The old method of spinning cotton into thread was to attach a bunch of the carded fibre to the end of a forked stick called a distaff, which was held under the left arm; with the right forefinger and thumb the cotton was drawn out and twisted, the size and quality of the yarn being regulated only by the delicacy of the touch as this was passed through the fingers. The thread was wound upon a stick called a spindle, as often as sufficient length was twisted for this to reach the ground. Such was the practice of the "spinsters" of old England up to the time of Henry VIII., when the spinning wheel was introduced which had long been in use in India. In this the spindle was made itself to give the twist as it also wound up the thread, being made to revolve rapidly as with the right hand a large wheel was sent round, which carried the spindle by a cord or belt with greatly increased velocity. To a projecting hook at the end of this the thread was attached, and passed thence to the bunch of cotton held upon the distaff in the left hand of the operative.

The irregularity of the cotton threads made by the old method limited their use to the woof only of fabrics, the warp being made of linen threads; but even then it was difficult for the weavers to procure the supplies they required of the families in their vicinity who spun for them. The demand for yarns in the English cotton-spinning districts stimulated a workman named James Hargreaves to the invention, in 1767, of the spinning jenny, in which eight spindles at first were set in a frame and made to spin as many threads at one operation; the ends passing from the spindles through a fluted wooden clasp, which was held in the left hand, and could be made to close upon the threads and hold them fast, as it was moved to and from the spindles. The name of the machine is said to be from gin, a contraction of engine. The number of spindles was afterward increased to 80. Hargreaves, driven from his home by the other spinners, built a small mill at Nottingham to spin yarns by his machines. Richard Arkwright came soon after to the same place with a new invention of spinning by rollers, the effect of which was to draw out the slivers or rolls, as they came from the carding machines, and by the slight pull elongate and straighten the fibres left crooked or doubled in the carding.

By bringing together to the rollers from the cards eight of the fleeces or card ends, and passing these through together and causing them to unite into one sliver, elongating this at the same time to eight times the original length, a fleecy ribbon is obtained of great uniformity, which quality is still further increased by uniting four of these into one, and repeating the process by drawing them out to four times the original length. This improvement, and the others introduced by Ark-wright in the carding machines, enabled him to produce an even and firm thread, suitable as well for the warp as the woof. With others he built the first mill in which the machinery was run by a water wheel. The machinery was hence known as the water frame, and the yarn as water twist. For the finest threads the doubling of the fibres was many times repeated. To strengthen the loose open cord before spinning, Arkwright caused the cylindrical can into which the sliver coiled itself to revolve upon a pivot during this process; and thus the sliver was changed into an incipient thread called roving, which was either wound upon a bobbin as it was received in the can, or was afterward wound off as a separate process.

By the ingenuity of these two inventors an immense impulse was given to the fabrication of cotton cloth in England, and factories were rapidly established throughout the country. In 1782 Arkwright had about 5,000 persons employed in his mills, and by the sale of his patents was rapidly acquiring a great fortune. In 1779 the invention of a machine was completed by Samuel Crompton of Bolton, which combined the jenny of Hargreaves with the roller spinning of Arkwright, and was called the mule, or mule jenny. The spindles in this were attached to a carriage or mule, which was run out on wheels about five feet, drawing out and stretching the roving as it was twisted at the same time into thread. As the mule was run back the spun threads were wound on the spindles, the processes of spinning and winding thus alternating. The original machines were designed for only 20 or 30 spindles; but as afterward enlarged they carried 2,200 spindles each, all of which were kept in operation by one attendant. This statement alone exhibits the enormous advance made upon the best method in use previous to these inventions, when a spinner with his wheel managed but one spindle. Single mills contain as many as 15,000 spindles, and from 300 to 400 looms for weaving.

The demand for cotton produced by this increased capacity of working it off could never have been met except by the invention of a machine like Whitney's cotton gin, for cleaning the raw article with expedition, and thus preparing it for market. The inventions of the English gave them the monopoly of the manufacture, and were guarded with most scrupulous care, lest they should reach other countries. - The first machines for carding, roving, and spinning made in the United States were the work of two mechanics from Scotland, Alexander and Robert Barr, employed by Mr. Orr of East Bridgewater, Mass. The state made a grant in 1786 of £200 lawful money for the encouragement of the enterprise. The Beverly company in the same state commenced operations in 1787, and after expending £4,000 obtained in 1790 a grant of £1,000 from the legislature, by the aid of which they succeeded in introducing the manufacture of cotton goods, but with very imperfect machinery. In 1788 a company was formed in Providence, R. I., for making "home-spun cloth;" and they constructed their machinery from the best drawings to be obtained of the English models and plans, which were afforded them by Mr. Orr and the Beverly company.

The carding and roving with these machines was effected in a very imperfect and slow manner by hand labor; the spinning frame with 32 spindles differed little from a common jenny, and was worked at first by a crank turned by hand. The machinery was sold to Moses Brown of Providence, who, together with Mr. Almy, had several hand jennies employed in private houses in Providence making yarns for the weft of mixed linen and cotton goods. Such operations could accomplish little in competition with the Arkwright machinery; and all attempts to procure plans of this failed. In November, 1789, there arrived in New York Samuel Slater, a young man just 21 years of age, who had spent about seven years in the cotton mills in Derbyshire, England, in various capacities up to that of general superintendent. He had qualified himself for the express purpose of removing to this country, and establishing the cotton manufacture by Arkwright's processes, even without the use of plans, which could not be passed through the custom house in England. To him the country is indebted for the introduction of the means of successfully conducting this manufacture. He repaired to Providence in January of the next year, and immediately formed an engagement with Messrs. Almy and Brown to construct the improved machinery.

