TRANSACTIONS OF THE SECTIONS. 179 
cotton—with which it had been invariably supported. He quoted the principal wri- 
ters of the modern school ; and called particular attention to the following passage 
from Mr. Senior’s ‘ Elements of Political-Economy’:—“A century ago,” says Mr. 
Senior, “‘ the average annual import of cotton wool into Great Britain was about 
1,200,000 Ibs. The amount now annually manufactured in Great Britain exceeds 
240,000,000 lbs. But, though the materials now manufactured are increased at least 
200 times, it is obvious that the labour necessary to manufacture them has not in- 
creased 200 times. The whole number of families in Great Britain, exclusively of 
those employed in agriculture, amounted, at the enumeration in 1831, to 2,453,041. 
If we suppose the transport, manufacture and sale of cotton to employ about one-’ 
eighth of them, or about 300,000 families, it is a large allowance. But with the in- 
efficient machinery in use a century ago, the annual manufacture of 1,200,000 lbs. of 
cotton could not have required the annual labour of less than 10,000 families, It 
probably required many more. The result has been that, although we now require 
200 times as much of the raw material as was required a century ago, and although 
that additional quantity of raw material is probably obtained from the soil by more 
than 200 times the labour that was necessary to obtain the smaller quantity, yet, 
in consequence of the diminution of the labour necessary to manufacture a given 
amount, the price of the manufactured commodity (a price which exhibits the sum 
of the labour necessary both for obtaining the materials and working them up) has 
constantly diminished. In 1786, when our annual import was about 20,000,000 lbs. 
of cotton wool, the price of the yarn denominated 100 was 38s. a pound. In 1792, 
when the import amounted to 34,000,000 lbs., the price of the same yarn was 16s. 
the pound. In 1806, when the import amounted to 60,000,000 lbs., the price of 
the yarn had fallen to 7s. 2d. a pound; and, with the increased quantity manufac- 
tured, it has now (1845) fallen below 3s. a pound. Every increase in the quan- 
tity manufactured has been accompanied by improvements in machinery and an 
increased division of labour, and their effects have much more than balanced any 
increase which may have.taken place in the proportionate labour necessary to pro- 
duce the raw material.”” Mr. Hennessy remarked that any one acquainted with 
the history of the cotton manufacture of Great Britain would at once see a fallacy 
which somewhat damages Mr. Senior’s illustration. The yarn No. 100, though 
it had the same denomination, was not of the same quality from 1786 to 1845. With 
the increase in the production there was a diminution in the fineness of the yarn. 
This appears to have been owing to popular caprice, and not to any defect inherent 
in the process of manufacture. The people did not care to get the yarn so fine, and 
accordingly it was not so expensively manufactured. But there is another fallacy in 
oe statement, which is far more important. During all the periods specified by 
r. Senior there was a continuous fall, instead of a rise, in the price of raw cotton, 
The extent of this may be judged from the fact, that from 1786, when 19,475,020 lbs, 
were imported, to 1845, when the annualjimport was 721,979,953 lbs., the fall in the 
price of the agricultural product was over 9°33 per cent. From 1806 to 1845—another 
of the periods selected by Mr. Senior—the fall in the price of the raw material was 
4°78 per cent. The precise nature and value of Mr. Senior’s mistake will be seen by 
taking a particular case, and going somewhat deeper into statistics than he has done, 
In 1812, 63,026,936 lbs. of raw cotton were imported, and the price of the manufac- 
tured yarn No. 100 was 5s. 2d. a-pound. In 1830, when the annual import was 
263,961,452 lbs., the price of the same sort of yarn was 3s. 41d.—that is, there was 
a fall in price of 1s. 93d. According to Mr. Senior, this was owing to the extension 
of the manufacture—an extension which more than balanced, he says, the rise in price 
consequent on the increased production of the raw material. A table in Mr, Baines’s 
work, on the ‘ History of the Cotton Trade,’ shows that this difference in price was 
made up of twoitems. One of these was the result of the skill consequent, if Mr. 
Senior must have it so, on the increased manufacture. But this, instead of being 
more than 1s. 93d., was only 73d., and the other amounted to 1s. 23d. Now it ap- 
pears that this other item, 70 per cent. of the reduced price of the manufactured 
goods, was solely owing to the reduction in the price of the raw produce, though the 
amount of that produce had increased 400 per cent. 
128 
