotton.” Steam engines used m cotton factorie.?. Baines, 226. 
 Cylinder printing invented by Bell. Baines, 267. Arkw'right’s patent .expired, and 
 a great impulse to manufactures of cotton. 4 McPherson, 79 and 81. 
 
 Bleaching first performed by oxymuriatic acid by Bertholett. Baines, 184. 
 
 First machinery to spin cotton put in operation in France, though some cotton was used 
 in spinning, &c. since 1767. Encyclop. Brit. 407. 
 
 Sea island cotton first planted in the United Smtes; and upland cotton first cultivated 
 for use and export about this time, or three or four years previous. Some say in 
 1786. See tables, and Baines, 297 : and others in 1790. 
 
 First cotton factory built in the United States in Rhode Island. [8] Water power first 
 applied to the mule spinner by Kelly. Baines, 205. 
 
 The cotton gin invented by E. W^hitney, in the United Sta es. This is often stated to 
 be in A. D. 1795; but the patent is dated in 1794, March 14. 
 
 Sea island cotton chiefly subsiiluted for Bourbon cotton in England. 
 
 First mill and machinery erected in Switzerland for cotton. 
 
 Spinning by machinery introduced into Saxony. Encyclop. Brit. 41 L 
 
 Pow-nr looms moved by wnter or steam succeed in Scotland. 
 
 Dressing and warping machine for power looms invented by Radclift'and Jackson, and 
 contributed much to their success. Blackwood’s Mag. for Jan. 1836. An act passed in 
 in England, requiring in cotton mills, as well as some others, certain clothes for ap- 
 prentices — not to w'ork them more than 12 hours each day — and certain instructions 
 in letters to be given to them, &c. Wade’s History, page 98. 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 P — Dates of most important changes^ ^*c. — Continued. 
 
 71 
 
 1803 
 
 1804 
 
 1805 
 
 1806 
 1807 
 
 1809 
 
 1810 
 
 1811 
 
 1812 
 
 1813 
 
 1814 
 
 1815 
 
 1816 
 
 1817 
 
 1818 
 
 1819 
 
 18-20 
 
 1821' 
 
 1822 
 
 1823 
 
 1824 
 
 1825 
 
 1826 
 
 1827 
 
 1828 
 
 1829 
 
 1830 
 
 1831 
 
 1832 
 
 1833 
 
 LS34 
 
 1835 
 
 [ 10 ] 
 
 First cotton factory built in New Hampshire. , See table L, note [9]. Power loom, as 
 now used, perfected in Elngland, and'patented by Harrock. 
 
 Power looms successfully and widely introduced into England aficr many failures. 
 
 The revolution in Spanish America begins to furnish new markets for cotton manufac- 
 tures. 
 
 Stamping the cylinders for printing cloth by means of dies introduced at Manchester. 
 
 Lace machinery much improved by H.eathcott. 
 
 Digest of cotton manufactures in the United States by Mr. Gallatin, and another by T. 
 Cox, Esq. and public attention drawn to their growing importance. 
 
 A patent for making bobbin lace by machinery, by John Burn; though invented by Mr. 
 Heathcott in 180!h McCulloch', 743. 
 
 The India trade made more free, and more British manufactures sent there; took 
 effect April 4, 1814. McCulloch, page 538. 
 
 ) The povv^er loom introduced into the United States first, at Waltham, in 1815, it is said, 
 
 \ in Am. Encyclop. art. “ Cotton.” 
 
 India cotton goods less imported on acco-unt of the minimum in the tariff -of 1816. Pitk. 
 Stat. 188. Same year the fly frame was introduced into England. 
 
 New method of preparing sewing cotton invented by Mr. Holt. Cotton averaged 
 about 31 cents per pound ; the higliest of any year in the United States since 1801. 
 
 New cotton lands sold very higli in the United States. 
 
 Steam power first applied with success extensively to lace machinery. 
 
 First cotton factory erected at Lowell. 
 
 First export of raw cotton from Egypt to England. 
 
 Higher duty imposed in the United States on foreign cotton manufactures by the mini- 
 mum priiiciphu See table T), note [3]. 
 
 Self-acting m-ule spinner patented in England by Iloberts. Baines, 207. Same year 
 the tube frame' introduced there from America. Cotton rose to 21 cents per pound, 
 and great speculations in it in the United State.s. 
 
 First exports of American cotton manufactures to any considerable value. 
 
