Other Parts of America.—Little need be said of the cotton industry in other parts of the New World. In Canada in 1909 there were, approximately, 855,000 Spindles, and in Mexico in 1906, where the first factory was established in 1834, 450,000 Spindles. In Brazil also there is an appreciable number of spindles, distributed (in 1895) among 134 factories, which are located chiefly in Rio de Janeiro and Minas Geraes, and are run for the most part by turbines and water-wheels.Germany.—In Germany the cotton industry is by no means so intensely localized as in England, but three large districts may be distinguished:—1. The north-west district, which consists of the Rhine Province and Westphalia and contained 1¾ million spindles in 1901.2. The country north of the mountain ranges of northern Bohemia comprises the middle district, which contained 2½ million spindles in 1901. In Saxony the industry has been carried on for four centuries.3. Alsace, Baden, Württemberg and Bavarian Swabia make up the south-west district, to which some 3½ million spindles were assigned. It is in close proximity to the cotton districts of east France, Switzerland and Vorarlberg.According to Oppel (1902) the German spinning industry is chiefly localized in—Prussia with 2020 thousand spindlesSaxony with 1870 thousand spindlesAlsace with 1600 thousand spindlesBavaria with 1390 thousand spindlesThe spindles of Württemberg, which stands next, do not much exceed half a million. Only sixteen places in Germany (shown in tabular form on p. 169) contained as many as 100,000 spindles in 1901.Spindles inThousands.Spindles inThousands.Mülhausen471Chemnitz195Augsburg373Gebweiler187Gronau274Leipzig182Werdau249Crimmitzschau168Rheydt248Logelbach141München-Gladbach216Bocholt128Rheine198Bamberg125Hof196Bayreuth100The history of the hand industry in Germany runs back some centuries. At the time when it flourished in the Netherlands we may be sure that it was prosecuted to some extent farther north and east. The start with the machine industry was not longdelayed after its economies had been learnt in England. It was fostered by protection against the cheap products of Lancashire, and in the course of time stimulated by every step taken towards the economic unity of the German States which broke down local barriers and therefore enlarged the German market. Duties upon cotton goods, however, were not immoderately high until the measure of 1879, the policy of which was carried to a further stage in 1885. Slight reactions were brought about in 1888 and 1891, largely by the complaints, not only of the consumers of finished goods, but also of manufacturers whose costs of production were kept up by the high prices of home-spun yarns and the tax on imported substitutes. According to the investigations made by the Board of Trade, the general ad valorem impact of German duties on British goods stood somewhat as follows in 1902:—Statement showing the Average Incidence(ad valorem)of the Import Duties levied by Germany on British Cotton Goods.Average Value ofExports from theUnited Kingdomto all Countriesin 1902.Rate of DutyestimatedEquivalent.ApproximateEquivalentRate of Dutyad valorem.Cotton manufactures—Per Cent.Piece goods, unbleached2.01d. per yd.0.87d. per yd.43” ” bleached2.46d. ”1.09d. ”44” ” printed2.68d. ”1.31d. ”49” ” dyed, &c.3.46d. ”1.31d. ”38Cotton thread for sewing26.89d. per ℔3.81d. per ℔15Cotton yarn—Grey10.49d. ”0.98d. ”9Bleached or dyed11.23d. ”1.63d. ”15The duties are not prohibitive—they are much less than those of the United States at the same time—but they are heavy on the classes of goods which come into competition with home-made goods. The general principle of the tariff is to treat easiest commodities which are made with least success at home, or are in the highest degree raw material for a home manufacture. Therefore yarns are not taxed very heavily, and of these the finest counts escape with slight discouragement.In the cotton industry, as well as in numerous other industries of Germany, almost feverish activity was shown after the Franco-German War. Previously great advance had been made, but it was not until the last quarter of the 19th century that Germany forced herself into the first rank. As measured by the annual consumption of cotton the German industry increased as follows:—Metric Tons of Cotton per Annum.(In Thousands.)1836-184091856-1860461876-18801241886-18902011899-1903324It must be remembered that the spindles and looms of Alsace and Lorraine were reckoned as German after the war: they amounted in 1895 to one and a half million spindles and nearly forty thousand looms.In the ’seventies there was no dispute as to England’s substantial lead in respect of efficiency. Alexander Redgrave, the chief factory inspector, made inquiries on the continent both in 1873, when Lancashire was anxious as to the comparative cost of production abroad because of the short-time bill then before parliament, and previously, and reported most unfavourably upon the state of the industry in Germany. Hours were long, the skill of the hands was inferior, speeds were low and time was wasted. In several important respects his views were corroborated by M. Taine in hisNotes on England, and by the evidence adduced before the German commission upon the cotton and linen industries in 1878. A marked contrast is noticeable between the sketches drawn of this period and the careful picture presented by Professor Schulze-Gaevernitz of the early “’nineties,” but even in the latter the advantage of England is represented as substantial in every essential respect. The gap which existed has narrowed, but it is still unmistakable. To give one example, according to Dr Huber’s figures there were in Saxony at the end of the 19th century 106 spindles to an operative and about as many weavers as looms, whereas in England there were about twice as many spindles to an operative and twice as many looms as persons engaged in weaving sheds.61As regards manufacturing, the character of the product may partly explain the difference, but it will not entirely. The reader need hardly be warned that the comparison drawn is exceedingly rough. German cotton operatives taken all round are certainly less efficient than English labour of the same kind. The reason is partly that the proportion of the German workpeople who have been for long specialized to the industry, and look forward to continuing in it all their lives, is not high. Complaint is constantly made of the number of vacancies created in the mills each year by operatives leaving, and of the impossibility of filling them with experienced hands. Many of the vacancies are caused by the return of workpeople to the country parts. Sometimes the mills are in the country, or within easy reach of it, and labour is obtained from the unoccupied members of peasants’ families. In these cases the factories do not always succeed in attracting the most capable people, and work in the factory is not infrequently looked upon as a makeshift to supplement a family’s earnings. Among Lancashire operatives far more pride of occupation may be met with. In many of the industrial parts of Germany English conditions are evolving, but they are not generally the rule. An American consul may be taken to report to his own country without prejudice as to the rival merits of German and English conditions: one such wrote in 1901:—“The task of educating labour up to a high degree of efficiency is difficult, and many generations are necessary to achieve that result. The English cotton spinners have attained such a degree of skill and intelligence that, for the most part, no supervision is necessary. In Germany the presence of a technical overseer is indispensable. Another advantage which England enjoys is the cheap price of machinery. Germany imports the major part of her machinery from England, and German wholesale dealers in these machines have not been able, by placing large orders, to overcome the difference caused by freight and tariff.” Wages reflect the efficiencies of countries, not of course perfectly, but in some degree. They are much higher in Lancashire than in Germany, as is made evident by an article from the pen of Professor Hasbach inSchmollers Jahrbuch(vol. ii., 1903). The author tries to show that Germany is not so far behind England industrially as is generally believed, and the contrast drawn by him, greatly to the advantage of Lancashire, is not likely to exaggerate the superiority of English conditions. It is calculated by Professor Hasbach that the daily wages of spinners are about 5/10 to6/10at Oldham, 6/6 at Bolton and 5/6 in Stalybridge and neighbouring places. With these he compares the 3.70 to 3.80 marks paid in the Rhine Province and Leipzig, and the 3 to 3.15 marks paid in the Vogtland, Bavaria and Alsace, and mentions an exceptionally high wage of 42⁄3marks, which was earned by an operative who worked a new and long doubling mule. The wage paid to the big piecer in England, Dr Hasbach goes on to show, is not much greater than that received by a good assistant in Germany. This comparison as it stands will probably give some readers an idea that English advantages are greater than they actually are, because it may be overlooked that the great difference between wages in the case of English and German spinners is not repeated among the piecers. Taking a spinner and his first assistant as the unit, we should have a joint average daily wage of about 8/6 in England and 6/6 in Germany. In the case of weavers, comparison of wages is more difficult to draw, but the advantage of England would seem to be but little less. However, in instituting a comparison between two countries, as regards the relative efficiency of labour in some industries, we should do well to