The Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines

Industrial Growth and Industrial Revolutions Author(s): D. C. Coleman Reviewed work(s): Source: Economica, New Series, Vol. 23, No. 89 (Feb., 1956), pp. 1-22 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science and The Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2551266 . Accessed: 01/05/2012 21:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing, The London School of Economics and Political Science, The Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economica.

http://www.jstor.org

1956]

IndustrialGrowthand IndustrialRevolutions'
By D. C. COLEMAN

The idea of the IndustrialRevolutionis one of the few items in the private whichhas passedinto common languageof economichistorians parlance. By now the IndustrialRevolution has surely earned its -right,along with ancient Greeks and early economists,to be called "classical". But as Sir George Clarkpointed out some while ago,2 are otherindustrial revolutions amongstus. In thewritings economic of historians,revolutionsabound. Leavingaside more than one commercial and agrarian "revolution", the student of our subject is confronted with a succession of industrial revolutions. The late BronzeAge, the thirteenthcentury,the fifteenthcentury,the century from 1540 to 1640, the later seventeenthcentury and, passing over the classicalindustrialrevolution,the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries-in all theseperiodsit seemstheremay be observed industrial revolutionsin the economicdevelopment Englandalone. of Other countries have their claimants, for example, Germany and Japanin the late nineteenth century.3 At the presenttime, the possibilities of "automatic factories" opened up by the developmentof electronicdevices and their use in industrialcontrol, has stimulated talk of an imminent" secondindustrial revolution".4 This is largely an offspringof the writingsof engineers,mathematicians others and with the works of economichistorians. Were normallyunacquainted they familiarwith these they would find, for example,in the writings of the late Professor that Schumpeter, the notionof a " secondindustrial revolution" had long made its appearance. This variety of uses of the term " industrialrevolution" can scarcelyfall to be confusing. May it not be that the term has achievedits wide applicationat the expenseof losing its true significance ?
1 Based on a paper read initially at Professor Postan's seminar at Cambridgein November 1953 and later at ProfessorAshton's seminar. 2 The Idea of the Industrial Revolution, David Murray Foundation Lecture, University of Glasgow (October 1952). Glasgow University Publication, XCV, 1953. a Referenceto the sources for most of these will be found in Clark, op. cit., pp. 12-13. J. A. Schumpeter, BusinessCycles,2 vols., New York, 1939,contains vanous referencesto industrialrevolutions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, e.g. pp. 397 and 753. 'See: Norbert Wiener Cybernetics,New York, 1949, and The Human Use of Human Beings, London, 1950; "Towards the Automatic Factory", in Planning (P.E.P.), Vol. XXI, No. 30, June 1955; also correspondence The Times, 8th and in 11th November, 1954; articles (by R. H. Macmillan)in The Listener, 24th and 31st March, 7th April, 1955; The ManchesterGuardian, 17th June, 1955, etic. 1

ECONOMICA

[FEBRUARY

In the writingof economichistory, three main forms of economic "may be noted: or technical" revolutions occurs to industry. This frequently (i) The application a particular in accountsof the growthof individualindustriesduringthe classical revolutionand is normallyused to describethe introduction industrial machineor techniquewhichthe writerregardsas " reof a particular " with it process in questionand carrying volutionising the productive of irrespective what may or may comparablystrikingconsequences, not be happeningin unrelatedindustries. ProfessorCarus-Wilson's restingas it does century,1 " "IndustrialRevolution of the thirteenth on the mechanisationof the process of fulling, comes within this category. of (ii) One stage more extensivethan this use is the applic-ation the term to particularbranchesof the economic activitiesof a societyindustrial,commercial,agrarianand so forth. Thus the term "industrialrevolution" here meanssomethingwhichhappensto industry to as a whole, though not necessarily other branchesof the economy. It is implied in the O.E.D. definition: "the rapid developmentin which took place in industry owing to the employmentof machinery, ".2 Englandin the late eighteenthand earlynineteenthcenturies (My italics.) is (iii) The widestapplication that to a nationaleconomy. Here the emphasisis not simplyon the effectfelt by an industryor by industry to as a whole, but upon the consequences the economyof a varietyof into somenew shape,normally changesin the sensethatit movesrapidly that of the modem industrialisedsociety. The classical English industrialrevolution, as usually interpretednowadays,is the prime extendedto cover the example of this but the usage is increasingly by subsequently other countriessuch as the same processexperienced and Japan. U.S.A., Germany Variationshave been played on these themes. One such variation is the building up of (iii) out of materialused for (ii). Professor "3 Nef's " industrialrevolution of the hundredyears from 1540 to 1640falls withinthis category. To some extentthis impliesan equating
of the terms " industrial revolution " and " industrialisation ".

The appearancein the subjectof so many and such a variety of industrialrevolutionsraisesthe questionof their identification.How ? are they to be recognised Are they all of the same nature? The
1 E. M. Carus-Wilson," An IndustrialRevolution of the ThirteenthCentury", in Econ. Hist. Rev., XI, 1941; also reprintedin Essays in EconomicHistory (ed. MedievalMerchant London, 1954,and in E. M. Carus-Wilson, E. M. Carus-Wilson), London, 1954. Venturers, 2 Quoted Clark, op. cit., p. 11. 8 J. U. Nef: TheRise of the BritishCoal Industry, London, 1932, I, p. 165; " The Progress of Technology and the Growth of Large-scaleIndustryin Great Britain, 1540-1640", in Econ. Hist Rev., V, 1934 (reprintedin Essays in EconomicHistory); and Warand Hiann Progress,Cambridge,Mass., 1950.

