Empire of Cotton
Page 68
25. Potter is quoted in Manchester, Forty-First Annual Report, 21; for evidence of this pressure see also Manchester, Forty-Third Annual Report, 6; Proceedings of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, 1858–1867, M8/2/6, Archives of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, Manchester Archives and Local Studies, Manchester; Reclus, “Le coton,” 202; the British East Indies took a full 30.83 percent of all piece goods exported from the United Kingdom in 1860; see Ellison, Cotton Trade, 64; James A. Mann, The Cotton Trade of Great Britain: Its Rise, Progress and Present Extent (London: Frank Cass & Co., 1968), 112; for the quote from Nagpore see anonymous letter to the editor of the Englishman, Nagpore, July 31, 1861, reprinted in Times of India, August 21, 1861, 3; Charles Wood to Sir Frere, October 30, 1862, Letterbook, July 3 to December 31, 1862, MSS EUR LB 11, F 78, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London.
26. Cotton Supply Reporter (June 15, 1861): 532; Arthur W. Silver, Manchester Men and Indian Cotton, 1847–1872 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1966), 187.
27. For an account of the meeting see Liverpool Mercury, September 20, 1861, 7; see also Liverpool Mercury, September 23, 1861, 2; Charles Wood to Sir George Clerk, March 18, 1861, in MSS EUR F 78, LB 7, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London; Major E. K. Elliot, “Report Regarding the Cultivation of Cotton in Nagpore,” reprinted in Times of India, July 30, 1861, 3–4; “Cotton Cultivation in India,” Calcutta Review 37, no. 73 (September 1861): 89.
28. On the general thrust of legal infrastructure construction in India, see the important work by Ritu Birla, Stages of Capital: Law, Culture, and Market Governance in Late Colonial India (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2009); on the contested history of law in colonial situations see the fabulous book by Lauren Benton, Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History, 1400–1900 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002); as to crop liens see Charles Wood to William Maine, October 9, 1862, Letterbook, July 3 to December 31, 1862, MSS EUR LB 11, F 78, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London; Charles Wood to William Maine, October 9, 1862, in ibid.; Proceedings of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, September 23, 1861, Archives of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, Record Group M8, folder 2/6, in Manchester Archives and Local Studies, Manchester; for the quote “making penal” see Charles Wood to W. J. P. Grant, May 9, 1861, in MSS EUR F 78, LB 7, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library; for the efforts by manufacturers see Charles Wood to William Reeves, March 18, 1861, Letterbook, 18 March to 25 May, in ibid.; Charles Wood to James Bruce, Earl of Elgin, October 25, 1862, Letterbook, 3 July to 31 December 1862, in MSS EUR LB 11, F 78, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library; Letter from Messrs. Mosley and Hurst, Agents to the Cotton Supply Association, to W. Greq, Esq, Secretary to the Government of India, June 20, 1861, reprinted in Times of India, July 18, 1861, 3; Charles Wood to W. J. Grant, May 9, 1861, in MSS EUR LB 7, F 78, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London. On the debates on the passage of a law that made the adulteration of cotton a crime, see the Times of India reporting in 1863, for example on Overland Summary, February 12, 1863, 6–7; also Times of India, Overland Summary, March 27 1863, 1; for pressures to change Indian contract law see Manchester Chamber of Commerce, The Forty-Second Annual Report of the Board of Directors for the Year 1862 (Manchester: Cave & Server, 1863), 13, 37; see Charles Wood to William Maine, October 9, 1862, Letterbook, July 3 to December 31, 1862, in MSS EUR LB 11, F 78, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library; reprint of a resolution of the Home Department, February 28, 1861, Supplement to the Calcutta Gazette, March 2, 1861, in Papers relating to Cotton Cultivation in India, 106, Wood Papers, MSS EUR F 78, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library; some of the mechanisms are related well in John Henry Rivett-Carnac, Many Memories of Life in India, At Home, and Abroad (London: W. Blackwood and Sons, 1910), 165–93; for the debate during the war between manufacturers and government officials see also Charles Wood to James Bruce, Earl of Elgin, October 25, 1862, in MSS EUR LB 11, F 78, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library; Charles Wood to William Maine, October 9, 1862, Letterbook, July 3 to December 31, 1862, in ibid.; Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, vol. 167, June 19, 1862 (London: Cornelius Buck, 1862), 767; Manchester, Forty-Third Annual Report, 26; Manchester, Forty-First Annual Report; Liverpool Mercury, September 24, 1862, 6; Charles Wood to Sir George Clerk, March 18, 1861, in MSS EUR LB 7, March 18 to May 25, 1861, in F78, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library; Peter Harnetty, “The Imperialism of Free Trade: Lancashire, India, and the Cotton Supply Question, 1861–1865,” Journal of British Studies 6, no. 1 (1966): 75–76; Dwijendra Tripathi, “Opportunism of Free Trade: Lancashire Cotton Famine and Indian Cotton Cultivation,” Indian Economic and Social History Review 4, no. 3 (1967): 255–63; Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, Twelfth Annual Report of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce (Liverpool: Neson & Mallett, 1862), 6; M. L. Dantwala, A Hundred Years of Indian Cotton (Bombay: East India Cotton Association, 1947), 46–47; reprint of a resolution of the Home Department, February 28, 1861, Supplement to the Calcutta Gazette, March 2, 1861, in Papers relating to Cotton Cultivation in India, 106, Wood Papers, MSS EUR F 78, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library.
29. Charles Wood to James Bruce, Earl of Elgin, October 25, 1862, in MSS EUR LB 11, F 78, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London; Times of India, Overland Summary, January 14, 1864, 3; Charles Wood to Sir Charles Trevelyan, March 9, 1863, in MSS EUR F 78, LB 12, Wood Papers, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library; the connection between lower duties, greater imports of Lancashire goods, and the availability of more raw cotton is made explicitly in Manchester, Forty-First Annual Report, 24; it was also anticipated here that India would become an ever more important market for British-manufactured cotton goods—and that exports of raw cotton were to pay for these imports.
30. Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, vol. 167, June 19, 1862 (London: Cornelius Buck, 1862), 767; on Wood’s “incompetence” see Manchester, Forty-Third Annual Report, 26; Manchester, Forty-First Annual Report; Liverpool Mercury, September 24, 1862, 6; Charles Wood to James Bruce, Earl of Elgin, January 10, 1863, in MSS EUR 78, LB 12, January 1 to April 27, 1863, Wood Collection, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library, London; Charles Wood to Viceroy Earl Canning, February 18, 1861, in MSS Eur F 78, LB 6, Wood Papers, British Library, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library; Charles Wood to Sir George Clerk, March 18, 1861, in LB 7, March 18 to May 25, 1861, F 78, MSS EUR, Oriental and India Office Collections, British Library; Peter Harnetty, “The Imperialism of Free Trade: Lancashire and the Indian Cotton Duties, 1859–1862,” Economic History Review 18, no. 2 (1965): 75–76; for debate as whole see Tripathi, “Opportunism,” 255–63.
31. The Economist, October 4, 1862, 1093–94.
32. Harnetty, “Imperialism, 1859–1862,” 333–49; Manchester, Forty-Second Annual Report, 11, 22; the superintendent is quoted in Times of India, February 12, 1863, 3; Silver, Manchester Men, 254.
33. U.S. Consulate General Calcutta to William H. Seward, Calcutta, October 28, 1864, in Despatches of the U.S. Consul in Calcutta to U.S. Secretary of State, National Archives, Washington, DC; Times of India, Overland Summary, February 12, 1862, 1, cites the following numbers of cotton exports from Bombay: In 1860 India exported 497,649 bales of cotton to Europe and 205,161 bales to China; in 1861 it shipped 955,030 bales to Europe and only 67,209 to China. See Times of India, October 3, 1862, 2; Harnetty, “Imperialism, 1861–1865,” 92; Mann, The Cotton Trade, 103, 112; Statistical Abstracts for the United Kingdom in Each of the Last Fifteen Years from 1857 to 1871 (London: George E. Eyre and William Spottiswoode, 1872), 48–49; Fohlen, L’industrie textile, 287, 514.
