fellow fanatic, wore at his inauguration as Caliph, a thin cotton gown, tied around him with a/girdle." Whence, it is inferred that cotton was a common article of dress in Arabia at the time of the Hegira, (A. D. 622,) and had probably been so for many generatis. medan Ther s little doubt that the Mohamred along with their conquest into the western world, the art of growing and manufacturing cotton, and that they also introduced into India many improvements in the oriental manufacture of cotton, suggested by their superior intelligence and in ventive genius. In Spain, the cotton manufacture flourished during the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and then declined. The cotton plant still grows wild in many parts of Spain. Barcelona was famous for its cotton sail cloth, large quantities of which it furnished to other nations. The Spanish term fustaneros, from which comes our word fustian denotes manufactures of a stout, substantial kiud of cotton goods first manufactured in Spain. Cotton paper was also probably first made in Europe by the Spanish Arabs, who brought the art from the East, some say Egypt, others Bucharia. The Arabs also manufactured linen paper at Valencia. The religious antipathy, however, which existed between the Moors of Spain and the Christians, prevented the propagation of the oriental arts in the West; and when the Sarawere driven from Spain, the arts which they had brought to that country perished. cens The Portuguese were the first to import into Europe the stuffs and muslins of Iudia, but they did not attempt the manufacture of cotton in Portugal. The Dutch, however, not only imported cotton fabrics largely from India, but also, towards the latter end of the sixteenth century, began to manufacture them at home. Long prior to this period, a manufacture of indigenous cotton had existed in the southern parts of Italy, where, particularly along the gulf of Taranto, the plant had been cultivated since the eleventh century. In Calabria the plant was biennial. The soil of southern Italy is said to have been very favorable to the culture of that fabrics purely of cotton began to be made in England. These were produced by Messrs. Strull and Need, the partners of the illustrious Arkwright; but no sooner were they produced, than it was discovered that a law existed, expressly for the encouragement of the arts, prohibiting the sale of such fabrics. Application was immediately made to the British parliament for the repeal of so unwise a law, but it required much time and expense to convince that legislative body of the propriety of repealing so preposterous an enactment. This it finally did, on condition, however, that three pence a square yard should be paid by the manufacturers on all printed cottons or calicoes. Men have often complained, that the world has been cursed by physic and false medical philosophy; but it may well be questioned, whether society has not suffered much more from the operations of stupid laws; for what step forward has civilization ever made, that has not found a stumbling-block in some stupid enactment, if not in some entire code of laws? Commerce and manufactures especially have suffered, and still continue to suffer by bad laws. In modern times, cotton has attained to an importance among the vegetable productions of the earth, which could not have been even dreamed of a few centuries ago. The manufacture of cotton, though it now affords employment and subsistence to hundreds of thousands of persons, is almost wholly a consequence of discoveries and intry, since the middle of the last century. ventions, made in England and in this counPrevious to that time the manufacture was confined to the narrowest limits. Owing to the difficulty of separating the wool from the seed, its price, so long as this operation had to be performed by the hand, was necessarily high; while the cost of its spinning and weaving by the wheels and looms in use previous to 1760, added so much to its price, that cotton articles were suited only to the use and demand of the higher classes of society. It is a very remarkable fact, that no material improvements in the art of manufac turing cotton fabrics took place, during the long period from the earliest historical dates down to the middle of the last century. The Hindoo, at the present day, uses the same rude and simple implements in manufacturing his fabrics, that were used when Herodotus wrote. All the great improvements in the art of manufacturing cotton and woolen were reserved for the present age. The first great improvement was the invention of the spinning-jenny, by Hargreaves, in 1767, by which one individual could spin 120 threads at once, or in other words, perform, in any given length of time, the work of 120 persons! Previous to this invention, every thread used in the manufacture of cotton, wool, and flax, throughout the world, was spun singly by the fingers of the spinner, with the aid of that rude, antique, and classical instrument, the domestic spinning-wheel. The jenny of Hargreaves, however, was fit to spin only the softer decriptions of yarn, or that used as weft, it being unable to give the thread the firmness and hardness required for warp. Two years afterwards, this deficiency was removed by the genius of Arkwright, who completed what Hargreaves had begun, by inventing the spinning frame-a wonderful piece of machinery, which spins any number of threads, of any degree of fineness and hardness, leaving to the hand of the operator merely the feeding of the machine with cotton, and joining the threads when they happen to break Five years later, in 1774, the genius of Compton conceived the happy idea of combining in one machine