1956]

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND INDUSTRIALREVOLUTIONS

methods in economic history presents increasinguse of quantitative us with industrialrevolutionsin statisticalclothes. Is the concept in whichcanbe measured, at anyratedetected, appropriate or something statisticalseries? What is the relation of the concept, as used and of to developedby historians, the studiesby economistsor statisticians industrial growth? long-period The aims of this article are as follows: to examine some of the implicationsof the use, by certain economic historians,of the term "; "industrialrevolution to relate these implicationsto the use of industrialgrowth curves; to examine the claim that the automatic a revolution"; and finally, factoryis precipitating second " industrial meaningto the term " indusin an attemptto give some recognisable trial revolution to suggest certainvery rough criteriafor the con", of phrase. In orderto illustrate tinuedemployment this overburdened some of the problemsinvolvedin the relationbetweengrowthcurves and industrialrevolutions,it is proposedto examineone industryin of some detail and to suggestthe possible applicability the argument to otherfields. II The one industrywhich it is proposedto examinein some detail is the Englishpaper industry. A numberof reasons combineto make this suitablefor the purpose. It has a long history, spanningseveral centuries; it is an industrywhich peculiarlymirrorsthe growth of for our industrial civilisation, its productsfindtheirway into extremely uses. Furthermore, is especiallyusefulfor it diverseand characteristic the revolution" in one industry the purposeof examining " industrial and seeing it in quantitativeterms, for it is possible to construct tolerablyreliableseriesto cover the period from the early eighteenth centuryto the presentday. And finally,its technicaland economic history follows a course similarto that of other and better known industries. Before examiningthe quantitativeevidence of industrialgrowth which it offers, it is necessaryto make a brief digressioninto some of the detailsof its technicaland economicdevelopment.' of The techniques papermakingcan be readilydividedinto a number of processes,just as can, for example, the techniquesof the cloth industry. The history of technicalprogressin the latter is a history from the twelfth century(or earlier)to of mechanisationstretching the early nineteenth century, in the approximateorder: fulling, spinning, weaving, carding and combing, finishing, together with early applicationsof industrialchemistryas the such comparatively in use of chlorine in bleaching,improvements dyeing and the like. In paper making, technicalprogressfollowed a very similar course over roughly the same period of time. The main processesin the
1 For a note of the main secondarysources drawn upon in this section, see my articlein Economica,February1954, pp. 32-3 n.

ECONOMICA

[FEBRUARY

order in-which they were effected(which-is also the order in which bleaching,formingthe they take place)are: raw materialpreparation, paper,dryingand finishing. This includesthe same early application of chemistryto industryin the shape of chlorinefor bleaching. In addition,there followed a furthercrucialinnovationin the industry, of providinga new raw material-the discovery wood pulp. Before the later nineteenthcentury, the major raw materialsfor paper makingwere linen, and to a lesser extent cotton, rags.' The whichis the essentialelementin the first pulpingof the raw materials, process,was orginally carriedout by hand, the rags beingmixedwith waterand pounded. At what stageand wherethis processreceivedits is first mechanisation, not preciselyknown. The industryis said to have reachedsouthernEuropeby the eleventhand twelfthcenturies, having come from China via the Middle East. It is claimedthat in mid-twelfth centurySpain a stampingmill, operatedby waterpower, the was at work macerating rags in a seriesof large mortars. Such a at mill was certainlyin use at Nulremberg the end of the fourteenth varioustypes of stampingmill,normallydriven century,and thereafter by water but sometimesby wind, formed the vital feature of the Europeanpaper mill until the eighteenthcentury. It then began to be replacedby an improvedtype of beatingengine; this was at first drivenby waterpowerbut later by steam. With many improvements processesof washing,beating and variationsin detail,the preparation and pulpingremainin principlethe sametoday.2 The introductionof dhlorinefor rag bleachingneed not detainus long. It came into use in the 1790sand was an obvious corollaryto the similarresultsin the textileindustryof Scheele'sdiscovery. machinein Meanwhile,until the introductionof the paper-making the first decade of the nineteenthcentury,the actual formingof the a paper was everywhere hand process. The parallelwith the textile industryis striking. Just as water power was appliedto fulling and much later to spinning, whilst weaving remainedan entirely hand whilstthe forming operation,so was powerappliedto rag preparation to of a sheet was still done by hand. The linkingof rag preparation waterpowermeantthat papermills were to be found on fast running in powered, otherindustries. streams as wereso manymills,similarly just To the strikingtechnicalresemblancebetween the fulling mil and the stampingmill there is added the tendencyto determinelocation; indeed,when the paper industrywas expandingin England from the
1 The essentialchemicalconstituentof paper, be it made by hand or by machine, from rags, old ropes, straw, esparto grass or wood pulp, is cellulose, the main component of plant tissues. The essence of its manufacture,by hand or by machine, is that the cellulose fibres should be macerateduntil each individual filamentis a separateunit, then mixed with water in such a way that, by the use of sieve-like screens, the fibres can subsequentlybe lifted from the water in the form of a thin layer, the water drainingoff and leaving a sheet of matted fibres. This thin sheet is paper. of procedure,normally s re malking wood pulp is, of course, an entirelydifferent

on carried in or neartheforestareas.

1956]

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND INDUSTRIALREVOLUMONS

centuriesand the cloth industrygeographisixteenthto the eighteenth cally contracting,many formerfulling mills were turnedinto paper
mills.

By the end of the eighteenthcentury,then, paper making was a widespread Europeanindustry,Italy, France,Germany,Holland and Great Britainall havingmany mills. Waterpower and steam power (thoughthe latter in only a very few places)had been appliedto the first processand chemistryhad made its mark on bleaching. In the first decadeof the nineteenthcenturythe paper-making machinewas in introduced the Englishindustry. In the technicalchangeswhichit are introduced,strikingresemblances again noticeable to the comparablechanges in the textile industryin spinningand weaving: it of was a straightforward mechanisation hand processes. In the hand process,the size of the sheet is normallylimitedto what can be convenientlymanipulated the paper maker; productionis slow and by labour highly skilled. The machine simply mechanisedthe whole procedure formingthe sheeton an endlesswire gauzeor mesh,thus by endlesssheetsof paperto be made. The modem allowingtheoretically machine exactlythe samein generalprinciplethough,of course,with is in many improvements detail and very much largerand faster. Once the making had been mechanised,the mechanisation the of followedrapidly. By the mid-nineteenth dryingand finishing processes was century,mechanisation complete. The outputof the United Kingdom had multipliedabout seventeentimes since the mid-eighteenth centuryand the stagewas set for the next crucialdevelopment. the Dunrng 1850sand 1860s,the gales of the free trade movement had sweptthroughthe paperindustryas elsewhere and removedboth the excisedutiesand the customsdutieson the importof foreignpaper. By this time machineryhad been extensivelyadopted in the paper industries of other countries and these industries were expanding rapidly,notably in the U.S.A., Germanyand France. The resulting substantialincreasesin international productionand trade in paper meantin turn extremepressureon raw materialsupplies. Unsatisfacinelasticsupplyconditions for longbeentending had tory andpeculiarly to make rags costly and many attemptsto find substituteshad been made. Not until 1860was any appreciable successachievedwhen the use of esparto grass for paper making was patented and put into commercialoperation. Of far greater significance,however, were in the numerousexperiments the use of wood pulp, carriedon in this which culminatedin the perfectingof the country and elsewhere,, chemicalprocessesof producing wood pulp in the 1880s. The modem paper industryis substantially based on. wood pulp, and the advent of this as the majorraw materialmeanta reorientation the industry of in many ways, although not causing any radical revisions in the machinery whichpaperwas actuallymade. It had substantial by interin nationalrepercussions that it broughta new stimulusto the opemng up of the greatsoftwoodfQrests SQandinavia Canada? whiclh in of and

