FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316  
317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   >>   >|  
entic statistics on indirect interests make this a guess by the _Times_. Other estimates run from one-seventh to one-fourth.] [Footnote 669: Schmidt, "Wheat and Cotton During the Civil War," p. 408 (in _Iowa Journal of History and Politics_, Vol. 16), 78.8 per cent. (Hereafter cited as Schmidt, _Wheat and Cotton_.) Scherer, _Cotton as a World Power_, p. 264, states 84 per cent, for 1860. Arnold, _Cotton Famine_, pp. 36-39, estimates 83 per cent.] [Footnote 670: Great Britain ordinarily ran more than twice as many spindles as all the other European nations combined. Schmidt, _Wheat and Cotton_, p. 407, _note_.] [Footnote 671: This Return for April is noteworthy as the first differentiating commerce with the North and the South.] [Footnote 672: These facts are drawn from Board of Trade Reports, and from the files of the _Economist_, London, and _Hunt's Merchants Magazine_, New York. I am also indebted to a manuscript thesis by T.P. Martin, "The Effects of the Civil War Blockade on the Cotton Trade of the United Kingdom," Stanford University. Mr. Martin in 1921 presented at Harvard University a thesis for the Ph.D degree, entitled "The Influence of Trade (in Cotton and Wheat) on Anglo-American Relations, 1829-1846," but has not yet carried his more matured study to the Civil War period.] [Footnote 673: Adams, _Trans-Atlantic Historical Solidarity_, p. 89.] [Footnote 674: F.O., Am., Vol. 843. No. 10. Bunch to Russell, Jan. 8, 1862. Bunch also reported that inland fields were being transformed to corn production and that even the cotton on hand was deteriorating because of the lack of bagging, shut off by the blockade.] [Footnote 675: Arnold, _Cotton Famine_, p. 81.] [Footnote 676: Richardson, II, 198. Mason to Hunter, March 11, 1862.] [Footnote 677: Parliamentary Returns, 1861 and 1862. _Monthly Accounts of Trade and Navigation_ (in _Parliamentary Papers_, 1862, _Commons_. Vol. LV, and 1863, _Commons_, Vol. LXV).] [Footnote 678: Arnold, _Cotton Famine_, pp. 174 and 215.] [Footnote 679: In 1861 there were 26 Members from Lancashire in the Commons, representing 14 boroughs and 2 counties. The suffrage was such that only 1 in every 27 of the population had the vote. For all England the proportion was 1 in 23 (Rhodes, IV, 359). _Parliamentary Papers_, 1867-8, _Lords_, Vol. XXXII, "Report on Boundaries of Boroughs and Counties of England."] [Footnote 680: The figures are drawn from (1) Farnall's "Report
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   292   293   294   295   296   297   298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316  
317   318   319   320   321   322   323   324   325   326   327   328   329   330   331   332   333   334   335   336   337   338   339   340   341   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Footnote

 
Cotton
 
Schmidt
 

Famine

 
Commons
 
Arnold
 

Parliamentary

 

thesis

 

Papers

 

England


Report

 

Martin

 
University
 

estimates

 
bagging
 

blockade

 

cotton

 
deteriorating
 

Hunter

 

Richardson


Atlantic

 

Historical

 

Solidarity

 

transformed

 

Returns

 
fields
 

inland

 

Russell

 
reported
 

production


statistics

 

proportion

 

Rhodes

 

indirect

 
population
 

Counties

 

figures

 

Farnall

 

Boroughs

 
Boundaries

interests
 
Monthly
 

Accounts

 

Navigation

 

boroughs

 

counties

 

suffrage

 

representing

 
Members
 

Lancashire