"article is a more profitable article of native trade, and even to "European merchants."*

An experiment was made many years ago by Colonel Skinner, (of which an account will hereafter be given,) on growing Upland Georgia Cotton, and he abandoned it because he found that his produce realized in the Calcutta market only the price of ordinary Bengals. The Cotton Committee of the Agricultural Society addressed him on the subject:

66

They regret that Colonel Skinner's opinion should have been formed "on such frail grounds; the Calcutta market can be no criterion (of "the value of Cotton), as parties here are interested in keeping down "the price of staples."t

Again," it is moreover a mystery that a mercantile community like "that existing in Bombay, should contentedly continue purchasing ill "cleaned and badly cultivated Cotton Wool at the Presidency, when an individual or company may here (Dharwar), on the spot, purchase "Cotton, grown if they please under their own instructions, clean it, screw it, and ship it, at nearly half the price."‡

66

But the Bombay merchants addressed Government on the subject, and called on the authorities to take measures to prevent the dishonesty which had so fatal an effect on the Cotton Trade of India.

66

In forwarding to the Court of Directors the remonstrances of the Bombay Chamber of Commerce, the Bombay Government wrote thus"Your Honorable Court will observe that the Chamber entertains the opinion that a regulation or order of Government would be more likely to induce the ryots to send their Cotton into the market in a "clean and pure state, than any measure which the merchants in the "trade could take. To us however it appears that the merchants

66

"alone have the power of obliging the growers to bring their Cotton "into market in an unadulterated state, by discouraging the tender of

66

66

a dirty and inferior staple, and that it would be useless for Govern"ment to attempt, by any regulation, or other means, to effect this object, so long as the ryot can realize a high price for his produce, "without incurring the trouble and expense of carefully picking and cleaning it."-November 1839.*

66

"The merchants (of Bombay) describe themselves as finding it "difficult to come in contact with the cultivator in the country, for

66

66

they are but a small body, barely sufficient for the transaction of "their local business, and in most cases the agents of others, whose "orders they must comply with. The merchants here are therefore guided in their purchases by the orders they receive from their "constituents at home, and the execution of these orders is always "limited to time. They are thus wholly dependent on the Cotton "to be found at Bombay, whatever be its quality. The price of Cotton "is morever not within their control, as depending on the state of the "China, or on that of the Liverpool market: this latter wholly independent of the quality of Bombay Cotton, being generally regu"lated by the prices of American Cotton, and this last depends, not only on the greater or less amount of the supply, but on the state of "the money market in Great Britain and America, and the banking "operations of the two countries."†

66

A connection between the abnormal origin of the Indian Cotton Trade, and its present radically vicious condition was, with some hesitation, suggested: none need be felt in tracing to the intrinsic defects of the trade, as above described, the third great cause of its decline: the connection between them is simply one of cause and effect, and cannot be denied.

* Parliamentary Returns, 1847.

F. Royle cit. Review of Measures, &c., 1857.

Third cause of decline.

"This third cause may be described generally as "bad cultivation. It is evident from the inferior "condition in which the Cotton Wool of India "continues to be sent to the British market, that the interests of the "dealer and of the merchant are not identical with those of the manu"facturer, or of Government. The object of the latter is to raise, and "bring into the market an article of such quality and at such cost, as

66

may stand in permanent competition with American Cotton. The "merchant and agent have no object in the transaction, but their imme"diate profits in any one year: and if the inferior article yield him as "handsome, or even a better profit than a selected and better article "would do at a higher price, he will doubtless take it off the growers' "and native dealers' hands to any extent, and it is hopeless to look "for any permanent improvement under the system."

This passage is quoted as suggesting the following considerations, and as summarising much of what has been cited under the head of the second cause of decline, as far as it relates to the cultivator.

If from all the evidence on record we seek to realize in imagination the position of the Indian villager in regard to Cotton, what shall we find it to be? This we believe, namely, that to bestow care and labor, skill and money, on the crop, would be simply to spend his money, devote his skill, and exercise his labor and care, on what he knows will be quite as profitable to him without any such outlay or trouble.

"The cultivator who will clean and tend his millet and wheatfield "will leave his Cotton plantation to take care of itself, gathering the "wool at the close of the season, when some of it has fallen and "been for days lying on the ground, some scarcely in a fit state "to be picked; neither can he understand that it is of any kind of

*Notes by Governor of Madras on the report of American Planters.

"importance that it should be otherwise, although he knows full well, "were he to pursue this course with his millet or wheat, he would be a "sufferer."*

In reality it actually is of no kind of importance to him that it should be otherwise.

We have already alluded to Colonel Skinner's Upland Georgia Cotton, and shall in another part of this volume give his detailed statements as to the cost and other conditions: the quality and out-turn were alike excellent, and he was very sanguine as to the success of his trial: we have seen that he abandoned it because the care and cost which the improved Cotton necessitated went unrecognized-common country Cotton sold as well. He acted as we presume any intelligent agriculturist would act under analogous circumstances, in England or elsewhere. The native cultivator does not make the costly experiment, but he fully appreciates the result. He does not grow his Cotton to suit the requirements of a distant English market, mythical to him, but he not unskilfully adapts the produce of his fields to the market where alone he can sell, and whose nature he thoroughly appreciates. His wheat is cared for, because if dirty, it would prove less remunerative; but why should he be so silly as to spend gratuitous labor on his Cotton? Is it reasonably pretended that his not doing so is any proof of his wanting skill, energy, perseverance, &c.? Whether he does or does not possess these valuable qualities, is of course a quite different question.

In this very brief review of the state of the Indian Cotton Trade much of the evidence adduced has reference rather to Bombay and Madras, than to Bengal, with which latter country alone we are directly concerned, but this is because on general subjects connected with Indian Cotton, inquiry has been naturally directed to those places where

* Mr. Shaw, Bom. C. S. F. Royle, cit.

the trade is of most importance, and thus comparatively little is recorded concerning the vast area of the Bengal Provinces. It is however believed that nothing inapplicable to this side of India is contained in the foregoing pages, and to appeal to the widest experience, and to those statements and opinions which carry with them the highest authority, was thought the best way of setting the question before the reader in its truest form, and at the same time in the strongest light.

Enough has, it is hoped, been said to show that the Cotton of Bengal, as well as that of every other part of India, after having been badly cultivated, carelessly picked, and injured in the cleaning, is fraudulently adulterated by the small dealers, the middlemen, and carriers, and that, finally, the shipper has either no interest in discriminating between qualities, or else no power to do so.

In short, such has been the state of the trade, that from the time the seed is dropt into the ground until the bale lies in the hold of the vessel, every one who has to do with it is either directly interested in deteriorating its quality, in those respects which are of greatest importance to the spinners, who are its ultimate consumers, or at least that all have interests antagonistic in a greater or less degree to its improvement.

The legitimate object of seeking to understand the true nature of the case is obviously to discover how abuses ought to be corrected-to find out, in short, how the reverse of what has been described, may be brought about. And to the evidence bearing on that point we shall now turn, without making any apology for passing over in silence a subject which would naturally have found its place here, if admitted at all, and on which a great deal has, on all sides, been recorded, namely, the distribution of the blame, and the question "who is in fault?"