91-1795| 26.00 | .. | .. | .. | 2.09* | .. | .. | .. |
|1816-1820| 139.00 | 10.00 | 2.5 | 13.8 | 16.30 | .. | .. | .. |
|1831-1835| 313.00 | 23.00 | 4.8 | 14.2 | 19.00 | .. | .. | .. |
|1851-1855| 872.00 | 124.00 | 6.8 | 24.9 | 31.70 | .. | .. | .. |
|1876-1880| 1456.00 | 180.00 | 12.4 | 56.1 | 68.30 | .. | 2.29 | 2.29 |
|1891-1895| 1746.00 | 217.00 | 9.7 | 56.6 | 66.30 | .42 | 2.78 | 3.20 |
|1896-1900| 1798.00 | 223.00 | 8.9 | 58.2 | 67.10 | .26 | 4.27 | 4.53 |
|1901-1905| 1920.00 | 265.00 | 8.4 | 70.7 | 79.10 | .22 | 5.10 | 5.32 |
+---------+-------------+-------------+------+-------------+--------+------+-------------+------+
* Official values.

Differentiation and Integration.

Nothing is more interesting in the cotton industry than the processes of
differentiation and integration that have taken place from time to time.
Weaving and spinning had been to a large extent united in the industry
in its earliest form, in that both were frequently conducted beneath the
same roof. With mechanical improvements in spinning, that branch of the
industry became a separate business, and a substantial section of it was
brought under the factory regime. Weaving continued to be performed in
cottages or in hand-loom sheds where no spinning at all was attempted.
Cartwright's invention carried weaving back to spinning, because both
operations then needed power, and the trouble of marketing yarn was
largely spared by the reunion. Mr W. R. Grey stated in 1833 to the
committee of the House of Commons on manufactures, commerce and
shipping, that he knew of no single person then building a spinning mill
who was not attaching to it a power-loom factory. Some years later the
weaving-shed split away from spinning, partly no doubt because of the
economies of industrial specialism, partly because of commercial
developments, to be described later, which rendered dissociation less
hazardous than it had been, and partly because, in consequence of these
developments, much manufacturing (as weaving is termed) was constituted
a business strikingly dissimilar from spinning. The manufacturer runs
more risks in laying by stocks than the spinner, because of the greater
variety of his product and t