34. The importance of the integration of the “hinte
rland” into the global economy and the relative “lateness” of this process is also emphasized by David Ludden, “World Economy and Village India, 1600–1900,” in Sugata Bose, ed., South Asia and World Capitalism (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1990), 159–77; see Register of Invoices from the Consulate by Sundry Vessels bound for Ports in the United States, September 1863, in S 1040 (m168) reel 2, Despatches from United States Consulate General, Bombay, 1838–1906, National Archives, Washington DC; on the adjustment of machines, see letter from Mr. Baker, Inspector of Factories, to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the Present State of the Cotton Districts, in various documents relating to the distress in the cotton manufacturing districts during the American Civil War, in HO 45: 7523, Home Office, National Archives of the UK, Kew; Neil Charlesworth, Peasants and Imperial Rule: Agriculture and Agrarian Society in the Bombay Presidency, 1850–1935 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 135; Statistical Abstracts for the United Kingdom (London: George E. Eyre and William Spottiswoode, 1872), 48–49; Reichsenquete für die Baumwollen und Leinen-Industrie, Statistische Ermittelungen, Heft 1, 56–58; Mann, The Cotton Trade, 103, 112, 132; Times of India, Overland Summary, February 12, 1862, 1; Times of India, October 3, 1862, 2; Harnetty, “Imperialism, 1861–1865,” 287, 514; Bombay Chamber of Commerce, Report of the Bombay Chamber of Commerce for the Year 1863–64 (Bombay: Pearse and Sorabjeem 1865), 1; Frenise A. Logan, “India: Britain’s Substitute for American Cotton, 1861–1865,” Journal of Southern History 24, no. 4 (1958): 476; see also Manchester Chamber of Commerce, The Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Directors for the Year 1864 (Manchester: Cave & Server, 1865), 18; B. R. Mitchell, European Historical Statistics, 1750–1970 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976), E14; Frenise A. Logan, “India’s Loss of the British Cotton Market After 1865,” Journal of Southern History 31, no. 1 (1965): 40–50; Cotton Supply Reporter (April 15, 1861): 473, reprint of article from The Standard, Agra, March 6, 1861.
35. Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review 46, no. 2 (February 1862): 166; Edward Atkinson, “The Future Supply of Cotton,” North American Review 98, no. 203 (April 1864): 481. Atkinson is not identified as the author, but his authorship becomes clear from his correspondence with Charles E. Norton. See N 297, Letters, 1861–1864, Edward A. Atkinson Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston.
36. One observer argues that without the war, the rapid expansion of cotton production in Egypt would have taken half a century; see Edward Mead Earle, “Egyptian Cotton and the American Civil War,” Political Science Quarterly 41, no. 4 (1926), 520–45, 522; for the conversion of cantars into pounds see E. R. J. Owen, Cotton and the Egyptian Economy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 89, 382–83; I assumed here that one cantar equaled 100 pounds; see Atkinson, “Future Supply,” 481.
37. Estatísticas históricas do Brasil: Séries econômicas, demográficas e sociais de 1550 a 1988 (Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 1990), 346; they were urged on by the Manchester Chamber of Commerce and Lord Russell himself; see Manchester, Forty-First Annual Report, 8; Stanley S. Stein, The Brazilian Cotton Manufacture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 43. The table on page 257 is based on information from Government of India, Annual Statement of the Trade and Navigation of British India and Foreign Countries and of the Coasting Trade between the Several Presidencies and Provinces, vol. 5 (Calcutta: Office of Superintendent of Government Printing, 1872); Government of India, Annual Statement of the Trade and Navigation of British India and Foreign Countries and of the Coasting Trade between the Several Presidencies and Provinces, vol. 9 (Calcutta: Office of Superintendent of Government Printing, 1876); Owen, Cotton, 90; Estatísticas históricas do Brasil, 346.