ECONOMICA

[FEBRUARY

countriesintegratedpulp and paper mills have been developed; at the same time the Englishindustrybecamedependentfor the bulk of its raw materials on imported substances. The new international in angle to the industrybroughtnew types of integration which press magnates appearedas the owners at once of forests, paper mills, printingpressesand newspapers. On the technicalside it broughtthe industrywithin the ambit of the chemicalindustry-for althoughthe machine is still basically the same, the pulp-making paper-making processesare differentand, moreover,the technicalquestionsof the industryare of a natureto which appliedchemistrymay be expected to producethe answers. It has been said that today paper mills are and "built by engineers run by chemists',*1 The industry'stechnicalbistory thus has three landmarks: three crucial innovations-a medieval mechanisationof the preparatory of of processesakin to the mechanisation fulling; mechanisation the making process during the classical industrialrevolution; and the introduction of a new raw material. This last developmenthas broughtthe industryinto the ambit of what has been describedas a revolution" (beforethe presenttying of that label " secondindustrial of on to the expectedconsequences the automaticfactory)or, indeed, the fifth if we follow Schumpeter's numberingand terminology.2 III ? Whatlight does this shed on the variousindustrial revolutions To take first those for which there are relevantstatisticalseries: those coveringthe period includingthe classicalindustrialrevolution exhibita highlycharacteristic pattern. Fig. 13 revealsjust the picture of steeplyrising output which we have come to associatewith large numbersof individualindustries,with population growth, overseas trade,importsof raw cotton and so forth,duringthis periodof English economichistory. it is, in short,a typicalpicture.4Themachine broughta greatincrease on in productivityand did away with the great dependence' skilled labour. Millsbecamebigger,new andlargermillssprang paper-making up in Lancashire,near the coalfields and the new towns of the north; those in the remotercountiesbeganto disappear. Increasing
1 2

J. Grant,

"

Pulp and Paper ", in What Industry Owes to Chemical Science, 3rd

ed., 1945. Details of the sources from which these and the following graphs were constructedwill be found in the Appendix (infra,pp. 21-22). 4 The shapeof the curve showingthe importsof raw materialsreflects,particularly after the 1840's, both the growing world demand for paper-makingmaterialsand the existence of the foreign duties or prohibitionson their export. The widening gap between it and the output curve from about 1790 is accounted for partly by increasinghome supplies of rags, from greater home production and consumption of cotton and linen textiles, partly by higher productivityin paper manufacture, and partly by the fact that chlorine bleachingpermittedthe use of a much wider range of colouredrags.
3

Op. cit., I, 397.

1956]

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS

was, as usual, matchedby a decliningtotal number of production, mills.' The whole picture,in short,is one of the classicalindustrial revolutionin one industry:the first of the uses to which, as suggested put. above, the termis sometimes century" industrial Whatof the '' second" or " fifth" or " twentieth called " the ? revolutions How does paper fit into what Schumpeter Kondratieffof electricity,chemistryand motors"? Fig. 2 exhibits the samepicturefor this periodas did Fig. 1 for the earlierperiod.2

PAPER

60I

0I

20

PAPERMAKING MATERIALS

0 1710

1750

1800

1850

Fig. 1. ENGLISH A)

OF U.K. PAPER PRODUCTION, 1714A1860, AND IMPORTS PAPER-MAKING MATERIALS, 1727-1860.

Here, then, in purely quantitativeterms there appears to be a repetition

of the " industrialrevolution" process as applied to one industry. by And, moreover,we know too that it was accompanied the major by of reorientation the industryalreadydescribed, the new dependence on importedraw materialsas reflectedin the parallelmovementsof output and importcurves,by changesin location and by increasesin declinein the size of mills. Therewas a continuedand corresponding numbersof mills in conjunctionwith steeply rising output; in the U.K. as a whole the numberfell from ratherover 400 in the 1850sto under 200 today, whilst during that century output had multiplied about 30 times. Behindthe mereshapeof these curveslies a complex
1 In 1785 licencesissued to paper.andpasteboardmakersin Englandtotalled 381; in 1816 the figureof 522 correspondedto a total of 502 units at work; the number of licences reached its peak, at 643, in 1829 and declined thereafteras machinery left it "mark; by 1860 there were only 306 mills at work in Englandand Wales. materialscomprisedrags, esparto and wood pulp. 'Imports of paper-making

ECONOMICA

[FEBRUARY

structure. and organisation industrial patternof changesin techniques, are raw materials of majorimporand Todaythe industry its imported tance in the country'seconomy. The increasesin output duringthe 1920s and 1930s were in striking contrast to the depressionwhich affected so many industries. At once a very old industry, it also behavedlike a typical "new" industry. apparently

3-

PRODUCTIONC U.K. PAPER

IMPORTS OF PAPER-MAKING

1800- 1951. MATERIALS,

2i -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 1800

--------------,1I50 1900 1950

Fig. 2. U.K.

PAPER PRODUCIION AN) IMPORTS OF PAPER-MAKING 1. 1800-195 MAMAIALs,

How are we to assess these patternsof industrialgrowth? If the use of the term " industrialrevolution" in its applicationto a single industryis allowed, then it seems clearly evident that we must say that the paper industry has passed through two su.ch revolutions. in But arewejustifiedin acceptingthe figurespresented this way, each smallmouldof a hundredor shaped,so to speak,in the comparatively dishesin-which a hundredand-fiftyyears? Theseare the conventional.