In December, 1790, the first Arkwright machinery was set in operation, consisting of three cards, drawing and roving, and a frame of 72 spindles, worked by the water wheel of an old fulling mill. By this machinery a large stock of yarns was accumulated in less than two years, besides what could be woven and disposed of. In 14 months from the time they began to work Mr. Brown advised the secretary of the treasury that machinery and mills could now be erected in one year of capacity to supply the whole country with yarn, and render further importation unnecessary. A new mill of small size was built in 1793 by Almy, Brown, and Slater, at Pawtucket, which commenced with 72 spindles, and was afterward considerably enlarged. Mr. Slater must have failed for want of experienced workmen in constructing his machinery, particularly the cards, if he had not himself been thoroughly competent to do all the varieties of the work. From this beginning other mills were added in Pawtucket by the same parties and Others also, with whom Slater associated himself; and the hands employed carried the processes to Cumberland, R. I., where another factory was built in 1798. In 1806 Slater was joined by his brother, John Slater, from England; and soon after the village of Slatersville, R. I., was projected, a place which has since continued to prosper like many others in New England established at later periods for the purpose of prosecuting the same branch of industry.

By a report made to congress in 1816, it appears that the business had increased from the consumption of 500 bales of 300 lbs. each in 1800, to 10,000 in 1810, and 90,000 in 1815; that 81,-000,000 yards of cotton cloth, costing $24,000,-000, were then manufactured, about 100,000 operatives, men, women, and children, were employed, and an aggregate capital of $40,000,-000 was invested in the business. The importations of foreign cottons in 1815 and 1816, amounting, notwithstanding this home production, to the value of about $180,000,000, greatly checked the progress of the American manufacture; but this was subsequently encouraged by the tariff acts of 1824, 1828, and 1832, which imposed an ad valorem duty of 25 per cent. upon imported cotton goods. Up to the year 1813 the mills that had been put in operation were designed only for spinning; and the twist was sold to the weavers, who made use of hand looms to convert it into cloth. In England also, though the power loom, the remarkable invention of a clergyman unskilled in mechanics, was in use, its employment was in establishments distinct from those in which the cotton was spun into yarn. The construction of this loom was unknown in the United States, and it was impossible to obtain any plan of it.

In 1812 Francis C. Lowell of Boston, lately returned from England and Scotland, determined to introduce the weaving of the cloth in this country, and in conjunction with his brother-in-law, Patrick T. Jackson, set about the invention of a power loom. After numerous attempts, they succeeded in producing in the autumn of 1812 a satisfactory model; and procuring the services of a skilful mechanic, Paul Moody, afterward well known as the head of the machine shop at Lowell, they decided upon building a mill to work it. Finding it would be more profitable to combine the operation of spinning with the weaving, they built at Waltham, Mass., in 1813, a factory for about 1,700 spindles, and furnished it with looms also for weaving. This factory was probably the first in the world that combined all the processes necessary for converting the raw cotton into finished cloth. The first cotton mill in Lowell was erected in 1822. - The operations of preparing cotton for the loom are too numerous and complicated to admit of more than a very general description. As the bags or bales are opened at the mills, the first process is to mix thoroughly the cotton of the same staple and general qualities, that the result may be of perfectly uniform character.

This is sometimes done in the following manner: The contents of a bale are spread uniformly over a space upon the floor prepared for it, and upon the layer thus made another bale is emptied and spread, and upon this another, and so on, the whole being continually trodden down by men and boys. The pile thus made is called a bing, and as the cotton is required for the mill it is raked down from the top to the bottom on one side of the pile, thus securing a mixture of the contents of all the bales. The mixing should be made with reference to the kind of yarn required, whether for warp or weft, coarse or fine, etc, and the sorting of the cotton for this purpose requires experience and good judgment. Some cottons, particularly those of long and short fibres, cannot be made to draw, rove, or spin well together. The cotton taken from the bing is too impure for spinning until it has been passed through several processes, by which the dirt is winnowed out and the matted lumps are opened and the fibres loosened and cleaned. Different methods are employed to effect this result, according to the quality of the fibre.

The finest, which are intended for the most delicate yarns and laces, are beaten by hand with twigs upon a frame* the surface of the frame is a sort of network through which the dust and impurities fall. The cotton, thus beaten or batted, is called batting. Other qualities are passed through a hollow conical machine called a willow, or machines with other names that answer the same purpose, in which the cotton is pulled about and shaken by the action of spikes upon a revolving axis, the dust and impurities as they separate falling through a grating, and being blown through a shoot by a strong current of air created by a fan blower. The cotton at the same time is passed through another shoot to be subjected to the succeeding operations of further cleaning, or to be delivered to the carding machine. The further cleaning, called scutching, is similar in principle to the willowing, the operation being more thoroughly accomplished by beating with blunt knives upon an axis revolving with great rapidity.

The cotton is regularly fed to the machine by being spread in equal quantities upon the feeding apron, which carries it on in a broad layer till it is taken up by a pair of rollers, and thus presented to the beating knives; in a second part of the machine the same operation is repeated, and as the cotton passes out it is received by the spreading or lapping machine, in which it is flattened into a filmy sheet of uniform thickness and then wound upon a roller. As one roller is filled it is taken away to the carding machine, and an empty one is set in its place. This process is conducted with such perfect regularity, that the weight of the cotton fed to the machine determines the fineness of the thread afterward produced. The carding process has already been referred to as perfected by Ark-wright. It is one of the most ingenious of the operations of this manufacture. The improved machines consist of a large drum covered with cards of wire teeth revolving in a box, which is lined with cards of teeth that come nearly in contact with those upon the drum; or four small cylinders covered with cards are placed within the same box, and made to revolve in an opposite direction to the large cylinder and at a different velocity.