38. Orhan Kurmus, “The Cotton Famine and its Effects on the Ottoman Empire,” in Huri Islamoglu-Inan, The Ottoman Empire and the World-Economy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 162, 164, 165, 169; “Note of the Ministère de l’Algérie et des colonies,” Paris, December 23, 1857; Société anonyme, “Compagnie française des cotons algeriens” (Paris: Imprimé du corps legislatif, 1863), in F/80/737, Fonds Ministériels, Archives d’outre-mer, Aix-en-Provence, France; see also Ministère de l’Algérie et des colonies, Direction de l’Administration de l’Algérie, 2ème bureau, Paris Décret, 1859, in Colonisation L/61, 2, Gouvernement Général de l’Algérie, Centre des Archives d’outre-mer, Aix-en-Provence; “Culture du Coton,” by [illegible], Paris, July 19, 1859, in ibid.; Alejandro E. Bunge, Las industrias del norte: Contribucion al estudio de una nueva política economia Argentina (Buenos Aires: n.p., 1922), 209–10; Liverpool Mercury, November 9, 1863, 6; Thomas Schoonover, “Mexican Cotton and the American Civil War,” Americas 30, no. 4 (April 1974): 430, 435; William S. Bell, An Essay on the Peruvian Cotton Industry, 1825–1920 (Liverpool: University of Liverpool, Centre for Latin American Studies, 1985), 80; Liverpool Mercury, January 3, 1865, 6; for the importance of Chinese raw cotton imports see also Manchester, Forty-Fourth Annual Report, 16; “Der Baumwollbau in Togo, Seine Bisherige Entwicklung, und sein jetziger Stand,” draft article in R 1001/8224, Bundesarchiv, Berlin.
39. Manchester Guardian, May 13, 1861, 4; May 16, 1861, 3; May 17, 1861, 4; May 25, 1861, 5; Céleste Duval, Question cotonnière: La France peut s’emparer du monopole du coton par l’Afrique, elle peut rendre l’Angleterre, l’Europe, ses tributaires: L’Afrique est le vrai pays du coton (Paris: Cosson, 1864), 7; Queensland Guardian, April 3, 1861, as cited in Cotton Supply Reporter (July 1, 1861): 554; Bunge, Las industrias, 209–10; Liverpool Mercury, November 9, 1863, 6, January 3, 1865, 6; Manchester, Forty-Fourth Annual Report, 16; Donna J. E. Maier, “Persistence of Precolonial Patterns of Production: Cotton in German Togoland, 1800–1914,” in Allen F. Isaacman and Richard Roberts, eds., Cotton, Colonialism, and Social History in Sub-Saharan Africa (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1995), 75; Peter Sebald, Togo 1884–1914: Eine Geschichte der deutschen “Musterkolonie” auf der Grundlage amtlicher Quellen (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1988), 30; O. F. Metzger, Unsere alte Kolonie Togo (Neudamm: J. Neumann, 1941), 242; “Der Baumwollbau in Togo.”
40. Samuel Ruggles, in front of the New York Chamber of Commerce, reprinted in Merchants’ Magazine and Commercial Review 45, no. 1 (July 1861): 83.
