Year.Imports of
Raw Cotton,
Million ℔.
Raw Cotton
re-exported,
Million ℔.
Exports of Cotton Yarns and
Manufactures, Million £.
Imports of Cotton Yarns and
Manufactures, Million £
Yarns. Manu-
factures.
Total. Yarns.Manu-
factures
(excluding
Lace).
Total.
1700-1705 1.17 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
1771-1775 4.76 · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
1785-1789 · · · · · · · ·  1.07* · · · · · ·
1791-1795 26.00 · · · · · ·  2.09* · · · · · ·
1816-1820 139.00 10.00 2.5 13.8 16.30 · · · · · ·
1831-1835 313.00 23.00 4.8 14.2 19.00 · · · · · ·
1851-1855 872.00 124.00 6.8 24.9 31.70 · · · · · ·
1876-1880 1456.00 180.00 12.4 56.1 68.30 · · 2.29 2.29
1891-1895 1746.00 217.00 9.7 56.6 66.30 .42 2.78 3.20
1896-1900 1798.00 223.00 8.9 58.2 67.10 .26 4.27 4.53
1901-1905 1920.00 265.00 8.4 70.7 79.10 .22 5.10 5.32
* Official values.

Nothing is more interesting in the cotton industry than the processes of differentiation and integration that have taken place from time to time. Weaving and spinning had been to a large extent united in the industry in its earliest form, Differentiation and Integration. in that both were frequently conducted beneath the same roof. With mechanical improvements in spinning, that branch of the industry became a separate business, and a substantial section of it was brought under the factory régime. Weaving continued to be performed in cottages or in hand-loom sheds where no spinning at all was attempted. Cartwright’s invention carried weaving back to spinning, because both operations then needed power, and the trouble of marketing yarn was largely spared by the reunion. Mr W. R. Grey stated in 1833 to the committee of the House of Commons on manufactures, commerce and shipping, that he knew of no single person then building a spinning mill who was not attaching to it a power-loom factory. Some years later the weaving-shed split away from spinning, partly no doubt because of the economies of industrial specialism, partly because of commercial developments, to be described later, which rendered dissociation less hazardous than it had been, and partly because, in consequence of these developments, much manufacturing (as weaving is termed) was constituted a business strikingly dissimilar from spinning. The manufacturer runs more risks in laying by stocks than the spinner, because of the greater variety of his product and the more frequent changes that it undergoes. The former, therefore, must devote more time than the latter to keeping his order book and the productive power of his shed in close correspondence. The minute care of this kind that must be exercised in some classes of businesses explains why the small manufacturer still holds his own while the small spinner has been crushed out. It also explains to some extent the prevalence of joint-stock companies in spinning, and their comparative rarity in manufacturing. Here we should notice, perhaps, that the only combination of importance in the cotton industry proper (apart from calico-printing, bleaching, &c., and the manufacture of sewing-cotton) is the Fine Cotton Spinners and Doublers Association, founded in 1898, which is practically coextensive with fine spinning and doubling.

The specialism of the two main branches of the industry has been followed by the specialism of sub-branches and by the localization of specialized parts. Of the localization of certain sections of the cotton industry Localization of branches of the industry. the late Mr Elijah Helm, who spoke with the authority of great local knowledge, has written as follows:—

“Spinning is largely concentrated in south Lancashire and in the adjoining borderland of north Cheshire. But even within this area there is further allocation. The finer and the very finest yarns are spun in the neighbourhood of Bolton, and in or near Manchester, much of this being used for the manufacture of sewing-thread; whilst other descriptions, employed almost entirely for weaving, are produced in Oldham and other towns. The weaving branches of the industry are chiefly conducted in the northern half of Lancashire—most of it in very large boroughs, as Blackburn, Burnley and Preston. Here, again, there is a differentiation. Preston and Chorley produce the finer and lighter fabrics; Blackburn, Darwen and Accrington, shirtings, dhooties and other goods extensively shipped to India; whilst Nelson and Colne make cloths woven from dyed yarn, and Bolton is distinguished for fine quiltings and fancy cotton dress goods. These demarcations are not absolutely observed, but they are sufficiently clear to give to each town in the area covered by the cotton industry a distinctive place in its general organization.”[40]

The present local distribution of the cotton industry, as far as it is displayed statistically, is revealed in the table beneath, based upon the figures of spindles and looms given by Worrall and those of operatives in the census returns of 1901.