Stationary cards are also fixed to a part of the upper lining of the box. The machine is fed by a pair of rollers, which unwind the sheet of cotton from the roller of the spreading machine, and pass it into the cards. These lay out the fibres in one direction, and leave behind upon the stationary cards lumps and imperfections that have escaped the other cleaning operations. As the fibres are carried over on the large cylinder, they are gathered and taken in a fine fleece by the teeth of another cylinder called a doffer, which revolves slowly in a contrary direction. When this has made half a revolution the cotton is stripped from it by a rapidly vibrating toothed knife or comb, that extends the whole length of the doffer. It removes the cotton in a fleecy ribbon, and this, called a card-end or sliver, is drawn through a small funnel which consolidates it, and then between rollers which compress and elongate it, and finally deliver it into a tin cylinder. Cards are of various degrees of fineness according to the quality of yarn required; and for fine spinning two machines are used, the one coarse, called a breaker, succeeded by another called a finishing card.

But the finest work of this kind accomplished by machinery is done by the combing machine of Heilman, patented in France. With this the short fibres and all impurities are separated from the long-stapled cotton, and the most perfect wool is prepared suitable for the manufacture of the finest muslins and laces. The principle of drawing out the sliver and repeatedly doubling this to produce a uniform roving has already been explained. Various machines have been introduced for twisting this roving and winding it upon bobbins. The fly frame, which came into use in 1817, is one of the most ingenious and efficient, and has taken the place of the old roving machine of Arkwright. In this frame spindles are set vertically in one or two rows at equal distances apart, each passing through a bobbin which is loosely attached to it, and has a play equal to its length up and down the spindle. At the top of the spindle is suspended a fly with two dependent legs, one of which is solid, and merely a counterpoise to the other, which is hollow, and admits through it the roving, which enters the fly by an eye in the centre, immediately above the top of the spindle. As the spindle revolves it carries the fly with it, thus twisting and winding the roving at the same time around the bobbin.

The supply by the rollers is exactly proportioned to the speed of the spindles, which is uniform, and thus the twist is even in equal lengths; but as the fly winds' the roving around the bobbin, and this consequently increases in circumference, the loosely twisted yarn would be more and more strained in the winding, were it not for ingenious contrivances which give a varying revolution to the bobbin exactly adapted to the circumference it has attained. It has moreover an alternating motion up and down the spindle, by which the roving is wound upon it in perfectly even layers. This machine, in the perfect adaptation of its parts to each other, and the mathematical accuracy of its operations, furnishes a most instructive study in this department of mechanics. The rovings are next to be spun into yarn, and this is accomplished either by the mule jenny, already partially described, or by the throstle machine. This is similar to the bobbin and fly frame in principle. As the roving is unwound from the bobbins, it is again elongated by passing between three pairs of rollers which revolve at different velocities, and it then passes through an eye in the foot of another flyer, which carries it around another bobbin as it also twists it.

This bobbin has no motion adjusted to that of the spindle, but revolves with some friction upon the spindle, being drawn round by the thread, as the pull becomes sufficient to overcome the friction. The revolutions of the spindle in some machines are 5,000 in a minute, and its production in a week is then estimated about 27 hanks of No. 32. In consequence of the uncertain strain in winding up on the bobbin, the yarns are more likely to break than when they are spun by the mule, and this machine has consequently proved best adapted for the finer qualities of yarn. On account of the extra attention it required, and the time lost in the interruption to the spinning, as the carriage was run back and the yarns spun in the drawing out were wound upon the cops, the throstle frame was regarded as the most economical for spinning the coarse qualities as low as No. 32; but the improved self-acting mule has proved so much more economical to attend that it is now advantageously employed for spinning even the coarser yarns. As long ago as 1792 yarns were spun with the mule in Manchester, of the fineness of 278 hanks to the pound of 840 yards each. It was sold to the muslin manufacturers of Glasgow at 20 guineas the pound. These hanks are prepared by the next process, called reeling.

The cops from the mule, or the bobbins from the throstle frame, are set in a frame so that they can be wound off upon a large six-sided reel, extending along the top of the same frame. With a reel of the circumference of 1 1/2 yard, 560 revolutions give the length of a hank. Many of these are wound along the length of the reel at the same time. When taken oft' they are weighed separately, and the weight of each designates the fineness of the yarn. The number expresses the number of hanks required to weigh a pound. The coarsest yarns weigh about half a pound to the hank; but the common qualities for coarse spinning run from 10 to 40 to the pound. The finest spinning seldom exceeds 300 hanks to the pound. No yarn finer than No. 350 was made in England previous to 1840. It has since been made as fine as No. 2,150, but even No. 600 is too delicate to be handled or to serve any useful purpose. The finer yarns are singed by being run through a gas flame; they are then passed over a brush, and run through a hole in a piece of brass just large enough to admit the yarn. Any knot or bulge stops the yarn, and the defect is immediately remedied.

The hanks are made up into cubical bundles of 5 or 10 lbs., and pressed and tied, when they are ready for the loom or for being twisted into thread, properly so called. Of this there are several kinds, as sewing thread, lace thread, stocking thread, etc. They are all produced by doubling and twisting together two yarns or more, and by machines very similar to the throstle frame; the yarns as they are twisted are passed through water or a weak solution of starch, which gives more firmness and strength to the thread. For further data connected with this manufacture, see the articles Calico, Calendeeing, and Loom. - Cotton is distim guished from linen by the peculiar structure of its fibre when seen under a powerful microscope, the form being flattened, crooked, and shrivelled, while that of the linen fibre is round and straight with occasional cross knots or joints. Linen yarn also becomes yellow in a strong and hot solution in water of caustic potash, while cotton remains white, or is colored very slightly yellow. The two fibres may also be distinguished by the different effects produced upon them by concentrated sulphuric acid.