 Elighest duty in the United States on foreign cotton manufactures. Table O, note [3], 
 
 About this time Mr. Dyer introduces a machine from the United States into England 
 to make cards. 
 
 Duty on cotton manufactures imported into the United States reduced. Table O, note [3J. 
 By 1 & 2 William 4, it was provided in England, that, in cotton mills, Avork should 
 not be done in night by minors, and but 9 hours’ AVork on Saturdays. W ades Hist. p. 1 13. 
 
 Further opening of India trade increases the market there for English and American, 
 cotton goods. 
 
 Colton rose to 164 cents pSr pound— higher than any other year since 1825. 
 
 ExtensAe purchases of neAv cotton lands in the United States. 
 
 [1] 111 the iGth century, cotton manufactures ca-me to Europe from India, 
 throiio-h the trade of Yenice. Smithers, 118. Ee says they were intro- 
 duced into China from India about 200 lyears earlier, (Smithers, page 152,) 
 haviog existed in the latter country from the first knowledge of it. From 
 Venice the trade in them, and then the manufacture, went to Flanders about 
 1560. They existed in Arabia in the 7tli century. Found in America 
 when discovered, at the close of the 15th centiny. 
 
 [2] In the llt'i century, A. D. 1641, raw cotton came to England 
 from Cyprus and Smyrna, and was taken from London to Manchester to 
 be worked np. Smithers, 119. Edin. Rev. (1827'-) page 2. Though cot- 
 ton manufactures had been imported early as A. D. 1500 ; and the .first act 
 of Parliament relating to them, nominally, passed in A. D. 1565, though 
 
72 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. j 
 
 probably woollens were intended. Table A. note [12]. Calicoes were im- 
 ported before 1631. Smithers, pa^^e 152. Made in London. A. D. 1681 ; 
 and those from India prohibited, 1721. Smithers, page 153. Baines, 79. 
 
 Raw cotton, in 18th century, canne chiefly from the French West Indies, 
 Surinam, Brazil, and isle of Bourbon, till near its close, when the imports 
 began from the United States, India, &c. Smithers, 123. In 1660, Eng- 
 land prohibited her colonies from sending it to other than British ports or 
 dependencies. 1 McPherson’s Com. 488^ 
 
 [3] Muslins first made at Paisly, in Scotland, A. D. 1700 ; but they did 
 not succeed well, nor cambrics, till 1725, in Glasgow. 
 
 In 1759 French cambrics and lawns were prohibited by law. Smithers, 
 154. 
 
 [4] 111 1769, Arkwright built cotton mills at Nottingham, and 1780, at 
 Cromford, &c. the first moved by horse, and the next by water pov.mr. He 
 made new improvements, and took out new pcdents, and, in 1780, com- 
 menced actions for violating Iris patents, in which he failed, (Smithers, 155,) 
 though in some former trials on his first patent he succeeded. Supplement 
 to Encyclop. Brit. “ Cotton.” 
 
 Populace began to destroy cotton machinery in Lancashire in 1779. 
 
 The first spinning machines had only a few spindles, say 8 ; hut after- 
 wards increased to 80, (Do.) and sometimes to 120. McCulloch’s Diet, 
 page 433. 
 
 On machinery of other kinds, see in table, A. D. 1738. 
 
 [5] The raw cotton of India, the Siirats, and Bourbons, was first imported 
 into England in 1783. Before, tliat from Cayenne, Surinam, Demarara, 
 St. Domingo, and Elssequibo, ivas chiefiy used. Smithers, 155.^ 
 
 [6] But Wyatt’s invention does not appear to have been well matured or 
 much brought into use, though he and Paul took out a patent in 1738. 
 Baines’s Hist McCulloch’s Diet. 439 — note. 
 
 [7] It is a remarkable fact, that the cotton mannfacinre was so little 
 known and appreciated in England when Adam Smith published his 
 Wealth of Nations, (in A, D. 1776.) that the subject is believed not to be 
 xllnded to by him in the slightest manner So, in 1794, it is believed Mr. 
 Ja)^ was not aware that cotton was or would be exported from the United 
 States. Pitk. Stat. page 198. See table F, note 9-, page 33. In Postleth- 
 waite s Diet. Cotton,” 1766, he urged its cultivation in English plantations 
 suited to it, and seemed to anticipate the increasing importajice of its 
 manufacture. 
 
 [8] Mr. Gallatin states this to be, 1791, in his report on domestic manufac- 
 tures, April 17, 1810. See Gales and Seaton’s Doc’s, v. 2, on Finance, p. 425. 
 