the inventions of Hargreaves and Arkwright, thus erecting an instrument turning one hundred spindles at once-hundred-handed, like Briareus and his giant brothers of old. At first this astonishing invention was turned by hand, and Kelly was the first to apply it to the waters of the Clyde. Watt next applied the more potent agency of steam, thus causing two thousand spindles to whirl at once in a single machine. Connecticut, by the invention of the cottongin, conferred upon the world a machine which has done more for cotton growers, manufacturers, commerce and civilization, than any other one machine that was ever invented. Without the cotton-gin, all the inventions for spinning would be comparatively useless, and even the steam-engine itself would be stripped of half its value, as a manufacturing engine. Where would now be all our immense exports of raw cotton, all the vast cotton manufacturing establishments of the world, and all the vast commerce of nations in cotton fabrics, if we had not the cotton-gin of our illustrious countryman, Eli Whitney? We often talk of erecting monuments to perpetuate the memory of our great statesmen and our literary men; but certainly Eli Whitney deserves a monument whose top would overlook the whole cotton region of North America; and such a monument should be erected by the cotton planters of the southern states. Previous to 1790, the United States exported very little of raw cotton. In 1792, we exported the trifling quantity of 138,328 lbs. Whitney's invention came into operation in 1793; and in 1794 we exported 1,601,760 lbs. ; and in 1795, 5,276,306 lbs. And so astonishing has been the growth of cotton since the invention of the cotton-gin, and occasioned by it, that in 1838 the United States exported 595,952,297 lbs. Our immense exports since that year need not be given. A cotton mill is probably, all things conBut the spinning machinery awaited sidered, the most astonishing triumph of another improvement. By an ingenius con- skill and ingenuity; all the various operatrivance, Roberts succeeded in rendering the tions, from the carding of the cotton to its hand even of the spinner unnecessary, the conversion into a texture as fine almost as machine doing the entire work unaided. that of the gossamer, being performed by Now, in our cotton factories may be seen machinery. Each of the workmen at preseveral thousand spindles, in a single apart- sent employed in a cotton mill, superintends ment, revolving with inconceivable rapidity, as much work as could have been executed with no hand to urge their progress or guide by two or three hundred workmen sixty or their operations-drawing out, twisting, and seventy years ago; and yet, instead of the winding up, as many thousand threads, with number of workmen being diminished by unfailing precision and indefatigable pa- machinery, it has been vastly increased. tience and strength-a scene as magical to would be curious to investigate how many the unfamiliarized eye, as the transforma-persons in the world depend directly for subtions of oriental tales. Nearly at the same time that the spinning department was thus wonderfully improved, Dr. Cartwright, a clergyman of Kent, England, invented the power-loom. But there was still another thing necessary to complete this astonishing career of discovery. With out a vastly increased supply of the raw material, and at a much lower price than it had previously brought, the inventions of Hargreaves, Arkwright, Compton, Roberts. and Watt, would have been of comparatively little value. This last, and perhaps, the most important of all, was the work of an American. Mr. Eli Whitney, a native of It to sistence on the inventions and discoveries of Hargreaves, Arkwright, Watt, Whitney, and other founders and improvers of this great manufacture. They certainly amount several millions; at the same time that there is hardly an individual on the face of the globe, who is not indebted to them for an increase of comfort and enjoyment. It is impossible to estimate the advantage to the great bulk of mankind arising from the wonderful cheapness of cotton goods. The humblest classes have now the means of dressing as elegantly as did the highest fifty years ago; and the humblest peasant's cottage may now have as handsome furniture for beds, windows, tables, &c., as the house of the rich man half a century ago. Manchester, or rather Lancashire, is the grand seat of the English cotton manufac ture; and next to it Cheshire, Nottinghamshire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, and Cumberland, are its principal seats. Glasgow and its vicinity is the seat of the manuture in Scotland; and Belfast in Ireland, Goods Exported where it is said to be on the decline. The following table will show the early progress of the cotton manufacture in Great Britain prior to the invention of the spinning-jenny by Hargreaves: Value of £5,915 23,253 5,698 16,200 13,524 20,709 45,986 .200,354 oper The spinning-jenny of Hargreaves went into operation in 1767; and Arkwright's improvement was patented and put in ation in 1769. The influence of these, and other inventions and improvements made afterwards, on the manufacture and trade, may be seen by inspecting the following table: .8,787,109 .804,243 1,266,867 6,282,437 .6,780,392 The importations of cotton into England, from all sources, since 1816, have been as follows, according to the statement of Messrs. Geo. Holt & Co., cotton brokers at Liverpool : The value of the cotton manufacture of Great Britain is greater, estimating from the last table of spindles of above, than that of all the rest of the world besides. It is diffi cult to give an accurate estimate of the annual total