marking that nature has given the planters of that region a practical monopoly of cotton culture, if they have only the virtue and wisdom to profit by it,' he proceeds to show how they could double the effective force of the negro population, and thereby increase the production of cotton to any

amount:

'Let them only give themselves fair play, by setting labour free, and they will produce cotton at such a cost, and in such abundance, as will baffle all competition. There are some 400,000,000 acres of available cotton lands in America; of these, about 28,000,000 are cultivated, the rest is a desert-there are no hands to till it. Now, by adopting free labour, the South would not only double the effective force of her negro population, but would turn into her territories that stream of emigration which is now enriching the prairies of the North-West. The association with the noble free labourers of the North would be the best education for the freed negroes; and together they would build up a prosperity of which the South, as yet, has not the faintest conception. A generation would convert her vast cotton-lands from a howling wilderness into a garden-land.

'The slaveholders of the South, in their argument in favour of slavery derived from cotton as a power in the world, assume that slavery is indispensable to cotton culture. That this is not the case we might know from the latitude most favourable to the growth of cotton. Cotton is not a tropical production, even were it proved that negroes alone are capable of tropical labour. But we have more than a general inference to go upon in these very Slave States cotton is cultivated by free labour. In Texas it is raised by the free labour of Germans, and the quality is confessedly superior to that produced by slave labour. And even in Alabama the small farmers, who are too poor to own slaves, produce, with the help of their families, two, three, or five bales per annum. Therefore, even granting the importance of cotton-granting, too, the indispensableness of American cotton-it yet remains to be proved that slavery is either a necessity or a good. The onus lies clearly on the slave-owner.

'One thing is certain, no need of cotton or any other supposed necessary of life will ever induce the English nation to relax one tittle in its antipathy to slavery. This is with us a settled conviction, which neither gain nor argument can disturb. Cotton is great, but conscience is greater; and in any question where these two powers may come in conflict, the issue for the English mind will be nowise doubtful.'

Assuming Mr. Stirling's facts and arguments to be unanswerable, what a grand opportunity for an American statesman, stout-hearted and clear-headed enough to grapple with the hydraheaded monster of the South! If the cotton planters could, by the adoption of free labour, double the effective force of the negro population, and, at the same time, turn into the Southern States that stream of emigration which is now enriching the prairies of the North-West,' the most difficult political problem of modern

The Cotton Supply Association.

437

times might be solved within the next few years in a manner which would redound alike to the national character and the material prosperity of the United States. For our own part, however, we must confess that we can see no grounds for expecting that the slave question in America will be settled by any such satisfactory and easy process. Even Mr. Stirling, although he endeavours to show that Nature has given the Southern States of America a practical monopoly of cotton culture,' adds the important proviso-' if they have only the virtue and wisdom to profit by it.' For many years past the pro-slavery press has been unwearied in its efforts to prove that so long as our manufacturing and commercial prosperity depends upon the extension of the cotton trade, Great Britain must become more and more dependent upon the maintenance and extension of slavery in America, because, as the pro-slavery organs affirm, and too many English authorities have echoed the same opinion, no country in the world can compete successfully with the United States in the culture of cotton. Roused into activity by the falling off in the supply of the raw material, and the steady rise in prices, the manufacturers of Lancashire have resolved to try whether that opinion is not founded in error, and have, therefore, organized a Cotton Supply Association,' for the purpose of promoting the growth of cotton in every part of the world where it may be found practicable.

It is now nearly six months since the Cotton Supply Association held its first meeting in Manchester Town Hall; and, from the character of the men who have embarked in this new agitation, we feel satisfied that they will go forward with the work they have begun till they accomplish the end proposed. From a statement made by the Chairman of the meeting at which the Association was inaugurated, we learn that the falling off in the per-centage of our imports of cotton from Brazil and the East and West Indies during the last half century, and the increase in our imports from the United States, has been in the ratio given in the following table::

Imports of Cotton into Liverpool in 1806 and 1856.

From an elaborate paper on The Connexion between American Slavery and the British Cotton Manufacture, by J. T. Danson,* it appears that the per-centage of American cotton imported into Great Britain steadily increased in each decennial period from 1801 to 1850. Thus we find that in the first ten years of the present century (1801-10) the supply from the United States amounted to 44 per cent.; in the second ten years it was 50 per cent.; in the third ten years 71 per cent.; in the fourth ten years 79, and in the fifth ten (1841-50) 81

per cent. Since 1850, the proportion has fallen off somewhat, the annual average of the five years ending in 1855 having been only 78 per cent. The highest year, according to the table given by Mr. Danson, was 1846, when the supply of cotton from the United States amounted to 88 per cent. In 1856, it had fallen to 71 per cent.; nearly three-tenths of the whole of the cotton imported last year having been furnished by Brazil, Egypt, and our own colonies.