41. On these discussions see Henry Blumenthal, “Confederate Diplomacy, Popular Notions and International Realities,” Journal of Southern History 32, no. 2 (1966): 151–71; Carl N. Degler, One Among Many: The Civil War in Comparative Perspective (Gettysburg, PA: Gettysburg College, 1990); Hyman, ed., Heard Round the World; Owsley and Owsley, King Cotton; Bernarr Cresap, “Frank L. Owsley and King Cotton Diplomacy,” Alabama Review 26, no. 4 (1973); Charles M. Hubbard, The Burden of Confederate Diplomacy (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1998); D. P. Crook, Diplomacy During the American Civil War (New York: Wiley, 1975); Howard Jones, Union in Peril: The Crisis over British Intervention in the Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); Lynn M. Case and Warren F. Spencer, The United States and France: Civil War Diplomacy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970), 79; Löffler, Preussens; for pro-Confederate sentiments see Liverpool Mercury, June 24, 1861, 3, August 12, 1861, 2, September 20, 1861, 6, October 8, 1861, 5, October 15, 1861, 5, December 18, 1861, 6, April 18, 1862, 6; for pressure to recognize the Confederate government see Liverpool Mercury, July 16, 1862, 5, November 19, 1862, 3. For a controversial debate on slavery see the letters to the editor to the Liverpool Mercury printed on February 7 and 9, 1863, both on page 3; Liverpool Mercury, May 21, 1863, 7; Pelzer, “Liverpool,” 46; for material support for the Confederacy see copy of letter from Thomas Haines Dudley, U.S. Consulate Liverpool, to Charles Francis Adams, Liverpool, May 4, 1864, in Seward Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC; Thomas Haines Dudley to William H. Seward, Liverpool, September 3, 1864, in ibid.; Liverpool Mercury, May 3, 1864, 6. Fraser, Trenholm & Company, operating out of Liverpool, secured funds for the Confederacy, built warships, and pa
rticipated in blockade running; see the Fraser, Trenholm & Company Papers, Merseyside Maritime Museum, Liverpool; Liverpool merchants went into business with agents of the Confederacy in trading cotton bypassing the federal blockade; Letter by W. Fernie, Liverpool, to Fraser, Trenholm & Co, B/FT 1/13, Fraser, Trenholm & Company Papers, Merseyside Maritime Museum, Liverpool. Also see Liverpool Mercury, February 4, 1863, 3; for Manchester see Liverpool Mercury, May 23, 1863, 6; October 6, 1863, 6; October 17, 1863, 3; February 1, 1864, 7; for working-class support see Liverpool Mercury, May 2, 1862, 7; August 9, 1862, 5. See also Manchester, Forty-First Annual Report, 21–22; Rapport de Bigorie de Laschamps, Procureur Général de Colmar, April 7, 1862, as cited in Case, ed., French Opinion, 258; Dunham, “Development,” 294; on the importance of cotton in the forming of French public and official opinion see Case, ed., French Opinion, 257; Rapport de Bigorie de Laschamps, Procureur Général de Colmar, July 14, 1862, cited in Case, ed., French Opinion, 260; George M. Blackbourn, French Newspaper Opinion on the American Civil War (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997), 114; Donald Bellows, “A Study of British Conservative Reaction to the American Civil War,” Journal of Southern History 51, no. 4 (November 1985): 505–26; Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, Third Series, vol. 171 (1863), 1774; The Porcupine, November 9, 1861, 61; more seriously, the Money Market Review claimed in May 1861 that the Confederacy “has the sympathy of the business men of the United Kingdom”; quoted in Liverpool Mercury, May 17, 1861; in December 1862, the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, after a long and acrimonious debate, passed a resolution in which it demanded changes in international law that would protect the private property of neutrals on the high seas, in effect undermining the blockade of southern ports; Liverpool Mercury, December 4, 1862, 5, December 11, 1862, 3; Tony Barley, Myths of the Slave Power: Confederate Slavery, Lancashire Workers and the Alabama (Liverpool: Coach House Press, 1992), 49; Liverpool Mercury, May 23, 1863, 6, October 6, 1863, 6, October 17, 1863, 3, February 1, 1864, 7; Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, Report of the Council, 1862 (Liverpool: Benson and Mallett, 1862), 20; Brown Brothers and Company, Experiences of a Century, 1818–1918: Brown Brothers and Company (Philadelphia: n.p., 1919), 47.