The stuff to be tested must first be thoroughly cleaned by boiling and repeated washing in pure water. "When well dried it is dipped in the acid and left from half a minute to two minutes. The cotton threads become immediately transparent, the linen remaining white. It is then taken out and put into water to wash out the gummy matter produced by the cotton. On being dried, if the experiment has been well conducted, the yarns of cotton will have disappeared; but if the immersion in acid has been too long, the linen also becomes transparent and eaten by the acid. Another method by which cotton is detected in unbleached linen is to place the stuff, after it is well washed in boiling water and dried, in a mixture of two parts of dried nitrate of potash and three parts of sulphuric acid, and leave it for eight or ten minutes. It is then washed and dried and treated with ether, to which a little alcohol is added. If cotton was present in the stuff, the ethereal liquid is thickened by the production of collodion. This may be separated, leaving the residue pure linen.

When the fibre of cotton is thoroughly consumed, the remaining ash is found to be about 1 per cent. of the original weight. - The number of cotton factories in the United States in 1810 was reported to be 241, and the number of spindles estimated at 96,400, an average of 400 for each mill. According to a report of a committee of congress in 1815, $40,000,000 was then invested in cotton manufactures, and 100,000 persons were employed; 27,000,000 lbs. of cotton were consumed, producing 81,000,000 yards of cloth, valued at $24,300,000. In Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut were 165 mills, with 119,310 spindles; and it has been estimated that the total number of spindles at that time was 350,-000. Power looms soon afterward coming into general use, as already stated, the number of spindles increased to 1,500,000 in 1830, and 1,750,000 in 1835. Complete and trustworthy statistics of cotton manufactures seem to have been first reported by the census of 1840. There were then in the United States 1,240 mills, with 2,284,631 spindles, and 129 dyeing and printing establishments.

These establishments employed 72,119 hands, and produced goods valued at $46,350,430. The amount of capital invested was $51,102,359. The leading cotton manufacturing states were Massachusetts, having 278 mills with 665,095 spindles; Rhode Island, 209 mills with 518,817 spindles; New York, 117 mills with 211,659 spindles; and Connecticut, 116 mills with 181,319 spindles. There were no cotton mills in Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, Florida, Wisconsin, Iowa, or the District of Columbia. The following totals for the United States, from the federal census, will afford a comparison of this most important industry with its condition prior to the civil war:

MILLS, etc.

1870.

1860.

1850.

Establishments.....

956

1,091

1,094

Looms.......

157,810

126,313

.............

Spindles.........

7.132,415

5,235,727

............

Hands........

135,369

122,028

92,286

Capital.........

$140,706,291

$98,585,260

$74,500,931

Wages.....

$39,044,132

$23,938,236

........

Raw cotton, lbs.....

398,302,257

422,704,975

288,558,000

All materials___....

$111,736,936

$57,285,534

$34,835,056

All products..........

$177,489,739

$115,681,774

$65,501,687

A comparison of the figures of 1870 with those of 1860 presents several notable circumstances, chief among which is a falling off in the number of establishments in 1870 of about 12f per cent. This may be attributed to the natural tendency of industries of this nature to concentrate in great establishments; and also to the fact that at the beginning of the war many cotton factories were transformed into woollen mills. This view is strengthened by the fact that the number of looms was 24 1/2 per cent., and the number of spindles more than 28 per cent., greater in 1870 than in 1860. The increase in the amount of capital employed was about 30 per cent., which has been attributed to the increased value of land, buildings, and machinery, while the increase in the wages paid amounted to nearly 43 per cent. There was a decrease in the quantity of raw cotton consumed amounting to 24,402,718 lbs., or nearly 6 per cent., while there was an increase in the value amounting for all materials to $54,451,402, or more than 94 per cent. The increase in the total cost of labor and raw materials amounted to $69,557,296, or about 85 per cent.

The value of the goods produced in 1870 was $61,807,965, or 53 per cent, greater than in 1860. Direct comparison cannot be made between the quantities produced in 1870 and 1860, owing to the paucity of the details in the returns of the latter year; but the following statement shows that in 1870 a greater quantity of goods was produced from a smaller amount of raw material, which is explained by the average lighter weight of the fabrics:

1870.

1860.

Products, stated in lbs........

67,005,978

60,209,559

" stated in yards.....

1,146,607,262

1,148,252,406

" stated in pieces....

3,262,952

.............

" stated in dozens....

11,560,241

............

In 1870, 13,341 more hands were employed to manufacture into goods 24,400,000 lbs. less cotton than in 1860. The average annual wages was $288 per capita in 1870, and $196 in 1860, showing an increase of $92 per head per annum, or 47 per cent. In 1870 the value of the product per head of operatives was $1,341, and in 1860 $948, showing an increase in value of the per capita production of $363, or 38 1/2 per cent. With this gain of 38 1/2 per cent, in the value of the product of each hand, the average hand gets 47 per cent. more wages. The condition of the cotton manufacturing interest in the United States in 1870 is shown by the following table from the census report, which is regarded by leading authorities as very accurate:

STATES.

AND

TERRITORIES.

Establishments.

Steam engines, horse power. •

Water wheels, horse power.

MACHINES.

Hands employed.

Males above 16.

Females above 15.

Youth.

Capital.

Wages.

Looms.

Frame spindles.

Mule spindles.

TheU.States.

956

47,117

99,191

157,310

3,694,477

3,437,938

185,369

42,790

69,637

22,942

$140,706,291

$39,044,132

Alabama.......

13

175

824

632

19,802

8,244

1,032

303

445

284

931,000

216,679

Arkansas.......

2

15

10

.......

125

1,000

17

8

3

6

13,000

4,100

Connecticut.....

