Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1857-03-28
NATIONAL NTELLlGENCER.
FROM CURL oND ON CORRESPONDENT
LONDON. MARCH 6, 1856


England is so decidedly a manufacturing country
that no question has closer and more important
bearino upon the future prosperity of the people
than the certainty of regular and full supply OF
the raw materials necessary for the unrestricted pro-
.oo,tian of her manufactures, the constant employ
ment Of the capital which is directed to that object
and the large proportion OF her population VINO
earn their daily bread as manufacturing artlsanS
Among the raw materials SO employed, ana 1or
which England must be indebted to other countries,
cotton is the most important. The failure for sin
ole wear Of the cotton crop would be the greatest
Commercial and social misfortune which could befall
this country There is, at present, great deal OF
attention being paid to this subject, and the daily
iour.als furnish many statistics respecting It,
The Daily News quotes the New Orleans Delta
az authority for the following statements: The
production of cotton In the United States increased
nine ner cent per annum from 1915 to 1888, while
the increase of demand was sixteen per cent. Ii
this ratio continues through another ten years there
will be an annual deficit of nearly DOT, 900 bales
The United States produces more than threefourths
Of the whole Quantity obtainable in the world.
There are 400 100000 acres of cotton-lands In the
United States, of which only 100000 are now
under cultivation. About 100000 slaves are en-
ploved in cotton cultivation. Should the demand
i for cotton continue to increase the questions will
arise How is the amount of available labor to be
increased SO as to supply the demand By what
means can the United States continue to keep the
lead of the world in the production of cotton!
These are questions to which we do not presume to
give an answer.
Mr.. OLMsTED, ia bis recently published Travels
in Texas shows, by vast amount OF evidence,
that the climate of that part of the Union Is no
hindrance to field labor being done by white per
sons and that nothing in the cultivation of cotton
in Texas would be prejudicial to Germans or other
European people, or to the white population Of the
United States. The quantity yet produced by
white labor in Texas is small, but Mr.. 0hnsted
states that the cotton raised by that meaas sells at
Galveston for one or two cents pound more than
that produced BY. slave labor, owing to Is lor
dressing and preparation.
We mention these statements as shadowlng forth
Improbable answer to the question, how s the Uni
ted States to meet the increased demand Tor this
al-important raw material and article Of commerce!
What We have stated is, if correct, and we have
given our authorities, sufficiently well known on
your side of the Atlantic and our motive for reca
pitulatng it is desire to give outline of the
subject as discussed here.
The celebrated African traveller, Dr. LIYINas
TON turns our attention to another continent He
warns US against supposing that cotton cannot be
procured from Africa to any desired amount, that
the soil of that continent cannot easily be made tt
produce cotton enough for the supply of England
DR. Livingston assumes to speak knowingly respect
ing the quantity and quality of the labor and the
extent of suitable soil and other authorities are
less confident in regard to the quality of the pro
duct Then there is the Australian continent; ano
both Manchester and Liverpool men have spoken
highly OF It's capabilities cottonproducing coun
try; and so did Mr. BAzELEY, the President of the
Manchester Chamber of Commerce. at the annua
meeting held fortnight ago. Its quality is, by al
accounts, excellent, and all that is wanting is the
necessary quantity of labor and skill in cleaning it.
lastly, there is {" the broad domain of india which
might clothe the world in cotton if roads were
made, and markets opened, and drainage and irri-
100 attended to - The mere construction of lines
y communication from the interior to the coast
0,ld at ones relieve England of all fears of fail
49, the rs,y material for her cotton manufactures
This Is 4ot question which concerns England
None 4 is one ofworld-wide Importance; for we
), not how one dyilized or even semi-cvilized
- on the esth's surface which would not be
otorilly afpeted by any event which cut off the
,slr opea1ion of cotton manufactures Next
.ossonst1t supply of breadstufs, there is nothing
= ID consequence to the well-being of large
u; i of the human race as the steady produc
cotton. The subject branches out into SC
directions, and all of them presenting SC
ll4important aspects, that large treatise would
nely suffice for its full discussion. Your own
gus returns abundantly testify, not only the sur
sing rapidity with which the production of the
lw material has increased, but also the consump-
hon Of it IN your own domestic manufactures
This latter has been SO great that well grounded
expectations are formed of the rapid approach OF
the time when you will need the uohole of your raw
material for the support of this branch of your ma
tlonal industry Your increasing population and
your increasing manufactures will probably quite
keep pace with, and it may be outrun your In
creased production. The English papers say:
The wisest citizens the United States are as un
easy at highlands dependence their cotton fields as
English people can be-" : "The Americans are
exploring Africa much diligently than we are and
they always hoping hear that we are proceeding
with our experiments in India"
Ii these things be So then probably what we
have here thrown together may serve to show that
there IS no good reason to dread that cotton manu-
features IN any part of the world need be impeded
for want of the raw material Providence has pro-
Vlded and nature presents more than sufficient re-
sources, which the wisdom and the industry of man
must be exerted upon and develop.
The Parliamentary proceedings during the week
have been very interesting and important On the
Chinese question in the Lords the Bishops were
certainly not unanimous, bat the great majority of
them, either in person or by proxy, voted with the
Government The Archbishops of Canterbury and
York, the Bishops of Bath and Wells Carlisle
Gloucester, London, Manchester, Down, Durham
Hereford, Liehfeld, Peterborough, st. Asaph.
Winchester, and Worcester voted with Ministers.
and those Of Oxford, Chichester, and Salisbury
against them In the House of Commons On Fr;;