labor to maintain its rivalry as a consumer of what England and other nations 

 buying cotton may have to give in exchange for it. A lew words only on these 

 points will be given. 



The quality of foreign cotton is inferior to that of the United States. For 

 this cause it never can supersede ours, nor can it be made of equal quality by 

 improvement in its cultivation or change of its varieties. From this general re- 

 mark the cotton of Egypt may be excepted, but to what extent cannot yet be 

 determined. Why foreign cotton cannot be grown of equal quality with our 

 own will be shown under the second general division of this article. The 

 London Times concedes that it cannot, and its political hostility to our Union 

 seems to be based on visions of an alliance, offensive and defensive, with the 

 cotton confederacy of the south, thus rendering it dependent on Great Britain, 

 and giving to the latter the control of its cotton production. 



Of the skill of the foreign labor engaged in growing foreign cotton nothing 

 more need be said than that it is far behind that of our own country in intelli- 

 gence, experience, and machinery. Egypt is now importing its implements 

 from Great Britain and the United States. 



The great disturbance in the monetary affairs of England and France, forcing, 

 in the first of these nations, the bank-rate of interest to nine per cent., attests 

 the drain of money on these nations for cotton. The labor of the cotton-pro- 

 ducing nations will ix'ceive not much else but gold and silver ; for its civilized 

 wants of liouses, of clothiflg, of food, of social comforts, and educational advan- 

 tages are of the lowest order. As consumers of manufactures, it is almost infi- 

 nitely below American labor. Between such a people and English manufac- 

 turers there can be no mutual exchange of their respective industry. With all 

 its accumulated wealth. Great Britain cannot sustain an import of its textile 

 material by payment in specie. 



Referring to this drain of money, the London Economist, in August last, 

 after showing the heavy increase of the purchase of cotton in 1864, says : 



" The rude and new countries likely to demand bullion are Brazil, Egypt, 

 and Lidia. How much may be in bullion, and how much in goods, we do not 

 know, but experience shows that a new trade with semi-barbarous nations 

 always absorbs gold and silver. The precious metals are not only their legal 

 standard of value, but their practical notions of riches. Unless each native i)i 

 Egypt, or even in India, have yearly an increased hoard of them, he hardly 

 fancies he is getting richer. In such countries, too, the trade in coin is rapidly 

 superseding trade in barter; a great step in commei'cial civilization for them, 

 but one which makes it necessary for them to draw gold and silver from us." 



The same pnper of December 3 says: "Many people are surprised at the 

 revival of the export of gold to Alexandria, and of silver to India. But the real 

 ground of surprise is that the revival has not taken place earlier," &c. 



"An idea," it says, "prevails in some quarters that our exports to the east 

 have grown to such a magnitude as to counterbalance the largely increased im- 

 ports of cotton. But the figures of the Board of Trade tables do not counte- 

 nance such an idea." 



It then gives the exports and imports as follows : 



EXPORTS. 



1863. 1863. 1864. 



To Egypt .$8,196,200 $14,838,540 $23,390,415 



India 56,754,185 65,109,745 71,725,695 



China 7,971,495 8,859,365 11,542,610 



72,911,940 88,807,650 106,658,720 