1956]

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS

the "revolutions" are so frequentlycooked. But if we take the long-periodview, which our figuresallow, and at the same time plot these figuresas growthcurves,the pictureappearsin a ratherdifferent light. From this it is equally clearlyevident that the second " industrial terms, revolution" in the industryoffersnothingmore,in quantitative of than a continuation the rate of growthinitiatedduringthe classical industrial revolutionperiod. Even this does not show up very clearly
& ENGLISH U.K. PAPERPRODUCTION. 1714 - 1951. I,, IMPORTS PAPER MAKINGMATERIALS, OF 1727-1 1. 95

Millons 3

:V

Thousands/

500 400300 200

z
4100

50

20

10

<

4 " 1850
1850

'

' 1900'

'

' 1s

1710

1750

1800

1900

1950

AND U.K. PAPER. PRoDucTIoN (1714-1951) AND IMPORTS Fig. 3. ENGLISH OF PAPER-MAIG MATERALSL,1727-1951 (LOG. SCALE).

stagnabut it appearsto startwith two changesfrom the comparative tion of the early decadesof the eighteenthcentury: one commencing between 1740 and 1750 and anotherbetween 1800 and about 1810. visible. The introduction wood pulp is scarcely of growthcurves.' Muchhas been writtenabout the shapeof industrial ProfessorRostow has written: "In general,althougha phase of inrate creasing of growthmay occurin the veryearlystagesof an industry,
I in op. As well as Schumpeter, cit., see: S.Kuznets, SecularMovements Production New and Prices, New York, 1930; W. W. Rostow, TheProcessof EconomicGrowth, York, 1952; R. Glenday, " Long Period Economic Trends ", in Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, CI, 1938; also W. Hoffman," The Growth of Industrial Productionin Great Britain: a QuantitativeStudy "', in Econ. Hist. Rev., 2nd series, Vol.II, 1949-50, p 1624A80.

10

ECONOMICA

[FEBRUARY

thesegrowthpatternsappearto follow roughlythe course of a logistic

curve; that is, they exhibit regular retardation ".l Warnings have

been duly utteredto the effect that although " we can see the curve of growthas logisticratherthan exponential this is not "to suggest ", thatall growthcurveswill be of thistype ".2 Indeed,ProfessorKuznets and, derivingfrom him, Dr. Hoffman, have both noted the paper industryas providingan exceptionto the logisticcurVe.3 Schumpeter, his constructing own elaboratemodel of economicmovement,warned us against evolutionarytheories of organic growth and emphasised that,too much trust should not be placed in the gradientof any particularlogarithmic straightline. This he saw as offeringmerelywhat he called a "descriptivetrend'"or "a piece of economic history in the formof a curve", thoughhe did admitthat we wereon " somewhat saferground" in fittingparticular typesof curveto time seriesshowing quantitiesof individualcommodities.4 It is not proposed here to considerthe natureof " laws of industrial growth" or whetherindeed they exist, thoughit seemsperhapsworthpointingout that the logistic curve might well be an expectedpropositionon the,simple criterion thatdecreasing returns appear somestage,i.e. withoutpostulating at will any specific" law " of industrialgrowth as a whole. In the case of the paperindustryit is clearlyevidentthat it was only the discoveryof wood pulp whichprevented regularretardation the from showingitself earlier. It is very questionable whethersuch quantitative data can be used as "4piecesof economichistory",5 withoutat the sametimeconsidering in detail the technical developmentswhich lie behind them. The continuationof the same growthrate in paperwas entirelydependent on the discoveryof a substitute, this case for raw material. If paper in madefromwood pulpwereto be regarded a different as substance from that made from rags (whichchemically is not, see supra,p. 4, n. 1), it then there would alreadybe a logistic curve for rag paper followed by another,stillas yet of the exponential butlikelyto showretardatype tion as soon as the /softw6od forestsbeginto be exhausted. The curve of the importsof paper-making materials Fig. 3 givessomeindication in of this.6 If figuresexisted for the productionof papyrus,parchment
Rostow, op. cit., p. 100. 'Hoffman, loc. cit., p. 166. 'Kuznets, op. cit., pp. 22-24; Hoffman, loc. cit., p. 171. It should be pointed out that continuinggrowthis not here linked to rising exports. Paperexports form only a very small percentageof productionand we remainnet importers. 'Schumpeter, op. cit., I, pp. 201-4, II, pp. 491-4. 'Especially in the manner followed by Hoffman both in the article cited above and in the uncritical acceptanceof various statistics (includingthose for paper in -which go to make up his index of Britain'sindustrialprothe eighteenthcentury) duction. See his " Ein Index der industriellenProduktionfur Grossbritannien seit demt 18. Jahrhundert in Weltwirtschaftliches ", Archiv,1934 (II), p. 383. * This has, of course, a national coverage only and consequentlythe shape of the curve,is partly due to the -fact that increasingworld demand for wood pulp, together with the growth of integrated pulp and paper mills in the forest areas, have to some extent put the English industryin an economicallydisadvantageous position.

1956]

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS

11

and paper, one would a priori expect to see, for what mightbe called the " Writing MaterialsIndustry a sort of family of successive ", logistic curves,the envelopeof which would trace out a curve which would not yet show signs of permanent retardation growth. Fig. 4 in showingthe outputcurvesof hand-made paperand then its successor machine-made paperwill serveas an illustration this.of
Millions I Thousands Machine-made

400 300. 200

100

40'4

30

0 20I
10-

4: 3 2

1710 1750 1850 1800 1900 Fig. 4. ENGLISH AND U.K. PRoDuCTIoNOF HAND-MADE AND MACHINEMADEPAPER,1714-1900 AN 1806-1900 (LOG.SCALE).

Two questionsfollow from this: how far can such an argument be to generalised apply to other industries, and-the old chestnut-what constitutesan industry? If we are willingto allow a certaincommonsenseelasticityin answering latter,especially the generaldirection the in of end uses to which productsare put, it is not difficultto think of many exampleswhich fit this patternof industrial growth. The argument applies equally,for instance,to the development the natural of

12

ECONOMICA

[FEBRUARY

and then the syntheticfibreindustry; at an earlierstagein the history of English and European textiles, the substitution of the "New Draperies"for some of the older types of cloth offersa similarillustration. It applies also to the successivesubstitutions, first, of cheap iron (both cast and wrought),for wood, leather and other earlier constructional materials,and then after the 1860s, of steel for iron. The rise and fall of charcoaloutput, had we the figures,could be set againstthat of coal and the latter,in turn, matchedwith the statistics of the oil rush. The statisticsof raw materialimportsand, im some of as instances,- exportsin suchindustries thesewouldshow appropriate to changescomparable those revealedabove for the supplyof papermakingmaterials. indicesof thistyperevealthe constantchange,the continual Successive posing and solvingof technicaland economicproblemsin a mannerin which national industrial growth curves, themselves composed of curves for conventional "industries", do not. Indeed, the latter often concealmore than they reveal. Whatis the steel industryor the metallurgical industryor the transport industryor the textileindustry of for the purposes tracingthe courseof industrial growth? Schumpeter in noted " the broad fact of great'steadiness long-timeincrease both in the senseof a roughconstancyof the gradientof the trendand in the senseof what,merelyby way of formulating visualimpression, a
we may term the general dominance or trend over fluctuations ". He