 [9] Cloths were sent abroad to be bleached till 1750, and revquiied 8 months, 
 then reduced to 4 months, and, in 1784, Watt introduced the practice of 
 bleaching with chlorine into England in a fev/ hours. Baines’s Hist. 246 and 7. 
 
 [10] Many of the above dates and facts appear in the other tables aaid 
 notes ; but they are collected here in chronological order, wfith some other 
 material events, for the purpose of presenting, in one view or statement, 
 the diflerent periods in which the chief progress from fifty to a Inindred 
 years past has been made in the growth, cultivation, and trade of cotton. 
 
73 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 a. 
 
 Extracts as to the subject of Cotton^ from the Annual Treasury Report 
 
 in December^ 1S35. 
 
 1. From this it ap]>ears that our whole exports, of every kind, in the last 
 live years, incliidino- the estimates for 1835, have not exceeded those, 
 during a similar term, from 1803 to 1807. inclusive, but about forty mil- 
 lions, and being an excess no larger than at most intervening periods, 
 while an extraordinary increase has taken place in our exports of domestic 
 products, exceeding, in value, those during that term more than one hun- 
 dred and hity millions, and being quite doubled the excess at most inter- 
 vening periods. Indeed, it will be seen that they have been almost a 
 hundred per cent, larger than tiiey were in any similar term of years pre- 
 vious to 1816, and have exceeded tliose during such a term, only ten 3 iears 
 ago, Fy the sum of about one hundred and fifteen millions; a difference 
 greater than the whole amount of all our exports of domestic products 
 during the first five years midei’ our present form of government. Tlie 
 recent average rate of increase in these exports, however, lias not been 
 large, independent of the article of cotton; nor is it likely to augment 
 during the few ensuing years. Adopting a comparison between every 
 term of ten years, fi'om 1792, ’93, and. ’94, to 1832 ’33 and ’34, and including 
 all articles, it appears that the whole exports of domestic produce exhibit 
 an increase in the last thirty years of less than three per cent, amiualiy, or 
 a rate considerably lower than that of oiir population, though, in the pre- 
 vious term often ^rears, by the great prosperity from our -new form of 
 government, and tlie rapid progress in the cultivation of cotton, that in- 
 crease was near eight per cent.; and in the high price and large exports of 
 this article in the last term of ten years,, it has been about five per cent, 
 annually. But as that price has of late been unusually high, and is now 
 lower, and as tlie demand for cotton abroad in the ensuing year is not 
 likely to exceed, if it equal, the late customary ratio, amd on which some 
 interesting facts may be seen in the statement annexed, (E,) the value of 
 our whole domestic exports (over one-half of which now consists of cotton) 
 wi" irobably be less in 1.836 than in 1835. 
 
 . it may be instructive, in respect to the estimates of our future pro- 
 ceeds from lands, to recollect that, after tlie jiresent system commenced, the 
 sales never amounted, i,ii fact, to one million of acres a year till 1815, nor 
 to two millions a year till the temptations of the credit system, and the 
 great rise in the price of cotton to 26 and 34 cents per pound, induced 
 larger purchases, extending to over two millions of acres m 1817, and 
 aooiit 5|- millions in 1819; and thus, even fifteen i^ears ago, exceeding in 
 quantity, by nearly a million of acres, the large sales of 1834, and exceed-, 
 ing them in the sum promised to be paid, by the almost incredible amount 
 of more than twelve millions of dollars. Bsit the fall of cotton in 1820j 
 to only about half its former price, combined with other causes, left the 
 purchasers in debt to the Government over twenty-two millions of dollars, 
 and with the change from the credit to the cash system, reduced the sales 
 again to much less than a nnliio]! of acres a year, caused nearly six mil- 
 ions of the former sales to revert, and kept tliem dov/n to less than a mil- 
 lion in every year after, till tlie rise of cotton in 1825 gave a new impulse. 
 
74 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 till they reached a million again, in 1829. Since that, increasing still more 
 rapidly, they have exceeded, during 1834, four millions of acres, and 
 during 1835, probably nine millions. Among those other causes, the more 
 extensive introduction of steam power on the western fivers and northern 
 lakes, with the public improvements in their navigation, and the increased 
 fecilities of intercourse by rail-roads and canals, have of late added much 
 to the sales of the public lands beyond previous years, and beyond the 
 proportional increase of population. To the force of these causes have 
 been joined, during the last three years, as formerly suggested, the effect of 
 the pre-emption law, the increase in the price of cotton, and the unusual 
 abundance of surplus capital in 1835 seeking new investments.” 
 