value of the cotton manufacture of Great Britain. Mr. McCulloch, in his Commercial Dictionary, estimates it at about £34,000,000, or $164,560,000. This estimate is considered by Mr. Baines, in his elaborate work on the Cotton Manufacture, as too small. It would be a pleasant task to trace the history of cotton manufactures in France, Germany, Holland, Russia, and other countries of Europe; but as that would extend this The first cotton-mill of the United States was erected in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, by the late Mr. Samuel Slater, a native of Belper, Derbyshire, England, in 1790. The machinery was that of the Arkwright jennies were in use in this country previous patent. There is evidence that Hargreave's to 1790, but by whom, and when introduced, is not known. They were worked principally by Scotch and Irish weavers, who produced mixed goods of linen and cotton. 501,000,000 lbs. Great Britain, at that time, used every means to prevent the introduction of her spinning machinery into other countries. Her law expressly forbade its exportation; and every attempt to import the machinery into America had failed. The Hon. Tench Coxe, of Philadelphia, entered into a bond with a person, who engaged to send him, from London, complete brass models of ArkWright's patents. The machinery was completed and packed, but was detected by the examining officer, and forfeited, according to No way the existing laws of Great Britain. remained to obtain the benefit of the British inventions but to manufacture them on our 388,000,000 583,000,000 721,979,953 1850-51..800,000,000 The best portion of the cotton imported into England comes from the United States; the balance from Brazil, Turkey, Egypt, and the British East and West India possessions. England takes the lead of all other nations in manufactures, particularly of cotton. It is estimated that the number of persons employed in this manufacture in Great Britain is not far from 2,000,000. Estimating the state of the cotton manufacture by the number of spindles employed, it stands nearly as follows, at the present time, in the various manufacturing countries of the world: watch against it; but the professions of 1803, when a third was erected in Massachumen leaving the kingdom could not be al-setts, followed by a fourth, in 1804. During ways detected. Some of the first yarn made by Mr. Slater, in America, and some of the first cotton cloth made from it, was sent to the Secretary of the Treasury, on the 15th of October, 1791; and it is probably in existence now. It is stated that Mr. Clay had some of the first yarn in his possession, in 1836. It was as fine as number 40. Mr. Slater was induced to leave his employment under Arkwright, in England, to come to America, by seeing a premium offered by the Pennsylvania Society for a certain machine to spin cotton. Mr. Slater labored under the greatest disadvantages for the want of suitable materials, and mechanics of sufficient ingenuity to assist him. The history of his first labors is deeply interesting, for the details of which we must refer the reader to his biographer. His first machine was what is called a water-frame, of only twenty-four spindles. Such was the humble origin of cotton manufacturing in America. From that first machine the advancement of the cotton manufacture has been truly astonishing. It has caused hundreds of populous villages, towns, and even cities, to spring up, as if by magic, where only a few years ago nothing was seen but a barren wilderness.‡ The rapid growth of the cotton manufacture in this country, is unparalleled in the history of industry. The second cotton-mill in America was erected in 1795, at the same place as the first. No more were built until * Life of Samuel Slater, by G. S. White, p. 88. † Idem, p. 89. Astonishing as has been the increase of the various manufacturing towns and villages in the United States, Lowell, in Massachusetts, surpasses every thing of the kind that has been witnessed within the memory of man. In 1819 its site was a wilderness, whither sportsmen went to shoot game. The entire population of the territory around it did not exceed 200 souls. It was a poor, barren district, with but a few houses on the spot where the city now stands ; and the inhabitants supported themselves principally by fishing in the Concord and Merrimack rivers, at the junction of which Lowell is situated. A com pany of wealthy men in Boston, seeing the valuable water privileges of the spot, purchased it for manufacturing purposes. The first cotton mill was erected there in 1822; and in 1830, the population of the place had increased to 6,477 persons. In 1840, the population had become 20,796; and the value of property there was $12,400,000. In 1844, the population was 25,000. It is now 35,000. Thus, what only thirty years ago was a wild pasture ground, has become a large and flourishing city; a proof of what water-power, seconded by capital and enterprise, can do for a place. Lowell is a splendid example of an American manufacturing city, and excites the attention, and. in some measure, the jealousy, says McCulloch, of Manchester and Glasgow. We need no better proof what manufactures can accomplish than the history of Lowell. The Lowell cottonmills, owned by twelve manufacturing companies, extend in a continuous line of about a mile, from the Merrimack to the Pawtucket Falls. the three following years ten more mills were erected in Rhode Island, and one in Connecticut, making in all fifteen miles, with 8,000 spindles, producing 300,000 pounds of yarn annually. By a report made to the government in 1810, it appears that eightyseven additional mills had been erected by the end of 1809, of which sixty-two were then in operation by horse and water-power, running 31,000 spindles. The cotton manufacture continued to spread, and received a considerable impulse from the war of 1812. In that year there were in Rhode Island thirty-three cotton factories, with 30,663 spindles. In Massachusetts there were twenty mills, with 17,371 spindles. A report made to Congress, in 1816, gives the following statement of the consumption of cotton by our mills, showing how rapidly the cotton manufacture had advanced. consumption of cotton was, in The ers. 10,000 66,000 24,000 81,000,000 yards .