One valuable result of the discussions provoked by the Manchester Cotton League has been to verify the fact that, if the proper means are adopted, India can supply this country with all the cotton we require, and of as good quality as the great bulk of what we now receive from America. This has been frequently denied by parties who had the best opportunities of ascertaining the real state of affairs, and who were thereby enabled to make an injurious impression on the public mind. Time after time has it been alleged that the high rent of land and the enormous cost of transport form insuperable obstacles to the extension of cotton culture in India. America, unburthened by rent, has magnificent navigable rivers for the convenient transport of its raw produce, while India, as they affirmed, has no river convenient for commercial purposes, save the Ganges, which unfortunately does not flow through the cotton fields of India. And then, as regards the inferior quality of the cotton produced, the most overwhelming evidence has been brought forward by the East India Company, as an excuse for the obstinate manner in which it has always discouraged the various attempts made to extend the cultivation of cotton in the Bombay Presidency. It would be too long a story to tell how the Company engaged a number of American planters to go to India for the purpose of introducing improved modes of cultivating and cleaning cotton; how the planters proved exceedingly untractable from some cause or other; how they persisted in throwing cold water upon

*This paper, which was read before the British Association at their annual meeting in 1856, has been widely circulated in America. Its whole tendency is to show how closely the cotton manufacture of this country depends upon the maintenance of slavery in the United States.

Growth of New Orleans Cotton in India.

439 every attempt to raise New Orleans cotton in India; and how they succeeded at last in persuading the Government that the undertaking ought to be abandoned. So long as the experiments for the improvement of cotton cultivation were in the hands of Government servants or American planters they all failed, and the general impression seemed to be that everything had been done which could be done, and that we must make up our minds to the conclusion that America is the only country for cottongrowing. Fortunately for English industry the experiments were not given up, in spite of the adverse opinion of the Americans and the apathy of Government. Mr. Shaw, the Collector of the Southern Mahratta country, having satisfied himself that many of the varieties of American cotton would thrive in India, took great pains to promote the cultivation of New Orleans cotton in Dharwar, and the result of his efforts was, that the quantity of land under that description rose from 27 acres in 1842 to upwards of 42,000 acres in 1849. Mr. Shaw, in speaking of the obstacles thrown in his way while prosecuting the experiment at Dharwar, says: It was assailed by enemies without and traitors within; and yet it weathered every storm. It is my full and firm belief that India can produce cotton 'equal to American Upland, Mobile, or New Orleans, and at less Ithan half the cost. And I indulge the hope, improbable as it 'may now appear, that Indian cotton may ultimately oust the 'American from the English markets; and it is by no means 'impossible that we may yet supply America herself.' Few people in this country will be quite so sanguine in their expectations as Mr. Shaw appears to be; but we see no reason to question the accuracy of his statement that India can produce New Orleans cotton (the description most largely in demand) at less than half the cost of American cotton; and if that be true, the only question which remains is as to how the cultivation of that kind of cotton can be extended.

Mr. Shaw's opinion that Indian cotton may ultimately oust the American from the English market' will not seem extravagant when we look to the fact, that within the last forty years our supplies of cotton from India have exceeded those which we received from the United States. In 1818, our 'imports from India amounted to 247,659 bales, while those from the United States that year were only 207,580 bales. This, however, was only under the stimulus of high prices, 'Surat' having risen as high as 204d. per pound. Four years later, when the price had fallen to 64d. per pound, our imports of India cotton fell down to 19,263 bales. From that date up to the present day our imports of cotton from India have been subject to

continual fluctuations. When prices have risen above the average, our imports of Bengal' and 'Surat' have increased; when prices have fallen below the average, our supplies from India have gone down to a very small amount. On this point, Mr. Mackay says:

The quantities of Indian cotton exported to England from year to year have no correspondence with the consumption of the latter country. The supply in the English market from India is merely supplementary to that received from America, and the largest exports from India take place in those years in which there is a deficiency in the American crops. In such years, with a diminished supply in the English market, and with consequent enhanced prices, the Indian exporter finds it most advantageous to increase his exports to England and diminish those sent to China. This unsatisfactory and irregular state of the Indian cotton trade necessarily renders it precarious, and not unfrequently ruinous, to those engaged in it. And so it must continue until relieved from its present subjection to the vicissitudes of the American market. This can only be effected by elevating it to the position of an independent and rival interest, instead of remaining, as now, dependent upon the cotton trade of America and merely supplementary to it. Can it be made so? It is quite clear that it cannot, so long as Indian can only compete with American produce at uncertain times and under peculiar circumstances. To make it so, it must be made capable of competing with American produce at all times and under all circumstances.'

The great problem, then, which the Lancashire Cotton League must now endeavour to solve, in a practical form, so as to leave no ground for doubt or cavil, is, whether Indian cotton of good quality can be produced so as to compete with American cotton, even when the price of the latter is at the lowest point? Mr. Mackay puts the question in the most explicit terms:-' Can Indian cotton, of good quality, be laid down in Liverpool at prices remunerative to all legitimately engaged in the trade, in successful competition with American cotton, not only when prices are high, but also when they are at the lowest point at which cotton can be supplied from America at a profit? If this question can be answered in the affirmative, Mr. Mackay was of opinion that 'the day may not be far distant when even Lowell itself may be indebted to India for cheap cotton.'

6

The main obstacles which prevent Great Britain from obtaining large supplies of good cotton from India, at a moderate price, are three-want of irrigation, want of cheap carriage by land or water, and want of a just system of land tenure. One thing only is wanting to remove all these three obstacles to the prosperity of India, and the illimitable extension of cotton cultivation -a firm determination on the part of the men who repealed the