111

860

10,840

11,943

294,760

302,382

12,086

4,443

4,734

2,909

12,710,700

3,246,783

Delaware.......

6

500

870

771

18,634

10,900

726

225

286

215

1,165,000

190,069

Georgia........

84

290

2,920

1,887

74,148

11,454

2,846

1,147

1,080

619

8,433,265

611,866

Illinois........

ft

47

90

16

1,856

........

98

26

81

41

151,000

25,500

Indiana........

4

1,081

80

448

17,360

.........

504

119

179

206

551,500

113,200

Iowa..........

1

6

........

.........

.........

........

6

3

3

1,500

275

Kentucky......

5

830

60

72

7,060

674

269

77

71

121

405,000

57,951

Louisiana......

4

255

.......

292

10.200

2,884

246

123

57

66

592,000

60,600

Maine.........

23

820

8,018

9,902

259,594

200,178

9,439

2,606

6,246

587

9,889,685

2,565,197

Maryland......

22

1,510

1,991

1,947

82,212

6,900

2,860

688

1,452

720

2,734,250

671,983

Massachusetts..

191

17,217

32,310

55,348

1,255,552

1,363,989

43,512

13,694

24,065

5,753

44,714,875

13,589,305

Mississippi.....

5

270

96

152

2,526

1,000

265

78

88

99

751,500

61,833

Missouri.......

3

875

..........

415

16,015

700

861

107

154

100

489,200

120.800

NewHampshire

36

915

17,777

19,091

447,795

802,048

12,542

3,752

7,490

1,800

13,832,710

8,989,853

New Jersey....

27

1,799

1,260

2,176

107,542

93,038

3,514

1,086

1,745

683

2,762,000

1.009,351

New York*.....

81

4,898

5,202

17,218

131,380

861,193

9,144

2,608

4,546

1,990

8,511,336

2,626,131

North Carolina.

33

120

1,583

618

37,957

1,940

1,453

258

916

279

1,030,900

182,951

Ohio..........

7

305

81

208

14,820

8,920

462

216

147

99

555,700

118,520

Pennsylvania..

138

7,440

1,983

12,862

232,528

201,718

12,730

8,859

6,097

2,774

12,550,720

8,496,986

Rhode Island..

139

7,391

10,726

18,075

503,797

539,445

16,745

5,583

8,028

8,184

18,834,300

5,224,650

South Carolina.

12

955

745

34,683

257

1,123

289

508

326

1,337,000

257,680

Tennessee......

28

470

676

313

22.485

5,438

890

252

463

175

970,650

178,156

Texas.........

4

268

.........

235

8,478

400

291

184

52

55

496,000

68,211

Utah..........

3

39

11

1.020

.....

16

10

2

4

42,000

6,300

Vermont.......

8

50

600

628

16,532

12,236

451

125

242

84

670,000

125,000

Virginia........

11

210

750

1,310

76,116

1,000

1,741

921

507

313

1,128,000

229,750

The amount of cotton used, the value of all materials, and the amount of the most important products, together with the value of all products, were as follows:

STATES

AND

TERRITORIES.

MATERIALS.

PRODUCTS.

All products.

Value of all products.

Cotton used.

Value of all materials.

Sheetings, shirtings, and twilled goods.

Lawns and fine muslins.

Print cloth.

Yarn not woven.

Warps.

Ginghams and checks.

The U. States.

Pounds.

Dollars.

Yards.

Yards.

Yards.

Pounds.

Yards.

Yards.

Pounds.

Dollars.

898,808,257

111,786,986

478,204,513

34,533,462

489,250,053

80,301,087

78,018,045

89,275,244

849,814,592

177,489,739

Alabama.......

8,249,528

764,965

4,518,403

........

..........

548,750

...............

1,039,821

2,848,000

1,088,767

Arkansas......

66,400

18,780

..........

.............

.............

.............

............

53,125

22,562

Connecticut....

81,747,309

8,818,651

52,655,693

8,338,677

34,279,875

1,281,780

11,367,664

1,671,809

27,296,710

14,026,884

Delaware......

2,587,615

704,733

2,896,000

...........

............

1,475,600

.............

806,600

2,437,649

1,060,898

Georgia.......

10,921,176

2,504,758

18,739,847

...........

.............

4,097,167

...........

1,658,484

9,596,800

3,648,978

Illinois......

857,000

177,525

...........

..........

.............

............

1,305,000

..........

739,000

279,000

Indiana.......

2,070,818

542,875

8,831,059

.............

74,880

8,600,000

...........

1,779,481

778,047

Iowa..........

20,000

4,950

............

..........

...........

...........

..........

...........

18,000

7,000

Kentucky......

1,584,625

375,048

.............

...........

...........

687,000

530,000

...........

1,889,000

498,960

Louisiana.....

748,525

161,485

438,800

...........

...........

112,000

............

926,000

629,025

251,550

Maine..........

25,887,771

6,746,780

65,614,092

...........

............

490,450

78,000

...........

23,627.155

11,844,181

Maryland......

12,693,647

8,409,426

18,839,625

2,358,454

..........

1,247

90,550

564,240

10,496,677

4,852,808

Massachusetts..

130,654,040

37,371,599

22,123,147

12,434,858

229,613,105

2,108,952

88,712,996

18,690,000

118,808,458

59,498,158

Mississippi...

580,764

123,568

407,788

...........

1,712

275,461

............

206,202

529,573

284,445

Missouri.......

2,196,600

481,745

2,150,000

..........

.........

1,044,000

14,000

...........

1,949,900

798,050

NewHampshire

41,469,719

12,318,867

89,326,701

75,000

40,848,969

132,200

...........

1,845,199

35,003,432

16,999,672

New Jersey....