$24,000,000 27,000,000 lbs. The subject of protection was then extensively agitated. The importations of cotton goods, in 1815, and 1816, were immense, and created great alarm among manufacturThe amount of importations of those two years was about $180,000,000. During the years 1817, 1818, 1819, and 1820, great distress prevailed among the manufacturers, but Congress was not disposed to grant their petitions in full. Tariff laws were passed in 1824, 1828, and 1832, in each of which the duty upon foreign cotton goods, imported, was 25 per cent. ad valorem. These duties, though they did not prevent our markets from being glutted with foreign goods, caused our manufactures to gradually increase. In 1820, the first cotton mill in Pennsylvania was erected at Manayunk, by Captain John Towers. There were then only two small cottages on the spot. It now contains 500 dwellings, 5 churches, 15 stores, and about 30 mills. Amongst the numerous towns that have sprung into existence, owing to the influence of manufactures, may be mentioned-Waltham, Paterson, Ware, Fall River, Taunton, Pawtucket, Lawrence, Adams, Newmarket, last ten years. Of the present actual condition of the cotton manufacture in this country, we cannot speak with entire certainty, until the returns of the census for 1850 are published. We are deficient in details, but for the figures given above, derived chiefly from a work on American cotton manufactures, by Robt. H. Baird, 1851, we can speak with confidence. Of the 2,500,000 cotton spindles now in the United States, 150,000 are in the Southern states, and 100,000 in the Western. A committee of the Manufacturers' Convention, held last year at Richmond, Va., stated, in their report, that there were 20 companies engaged in the manufacture of cotton in that state, with an aggregate capital of $1,800,000. These companies run, when in full operation, 54,000 spindles, producing no yarn, however, finer than No. 20. For some time past, these Virginia mills have had in full operation 22,000 spindles, at a reduction of 25 per cent. on the wages; 7,000 spindles three-fourths of the time, and 8,000 onethird of the time. The remainder of the factories are entirely, or partially, stopped.* In Maryland, affairs are not much better than in Virginia. "Out of 28 mills in that state," says Mr. Baird, "only two are constantly employed; 18 work a part of the time, and eight are entirely idle. The total average pro * Baird's Cotton Spinner, p. 25. duct is less than half the capacity of the mills. In Rhode Island, too, we learn from a writer in the Scientific American, for Dec. 7, 1850, some 70, out of the 130 cotton mills in that state, have stopped. These suspensions and depressions of our cotton manufacturing operations are undoubtedly attributable to the following causes combined: 1. Our present low tariff. 2. The high price of cotton; and 3. Our manufacturing too many coarse goods. Which of these causes is the most potent we leave our readers to decide. The first we cannot discuss without being drawn into the field of politics. The second affects manufacturers by turning capital into other channels; and the third by overstocking the markets with coarse goods, and leaving our citizens dependent on other countries for fine ones. If we could keep the fine goods of other countries out of our markets, we must manufacture that description of goods at home. Nothing but an absolute prohibition of the fine cotton fabrics of other countries would keep them out of our markets, if we did not manufacture them ourselves. If our manufacturers do not supply the demand from abroad. The real truth of the matter is: England manufactures large quantities of coarse cottons, and our manufacturers make scarcely anything else but coarse; and the consequence is, that the present supply of coarse fabrics is greater than the demand the markets are glutted. Mills, then, are obliged to stop. We consider this the chief cause of the failures. The other causes mentioned have their weight. The process of calico printing by ma chinery is the last invention, and the crowning one, in the manufacture of cotton. Before the introduction of calico printing, the cotton manufacture in the United States was considered to be too precarious to justify one in an attempt to manufacture the finer fabrics; but the introduction of calico printing has placed our cotton manufactures on a permanent basis. Our consumption of domestic calicoes is immense, and all our coarser cotton fabrics have the preference in the markets of South America, China, Siam, the East Indies, and elswhere. on account of their being superior in durability to those of France and England. The comparative idleness of our cotton factories is to be deplored; but the general government cannot justly be charged with the present state of things, and it is at least questionable whether the evils complained of can be removed by legislation. To succeed, it is evident that our cotton factories must manufacture those fabrics most in demand. If, after glutting the markets with coarse fabrics, they still continue to manufacture |