 3. Beside what has already been remarked on the influence which the 
 increased cultivation of cotton in this country has in various ways exer- 
 cised, and is likely to exercise hereafter, on our revenue from customs and 
 lands, it might be made a subject of further and very interesting inquiry, 
 in connection with the uncertainty of the estimates on those subjects, affect- 
 ing, as that cultivation does, more remotely, not only our revenue from 
 lands and customs, but the balance of trade and the export of specie, as 
 well as tlie continuance, by means of mutual dependence among great in- 
 terests, of many of our Te^^-ceful and prosperous relations, both at home 
 and abroad. But without entering, on this occasion, into further details 
 concerning any of these points, it may be mentioned as a very striking 
 result connected with the last one, and as furnishing a strong presumption 
 in favor of greater exemption hereafter from fluctuations by war and com- 
 mercial restrictions, that while the quantity of cotton exported from this 
 country has increased from half a million of pounds in 1790, to over three 
 hundred and eighty millions in 1835, and has exceeded in value, during 
 six of the last ten years, all our other exports of domestic products of 
 every description, the manufacture of it at home, and chiefly in the 
 northern States, has increased, from consumiup’ onlv a few bales more, to 
 ninety millions of pounds yearl^r, and to that extent creates a new and 
 strong ])ond of reciprocal advantage and harmony; and that while we now 
 furnish, instead of the small quantity in the first years of our Government, 
 quite fifteen -sixteenths of the whole consumption of raw cotton by Eng- 
 land, and seven-tenths of that by France, all the presents exports of it to 
 Europe from all the rest of the world do not probably equal, if those two 
 nations could obtain the whole, oiie-third of what they now consume, or 
 one-ioiirth of what they now import from the United States alone ; and 
 thus, while neither of them produces any of the raw article, except a little 
 in some remote dependencies, that they have an annual manufacture naw 
 relying on it, and chiefly on the United States, equal in France to eighty 
 millions of dollars, and in England to one hundred and eighty millions of 
 dollars, and constituting in the latter, after it supplies her own large neces- 
 sities at home, over one-half in value of her great annual exports to all 
 quarters of the globe.” 
 
75 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 4. 
 
 Exports of Cotton. 
 
 Year. 
 
 tluanlity. 
 
 Value. 
 
 
 
 Pounds. 
 
 Dollars. 
 
 
 1792 
 
 1793 
 1894 
 
 138,328 
 
 487,600 
 
 1,601,760 
 
 32.0Q0 , 
 im272 
 
 320:352 
 
 
 
 3)2,22~,688 
 
 4.59,624 
 
 ' 
 
 
 742,562 
 
 153,208 
 
 Average. 
 
 1802 
 
 1803 
 
 1804 
 
 27-|- millions. 
 41 X do. 
 
 38 jb do. 
 
 5|- millions. 
 7f do. 
 
 7| do. 
 
 
 
 3)106j-V do. 
 
 20f , 
 
 
 
 . 35.6 
 
 6.9 
 
 Average. 
 
 1822 
 
 1823 
 
 1824 
 
 144J- 
 142 a ■ 
 
 / 
 
 24 
 
 201 
 
 21 * 
 
 1 
 
 
 3)460a 
 
 66i 
 
 
 
 153.5 
 
 22.1 
 
 Average, 
 
 1832 
 
 1833 
 
 1834 
 
 322i 
 
 3241 
 
 384| 
 
 31| ^ 
 
 38 
 
 494 
 
 
 
 3)1031i - 
 
 1171 
 
 
 
 344 
 
 39.1 
 
 Average. 
 