illustratedthis by referenceto industrialproductionindices relating to Great Britain for 1785-1914and U.S.A. and Germanyfrom the 1860sto 1914.1 But in the trulylong run, in the long focus of history, what exactly does this mean? Or again, what is the value to the economichistorianof a productionindex in which even the classical revolutioncan be made if not quite to disappear least to at industrial appear as no more than a small change in the industrialgrowth rate? 2 Now the studies,mostly by economistsand statisticians,in which appearsuch quantitative analysesof industrialgrowth,have not paid overmuchattentionto the questionof how the conceptof the industrial revolution,as otherwiseused by historians,should appear in these series. But it seemsclearthatif we areto acceptthe arguments outlined to above, the term " industrialrevolution when referring particular ", industries in their conventional forms, can be applied to every innovation which simply maintainsthe existing rate of growth of output. of If this appearsto be a detractionfrom the significance the term as normallyunderstoodand, indeed to be somethingof a reductio ad
op. Schumpeter, cit., II, pp. 492 and 494. S. Kuznets, " StatisticalTrends and Historical Changes", in Econ. Hist Rev., 2nd series, Vol. III, No. 3, 1951, p. 269: "in the overall indices of productionin Great Britain prepared by Walter Hoffman, the Industrial Revolution does not appearas a truly revolutionaryupheaval",
2

-1956]

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS

13

on then a remedymay perhapslie in concentrating increase absurdum, duringthe in in the growthrate,suchas is registered the paperindustry, classical industrialrevolution.' Should we, then, retain this crucial as mechanisation indicativeof the true " industrialrevolutionin the paper industry"? Now if this is done, there seems to be no reason howeversimple, why we shouldnot also acceptearliermechanisation, the feat. And, moreover, whichperformed sameessentialquantitative that if we examine feat a littlemorecloselyit is seento consistessentially of or of the mechanisation other crucialimprovement one processin the industrywhich, in turn, brings pressureto bear upon the other as processes. If it couldbe shownto havethusoperated, is not unlikely, then the medieval application of water power to the rag-beating processesin the paper industrywould seem to have a valid claim to the title. Doubtless, other industriesmight have similarpretensions: along with the stampingmill theremay go the fulling mill, corn mill, bellows,and the slittingmill, and the blastfurnacewith water-powered more besides. Admittedly,figures are not available to prove that such innovationsdid in fact increasegrowthrates, but other sorts of evidence suggest that they certainly marked turning points in the of development the industriesconcernedand certainlyhad striking effects on industrial location. Professor Carus-Wilsonis explicit and revolution-" the claims which about the natureof her " industrial of she makes for it: "the mechanizing the first three cloth making is centuries a commonand processesduringthe eighteenth nineteenth of placeof history,but the mechanizing the fourthduringthe thirteenth revolution lessremarkable no thoughit gaveriseto an industrial century, has attractedscarcelyany attention'"2 (My italics). So now even if the late nineteenthand early twentieth century "revolutions are rejected, we are still left with two "industrial revolutions" in the paper industry,and indeed on these arguments at the samewould applyto many otherindustries manyothertimes. IV revolutionin a -Perhaps, then, the whole conceptionof an industrial particularindustryspells dangerousmultiplicity. If safety does not lie this way, can it be foundin the wideruse of the term: in its application to industryas a whole or to the economy as a whole? Outside the classicalindustrial revolution,the examplebest knownto economic historiansis perhapsProfessorNef's English" industrialrevolution" of 1540-1640. In examiningan era barrenof detailedor continuous tends to be an statistics,the assessmentof its industrialdevelopment evidence and of admixture varioussortsof quantitative non-quantitative to of one sort or another,the whole only too often amounting a sample
1 Although if it were possible to extend the series further back in time, it is quite possible that this apparentincrease would disappear.
3

Carus-Wilson, op. cit., p. 40.

14

ECONOMICA

[FEBRUARY

veryfar from random. Economichistoriansare indebtedto Professor researches into the coal industry, pointing for Nef for his fundamental once ignoredand for unearthing long roots of industhe to industries trialisation. But there is reason to suppose that the " industrial " revolution whichhe has made his own owes more to the vigourand of enthusiasm his writingthan to the typicalityof his samples. The claimswhichhe makesfor his revolutionhave a familiarring: " The tools, andfurnaces of and introduction newindustries of newmachinery, in the old industries,had brought about technical changes in the methods of miningand manufacturing only less momentous than those associatedwith the great inventionsof the late eighteenthand early nineteenthcenturies."1 (My italics.) In a more recent work-this "'earlyEnglish industrialrevolution" is said to have marked " the genesis of industrialcivilization" and to have preparedthe way for of the eventualindustrialisation the world.2 Althoughit is not feasiblehere to embarkupon a comprehensive examinationof-these claims, it is possible to give some indicationof been built up. the way in which this " revolution" has apparently Accordingto ProfessorNef, " tens of thousandsof work people" ", of enterprises weresweptinto " hundreds new, capitalistically-owned of the introduction which " duringthe last sixty yearsof the sixteenth century opened an entirely fresh field for the growth of industrial capitalism".3 Amongst such industries was paper making. For evidenceon a scale of England'spapermakingat this time, Professor Nef relies on what has been written about John Spilman'smill, at work at Dartfordin 1588. That the paper mill of this period, with represented somebuildings,and apparatus, its waterwheels,stampers, in thingmuchmoresubstantial thewayof fixedcapitalthantheweaver's cottageand loom is scarcelyopen to doubt. But that any appreciable numberof mills were of the size which Spilman'swas alleged to be is very unlikelyfor a centuryor more after 1588. ProfessorNef has in to admit that ThomasChurchyard his poem about Spilman'smill " probablyexaggerated when he spoke of 600 workmen confining ", himselfto the assertionthat " the enterprise certainlyemployedscores of hands".4 But did it ? And how many scores? And if it did, how many other papermills were therethat did ? In early StuartEngland the bulk of the paperused in this countrywas importedand continued to be for some time. Nor is there any reason to suppose that the a of averagepapermill of the time represented strikingconcentration capitaland labour. It was normallya buildingnot much largerthan a corn mill; it was leased from a landlordat a rent of round about ?50 per annum; it probablyemployedabout a dozen people in all,
1 4 Progress of Technology ", in Econ. Hist. Rev., 1934, p. 22. Rise of the BritishCoal Industry,I, p. 165. 2 Warand HumanProgress,p. 15. a " Progress of Technology ", pp. 8 and 22. ' Ibid., p. 7.