remind ourselves that efficiency is a somewhat transitory thing, dependent upon education and experience as much as upon aptitude. In respect of the capacity of labour for the task required in the cotton industry, we could not (writing in 1907) make the statement that England leads significantly with the assurance with which we can assert her superiority in respect of present attainments. The cotton industry has not been prosecuted on a large scale in Germany so long as in England, and the Germans have not, therefore, had the same opportunity for developing their latent powers. But the thoughtfulness and carefulness of the German workman are beyond dispute, and these qualities will procure for him a leading place where work is not mechanical. Already in the cotton industry it is said that the operatives are displaying quite striking powers of undertaking a wide range of work and changing easily from one pattern to another. Hence German firms feel little hesitation in taking small orders on special designs; they do not experience any great difficulty in getting their factors accommodated to produce the required articles.Apart from the efficiency of labour, reasons exist for the lowerreal cost of production in England in the organization of the industry. The German industry is not only less localized, but, as we might perhaps infer from that circumstance, less specialized. A German factory will turn out scores of patterns where an English firm will confine itself to a few specialities. Time is wasted in accommodating machinery to changes and in accustoming the hands to new work. The German producer suffers from the undeveloped state of the market. In England specialized markets with specialized dealers have greatly assisted producers both in their buying and selling. A German manufacturer may have to find his customers as the English manufacturer need not; at least, so Professor Schulze-Gaevernitz has assured us, and conditions have not been wholly transformed since he made his careful analysis. He wrote:—“But especially disadvantageous is the decentralization in respect to the sale. Here also the German manufacturer stands under the same disadvantages with which the English had to struggle in the ’thirties. The German manufacturer still seeks his customers through travellers and agents, and in many instances through retail sellers, whose financial standing is often questionable, whose necessity for credit is always certain. Hence the complaints about the bad conditions of payment in Germany which crop up continually in theenquête. The manufacturers had to wait three, four or six months, and even twelve months and longer for payment. In reality there existed ‘termless terms,’ a ‘complete anarchy in the method of payment.’ ... The manufacturer cannot be at the same time commission agent, banker, merchant and retail dealer; he needs sound customers capable of paying. He fares best if the sale is concentrated in one market, and ‘change’ prices simplify the struggle between buyer and seller. The search for customers, foreign as well as home, and the bearing of all possible risks of disposal, are in any case difficult enough to necessitate the whole strength of a man. The wholesale merchant alone is in a position to pay the manufacturer in cash or on sure, short terms. But especially where export is in question is the dispersal of sales an extreme impediment. The manufacturer cannot follow the fashions in Australia and South America; the foreign buyer cannot travel from mill to mill.”It is the want of commercial development in Germany which accounts for the more frequent combination of weaving and spinning there than in England. But in Germany to-day economic enterprise is flourishing, and commercial development may confidently be looked for together with advance in other directions. It is not many years since the typical German cotton factory was comparatively primitive; now mills can be exhibited which might have been erected recently in Oldham. Between the early ’eighties and the ’nineties the expansion of the German industry was enormous—the imports of cotton-wool rose by nearly 70%—yet the number of spinning-mills was actually reduced from 6750 to 2450, while the number of weaving-sheds fell from 56,200 to 32,750. At the same time the factories devoted to mixed goods declined from 25,200 to less than 16,350. From these figures we may gather how rapidly the average size of mills and weaving-sheds enlarged in the period. One cause, no doubt, was that improved economies in the new businesses forced antiquated factories to shut down and make way for still newer erections. There were recently about twice as many persons engaged in weaving as in spinning, but the largest numbers of all—slightly in excess of those in weaving-sheds—were the persons occupied in the manufacture of cotton-lace, trimmings, &c. As we might imagine, Germany’s exports of cotton goods are not high. Including yarns they amounted to £13.7 million per annum in 1899-1903. In order of value their largest exports are (1) coloured goods, (2) hosiery, (3) lace and embroidery, (4) yarns, and (5) trimmings, &c.France.—Into the industrial conditions of the two leading rivals of England we have entered in some detail; the state of affairs in the rest of the world must be dealt with more briefly. Of France more ought to be said than we can find place for, though in respect of the magnitude of her cotton industry, as measured by the quantity of spindles, she stands now not fourth, but fifth, Russia taking precedence. But the work of the French is incomparably superior to anything that is turned out from Russia. France suffered a severe blow when the industry of Alsace and Lorraine was lost to Germany, but the inexhaustible originality of Frenchdesignwill always secure for her goods a place in the first rank. As regardsartisticresults France leads, but the real cost of her spinning and weaving cannot approach in lowness that of Lancashire. After costly strikes the French workmen have succeeded in shortening their hours to ten and a half a day; and here it may be remarked that the International Association of Textile Operatives tends to equate continental industrial conditions to those of England. The French industry has been fostered by tariffs. When the Board of Trade calculation was made, French tariffs were found to bear upon British cotton goods with about the same severity as those of Germany, except that the former treated more hardly yarns and cotton thread for sewing. French protectionism has kept down her exports; such as they are the majority proceed now to her colonies. Normandy, the north and east, in order, are the chief seats of the industry. In Normandy the leading city is Rouen, and Darnétal, Maromme, Sotteville, Havre, Yvetot, Dieppe, Évreux, Gisors, Falaise and Flers are important places. The north contains the important towns of Lille, Tourcoing, Roubaix, St Quentin, Amiens and Hellemmes. The Vosges is the chief district of the east, and the leading towns are Epinal, St Dié, Remiremont, Senones, Val d’Ajol, Cornimont and La Bresse. The following towns which are not included in any of the districts mentioned above are also noteworthy:—Troyes, Nantes, Cholet, Laval, Tarare, Roanne, Thizy and Villefranche upon the Saône. Cotton arrives at Havre and Marseilles; at the latter chiefly the product of Egypt and the East. Havre used to be the most important cotton port in continental Europe, but to-day more spindles are fed from Bremen than from Havre. France’s consumption of cotton annually in the period 1899-1903 was 215,000 metric tons.Russia.—Power-spinning was carried into Russia by Ludwig Knoop, who had learnt the trade in Manchester, and to his efforts its early success was due. The growth, largely the result of very heavy protectionism—according to the Board of Trade report, from 50 to more than 100% more severe than that of Germany,—has been rapid, as the following table bears witness:—Average yearly Importation of Cotton wool and Yarn into Russia.Raw Cotton inthousand tons.Cotton Yarn inthousand tons.1824-1826.95.41836-18384.610.11842-18448.49.51848-185021.44.51889-1891117.43.41899-1903180.02.9Table showing approximately the Growth of Spindles and Looms in Russia.Spindles.Looms.18571,000,000· ·1877· ·55,00018874,000,00085,00019006,000,000146,00019097,800,000· ·The chief districts were the following in 1900:—Government.Factories.Spindles(in thousands).Looms(in thousands).Moscow56129533Vladimir67122442Piotrkov2574520St Petersburg24107411Jaroslaw43472Kostroma2527420Tver63489Esthonia14402Ryazan41463Elsewhere151984Total2276091146Fine spinning has been attempted only recently. Generally speaking 70’s used to be the upper limit, but now counts up to 140’s are tried, though the bulk of the output is coarse yarn. The inefficiency of the labour was made abundantly plain by Dr Schulze-Gaevernitz in his economic study of Russia, and conditions have not greatly altered for the better since. Roughly, 170,000 operatives worked 6,000,000 spindles in 1900, which means 35 spindles per head as compared with more than 100 in Saxony and more than 200 in England. In weaving the ratio of operatives to machinery worked out at about one loom to each weaver, which is comparatively much less unfavourable to Russia. The proportion in Saxony is about the same, but in England the average approaches two looms to a weaver. The speed of machinery cannot be compared, and we must remember that the above contrasts are rough only, and made without regard to differences of product. Russia is encouraging the growth of cotton at home. It is of very inferior quality, but 100,000 tons from the provinces of central Asia and Trans-Caucasia were used in 1900: her imports in the same year were about 170,000 tons.Switzerland.