7,920,035

1,964,758

4,174,000

2,442,000

11,000,000

1,729,075

3,120,950

880,000

6,723,748

4,015,768

New York.....

24,783,351

6,990,626

25,382,532

1,327,336

82,335,883

250,076

5,097,000

...........

22.113,630

11,178,211

North Carolina.

4,238,276

968,809

8,954,607

...........

...........

2,180,062

1,486,000

...........

3,444,166

1,345,052

Ohio...........

2,226,400

493,704

1,294,500

..........

.........

957,900

810,000

.............

1,918,000

681,835

Pennsylvania...

32.953,318

10,724,052

65.706,865

............

9,704,795

4,510,486

2,944,835

15,101,170

32,494,857

17,490,080

Rhode Island..

44,630,787

13,268,815

77,973,206

7,557,137

75,188,628

6,155,692

6,281,150

..........

38,503,060

22,049,203

South Carolina.

4,756,823

761,469

8,273,900

..........

..........

808,781

260,000

..............

4,125,210

1,529,987

Tennessee.....

2,872,582

595,789

1,976,450

...........

..........

1,229,098

............

..............

2,881,477

941,542

Texas.........

1,077,118

216,519

789,778

.............

..........

46,175

...........

1,261,769

887,695

374,598

Utah..........

23,500

7,051

700

............

21,280

.............

.............

23,195

16,803

Vermont......

1,235,652

292,269

142,000

.............

6,287,136

...........

2,320,466

............

1,051,000

546,510

Virginia......

4,255,388

937,820

12,544,820

..............

........

182,975

.............

180,000

8,456,569

1,435,800

The details of this industry were more fully reported by the census of 1870 than at any former period. Besides the items in the above tables the following are given:

Materials used:

Cotton yarn................................

6,222,189

Cotton warps...............................

136,100

Cotton waste...............................

5,234,260

Total, lbs.................................

409,900,806

Mill supplies, value.......................

$10,910,672

Products:

Spool thread, dozens.........................

11,560,241

Bats, wicking, and wadding, lbs..............

11,118,12T

Table cloths, quilts, and counterpanes, number.

493,892

Seamless bags, number......................

2,767,060

Cordage, lines, and twines, lbs..............

5,057,454

Flannel, yards...............................

8,390,050

Thread, lbs.................................

906,068

Cotton waste, lbs............................

7,921,449

Tape and webbing, lbs.......................

484,400

Seamless bags...............................

405,585

Cassimeres, cottonades, and jeans, yards.....

13,940,895

Other products, lbs

10,811,028

In 1869 Mr. B. F. Nourse, after a careful computation, reported the following results relating to the manufacture of cotton in this country: That the average annual consumption of cotton in the United States was at the rate of 65 lbs. per spindle; 60.7 lbs. per spindle in the northern and 138.12 in the southern states. The average size or number of yarn produced was 27 1/2 in the United States, 28 in the north and 12 7/8 in the south. This indicated a constant tendency to finer work as labor became more skilled and raw material more costly in proportion. Until within a few years the number of yarn was as coarse as No. 14 in a large part of the northern production; the average size of yarn was estimated to be No. 23 in 1860, No. 23 in 1850, and No. 20 in 1810. - Although England was among the latest of all countries to receive the cotton manufacture, it is now without a competitor in this industry. This has been attributed in a large measure to the abundance of fuel and iron which exist in combination in several English counties, but more especially in Lancashire, the great seat of the cotton manufacturing industry. The better machinery now affords a higher rate of production for the same yarn than was formerly attainable.

The exact period when the manufacture was introduced into England is uncertain; but as early as 1641 it had become established in Manchester, and even then cotton goods were exported. Its growth has been rapid and steady until the capital invested, by a recent estimate, has reached the sum of nearly £60,000,000. The number of cotton factories, machines, hands, etc, as reported by the government inspectors of factories in 1871, were as follows:

FACTORIES.

Number of factories.

Number of carding machines.

Number of combing machines.

Number of spinning spindles.

Number of doubling spindles.

Number of power looms.

Number of power loom weavers.

Amount of moving power.

Persons employed.

Steam.

Water.

Male.

Female.

Total.

Factories employed in spinning only:

England....................

1,085

32,808

1,449

17,292,982

2,564,848

.......

..........

120,229

3,663

55,651

64,036

119,687

Scotland......

20

2,078

70

648,392

11,333

........

........

3,675

935

903

3,497

4,400

Ireland.............

8

98

99

79,992

422

.........

........

475

20

59

174

233

Total...................

1,108

34,484

1,618

18,031,366

2,586,603

.........

...........

124,379

4,618

56,613

67,707

124,320

Factories employed in weaving only:

England..........

649

.......

.....

.....

5,318

175,482

57,555

22,552

376

29,453

50,674

80,127

Scotland....................

36

........

.......

........

1,600

13,678

6,845

2,512

16

1,238

8,327

9,565

Ireland.............

8

........

..........

..........

2,184

1,181

352

30

414

1,355

1,769

Total...................

693

.........

........

........

6,918

191,294

65,581

25,416

422

81,105

60,356

91,461

Factories employed in spinning and weaving:

England........

513

30,842

233

15,309,505

845,785

235,904

93,808

135,974

2,505

85,844

126,284

212,078

Scotland.........

17

760

1

540,594

10,528

11,435

4,807

7,156

526

1,411

7,721

9,132

Ireland...........

2

168

......

44,912

..........

1,258

683

410

240

923

1,142

2,065

Total...................

532

81,270

234

15,895,011

856,313

248,591

99,298

148,540

3,271

88,178

185,097

228,275

Factories not included in either of the above descriptions:

England...........

124

59

28

1,144

75,376

.......

...........

1,847

59

845

2,233

8,078

Scotland....................

