326 Contrasts and Comparisons 



but were consumed for the most part in a single form. This varia- 

 tion made possible a specialization among the dealers, — ^some handled 

 sheep, some mutton,— some handled pigs, some pork and bacon, — etc. 

 In this trade there were therefore specializations in a horizontal as 

 well as a vertical manner. The extent of this specialization depended 

 upon the volume of the consumption of each kind of meat. 



The organization of the corn and corn products trade resembled 

 that of live stock to a considerable degree. The chief differences were 

 introduced by the facts that there was a large exportation abroad both 

 of the raw and the manufactured product, and that corn was consumed 

 in two forms — as bread and as drink. The two forms of consumption 

 created three classes of manufacturers — ^the miller, the malster, and 

 the brewer or distiller; and each class of manufacturer discharged its 

 products through different middlemen. Not like the crimp and 

 salesman, the Bear Key corn factor sold to four distinct sorts of buyers 

 — the exporting merchant, the wholesaling miller, the wholesaling 

 malster, and the brewer and distiller. The malster was also an ex- 

 porter. The trade thus had two classes of exporting merchants. It 

 appears that the differentiating element, which worked the higher com- 

 plexity of the corn and corn products trade, was the variety of manu- 

 facture. For there was the same tendency of the businesses to inte- 

 grate, i.e., of the millers, malsters and distillers to buy from the pro- 

 ducers directly rather than through the factors; and for the same 

 reasons apparently — the \\dde dispersion of production and the 

 variety of routes by which corn came to market. Neglecting the 

 fact that the wholesalers were manufacturers, the corn trade reduced 

 to the simple five-fold type remarked above: the mealman was the 

 exception, being both retailer and wholesaler. 



The wool and woolens trade was the most complex in mechanism. 

 The causes of this complexity were many. In the first place, the 

 wool-growing was somewhat sectional: certain districts of England 

 produced greater supplies than others and particular qualities; in the 

 woolens these grades of wool were mixed. Besides certain fine wools 

 were imported from abroad. The manufacturers were localized not 

 only as to kind of cloth produced but also as to process of manufacture ; 

 a certain section produced bayes, another kerseys, another Spanish 

 cloths; certain sections specialized in spinning, others in wea\dng, 

 others in dyeing cloth. This localization of the production of wool 

 and of kinds of cloth and of processes of manufacture rendered the 

 whole kingdom mutually interdependent, required an extensive and 

 complicated mechanism of interchange, and ga\'e origin to man\ 