—Swiss spindles advanced until the early “’seventies,” but a decline followed. Details are:—1830400,0001850950,00018761,854,00018831,809,00018981,704,0001909 (estimated)1,500,000The falling off is occasioned mainly by (a) the developing industrialism of the rest of Europe, notably Germany, and (b) the diminishing importance of the natural advantage of water-power with theimprovement of steam-engines. Swiss yarns have been kept out of continental markets in the interests of home spinning. Now fancy cotton goods, laces and trimmings are the leading specialities of the Swiss textile workers. About half the Swiss spindles are in the canton of Zürich, between a quarter and a third in Glarus, about the same in St Gall and 9% in Aargau. Figures show that the average size of the Swiss mill is small. The average spindles to a mill were 22,000, and very few mills held more than 50,000 spindles. Some 9000 of the power-looms are in Zürich, some 4500 in Glarus and 4000 in St Gall. Wald in the south-east of the canton of Zürich is an important centre of the muslin manufacture.Austria.—Austria contains about 4,200,000 spindles and more yarn is consumed than it produces, as on balance there is an excess of imports of yarn. Bohemia, lower Austria, Tirol and Vorarlberg account for the mass of Austrian spinning. The following details relating to these districts recently are of interest:—Mills.Spindles.Averagespindlesto a mill.Bohemia821,870,00022,800Lower Austria23460,00020,000Tirol and Vorarlberg20435,00021,700Reichenberg and the surrounding district is the chief manufacturing place: here are more than 80,000 looms, nearly a half of which are hand-looms.Italy.—Recent industrial growth in Italy is remarkable: statistics of spindles since 1870 are as follows, but the percentage of error is probably high:—1870500,0001888900,00018982,100,00019094,000,000The distribution of spindles is roughly as follows:—Lombardy1,850,000Piedmont1,000,000Venetia550,000Campania250,000Liguria250,000Tuscany100,000The distribution of spindles and power-looms in the chief manufacturing towns in Italy is shown in the following table:—Spindles.Spindles.Turin470,000Genoa210,000Bergamo450,000Salerno150,000Como250,000Brescia310,000Milan660,000Naples100,000Novara410,000Udine240,000Power-Power-Looms.Looms.Milan40,000Pisa2,500Turin22,000Como6,000Novara13,000Bergamo13,000Genoa6,000Udine3,500The district between Milan and Lago Maggiore contains numerous villages devoted to the cotton industry. Many of the factories in the province of Bergamo are situated in the Valle Seriana, which is endowed with abundant water-power. In this district coarse and medium yarns and grey cloth are the chief products. In the province of Milan there are several small towns, notably Gallarate, Busto Arsizio and Monza, in which the manufacture of coloured and fancy goods is extensively carried on. The finest spinning in Italy is done in Turin. The coarsest spinning is done in Venetia.The Netherlands.—In 1805 the cotton industry was reintroduced into the Netherlands from England in its factory form. Seventeen mules bearing 16,000 spindles are said to have been smuggled across the channel, while forty Englishmen were enticed over to work them, in spite of English legal prohibitions. Liévin Bauwens was the prime mover of the achievement. Expansion rapidly followed, and in 1892 Belgian spindles numbered nearly a million. Since then a decline has set in. Ghent, with about 600,000 spindles, is the only really important place: no other place has as many as 50,000. Holland possesses about 417,000 spindles: the leading district is Twente and the leading town Enschede; Twente contains also about 20,000 power-looms. Rotterdam is the chief cotton port; Amsterdam, always a far-away second, has lost place still further of late.Spain and Portugal.—The greatness of Spain in the cotton industry lies buried in the remote past, but of late she has awakened somewhat, with the result that her spindles now number about 1,853,000. Catalonia is the chief province where the industry is carried on, and Barcelona surpasses all other centres. Portugal possesses nearly half a million spindles (the bulk in Lisbon and Oporto), many of which have appeared since 1894.The Rest of Europe.—Of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Greece and Macedonia no special mention need be made, nor of other parts where the cotton industry may just exist. It may be mentioned here that among the scattered rural populations of many parts of the continent, even in such advanced countries as France and Germany, hand-looms are still to be found in large numbers.India.—The hand-cotton-industry has been carried on in India since the earliest times, and for many years English fabrics were protected against the all-cottons of India. Soon after the introduction of spinning by rollers, English all-cottons began to rival the Indian in quality as well as in cost. A large export trade to India has grown up, but Indian hand-loom weavers still ply their craft. In 1851 power-spinning was started, and by 1876 there were in India 1,000,000 spindles. Since then they have nearly reached six millions and importations of yarn have been significantly affected. The growth of Indian power-spinning, which is almost entirely of the ring variety, was attributed by some to the depreciation of the rupee after 1873, but the fall in the value of the rupee was stopped in 1893 and the competition continued. The real explanation, no doubt, is that at the cost of Indian labour it is found cheaper to import machinery and coal than to export or cease to grow cotton and import yarn. This was the conclusion of the majority report of the committee of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which made an inquiry into Bombay and Lancashire spinning in 1888. Besides, as regards Indian exports to China, the remission in 1875 of the 3% export duty on yarns must be borne in mind. The efficiency of labour in India is only a small fraction of that of Lancashire operatives. Recently complaint has been made that Indian mills are being run inhumanely long hours with the same set of labour, and that child-labour is being abused, both legally and illegally—legally as regards children over fourteen who are classed as adults. The working of heavy hours began with the electric lighting of the mills; previously all shut down at sunset largely because of the cost of illumination. The outcry which has been raised is, perhaps, sufficient guarantee that the worst evils will be remedied. Indian spinning, it must be remembered, is still very coarse as a rule, though some fine work is attempted and the average of counts spun is rising. Though there are about a ninth as many spindles in India as in the United Kingdom, there are only about one-fifteenth as many power-looms, 46,400 in all, to which figure they rose between 1891 and 1904 from 24,700. The reason for the paucity of power-looms is probably two-fold, (1) the low cost of production of Lancashire weavers, and (2) the habit of hand-loom weaving which is fixed in the Indian people. A rapid increase of power-looms is, however, observable. The hand-loom industry is gigantic, particularly in the Madras Presidency and the Central Provinces; in the latter district alone there were estimated to be 150,000 hand-looms in 1883. The following details relating to the Indian cotton industry are supplied officially:—Cotton Mills in India, including Mills in Native States and French India.Mills.1897-1898.1903-1904.Mills (number)164204Capital (thousand £s)6481,067Looms (number)36,94646,421Spindles (thousands)4,2195,213Persons employed (daily average)148,753186,271Yarn produced:—Counts (1 to 20 thousand ℔)400,384474,509Counts (above ” ” ”)62,212104,250Total ℔462,596578,759Yarn produced:—Bombay (thousand ℔)324,649414,932Bengal ” ”44,80746,487Madras ” ”32,51628,714United Provinces (including Ajmere-Merwara) (thousand ℔)26,74729,930Central Provinces (thousand ℔)18,33424,549Punjab ” ” ”6,60711,578Elsewhere ” ” ”8,93622,569Total ℔462,596578,759Woven Goods:—Grey (thousand ℔)83,136111,494Others ” ”8,15226,550Total ℔91,288138,044China.—In China spinning has not met with the same success as India, and power-manufacturing has not yet obtained a sure footing. The ingrained conservatism of the Chinese temperament is no doubt a leading cause. Of the spindles in China—about 600,000 in all—from a half to three-fifths are in Shanghai. The following detailsrelating to the inception of the power-industry are quoted from a Diplomatic and Consular Report of 1905:—“The initial experiment on modern lines was made in 1891, when a semi-official Chinese syndicate started at Shanghai—the Chinese Cotton Cloth Mill and the Chinese Cotton Spinning Company. Its originators claimed for themselves a quasi-monopoly, and prohibited outsiders who were not prepared to pay a fixed royalty for the privilege from engaging in similar undertakings. Although certain Chinese accepted this onerous condition, foreigners resented it as an undue interference with their treaty rights, and it was only when Japan, in 1895, after her war with China, inserted in the treaty of Shimonoseki an article providing for the freedom of Japanese subjects to engage in all kinds of manufacturing industries in the open ports of China, and permitting them to import machinery for such purposes, that outsiders were afforded an opportunity of exploiting the rich field for commercial development thereby thrown open. Accordingly, so soon as the Japanese treaty came into force no time was lost in turning this particular clause to account, and the erection of no less than 11 mills—Chinese and foreign—was taken in hand. At that time the pioneer mill, which was burnt to the ground in October 1893, but subsequently rebuilt, and other Chinese-owned mills were together working some 120,000 spindles and 850 looms.”By 1905 the mills increased to 17, the spindles to 620,000 and the looms to 2250, but there is little inclination to expansion. Yarns for the hand-looms are obtained primarily from India and secondarily from Japan. The following are the recent figures relating to imported yarns:—In million℔1898.1899.1900.1901.1902.1903.