CHAPTER VI. 



Contrasts and Comparisons. 



The technique of the organization of four leading trades has now 

 been considered in detail, tracing the progress of the wares from pro- 

 ducers to final consumers. There existed a rough resemblance among 

 them all. Neglecting the complexity introduced into the wool and 

 woolens organization by the transformation of the ware in the hands 

 of the clothier and by the marketing methods of the northern district, 

 there appeared a comparable five-fold succession of middlemen — (a) a 

 group of buyers of the raw materials, (b) a group of jobbers and 

 merchants of these materials, (c) a group of factors, (d) a group of 

 wholesalers and manufacturing merchants, and (e) the retailers. 



In technique the coal trade had a somewhat vdde divergence from 

 this general scheme; the reason was that the ware was produced in 

 one vicinity by comparatively few producers and the collector of the 

 ware was unnecessary. Had it not been for the monopoly of the 

 Hostmen the ship-master merchant could have bought directly from 

 the producer without the intervention of the collector or other agency ; 

 and while the Hostmen were coal-owners this was the practice; when 

 they became fitters direct dealings were broken off. In the coal trade 

 also the merchant was separated from the wholesaler by the inter- 

 vention of the crimp. In the woolens trade there was a like differ- 

 entiation between the merchant and wholesaling draper, but in this 

 case the factor was seller to both and not, as in the coal trade, buyer 

 from one and seller to the other. 



The relative degree of complexity and the nature of it in the four 

 organizations are best shown by diagrammatic presentation. In the 

 accompan\dng schemes the movement of the ware in each trade is 

 indicated by arrowheads, and agency is shown by having the lines 

 cross the rectangles. The vertical sections show the five-fold suc- 

 cession of middlemen mentioned. Fitters, Manchester men, meal- 

 men, and clothiers do not fit in the scheme. The first were factors, 

 not buyers; the second were producers, manufacturers, and whole- 

 sale merchants at the same time; the mealmen were both wholesalers 

 and retailers; and the clothiers were a class of manufacturing mer- 



324 