See also Nef,

1956]

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS

15

includingthe master papermaker himself, for a mill with one vat. And the majoritywere still one-vat mills: in the 1730s, the average numberof vatspermillwasabout 1.2.1 Did such ".capitalistically-owned enterprises"as these really help to open" an entirely freshfieldfor the growthof industrial capitalism"? As with shipbuilding,2 with paper-making: ProfessorNef's claims so seem to owe much to untypicalexamples. It seemshighlylikelythat a of carefulexamination otherindustries whichfigurein his revolutionmining, metal manufacture, alum and copperasmaking, and so on -wodd reveal this same method by which a national " industrial revolution" has been-constructed of a numberof innovationsin out industry. This is not in the least to denythat the development these of industries markeda significant variation domesticproduction that on or they represented,taken together, an important phase in the slow growth of early industrialisation; but this is quite differentfrom inflatingthem into an "industrialrevolution" and equatingthis with the transformation wroughtin the nineteenth century. The main item, indeed,in many ways the basis, of ProfessorNef's revolutionis the coal industry. Here the evidencedoes not rest simply on increasesin scale and capitaloutlay. The " industrial revolution" " he sees as endingwith the CivilWar; and thereafter althoughthere was a recoveryafter 1660 and the productionof Britishcoal, cloth and papergrewduringthe eight decadesthat followedthe Restoration of thatyear, it was not untilat least the 1750sthat the rate of increase in industrial outputwasagainas rapidas during period1540-1640 the ".3 No adequatestatisticalseriesare availableto supportthis statement; it rests upon the type of non-quantitative evidencementionedabove, together with ProfessorNef's own estimatesrelatingto the growth of the Britishcoal industry; these show a 14-fold increasebetween 1551-60and 1681-90,a 3-fold increasein the followingcenturyand a 23-fold increase between 1781-90 and 1901-10.4 Further,the fact that there appearsto be a 14-fold increasein one centuryand only a 3-fold increasein the next is used, togetherwith its repercussions and other allied changes,as part evidencefor an industrialrevolution in the economyas a whole. Thereis one obviousobjectionto this: comparatively largeratesof increasewill naturallyappearwhilstabsoluteamountsare smalland/or whilst an industryis new. This can be clearlyseen in the growthof such modernindustriesas oil, aluminium,syntheticfibres and many others: it is also reflected,as has been shown, in the early years of
'H.M. Customs and Excise Library: Treasury-Excise Correspondence, 1733-45, ff. 245-6 (see Appendix, infra). Other evidence from Port Books, leases of mills and various sources,details of which will be given in the author'sforthcomingwork on the history of the paper industry. 2 See D. C. Coleman, " Naval Dockyards under the Later Stuarts", in Econ. Hist Rev., Vol. IV, No. 2, December 1953,for this aspect of ProfessorNef's " revolution
8

".

Warand HumanProgress,p. 149. The Rise of the British Coal Industry,II, pp. 19-20.

16

ECONOMICA

[FEBRUARY

the growthof machine-made paperand in the importof paper-making materialsinto this countryafterthe inventionof wood pulp (see Figs. 3 and 4). The charcoal-coal relationship indeed,just such a thing is, as is illustrated Fig. 4 andis consequently in open to the sameobjections as a candidatefor the title of " industrialrevolution", quite apart from its use as a basis for extendingthe revolutionto the countryas a whole. In all thisProfessor was supported Schumpeter Nef by who, believing the term to be outmodedand misleading,held the classicalindustrial revolutionto be " on a par with at least two similar events which
preceded it and at least two more which followed it ".1 To Schumpeter

these revolutionswere long cyclical movementsof the sort detected by Kondratieff. He firmlyrejectedthe idea that the industrial revolutionwas a " uniqueeventor seriesof eventsthatcreateda neweconomic order".2 Indeed,we can hearexactlythe same sort of claimsas those and madeby ProfessorsCarus-Wilson Nef: writingof the Kondratieff beginningin 1898, Schumpeterdescribedit as being caused by an
"economic revolution analogous in every respect to the ' industrial revolution' of text-book fame ". (My italics.) *V

It is now time to take some note of the latestrecruitto the ranksof "industrialrevolutions Not a great deal can be said of it as this ". new " second industrialrevolution" is still, to some extent, more a matterof predictionthan of evidence. But it would not perhapsbe difficult finda placefor it in a'scheme economicgrowthenvisaging to of ". a seriesof " industrial revolutions The inventionof the vacuumtube or electronvalve and its applicationto a varietyof problemsof communication,computationand control could be representedas the crucialtechnicalinnovation; on this could be based the development of "automation" and the increasesin industrialproductivityand output associatedtherewith; the processwould appearessentiallyas the substitutionof automaticcontrol for human control; the social and economiceffects arising from all this would, finally,providethe requisite justification seeingit as industrial for revolution. Quite outside this hypotheticalpattern, those who speak of these developments simply as " the second industrialrevolution" put their whole emphasis upon the distinction between automatic operation and automaticcontrol, between the "first industrialrevolution" in whichmechanisation replaced man'smusclesandthe " secondindustrial revolution" whichwill makeautomaticworkthat was previously done by his brains.
1
2 Ibid.

Op cit., I, p. 253.

'1Ibid.,I, p. 397.

1956]