℔℔℔℔℔℔British9.17.84.17.04.32.2Indian186.7254.2131.5228.9251.6250.8Japanese64.7104.062.966.469.7110.9Hong-Kong· ·· ·· ·.7.81.2Tongkinese· ·· ·· ·· ·· ·.01Total260.5366.0198.5303.0326.4365.1Japan.—If in China the factory cotton industry reveals no prospects as yet of a great future, the same cannot be said of Japan.The chief centres of spinning with their outputs in value of yarn for a year at the beginning of the 20th century are stated beneath:Thousands.Thousands.£ s.£ s.Osaka1226.5Nara111.5Hyogo495.5Hiroshima91.3Okayama374.4Kyoto82.2Miye238.1Wakayama79.2Tokyo227.9Ehime70.5Aichi224.3Kajawa36.4Fukuoka168.1The following table gives other valuable information:—YearGrossAmountof Capitalinvested.AverageNumberofSpindlesused daily.Quantityof RawandGinnedCottondemanded.TotalProductionof CottonYarn.AverageNumberof MaleOperativesdailyemployed.AverageNumberof FemaleOperativesdailyemployed.AnnualWorkingDays.DailyWorkingHours.AverageDailyWageof MaleOperativesAverageDailyWageof FemaleOperatives1892-18941123420112.997.96,91621,695290224d. to 4¼d.2d. to 2¼d.1900-190235691209335.3288.013,37350,271312197½d.4½d. to 5d.190334411290375.5322.713,16057,166308207½d. to 8d.4½d. to 5d.190434701306332.1285.910,96752,115309208d.5d.With amazing adaptability the Japanese have assumed the methods of Western civilization as a whole. But hand-weaving more than holds its own, and power-weaving has as yet met with little success. The custom already mentioned as a cause of the continued triumph of the hand-loom in India and China is strong also in Japan, and the economy of the factory system is greater relatively in spinning than in manufacturing. In Japan it is ring-spinning which prevails: 95% of the spindles are on ring-frames. Ring-spinning entails less skill on the part of the operative, and ring-yarn is quite satisfactory for the sort of fabrics used most largely in the Far East. The counts produced are low as a rule. Generally mills run day and night with double shifts, and the system seems to pay, though night-work is found to be less economical than day-work there as elsewhere. More operatives are placed on a given quantity of machinery in Japan than in Lancashire—possibly more “labour” as well as more operatives, because labour as well as operatives may be cheaper. On the same work the output per spindle per hour is less in Japan than in England, even when day-shifts only are taken into account. Japanese work has been severely criticized, but the recency of the introduction of the cotton industry must not be forgotten.Bibliography.—The literature relating to the cotton industry is enormous. The most complete bibliographies will be found in Chapman’sLancashire Cotton Industry(where short descriptions of the several works included, which relate only to the United Kingdom, are given); Hammond’sCotton Culture and Trade; and Oppel’sDie Baumwolle. The list of books set forth here must be select only.The development of the English industry can be traced through the following:—Aikin,A Description of the Country from Thirty to Forty Miles round Manchester(1795); Andrew,Fifty Years’ Cotton Trade(1887); Baines,History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain(1835); Banks,A Short Sketch of the Cotton Trade of Preston for the last Sixty-Seven Years(1888); Butterworth,Historical Sketches of Oldham(1847 or 1848); Butterworth,An Historical Account of the Towns of Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge and Dukinfield(1842); Chapman,The Lancashire Cotton Industry(1904); Cleland,Description of the City of Glasgow(1840);A Complete History of the Cotton Trade, &c., by a person concerned in trade (1823); Ellison,The Cotton Trade of Great Britain including a History of the Liverpool Cotton Market and of the Liverpool Cotton Brokers’ Association(1886); Léon Faucher,Études sur Angleterre(1845); French,The Life and Times of Samuel Crompton(1859); Guest,A Compendious History of the Cotton-manufacture, with a Disproval of the Claim of Sir Richard Arkwright to the Invention of its Ingenious Machinery(1823); Guest,The British Cotton Manufacture and a Reply to the Article on Spinning Machinery, contained in a recent Number of the Edinburgh Review(1828); Helm,Chapters in the History of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce(1902); Kennedy,Miscellaneous Papers on Subjects connected with the Manufactures of Lancashire(1849); Ogden,A Description of Manchester ... with a Succinct History of its former original Manufactories, and their Gradual Advancement to the Present State of Perfection at which they are arrived, by a Native of the Town(1783); Radcliffe,Origin of the New System of Manufacture, commonly called “Power-Loom Weaving” and the Purposes for which this System was invented and brought into use, fully explained in a Narrative concerning William Radcliffe’s Struggles through Life to remove the Cause which has brought this Country to its Present Crisis(1828); Rees’Cyclopaedia, articles on Cotton (1808), Spinning (1816) and Weaving (1818); Ure,The Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain, investigated and illustrated, with an Introductory View of its Comparative State in Foreign Countries(2 vols.); Ure,The Philosophy of Manufacture; or An Exposition of the Scientific, Moral and Commercial Economy of the Factory System of Great Britain(1835); Watts,Facts of the Cotton Famine(1866); Wheeler,Manchester: its Political, Social and Commercial History, Ancient and Modern(1836).In addition there are many short papers in the Manchester public library. Much valuable information may be obtained from parliamentary papers; a list of relevant ones is printed as an appendix to Chapman’sLancashire Cotton Industry, but it is too lengthy to repeat here. The most important are the reports relating to the hand-loom weavers, those on the employment of children in factories (of which a list will be found in Hutching and Harrison’sHistory of the Factory Legislation), and the state of trade and the annual reports of the factory inspectors. On labour questions there is a list of authorities in Chapman’sLancashire Cotton Industryand also of parliamentary papers containing useful material. Printed copies of the “Wages Lists” are issued by the trade unions. The Factory Acts are dealt with in Hutchins and Harrison’sHistory, mentioned above, as well as the literature relating to them; while the handbooks by Redgrave and by Abraham and Davies are specially useful.On the industry abroad the following are the fullest authorities:—Besso,The Cotton Industry in Switzerland, Vorarlberg and Italy(1910) (a report made as a Gartside Scholar of the University of Manchester); Chapman’sCotton Industry and Trade(1905); Hammond,The Cotton Industry; Hasbach’s article, “Zur Characteristik der englischen Industrie,” inSchmollers Jahrbuch, vol. ii. (1903); Leconte,Le Coton; Lochmüller,Zur Entwicklung der Baumwollindustrie in Deutschland(1906); Montgomery,The Cotton Manufacture of the United States of America contrasted and compared with that of Great Britain(1840); Oppel,Die Baumwolle(1902); Schulze-Gaevernitz,Der Grossbetrieb: ein wirtschaftlicher und socialer Fortschritt: eine Studie auf dem Gebiete der Baumwollindustrie(1892; translated asThe Cotton Trade in England and on the Continent); T. M. Young,American Cotton Industry(1902); Uttley,Cotton Spinning and Manufacturing in the United States of North America(1905; a report of a tour as Gartside scholar of the university of Manchester); and the Gartside reports on the cotton industries of France and Germany by Forrester and Dehn respectively. Information will also be found in Diplomatic and Consular Reports, and fragments may be gathered from other books such as G. Drage’sRussian Affairs, Dyer’sDai Nippon, and Huber’sDeutschland als Industriestaat. Japan has published since 1901 a very full financial and economical annual, and the British government issues annually a good statistical abstract for India. The American census contains much detailed information, and there are, in addition to the statistics issued by the Federal government, those of Massachusetts, the Bureau of Statistics of which has also reported the results of an investigation into the industry in the Southern states. Among official matter the semi-official Bombay and Lancashire cotton spinning inquiry of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce may be included. The census of production of the United Kingdom must be mentioned, and the reports of the International Congresses of Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers. As to labour, see the reports of the International Textile Congresses.The periodical literature is of good quality and much of it is filed in the Patent Office library. We may notice particularly theCotton Factory Times;Textile Journal;Textile Manufacturer;Textile Mercury;Textile Recorder;Textile World Record(American);Der Leipzige Monatsschrift für Textilindustrie; and the FrenchTextile Journal. Shepperson’sCotton Factsis an annual which relates chiefly, though not entirely, to raw cotton, as does alsoCotton, the periodical of the Manchester Cotton Association. For technical works we may refer here to the well-known treatises of Brooks, Guest, Marsden, Nasmith and Walmsley, and to Johannsen’s ponderous two-volumedHandbuch der Baumwollspinnerei, Rohweissweberei und Fabrikanlagen.