25

147

26

67,700

207,724

790

462

5,282

20

1,596

6,267

7,863

Ireland............

1

.......

.....

........

603

........

.........

16

••

60

30

90

Total...................

150

206

54

68,844

288,703

790

462

7,145

79

2,501

8,530

11,031

Total of cotton factories:

England....................

2,371

62,709

1,710

32,618,631

3,491,327

411,336

151,863

280,602!

6,603

171,793

243,177

414,970

Scotland.............

98

2,985

97

1,256,686

281,185

25,903

12,114

18,625

1,497

5,148

25,812

30,960

Ireland...........

14

266

99

121,104

1,025

8,487

1,864

1,253

290

1,456

2,701

4,157

Grand total.............

2,483

65,960

1,906

34,695,221

8,523,537

440,676

165,341

300,480

8,390

178,397

271,690

449,087

The "doubling spindles" are for a secondary process, and add nothing to the consuming capacity of the factories. Of the total number of factories above given, 1,789 were in Lancashire. Of the persons employed, 43,281 were children under 13 years of age, including 20,139 girls. The following table shows the number of spinning spindles running, the total weight of cotton spun, and the pounds per spindle in each year named:

YEARS.

Spindles.

Total lbs. cotton spun.

Lbs. per spindle.

1850..................

20,977,017

611,000,000

29.13

1856..................

28,010,217

866,700,000

30.94

1861..................

30,430,467

978,300,000

32.15

1868..................

32,000,014

993,489,000

31.05

1869

30,000,000

941,586,000

81.38

1870..................

32,000,000

1,052,470,000

32.89

1871...

33,750,000

1,145,455,000

83.94

1872..................

35,800,000

1,170,600,000

32.07

The exports of cotton manufactures from Great Britain for a series of years are shown in the following table. Of the plain piece goods exported in 1871, £9,824,865 worth was sent to British India, £4,778,608 to China, £2,956,705, to Egypt, and £1,276,431 to the United States; of cotton yarn and twist, £4,054,942 to Holland, and £3,846,980 to Germany; of printed goods, £2,093,528 to the United States.

MANUFACTURES.

1867.

1868.

1869.

1870.

1871.

Cotton yarn..........

£14,871,617

£14,714,899

£14,095,449

£14,671,135

£15,061,204

Piece goods, white or plain..........

33,477,117

31,095,692

30,264,123

33,922,022

38 303,025

" " printed, dyed, or colored.........

19,389,101

18,933,824

19,367,794

19,086,746

19,563,937

" " of mixed materials (cotton predominating)..

261,945

285,600

290,525

339,437

765,772

Lace and patent net...........

470,420

475,466

632.213

839,048

969 559

Stocking and stocks.............

387,127

364,572

325,316

292,630

291,630

Thread for sewing..............

1,115,315

1,113,977

1,159,406

1,208,147

1,224,369

Hosiery and small wares.............

864,341

752,742

991,128

1,057,180

1,641,815

Total............................................

£70,836,983

£67,686,772

£67,116,954

£71,416,345

£72,821,411

The leading facts of the cotton manufacturing industry in Great Britain are exhibited in the following tables compiled by Mr. Nourse from the circulars of Ellison, Tibbitts, and co. of Liverpool, which are commended for their accuracy by English cotton merchants:

Condensed Exhibit Of The Cotton Manufacture And Trade Of Great Britain For 36 Years

YEARS.

Raw cotton actually consumed, pounds.

Cost of cotton in dollars, $4 80 per £ sterling.

Exported goods and yarns, pounds.

Home consumption, goods and yarns, pounds.

Value of goods and yarns produced, dollars.

Ratio of value of cotton used to the value of goods and yarns made from it.

Amount of difference or value added by manufacturing, dollars.

Average per year.

5 years, 1835.'39........

371,475,000

63,522,672

212,176.715

116.047.465

193,604,015

100 @ 305

130.051.343

5 years, 1840.'44........

509,902,000

56,641,920

284.636,665

166,627.039

204,208,892

100 @ 362

147.566.972

5 years, 1845.'49........

576,780,000

59,101,920

337 065,453

174.384,848

202.132,666

100 @ 342

143.030,746

5 years. 1850-'54........

765,900,000

83,981,280

413,933,262

210,788.222

245.804,910

100 ® 293

161,823,630

1855.........................

839,200,000

94,175,462

628,029,766

227,250,234

262,735.295

100@279

168.559.833

1856.........................

855,700,000

106,220,075

562,952.000

208,078,200

273.959,290

100 ® 258

167,739,215

1857.........................

825,027,000

119,040,000

583,110,000

156.000,000

287,222.400

100 @ 241

168,182,450

1858..........................

907,836,000

119,092,800

652,603,000

158,000,000

312,803,200

100 @ 254

183.710,400

1859..........................

977,633,000

132,869,600

623,072,000

172,000.000

346,670,400

100 ® 262

214,300,800

1860......................:...

1,079,321,000

138,768,000

740,118,000

173.000,000

386,822,400

100 @ 279

248,054.400

1861..........................

1,005,477,000

154,484,000

674.132,000

174.000,000

356,788,800

100 @ 231

202.204.800

1862..........................

449,821,000

128,823,200

412,684.000

102,000.000

205,084.800

100 @ 160

.76,761,600

1863..........................

476,445,000

195,807,200

392,239.000

93,000,000

287,016,000

100 @ 147

91,708.800

1864..........................

561,196,000

251,817,600

403,999,000

110,000,000

866,278,600

100 @ 146

114.456,000

1865..........................

718,651,000

226.833,601

475,920,000

150,000,000

399,676.800

100@ 176

172,843,199

1866..........................

890,721.000

249,898.400

625,602,000

145,000,000

493,262.400

100 ® 198

243,864,000

1867..........................