INDUSTRIAL GkOWTH ANS- INDUSTRI4L REVOLUTIONS

17

" the first industrialrevolution,the revolutionof the ' dark of satanicmills', was the devaluation the humanarm by the competition of machinery.Thereis no rate of pay at which a United labourercan live which is low enough to States pick-and-shovel compete with the steam shovel as an excavator. The modern boundto devaluethe humanbrain is revolution similarly industrial at least in its simpleand more routine decisions. Of course,just the the as the skilledcarpenter, skilledmechanic, skilleddressmaker revolution,so the have in some,degreesurvivedthe firstindustrial skilled scientist and the skifled administratormay survive the second. However,taking the second revolutionas accomplished, or attainments less has nothing humanbeingof mediocre the average to sell that is worthanyone'smoneyto buy ".1 This view seems to be based on a number of fundamentalmisconceptions. First, it is entirelymisleadingto representthe classical industrial of revolutionas the replacement musclesby machines. This popular upon mechanisation stemsfroman over-emphasis viewalmostcertainly of textile manufacture. The power loom or the " mule" do fit into machineor the hydraulic this picturejust as does the paper-making press. But the major innovations in, for example, the iron, steel between1760and 1860werenot of this nature and chemicalindustries not at all, andeventhe steamengineitselfoftenreplaced humanmuscles, but waterpoweror windpower. and-automatic betweenautomatic operation Secondly,the distinction control is by no means clear-either in time or in natureof process. as Such medievalmechanisations the fulling or stampingmills can just operation as the classical as be represented stepstowardsautomatic revolutioncan be seen as markinga much largerand more industrial rapidmove in the same direction. It is possibleto tracethe principles and practiceof automatic,continuousflow production,throughthe back to the eighteenth developmentof mechanicalhandlingdevices,century. Similarly,the use of various valves, governors,and other automaticcontrol devicescan also be tracedback to the same period, or earlier. Since those days both automaticoperationand automatic in in controlhave been extending use, the latterespecially this century. The photo-electric cell, sisterinventionto the vacuumtube, has been used for some time both for various control processes,regulating industrial purposes, or inspecting products,andfor variousoperational suchas openingdoors. Veryhigh degreesof both automaticoperation the and automatic control (incorporating use of electronicdevices) notablyoil refiningand have alreadybeen achievedin some industries, motorvehiclemanufacture.2 to Thirdly,it is an obvious exaggeration imply, as appearsto be imhlied in the arguments of the " second industrial revolution"
1

p. Wiener, Cybernetics, 37. '"Towards the AutomaticFactory", passim.

B3

18

ECONOMCA

[FBRUARY

enthusiasts,that the classicalindustrialrevolutionhas enabledman, even today, to dispensewith physicaleffort. Just as the existenceof factors (over and many complex economic, social and demographic mentionedabove)makes in above the variations production techniques nonsense of the picture of machinerysimply replacingmuscles, so does it seem equallyunlikelythat a world of automaticfactorieswill be usheredin to replaceall but the more advancedoperationsof the revolutiongot into its strideat a humanbrain. The classicalindustrial time of unprecedented populationgrowth; yet in spite of the dislocation of labourwhich it involved,in spite of hardshipto many, a vast came into beingin the course amountof far moreregularemployment of the nineteenthcentury than had ever been known amongst the masses of the pre-industrialised world. New jobs underemployed were openedup, new came into being, new categoriesof employment did old skillsreplaced skills. The skilledmechanic not " survivethe first industrialrevolution": he was created by it. The extension of "automation" will doubtlessgive rise to seriouseconomicand social problems. These are not the concernof this article,but it may not be out of place to suggestthat a more carefulconsideration these of in revolutionmightprevent possibilities the true light of the industrial claimsand inappropriate of a stampede grandiose terminology. fromthe economichistorian's Fourthly,and perhapsmost important " viewpoint, to representthe notion of " automation as something radicallydifferentfrom what has gone before, to cut it off and see it as markinga "second industrialrevolution", is to empty much of the real meaning of the term " industrialrevolution". Of course, there is a radical differencebetween the potentialitiesof electronic devices and, say, the centrifugalgovernor,just as there was and is betweenelectricpower and the steam engine. But this is integralto and of economicgrowthin the the natureof industrialdevelopment, industrialised era, and that this should be so stems essentiallyfrom the natureof the classicalindustrialrevolution. VI ? How, then,arewe to acceptthesevariousrevolutions Whatrelation revolution Aretheyall identical ? industrial do theybearto the classical ? phenomena Although the Kondratieffsof Schumpeter's ingenious cyclicalmodel may seem to be identicalphenomenawithinthat strucidenticalin any sense other than that in ture, they are not historically seriescan makethemseem whichcertainnot veryadequate quantitative so. Nor again are they the same as a thirteenth centuryrevolutionin the processof fulling, althoughsuch a revolutioncould form a vital " ". constituentof a Schumpeterian industrialrevolution revision" of the " industrial Perhapsit is time for a new " historical revolution". When Mr. H. L. Beales wrote his historicalrevisions

19561

AND REVOLUTIONS GROWTH INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL

19

twenty-sixyears ago,' the dangerswere not simply that it should be limited considereda unique phenomenonbut that it was arbitrarily in time, without roots in the past and truncatedin its development and applicationby the inadequacyof the word "industrial" and the overtonesof the word " revolution". Since then much has been done to show that the classicalindustrialrevolutionhad its roots in the scientific thought and economic activity of the sixteenth and and centuries, that it came to bearits fruitin decadeslong seventeenth after the first Reform Bill was passed. But today the dangersare different: today we have too many industrialrevolutionsand too them. many ways of discovering revolutionwas the firstmajorand On its technicalside theindustrial large-scalesuccess in man's efforts to apply his growingmasteryof this country naturalforces to economic production. It transformed in a way in whichno countryhad ever beforebeen transformed;and once backwhich is still transforming the processof industrialisation revolution. Modern abroadof this industrial wardareasis the carrying advances in science spring from the roots which first flowered so in spectacularly the seventeenthcentury, and modem advances in of the interrelation scienceand economicchange (such as automatic whichwas the industrial controls)springfromthat otherfirstflowering revolution. But, of course, it had aspects other than the technicaL Professor Ashton has said of it that " the changeswerenot merely'industrial' ", but also social and intellectual and has justifiedhis use of the term by noting that it "has been used by a long line of historiansand has in embedded commonspeechthatit wouldbe pedantic becomeso firmly in to offer a substitute"*2 And to keep it firmlyembedded common speech and give it a meaningwhich it deserveswe should retain for whichit was givenby the earlierwriters: by Porter,3 it the significance for instance, writing in economic and technical terms of changes but wholeeconomy, not affecting simplyindustry the country's radically its social structureand its modes of thought and action. The term should not be applied to certain technicalor economic innovations industrieswhich either maintainor increasethe growth in particular revolution simplyfrom observing rate,nor can we deducean industrial the existencein the appropriate figuresof an increasein the growth rate of severalindustries. It is necessaryto go beyondthe curvesof to industrialgrowth and beyond mere mechanisation the vital conjuncture of changes in which population growth, large-scale and pervasiveeffects extensiveindustrialinvestment,and the remarkably are of of the application scienceto industry amongstthe mostimportant in producing the rapidly cumulative process of industrialisation.
1 H. L. Beales, " Historical Revisions: The IndustrialRevolution", in History, n.s. Vol. 14 (1929), pp. 125-29. 2 T. S. Ashton, TheIndustrial London, 1948, p. 2. Revolution, ' G. R. Porter, The Progressof the Nation, London, 1851.