Other Parts of America.—Little need be said of the cotton industry in other parts of the New World. In Canada in 1909 there were, approximately, 855,000 Spindles, and in Mexico in 1906, where the first factory was established in 1834, 450,000 Spindles. In Brazil also there is an appreciable number of spindles, distributed (in 1895) among 134 factories, which are located chiefly in Rio de Janeiro and Minas Geraes, and are run for the most part by turbines and water-wheels.
Germany.—In Germany the cotton industry is by no means so intensely localized as in England, but three large districts may be distinguished:—
1. The north-west district, which consists of the Rhine Province and Westphalia and contained 1¾ million spindles in 1901.
2. The country north of the mountain ranges of northern Bohemia comprises the middle district, which contained 2½ million spindles in 1901. In Saxony the industry has been carried on for four centuries.
3. Alsace, Baden, Württemberg and Bavarian Swabia make up the south-west district, to which some 3½ million spindles were assigned. It is in close proximity to the cotton districts of east France, Switzerland and Vorarlberg.
According to Oppel (1902) the German spinning industry is chiefly localized in—
Prussia with 2020 thousand spindlesSaxony with 1870 thousand spindlesAlsace with 1600 thousand spindlesBavaria with 1390 thousand spindles
Prussia with 2020 thousand spindles
Saxony with 1870 thousand spindles
Alsace with 1600 thousand spindles
Bavaria with 1390 thousand spindles
The spindles of Württemberg, which stands next, do not much exceed half a million. Only sixteen places in Germany (shown in tabular form on p. 169) contained as many as 100,000 spindles in 1901.
The history of the hand industry in Germany runs back some centuries. At the time when it flourished in the Netherlands we may be sure that it was prosecuted to some extent farther north and east. The start with the machine industry was not longdelayed after its economies had been learnt in England. It was fostered by protection against the cheap products of Lancashire, and in the course of time stimulated by every step taken towards the economic unity of the German States which broke down local barriers and therefore enlarged the German market. Duties upon cotton goods, however, were not immoderately high until the measure of 1879, the policy of which was carried to a further stage in 1885. Slight reactions were brought about in 1888 and 1891, largely by the complaints, not only of the consumers of finished goods, but also of manufacturers whose costs of production were kept up by the high prices of home-spun yarns and the tax on imported substitutes. According to the investigations made by the Board of Trade, the general ad valorem impact of German duties on British goods stood somewhat as follows in 1902:—
Statement showing the Average Incidence(ad valorem)of the Import Duties levied by Germany on British Cotton Goods.
The duties are not prohibitive—they are much less than those of the United States at the same time—but they are heavy on the classes of goods which come into competition with home-made goods. The general principle of the tariff is to treat easiest commodities which are made with least success at home, or are in the highest degree raw material for a home manufacture. Therefore yarns are not taxed very heavily, and of these the finest counts escape with slight discouragement.
In the cotton industry, as well as in numerous other industries of Germany, almost feverish activity was shown after the Franco-German War. Previously great advance had been made, but it was not until the last quarter of the 19th century that Germany forced herself into the first rank. As measured by the annual consumption of cotton the German industry increased as follows:—
Metric Tons of Cotton per Annum.
It must be remembered that the spindles and looms of Alsace and Lorraine were reckoned as German after the war: they amounted in 1895 to one and a half million spindles and nearly forty thousand looms.
In the ’seventies there was no dispute as to England’s substantial lead in respect of efficiency. Alexander Redgrave, the chief factory inspector, made inquiries on the continent both in 1873, when Lancashire was anxious as to the comparative cost of production abroad because of the short-time bill then before parliament, and previously, and reported most unfavourably upon the state of the industry in Germany. Hours were long, the skill of the hands was inferior, speeds were low and time was wasted. In several important respects his views were corroborated by M. Taine in hisNotes on England, and by the evidence adduced before the German commission upon the cotton and linen industries in 1878. A marked contrast is noticeable between the sketches drawn of this period and the careful picture presented by Professor Schulze-Gaevernitz of the early “’nineties,” but even in the latter the advantage of England is represented as substantial in every essential respect. The gap which existed has narrowed, but it is still unmistakable. To give one example, according to Dr Huber’s figures there were in Saxony at the end of the 19th century 106 spindles to an operative and about as many weavers as looms, whereas in England there were about twice as many spindles to an operative and twice as many looms as persons engaged in weaving sheds.61As regards manufacturing, the character of the product may partly explain the difference, but it will not entirely. The reader need hardly be warned that the comparison drawn is exceedingly rough. German cotton operatives taken all round are certainly less efficient than English labour of the same kind. The reason is partly that the proportion of the German workpeople who have been for long specialized to the industry, and look forward to continuing in it all their lives, is not high. Complaint is constantly made of the number of vacancies created in the mills each year by operatives leaving, and of the impossibility of filling them with experienced hands. Many of the vacancies are caused by the return of workpeople to the country parts. Sometimes the mills are in the country, or within easy reach of it, and labour is obtained from the unoccupied members of peasants’ families. In these cases the factories do not always succeed in attracting the most capable people, and work in the factory is not infrequently looked upon as a makeshift to supplement a family’s earnings. Among Lancashire operatives far more pride of occupation may be met with. In many of the industrial parts of Germany English conditions are evolving, but they are not generally the rule. An American consul may be taken to report to his own country without prejudice as to the rival merits of German and English conditions: one such wrote in 1901:—“The task of educating labour up to a high degree of efficiency is difficult, and many generations are necessary to achieve that result. The English cotton spinners have attained such a degree of skill and intelligence that, for the most part, no supervision is necessary. In Germany the presence of a technical overseer is indispensable. Another advantage which England enjoys is the cheap price of machinery. Germany imports the major part of her machinery from England, and German wholesale dealers in these machines have not been able, by placing large orders, to overcome the difference caused by freight and tariff.” Wages reflect the efficiencies of countries, not of course perfectly, but in some degree. They are much higher in Lancashire than in Germany, as is made evident by an article from the pen of Professor Hasbach inSchmollers Jahrbuch(vol. ii., 1903). The author tries to show that Germany is not so far behind England industrially as is generally believed, and the contrast drawn by him, greatly to the advantage of Lancashire, is not likely to exaggerate the superiority of English conditions. It is calculated by Professor Hasbach that the daily wages of spinners are about 5/10 to6/10at Oldham, 6/6 at Bolton and 5/6 in Stalybridge and neighbouring places. With these he compares the 3.70 to 3.80 marks paid in the Rhine Province and Leipzig, and the 3 to 3.15 marks paid in the Vogtland, Bavaria and Alsace, and mentions an exceptionally high wage of 42⁄3marks, which was earned by an operative who worked a new and long doubling mule. The wage paid to the big piecer in England, Dr Hasbach goes on to show, is not much greater than that received by a good assistant in Germany. This comparison as it stands will probably give some readers an idea that English advantages are greater than they actually are, because it may be overlooked that the great difference between wages in the case of English and German spinners is not repeated among the piecers. Taking a spinner and his first assistant as the unit, we should have a joint average daily wage of about 8/6 in England and 6/6 in Germany. In the case of weavers, comparison of wages is more difficult to draw, but the advantage of England would seem to be but little less. However, in instituting a comparison between two countries, as regards the relative efficiency of labour in some industries, we should do well to remind ourselves that efficiency is a somewhat transitory thing, dependent upon education and experience as much as upon aptitude. In respect of the capacity of labour for the task required in the cotton industry, we could not (writing in 1907) make the statement that England leads significantly with the assurance with which we can assert her superiority in respect of present attainments. The cotton industry has not been prosecuted on a large scale in Germany so long as in England, and the Germans have not, therefore, had the same opportunity for developing their latent powers. But the thoughtfulness and carefulness of the German workman are beyond dispute, and these qualities will procure for him a leading place where work is not mechanical. Already in the cotton industry it is said that the operatives are displaying quite striking powers of undertaking a wide range of work and changing easily from one pattern to another. Hence German firms feel little hesitation in taking small orders on special designs; they do not experience any great difficulty in getting their factors accommodated to produce the required articles.