Distribution of Cotton Operatives in Lancashire and the Vicinity according to the Census Returns of 1901, together with the Number of Spindles and Looms according to Worrall.

No. of
Operatives.
No. of
Spindles (in
Thousands).
No. of
Looms.
Blackburn 41,400 1,325 75,300
Bolton 29,800 5,035 20,100
Oldham 29,500 11,603 18,500
Burnley 27,900 687 79,300
Manchester and Salford 27,200 2,666 24,200*
Preston 25,000 2,036 57,900
Rochdale 14,800 2,168 25,100
Darwen 12,500 336 28,700
Nelson 12,400 23 39,000
Glossop** · · 968 15,400
Bury 10,700 818 22,200
Stockport 9,700 1,803 8,700
Ashton-under-Lyne 8,600 1,839 11,500
Accrington 8,300 417 36,400
Colne 7,300 140*** 20,500
Heywood 7,300 869 6,400
Stalybridge 7,100 1,106 7,100
Todmorden 6,900 261 15,800
Rawtenstall 6,600 356 8,800
Hyde 6,500 553 7,900
Chadderton 6,400 · · · ·
Haslingden 6,100 148 12,000
Bacup 5,900 315 9,300
Chorley 5,900 547 17,900
Farnworth, near Bolton 5,700 738 10,600
Leigh 5,000 1,667 5,900
Great Harwood 4,900 72 12,400
Middleton 4,900 511 2,500
Radcliffe 4,800 157 8,900
* Manchester only.
** The number of operatives in places in Derbyshire is not separatelyspecified.
*** Includes Foulridge with Colne.

Local markets have steadily lost in importance, partly owing to railway development, and it is now almost entirely in Manchester, on the Exchange, that dealing in yarns and fabrics takes place, and arrangements are made for export. The old Manchester Exchange, built in 1729, was taken down in 1792. A new Exchange, reared on a contiguous site, was opened in 1809, the first stone having been laid in 1806. The present building was erected in 1869. The great bulk of the exports of cotton goods proceeds from Liverpool, though London used to be the leading port, and Liverpool is still the chief English market for raw cotton, though now from one-sixth to one-eighth of English cotton supplies come up the Manchester Ship Canal.

To understand the present organization of the cotton industry the reader must begin by mentally separating the commercial from the industrial functions. By the industrial functions are meant the arrangements of factors in Modern organization. production—choosing the most suitable machinery and hands, combining them in the most economical system, adapting the material used to this system, and keeping its working at the highest attainable level. The commercial functions consist in business which is not industrial. Analysis will show that there are, broadly speaking, two classes of commercial functions, namely (1) arranging for purchases and sales, and (2) the bearing of risks. The character of the former is apparent; it consists, as regards yarn, in discovering for each manufacturer which spinner makes the yarn which is best adapted to his requirements at the lowest cost, and in finding the most suitable customers for spinners. Risk-bearing is a commercial function of another kind. Every business that involves anticipation involves commercial risks. Thus the spinner who sells “forward” yarn, trusting that the price of cotton will not rise, is taking commercial risks, and so is the spinner who produces for stock, trusting that the class of yarn that he is making will continue in demand. These two instances will suffice to indicate what is meant by the carrying of commercial risks. To make the rest of our argument clear it will be well to write down formulae. Let A and B represent respectively the industrial operations of spinning and manufacturing. Let a and α represent respectively the commercial operations implied by the separate existence of A, that is, the buying of cotton and the selling of yarn; and let b and β stand for the commercial operations associated with manufacturing, that is, the buying of yarn on the one hand, and the finding of customers and arranging for their purchases on the other hand. Then, A and B being distinct businesses, it is obvious that a range of schemes is possible of which the extremes may be roughly represented as follows:—