AND ON TIIE CONTINENT.

37

by accurate reckonings of the costs of production, that coarsenumbers could be spun in Alsace not only not dearer, but rathercheaper than in England. “It is clear that France , when every-thing is considered, possesses an advantage over England , whichmust increase in proportion as the duties on raw materials andmachinery are reduced” (7).

America possessed another advantage—the cheapness of theraw material. This made it possible for that country to competesuccessfully with England in cotton goods, even in certain foreignmarkets, for instance, China, Chili, and Brazil . Thus, in 1834,tlie imports of American calicoes into China amounted to 134,000pieces, the English to only 75,000 (8)—a state of affairs whichsince then has altered very largely in favour of England .

“ The continents of Europe and America, ” says Ure in 1836,“possessed up to some time ago, after the peace of 1814, only fac-tories in such a small degree that they could by no means be viewedas competitors in the world’s markets. To-day, however, theymanipulate 750,000 bales of cotton, which is about three-fourthsof our consumption, and they have become dangerous competitorsin many markets which up to now belonged entirely to us.”

The economical worth of the facts quoted is nothing less thanthat the district of the earliest centralised industry had beenattacked by international competition. This applies also withregard to countries of high protective duties, even to France ,which maintained the importation prohibition against English cotton goods even after the Continental blockade. The economic-al importance of smuggling, which flourished at that time, mustnot be overlooked. It is certainly known that tremendous quan-tities of English yarns went to the Continent during and afterthe Continental blockade. Whole industries have to attributetheir present situation to smuggling. Thus Ure declares—andhe should know—that the spinning mills of Reichenberg,on the frontier of Saxony, were nothing else than establishmentsfor reeling English yarns, and that the spinning mills of Lombardy

7. Compare the description of the Alsatian industry by the expert, Ure(“ Cotton Manufacture,” Intro., pp. 57-93). Compare also Engel: “ Baumwoll-industrie irn Kiinigreich Sachsen” (1851), p. 20. Further, Uerkner: “Dieober-elsiissische Baumwollindustrie ” (Strasshurg, 1887), pp. 71-115.

8. Ure, pp. 52-54. Committee on Manufactures (3,845). Compare, on

the other hand, “ Commercial Relations of the United States, ” No. 12 (Oct .1881), p. 204. ’