954,517,000

198.057,600

693,700,000

145,000,000

418,516,800

100 @ 212

220.459,200

1868.........................

996,197,000

196,747,200

753,166,000

160,000,000

440,241,600

100 @ 224

243.494.400

1869.........................

936.019,000

210,105,600

704,713.000

125.000,000

413,745,600

100 @ 197

203.640,000

1870..........................

1,071,770,000

202,296,000

802,300,000

140,000,000

447,096,000

100 @ 221

244,800,000

And Cost Of Production Value Of The Goods Produced

YEARS.

Value of goods produced.

Value of cotton used.

Wages and other expenses paid.

Total cost.

Leaving for interest of capital and profits.

Same in dollars.

Ratio of cost of cotton used to wages and other expenses.

1858..........................

£68,084,000

£24,811,000

£27,910,000

£52,721,000

£10.363,000

49,742.400

100 ® 112

1859..........................

72,223,000

27,577,000

80.830,000

57,907.000

14,316,000

68.716.800

100 @ 110

1860..........................

80.598,000

28.910,000

33.600,000

62,510,000

18.088,000

86,822.400

100@ 116

1861..........................

74.831,000

82,205,000

81.360,000

63,565.000

10,766,000

51,676,800

100 @ 97

1862..........................

42,726,000

26,784,000

14,520,000

41,254.000

1,472,000

7.065.600

100@ 54

1863..........................

59.795,000

40,689,000

15.690.000

56,379.000

3,416,000

16.896,800

100® 39

1864..........................

76,307,000

52,462,000

18,680,000

71,142,000

5,165,000

24.792,000

100@ 86

1865..........................

83.266,000

47,257,000

23,850,000

71,107,000

12,159,000

57.363,200

100@ 50

1866..........................

103.121.000

51.958,000

31.288,000

83,246,000

19,875,000

95,400,000

100@60

1867..........................

87.191,000

41,263,000

33,338,000

74,600,000

12,591,000

60,436,800

100® 81

1863..........................

91,717.000

40,989,000

84,940,000

75,929,000

15.357.000

73.713,600

100® 85

1869..........................

86,197,000

43.772.000

32,045,000

75,317,000

11,754,000

56,419,200

100@ 73

1870..........................

98,145,000

42,145,000

...........

............

...............

...............

................

One of the most important incidents in the history of the cotton industry was the great depression produced in the English manufac-ures by the civil war in America, known as the "cotton famine." In 1860, immediately preceding the beginning of the war, this industry had attained in England a degree of prosperity not before known. The imports of raw cotton for that year reached the unprecedented amount of 1,390,938,752 lbs., valued at £35,756,889, of which 1,140,599,712 lbs. were retained for home consumption. The number of cotton mills in Great Britain was 2,650 (of which 1,920 were in Lancashire), with more than 30,000,000 spindles and 350,000 power looms, and employing 440,000 hands, of whom 56 per cent. were females and 10 per cent. were children. The capital invested in mills and machinery was £54,000,000, while the wages paid in that year amounted to £11,500,-000. The cotton goods manufactured for home consumption were valued at £24,000,-000; and the exports, consisting of calico, muslin, yarn, hosiery, etc, amounted to £52,-000,000; making the total value of all cotton manufactures £76,000,000, a sum which exceeded the total imperial revenue for that year.

Of the vast amount of cotton imported in 1860, 1,115,890,608 lbs. came from the United States. This, the greatest source of supply, was now cut off by the war, which opened early in 1861. The price of American cotton rose rapidly from £3 4d. per cwt. in 1860 to £10 2s. 4d. in 1862, £11 5s. 8d. in 1863, and £13 11d. in 1864; and there was a corresponding advance in the price of cotton from other countries. The extent of this increase in value is better indicated by a comparison of the quantities and values of the total imports of cotton during the years of the depression:

YEARS.

Total imports, lbs.

Value.

1860........................

1,390,938,752

£35,756,889

1861........................

1,256,984,736

38,653,398

1862......................,..

523.973,296

31.093,045

1863........................

670,084.128

56,282,294

1864........................

894,102,384

78,219,401

1865........................

978,502,000

66.041,400

1866........................

1,377,514,096

77,530,118

Moreover, the extended operations of the factories in 1860 had produced in the markets a supply of manufactured goods far beyond the demand. This fact, in conjunction with the unprecedented increase in the price of the raw material, rendered manufacturing less profitable than before, and led to the closing of many mills and the reduction of the hours of labor in others. Many persons were thus deprived of employment, and great suffering ensued. In November, 1862, there were 208,000 persons in the Lancashire district receiving out-door parochial relief, and 144,000 others received aid from subscribed funds; there were at the same time 20,000 mill girls at the sewing schools which had been organized to teach them sewing as a means of subsistence.

The subscriptions to meet the distress reached the sum of £2,000,000, while more than £1,200,000 had been advanced by the government for public works in the cotton districts, chiefly to yield £600,000 or £700,000 wages to the unemployed cotton hands. No precise date can be given as the termination of this depression, since the change to the normal state of affairs was gradual. In 1866, however, the usual supply of cotton was again received from the United States. The losses for three years consequent on this calamity were estimated by Dr. Watts of Manchester, in his work on the "Facts of the Cotton Famine," at £66,225,000; being £28,500,000 losses by employers, £33,000,000 by employees, and £4,725,000 by shopkeepers. Other authorities estimated the money losses at £70,000,000. The great decrease in supply of American cotton caused a marked increase in the imports from other countries, India, Egypt, Brazil, and the West Indies, as indicated in a preceding table; but as the cotton from these countries is inferior to American cotton for manufacturing purposes, Great Britain is still supplied mainly from the United States.