Apart from the efficiency of labour, reasons exist for the lowerreal cost of production in England in the organization of the industry. The German industry is not only less localized, but, as we might perhaps infer from that circumstance, less specialized. A German factory will turn out scores of patterns where an English firm will confine itself to a few specialities. Time is wasted in accommodating machinery to changes and in accustoming the hands to new work. The German producer suffers from the undeveloped state of the market. In England specialized markets with specialized dealers have greatly assisted producers both in their buying and selling. A German manufacturer may have to find his customers as the English manufacturer need not; at least, so Professor Schulze-Gaevernitz has assured us, and conditions have not been wholly transformed since he made his careful analysis. He wrote:—“But especially disadvantageous is the decentralization in respect to the sale. Here also the German manufacturer stands under the same disadvantages with which the English had to struggle in the ’thirties. The German manufacturer still seeks his customers through travellers and agents, and in many instances through retail sellers, whose financial standing is often questionable, whose necessity for credit is always certain. Hence the complaints about the bad conditions of payment in Germany which crop up continually in theenquête. The manufacturers had to wait three, four or six months, and even twelve months and longer for payment. In reality there existed ‘termless terms,’ a ‘complete anarchy in the method of payment.’ ... The manufacturer cannot be at the same time commission agent, banker, merchant and retail dealer; he needs sound customers capable of paying. He fares best if the sale is concentrated in one market, and ‘change’ prices simplify the struggle between buyer and seller. The search for customers, foreign as well as home, and the bearing of all possible risks of disposal, are in any case difficult enough to necessitate the whole strength of a man. The wholesale merchant alone is in a position to pay the manufacturer in cash or on sure, short terms. But especially where export is in question is the dispersal of sales an extreme impediment. The manufacturer cannot follow the fashions in Australia and South America; the foreign buyer cannot travel from mill to mill.”
It is the want of commercial development in Germany which accounts for the more frequent combination of weaving and spinning there than in England. But in Germany to-day economic enterprise is flourishing, and commercial development may confidently be looked for together with advance in other directions. It is not many years since the typical German cotton factory was comparatively primitive; now mills can be exhibited which might have been erected recently in Oldham. Between the early ’eighties and the ’nineties the expansion of the German industry was enormous—the imports of cotton-wool rose by nearly 70%—yet the number of spinning-mills was actually reduced from 6750 to 2450, while the number of weaving-sheds fell from 56,200 to 32,750. At the same time the factories devoted to mixed goods declined from 25,200 to less than 16,350. From these figures we may gather how rapidly the average size of mills and weaving-sheds enlarged in the period. One cause, no doubt, was that improved economies in the new businesses forced antiquated factories to shut down and make way for still newer erections. There were recently about twice as many persons engaged in weaving as in spinning, but the largest numbers of all—slightly in excess of those in weaving-sheds—were the persons occupied in the manufacture of cotton-lace, trimmings, &c. As we might imagine, Germany’s exports of cotton goods are not high. Including yarns they amounted to £13.7 million per annum in 1899-1903. In order of value their largest exports are (1) coloured goods, (2) hosiery, (3) lace and embroidery, (4) yarns, and (5) trimmings, &c.
France.—Into the industrial conditions of the two leading rivals of England we have entered in some detail; the state of affairs in the rest of the world must be dealt with more briefly. Of France more ought to be said than we can find place for, though in respect of the magnitude of her cotton industry, as measured by the quantity of spindles, she stands now not fourth, but fifth, Russia taking precedence. But the work of the French is incomparably superior to anything that is turned out from Russia. France suffered a severe blow when the industry of Alsace and Lorraine was lost to Germany, but the inexhaustible originality of Frenchdesignwill always secure for her goods a place in the first rank. As regardsartisticresults France leads, but the real cost of her spinning and weaving cannot approach in lowness that of Lancashire. After costly strikes the French workmen have succeeded in shortening their hours to ten and a half a day; and here it may be remarked that the International Association of Textile Operatives tends to equate continental industrial conditions to those of England. The French industry has been fostered by tariffs. When the Board of Trade calculation was made, French tariffs were found to bear upon British cotton goods with about the same severity as those of Germany, except that the former treated more hardly yarns and cotton thread for sewing. French protectionism has kept down her exports; such as they are the majority proceed now to her colonies. Normandy, the north and east, in order, are the chief seats of the industry. In Normandy the leading city is Rouen, and Darnétal, Maromme, Sotteville, Havre, Yvetot, Dieppe, Évreux, Gisors, Falaise and Flers are important places. The north contains the important towns of Lille, Tourcoing, Roubaix, St Quentin, Amiens and Hellemmes. The Vosges is the chief district of the east, and the leading towns are Epinal, St Dié, Remiremont, Senones, Val d’Ajol, Cornimont and La Bresse. The following towns which are not included in any of the districts mentioned above are also noteworthy:—Troyes, Nantes, Cholet, Laval, Tarare, Roanne, Thizy and Villefranche upon the Saône. Cotton arrives at Havre and Marseilles; at the latter chiefly the product of Egypt and the East. Havre used to be the most important cotton port in continental Europe, but to-day more spindles are fed from Bremen than from Havre. France’s consumption of cotton annually in the period 1899-1903 was 215,000 metric tons.
Russia.—Power-spinning was carried into Russia by Ludwig Knoop, who had learnt the trade in Manchester, and to his efforts its early success was due. The growth, largely the result of very heavy protectionism—according to the Board of Trade report, from 50 to more than 100% more severe than that of Germany,—has been rapid, as the following table bears witness:—
Average yearly Importation of Cotton wool and Yarn into Russia.