20

1BCONOMICA

(FEBRUARY

This use of the term-the third of those mentionedearlier-as well as conformingto the classical English industrialrevolution, would conform to the process sometimes at the same time approximately now called,as by ProfessorRostow, the " take-off" into industrialisation.1 In this usage we avoid the dangerof equatingindustrialisation itself with industrialrevolution,but reserveit for the initial and-in the long focus of history-comparativelysudden and violent change that societyinto being, transforming whichlaunchesthe industrialised societyin a way which none of the earlierso-calledindustrialrevolutions ever did. At the same time we are retainingfor the industrial revolutionits uniquenessin the history of a country, but allowing to its extension others,as for instancein the conceptionof the Japanese revolution,begunin the 1860s. industrial In this way, it should perhapsbe possible to avoid deprivingthe termof its meaning,to avoid the path which at presentseems to lead to the pointlessnotion of an economichistory in which the absence " of an " industrialrevolution will soon be more significantthan its presence. The qualitativechanges wrought upon a society by the revolution wouldthusbe emphasised. Thougheconomic trueindustrial no determinations, amount history may lean heavily on quantitative withoutsearching of studyof growthcurvesor the like will be adequate examinationof the technical,social, and economic problemswhich lie behindthem. Schoolof Economics. TheLondon

Op. cit., p. 102.

1956]

INDUSTRIAL GROWTH AND INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTIONS

21

APPENDIX SOURCES STATISTICAL

The sources of the figures from which the graphs were made were as follows: FiG. 1. The main sourcefor the productioncurvewas the printedreturns in by in B.P.P. 1857,Vol. IV, supplemented originalcompilations the Library and Archivesof H.M. Customsand Excise, London, especiallythose in the RatesandAmountsof ExciseDuties 1684-1798" volumeentitled" Quantities, and the evidencecontained in the long series of letter books covering the correspondencein the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries between and the Excise. the Commissioners the Treasury of of I am gratefulto the Commissioners the Customsand Excisefor permission to consult these Records, and to the Librarian,Mr. R. C. Jarvis,and my his stafffor theirco-operationin facilitating work there. For various reasons the printed returnsbefore 1781 were unacceptable and further calculationsbecame necessaryin order to obtain figures even approachingreliability. The unreliabilityis apparent when the printed returns are compared with the amounts collected as revenue, with other series of the same sort, with other informationknown about the industry, and, above all, with the level to which these figuressuddenlyjump afterthe in reorganisation the method of assessmentwhich took place in 1781. This large proportionof paper was primarily to the fact that an increasingly due was chargedad valorem, instead of at one or anotherof a small numberof specificratesfor specifiedtypes of paper. This, in turn, was partlybecause a range of new types of paperwas being made and partlybecause,with the exception of certain of the lower quality papers, it was advantageousto papermakersto persuadethe Excise officialsto rate paper ad valorem. It is clear from the recordsof the Customsand Excise that not only was this done, but also that such paperswere also generallyundervalued.Amongst these recordsthere are annual figuresfor this period of the value of paper to ratedad valorem. The problemwas therefore find some factorwith which to turn values into physicalquantitiesand thus to obtain estimatesof total production. The following calculationsdesigned to solve this problem were largely carriedout by Mr. S. T. David to whom I am greatlyindebtednot only for matters. this assistancebut for his generousadviceon statistical It was assumedthat the printedExcise returnsfor the period 1785-1855 weretolerablyreliableor at any rate consistentthroughout. It was observed showed,from that the curve of the annualvalues of paperratedad valorem 1740 onwards (before 1740 it was virtually stationary),the same rate of curvesto these growthas that of the 1785-1855curve. By fittingexponential latter figuresand also to the ad valoremfigures,and obtainingthe closest fit for the latter over the period 1740-85,a factorwas obtained,workingout the at ratherover 2s. per ream, a low but feasiblefigureconsidering general undervaluation.The curve of estimatedtotal production shows a course of developmentconformingto that suggestedby other evidence including madeby the Boardof Excisein 1785. Final figuresin tons some calculations were thus obtainedfrom the followingformula: [Amount of paper chargedin reams+2 (amount of paper chargedin in of bundles)x 9 712 (valwB paperchargedad valorem L's)]x 20

22

ECONOMICA

[FEBRUARY

1 bundle=2 reams (as statedin 10 Anne C. 18, imposingthe duties); 1 ream =20 lb. (an averagefigure calculatedfor this period from varioussources). After 1781 the sourceswere as follows: 1782-1799-B.P.P. 1857,Vol. IV (England); 1800-1855-B.P.P. 1857,Vol. IV (U.K.); 1856-1859-B.P.P. 1860,Vol. XL (U.K.); 1860 -A. D. Spicer,ThePaper Trade,London, 1907,App. IX. Before1800all figurescover paper only; thereafter they includepasteboard, etc. cardboard, The import curve was derived from figures taken from the following sources: 1725-1799-P.R.O., Customs 3 (London& Outports); 1780-1789-P.R.O., Customs17 (London& Outports); 1790-1808-P.R.O., Customs17 (England,Wales& Scotland) (Scottishimportsabout 8 per cent. of English); 1809 -P.R.O., Customs 4 (England& Wales) 1810-1830-P.R.O., Customs 5 (England,Wales& Scotland); 1831-1860-Appendix 3 to SelectCommittee Paper(Exportof Rags) on B.P.P. 1861,Vol. XI (U.K.). FIo. 2. Productionfiguresderivedfrom the following: 1800-1860-As above. 1861-1903-Spicer, op. cit., AppendixIX. 1908-1911 London and CambridgeEconomic ServiceAnnual Index of Production, Gp. VIII (Paper). The figures given 1913 1920-1923 there covering paper made from imported pulp and 1925-1929 espartoonly were adjustedby comparisonwith Census 1931-1933 of Production figuresto obtainestimatesof total produc1936-1937 tion., 1907 1912 1924 FU.K. Censusof Production(3rd, 4th and 5th). 1930 1934 1935 Calculatedfrom importsof pulp and espartoin the same 1904-1906 manner as the London and Cambridgefigures (see 1914-1919 London and Cambridge Economic Service Special 1938-1939 | Memorandum No. 8, p. 28) and then.adjustedas before J to cover total production. 1940-1951-Annual Abstractsof Statistics. Figuresfor imports of paper-making materialsfrom: 1800-1860-As above. 1861-1905-Spicer, op. cit., AppendixI (from U.K. tradereturns). 1906-1951-U.K. tradereturns. FIG. 3. As for Figs. 1 and 2. FIG. 4. As for Fig. 1 and Spicer,op. cit., AppendixIV.