 Note.— Looking further to the future in connection with the past, a brief 
 comparison of the quantity and value of our exports i]i cotton at a few 
 equi-distaiit periods, as exhibited in the above table, will serve to illustrate, 
 in a condensed form, the great influence which the cultivation and exports 
 of cotton alone seem to have exercised, and are likely to exercise hereafter, 
 on the amount of our whole exports of domestic products, and thus indi- 
 rectly to affect our importations, and consequent revenue from customs. 
 Douljtless some other cultivation and exports would have taken the place 
 of cotton in the south had it not been so successfully grown there; but 
 they probably would have been less valuable, and will be so liereafter if 
 ever substituted for that; because the average increase of all our domestic 
 
76 
 
 f Doc. No. 146. 3 
 
 exports, iiickidiiig cotton, has been only from 3 to 5 per cent, while that 
 of cotton alone has during the last 30 3 ^ears been on an average near 25 per 
 cent, annually. But of late the ratio of increase in cotton, though still much 
 greater than that of other exports, has become diminished and more settled, 
 having fallen from quite 500 per cent, during the first ten years of our pre- 
 sent Government, to only about 10 per cent, during the last ten, though the 
 whole annual quantify now exported exceeds the enormous amount of 380 
 millions of pounds. This 10 per cent, increase yearly, considering the vast 
 quantity now grown in the United States, and how fully the cotton raised 
 in the other quarters of the world has already been excluded from the 
 European markets, with other circumstances named in the body of the 
 report, may be justly estimated both as a more regular ratio than any 
 which has prevailed heretofore, and as something larger than its probable 
 increase in the ensuing ten years.” 
 
[ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 77 
 
 While the preceding tables and notes were in tiie press, Mr. Adains 
 -submitted the following resolution, which was considered and agreed to : 
 
 Resolved^ That the Secretary of the Treasury, under whose direction 
 the printing of certain tables and notes on the subject of cotton, has been 
 placed by this House, be authorized to add any further explanatory notes 
 on that subject which may occur to him in the progress of the printing. 
 
 
 
78 
 
 [ Doc. No. 146. ] 
 
 / 
 
 ADDENDA. 
 
 Table A, note 3, page 9. Other statements made in some of the Atlantic 
 States, and at other periods show a smaller diiference between the exports ot 
 1836 and 1836, to the last dates. In some accounts of the exports kept m 
 the southwest for the current year, the quantity is represented there to be 
 less at the most recent dates than during the same period of last year by 
 about 70,000 bales, and the stock on hand to be about 100,000 bales less. 
 
 Table B, page 13. Cotton has been raised in Illinois, and even in Penn- 
 sylvania. Niles’s Register, February and March, 1 822, page 37 1 and 67. 
 But it is believed not to be raised of late to any considerable extent north 
 of Tennessee and Yirginia. This table shows another striking fact: that 
 considerably over half the whole crop of cotton in the United States is now- 
 raised in the new southv/estern States, whose outlets are on the Gulf ot 
 Mexico, and where little was grown, and scarcely any exportation made 
 previous to 1803. 
 
 Table E, note 2, page ~18. In the ninth line from the top, the price 
 named means the price of common cotton. 
 
 Table L, note 9, page 56. Since these tables were transmitted to the 
 House of Representatives, the original letter which was written in conse- 
 quence of a circular from Mr. Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, oh 
 the subject of manufactures, dated .lune 22, 1791, from Moses Brown to J. 
 S. Dexter, dated July 22, 1791. has been sent to me. 
 
 It confirms the statement in the notes, that the first cotton mill in Rhode 
 Island was built in 1790. Attempts had been made, Mr. B. says, by him- 
 self, in 1789, to get the machinery into operation by water, by means of 
 models for carding and spining, which the State of Massachusetts had pro- 
 cured from abroad. But no mill was actually begun until the autumn of 
 1789, when one was commenced by the assistance of Mr. Slater, who had 
 then recently come from England, notwithstanding the obstacles which 
 were opposed to the emigration of artists, and the exportation of machinery. 
 About this time a cotton miil was erected at Beverly, Mass, by an incorpo- 
 rated company. See more in that letter, and in Gales and Seaton’s Doc. 
 vol. 1; Finance, page 142. Piamil ton’s Report on Manufactures, and 
 
 Pennsylvania Mercury, for 1789. It is said that the model of the machine 
 for weaving by water was procured from England, by some persons in 
 Delaware, early as April, 1788. See Penn. Mercury. 
 
 [Other small additions to the notes of the later tables were introduced 
 into the body of them in the proper places while they were printing, after 
 the passage of the resolution, inserted immediately before these addenda.] 
 


 
 

 , ft-f \ ' 
 
 
 
 .>i: :ss' 
 ■: '^ v . 'i'f ' ■ i, '■' .'' -v^ ' 
 
 
 
 v\'. 
 
 
 m% 
 
 
 
 :;J;',,V>;^;';: 
 
 
 
 
GETTY CENTER LIBRARY 
 
 3 3125 00712 1912 
 

 
 
 «!!» 
 
 iiiiiit'