Table showing approximately the Growth of Spindles and Looms in Russia.
The chief districts were the following in 1900:—
Fine spinning has been attempted only recently. Generally speaking 70’s used to be the upper limit, but now counts up to 140’s are tried, though the bulk of the output is coarse yarn. The inefficiency of the labour was made abundantly plain by Dr Schulze-Gaevernitz in his economic study of Russia, and conditions have not greatly altered for the better since. Roughly, 170,000 operatives worked 6,000,000 spindles in 1900, which means 35 spindles per head as compared with more than 100 in Saxony and more than 200 in England. In weaving the ratio of operatives to machinery worked out at about one loom to each weaver, which is comparatively much less unfavourable to Russia. The proportion in Saxony is about the same, but in England the average approaches two looms to a weaver. The speed of machinery cannot be compared, and we must remember that the above contrasts are rough only, and made without regard to differences of product. Russia is encouraging the growth of cotton at home. It is of very inferior quality, but 100,000 tons from the provinces of central Asia and Trans-Caucasia were used in 1900: her imports in the same year were about 170,000 tons.
Switzerland.—Swiss spindles advanced until the early “’seventies,” but a decline followed. Details are:—
The falling off is occasioned mainly by (a) the developing industrialism of the rest of Europe, notably Germany, and (b) the diminishing importance of the natural advantage of water-power with theimprovement of steam-engines. Swiss yarns have been kept out of continental markets in the interests of home spinning. Now fancy cotton goods, laces and trimmings are the leading specialities of the Swiss textile workers. About half the Swiss spindles are in the canton of Zürich, between a quarter and a third in Glarus, about the same in St Gall and 9% in Aargau. Figures show that the average size of the Swiss mill is small. The average spindles to a mill were 22,000, and very few mills held more than 50,000 spindles. Some 9000 of the power-looms are in Zürich, some 4500 in Glarus and 4000 in St Gall. Wald in the south-east of the canton of Zürich is an important centre of the muslin manufacture.
Austria.—Austria contains about 4,200,000 spindles and more yarn is consumed than it produces, as on balance there is an excess of imports of yarn. Bohemia, lower Austria, Tirol and Vorarlberg account for the mass of Austrian spinning. The following details relating to these districts recently are of interest:—
Reichenberg and the surrounding district is the chief manufacturing place: here are more than 80,000 looms, nearly a half of which are hand-looms.
Italy.—Recent industrial growth in Italy is remarkable: statistics of spindles since 1870 are as follows, but the percentage of error is probably high:—
The distribution of spindles is roughly as follows:—
The distribution of spindles and power-looms in the chief manufacturing towns in Italy is shown in the following table:—
The district between Milan and Lago Maggiore contains numerous villages devoted to the cotton industry. Many of the factories in the province of Bergamo are situated in the Valle Seriana, which is endowed with abundant water-power. In this district coarse and medium yarns and grey cloth are the chief products. In the province of Milan there are several small towns, notably Gallarate, Busto Arsizio and Monza, in which the manufacture of coloured and fancy goods is extensively carried on. The finest spinning in Italy is done in Turin. The coarsest spinning is done in Venetia.
The Netherlands.—In 1805 the cotton industry was reintroduced into the Netherlands from England in its factory form. Seventeen mules bearing 16,000 spindles are said to have been smuggled across the channel, while forty Englishmen were enticed over to work them, in spite of English legal prohibitions. Liévin Bauwens was the prime mover of the achievement. Expansion rapidly followed, and in 1892 Belgian spindles numbered nearly a million. Since then a decline has set in. Ghent, with about 600,000 spindles, is the only really important place: no other place has as many as 50,000. Holland possesses about 417,000 spindles: the leading district is Twente and the leading town Enschede; Twente contains also about 20,000 power-looms. Rotterdam is the chief cotton port; Amsterdam, always a far-away second, has lost place still further of late.
Spain and Portugal.—The greatness of Spain in the cotton industry lies buried in the remote past, but of late she has awakened somewhat, with the result that her spindles now number about 1,853,000. Catalonia is the chief province where the industry is carried on, and Barcelona surpasses all other centres. Portugal possesses nearly half a million spindles (the bulk in Lisbon and Oporto), many of which have appeared since 1894.
The Rest of Europe.—Of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Greece and Macedonia no special mention need be made, nor of other parts where the cotton industry may just exist. It may be mentioned here that among the scattered rural populations of many parts of the continent, even in such advanced countries as France and Germany, hand-looms are still to be found in large numbers.
India.—The hand-cotton-industry has been carried on in India since the earliest times, and for many years English fabrics were protected against the all-cottons of India. Soon after the introduction of spinning by rollers, English all-cottons began to rival the Indian in quality as well as in cost. A large export trade to India has grown up, but Indian hand-loom weavers still ply their craft. In 1851 power-spinning was started, and by 1876 there were in India 1,000,000 spindles. Since then they have nearly reached six millions and importations of yarn have been significantly affected. The growth of Indian power-spinning, which is almost entirely of the ring variety, was attributed by some to the depreciation of the rupee after 1873, but the fall in the value of the rupee was stopped in 1893 and the competition continued. The real explanation, no doubt, is that at the cost of Indian labour it is found cheaper to import machinery and coal than to export or cease to grow cotton and import yarn. This was the conclusion of the majority report of the committee of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, which made an inquiry into Bombay and Lancashire spinning in 1888. Besides, as regards Indian exports to China, the remission in 1875 of the 3% export duty on yarns must be borne in mind. The efficiency of labour in India is only a small fraction of that of Lancashire operatives. Recently complaint has been made that Indian mills are being run inhumanely long hours with the same set of labour, and that child-labour is being abused, both legally and illegally—legally as regards children over fourteen who are classed as adults. The working of heavy hours began with the electric lighting of the mills; previously all shut down at sunset largely because of the cost of illumination. The outcry which has been raised is, perhaps, sufficient guarantee that the worst evils will be remedied. Indian spinning, it must be remembered, is still very coarse as a rule, though some fine work is attempted and the average of counts spun is rising. Though there are about a ninth as many spindles in India as in the United Kingdom, there are only about one-fifteenth as many power-looms, 46,400 in all, to which figure they rose between 1891 and 1904 from 24,700. The reason for the paucity of power-looms is probably two-fold, (1) the low cost of production of Lancashire weavers, and (2) the habit of hand-loom weaving which is fixed in the Indian people. A rapid increase of power-looms is, however, observable. The hand-loom industry is gigantic, particularly in the Madras Presidency and the Central Provinces; in the latter district alone there were estimated to be 150,000 hand-looms in 1883. The following details relating to the Indian cotton industry are supplied officially:—
Cotton Mills in India, including Mills in Native States and French India.
China.—In China spinning has not met with the same success as India, and power-manufacturing has not yet obtained a sure footing. The ingrained conservatism of the Chinese temperament is no doubt a leading cause. Of the spindles in China—about 600,000 in all—from a half to three-fifths are in Shanghai. The following detailsrelating to the inception of the power-industry are quoted from a Diplomatic and Consular Report of 1905:—
“The initial experiment on modern lines was made in 1891, when a semi-official Chinese syndicate started at Shanghai—the Chinese Cotton Cloth Mill and the Chinese Cotton Spinning Company. Its originators claimed for themselves a quasi-monopoly, and prohibited outsiders who were not prepared to pay a fixed royalty for the privilege from engaging in similar undertakings. Although certain Chinese accepted this onerous condition, foreigners resented it as an undue interference with their treaty rights, and it was only when Japan, in 1895, after her war with China, inserted in the treaty of Shimonoseki an article providing for the freedom of Japanese subjects to engage in all kinds of manufacturing industries in the open ports of China, and permitting them to import machinery for such purposes, that outsiders were afforded an opportunity of exploiting the rich field for commercial development thereby thrown open. Accordingly, so soon as the Japanese treaty came into force no time was lost in turning this particular clause to account, and the erection of no less than 11 mills—Chinese and foreign—was taken in hand. At that time the pioneer mill, which was burnt to the ground in October 1893, but subsequently rebuilt, and other Chinese-owned mills were together working some 120,000 spindles and 850 looms.”
