the Southern planters have always evinced an anxiety not to jeopardise prices by making the supply exceed the demand. Indeed, small crops have frequently yielded a better return than large crops; not that we should infer that small crops are therefore desirable, for cheapness and a fully satisfied demand encourages and increases consumption, and so ultimately benefits the producer.

It will not, I trust, be considered out of place if I add a few observations upon the capabilities of the Southern States for an increased production of

cotton.

In England there has been a chronic panic lest the supply of the raw material should fail. With regard to the increasing consumption of cotton fabrics, no doubt has been entertained. With the advance of civilisation this consumption of cotton increases, and, indeed, the consumption of cotton is an unerring test of national wealth and national progress. India and China would multiply our cotton trade, if the consumption in those countries should equal 20 per cent. of the present consumption per head of the population of the United Kingdom

The average annual consumption of cotton from 1850 to 1860 may be thus estimated:

To make the general consumption equal to 2 lbs. per head, even at the above under-estimate of population, it would require nearly double the quantity of cotton at present grown; but, unless the progress of civilisation is a chimera, 2 lbs. per head is a low and inadequate average. The above table is based partly upon statistics collected nearly four years ago; and during the last four years the consumption of cotton has greatly increased.

It has, then, never been with us a question of finding a market for our manufactures, but whether we could rely on obtaining a sufficient supply of the raw material. On the other hand, the planters of the Southern States have been fully persuaded of their power to produce any quantity of their staple that might be called for; but they have always been anxious concerning the possibility of the demand being limited. There will always be fluctuation in consumption, values, and prices, but hitherto there has not been any over-productiveness of staple; that is, the bounty of the Creator has not been found

a useless gift. Nor hitherto has the production of cotton proved inadequate to the wants of man. The increase of demand has gone hand in hand with the increase of production. To show that the planters were, from facts within their own knowledge, justified in feeling confidence in being able to supply any possible demand, I will quote from the census of 1850 the acres of improved and unimproved land in farms in the States in which cotton may be profitably cultivated.

Thus, in 1850, only 37 per cent. of the farm land in the Cotton States was improved. What an enormous margin does this leave for increased production; particularly when we consider how, during the last ten years, agricultural science has facilitated and cheapened the improvement of land.

According to the census of 1850, there were 113,032,614 acres of improved land, of which 17,247,614 acres were not in actual cultivation.

We must, therefore, make an allowance of about 3 per cent. for the improved land that may be cultivated. Further, in 1850 the number of acres in cotton cultivation was 5,000,000 throughout the United States; so that not quite a sixth part of the cultivated land in the Cotton States was used for the production of cotton. If, then, the demand for cotton renders it expedient- that is, profitable there is land ready to receive cotton seed, or the South could limit its growth of other agricultural produce, or the unimproved lands could be brought into cotton cultivation.

But I have not yet disposed of the question of area. The acres of farm land in the ten cottongrowing States are 122,327,110; but the total area of those States is equal to 452,000,000 acres; and persons acquainted with the country, and having a knowledge of the kind and climatic position of land necessary for cotton cultivation, estimate that half this immense territory may be used as cotton fields. It is surely needless to further press the point of there being sufficient available land in the Southern States to grow as much cotton as can be consumed. As a proof that an increasing area has been sown with cotton, we may observe that the total product in 1850 was 2,796,706 bales, and in 1860, 4,300,000 bales, and that this increase was not merely the result

of improved farming; but that, whereas in 1850 only 5,000,000 acres were in cotton cultivation, in 1860 there were not less than 8,000,000. With such immense resources in the way of land, it is not surprising that the planters should have directed their attention more to the improvement of quality rather than to the quantity to be obtained per acre.

Besides the suitable land, and the demand for the produce, capital and labour are needed. Will the productiveness of the Southern States be limited for lack of these indispensable agents? With regard to capital, assuredly not. We always find abundance of money forthcoming to foster enterprise that has a prospect of returning a profit. The West Indian proprietors refuse to advance the means for growing cotton on their estates, but are ready with capital for the cultivation of sugar. As an instance of the anxiety of capitalists to find a promising investment, we may recall a fact revealed by the crash of 1847-that London houses had advanced on sugar crops to be grown three or four years after the date of the advance. In British India capital for cotton growing cannot be procured, but there is a superabundance of capital for public works, indigo and opium cultivation, and all other pursuits that yield a profit. The competition for capital is not greater than the competition for investment.

If, then, it became necessary, European capital