By 1905 the mills increased to 17, the spindles to 620,000 and the looms to 2250, but there is little inclination to expansion. Yarns for the hand-looms are obtained primarily from India and secondarily from Japan. The following are the recent figures relating to imported yarns:—
In million℔
Japan.—If in China the factory cotton industry reveals no prospects as yet of a great future, the same cannot be said of Japan.
The chief centres of spinning with their outputs in value of yarn for a year at the beginning of the 20th century are stated beneath:
The following table gives other valuable information:—
With amazing adaptability the Japanese have assumed the methods of Western civilization as a whole. But hand-weaving more than holds its own, and power-weaving has as yet met with little success. The custom already mentioned as a cause of the continued triumph of the hand-loom in India and China is strong also in Japan, and the economy of the factory system is greater relatively in spinning than in manufacturing. In Japan it is ring-spinning which prevails: 95% of the spindles are on ring-frames. Ring-spinning entails less skill on the part of the operative, and ring-yarn is quite satisfactory for the sort of fabrics used most largely in the Far East. The counts produced are low as a rule. Generally mills run day and night with double shifts, and the system seems to pay, though night-work is found to be less economical than day-work there as elsewhere. More operatives are placed on a given quantity of machinery in Japan than in Lancashire—possibly more “labour” as well as more operatives, because labour as well as operatives may be cheaper. On the same work the output per spindle per hour is less in Japan than in England, even when day-shifts only are taken into account. Japanese work has been severely criticized, but the recency of the introduction of the cotton industry must not be forgotten.
Bibliography.—The literature relating to the cotton industry is enormous. The most complete bibliographies will be found in Chapman’sLancashire Cotton Industry(where short descriptions of the several works included, which relate only to the United Kingdom, are given); Hammond’sCotton Culture and Trade; and Oppel’sDie Baumwolle. The list of books set forth here must be select only.
The development of the English industry can be traced through the following:—Aikin,A Description of the Country from Thirty to Forty Miles round Manchester(1795); Andrew,Fifty Years’ Cotton Trade(1887); Baines,History of the Cotton Manufacture in Great Britain(1835); Banks,A Short Sketch of the Cotton Trade of Preston for the last Sixty-Seven Years(1888); Butterworth,Historical Sketches of Oldham(1847 or 1848); Butterworth,An Historical Account of the Towns of Ashton-under-Lyne, Stalybridge and Dukinfield(1842); Chapman,The Lancashire Cotton Industry(1904); Cleland,Description of the City of Glasgow(1840);A Complete History of the Cotton Trade, &c., by a person concerned in trade (1823); Ellison,The Cotton Trade of Great Britain including a History of the Liverpool Cotton Market and of the Liverpool Cotton Brokers’ Association(1886); Léon Faucher,Études sur Angleterre(1845); French,The Life and Times of Samuel Crompton(1859); Guest,A Compendious History of the Cotton-manufacture, with a Disproval of the Claim of Sir Richard Arkwright to the Invention of its Ingenious Machinery(1823); Guest,The British Cotton Manufacture and a Reply to the Article on Spinning Machinery, contained in a recent Number of the Edinburgh Review(1828); Helm,Chapters in the History of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce(1902); Kennedy,Miscellaneous Papers on Subjects connected with the Manufactures of Lancashire(1849); Ogden,A Description of Manchester ... with a Succinct History of its former original Manufactories, and their Gradual Advancement to the Present State of Perfection at which they are arrived, by a Native of the Town(1783); Radcliffe,Origin of the New System of Manufacture, commonly called “Power-Loom Weaving” and the Purposes for which this System was invented and brought into use, fully explained in a Narrative concerning William Radcliffe’s Struggles through Life to remove the Cause which has brought this Country to its Present Crisis(1828); Rees’Cyclopaedia, articles on Cotton (1808), Spinning (1816) and Weaving (1818); Ure,The Cotton Manufacture of Great Britain, investigated and illustrated, with an Introductory View of its Comparative State in Foreign Countries(2 vols.); Ure,The Philosophy of Manufacture; or An Exposition of the Scientific, Moral and Commercial Economy of the Factory System of Great Britain(1835); Watts,Facts of the Cotton Famine(1866); Wheeler,Manchester: its Political, Social and Commercial History, Ancient and Modern(1836).
In addition there are many short papers in the Manchester public library. Much valuable information may be obtained from parliamentary papers; a list of relevant ones is printed as an appendix to Chapman’sLancashire Cotton Industry, but it is too lengthy to repeat here. The most important are the reports relating to the hand-loom weavers, those on the employment of children in factories (of which a list will be found in Hutching and Harrison’sHistory of the Factory Legislation), and the state of trade and the annual reports of the factory inspectors. On labour questions there is a list of authorities in Chapman’sLancashire Cotton Industryand also of parliamentary papers containing useful material. Printed copies of the “Wages Lists” are issued by the trade unions. The Factory Acts are dealt with in Hutchins and Harrison’sHistory, mentioned above, as well as the literature relating to them; while the handbooks by Redgrave and by Abraham and Davies are specially useful.
On the industry abroad the following are the fullest authorities:—Besso,The Cotton Industry in Switzerland, Vorarlberg and Italy(1910) (a report made as a Gartside Scholar of the University of Manchester); Chapman’sCotton Industry and Trade(1905); Hammond,The Cotton Industry; Hasbach’s article, “Zur Characteristik der englischen Industrie,” inSchmollers Jahrbuch, vol. ii. (1903); Leconte,Le Coton; Lochmüller,Zur Entwicklung der Baumwollindustrie in Deutschland(1906); Montgomery,The Cotton Manufacture of the United States of America contrasted and compared with that of Great Britain(1840); Oppel,Die Baumwolle(1902); Schulze-Gaevernitz,Der Grossbetrieb: ein wirtschaftlicher und socialer Fortschritt: eine Studie auf dem Gebiete der Baumwollindustrie(1892; translated asThe Cotton Trade in England and on the Continent); T. M. Young,American Cotton Industry(1902); Uttley,Cotton Spinning and Manufacturing in the United States of North America(1905; a report of a tour as Gartside scholar of the university of Manchester); and the Gartside reports on the cotton industries of France and Germany by Forrester and Dehn respectively. Information will also be found in Diplomatic and Consular Reports, and fragments may be gathered from other books such as G. Drage’sRussian Affairs, Dyer’sDai Nippon, and Huber’sDeutschland als Industriestaat. Japan has published since 1901 a very full financial and economical annual, and the British government issues annually a good statistical abstract for India. The American census contains much detailed information, and there are, in addition to the statistics issued by the Federal government, those of Massachusetts, the Bureau of Statistics of which has also reported the results of an investigation into the industry in the Southern states. Among official matter the semi-official Bombay and Lancashire cotton spinning inquiry of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce may be included. The census of production of the United Kingdom must be mentioned, and the reports of the International Congresses of Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers. As to labour, see the reports of the International Textile Congresses.
The periodical literature is of good quality and much of it is filed in the Patent Office library. We may notice particularly theCotton Factory Times;Textile Journal;Textile Manufacturer;Textile Mercury;Textile Recorder;Textile World Record(American);Der Leipzige Monatsschrift für Textilindustrie; and the FrenchTextile Journal. Shepperson’sCotton Factsis an annual which relates chiefly, though not entirely, to raw cotton, as does alsoCotton, the periodical of the Manchester Cotton Association. For technical works we may refer here to the well-known treatises of Brooks, Guest, Marsden, Nasmith and Walmsley, and to Johannsen’s ponderous two-volumedHandbuch der Baumwollspinnerei, Rohweissweberei und Fabrikanlagen.