429The history of the cotton famine is too characteristic to
 dispense with dwelling upon it for a moment. From the indications as to
 the condition of the markets of the world in 1860 and 1861, we see that
 the cotton famine came in the nick of time for the manufacturers, and was
 to some extent advantageous to them, a fact that was acknowledged in the
 reports of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, proclaimed in Parliament
 by Palmerston and Derby, and confirmed by events. [157] No doubt, among the 2,887 cotton mills in the United Kingdom in 1861, there were many of small size. According to the report of Mr. A. Redgrave, out
 of the 2,109 mills included in his district, 392, or 19% employed less
 than ten horse-power each; 345, or 16% employed 10 H. P., and less than
 20 H. P.; while 1,372 employed upwards of 20 H. P. [158] The majority of the small mills were weaving sheds, built during the period of prosperity after 1858, for the most part by speculators, of whom one
 supplied the yarn, another the machinery, a third the buildings, and were
 worked by men who had been overlookers, or by other persons of small means.
 These small manufacturers mostly went to the wall. The same fate would
 have overtaken them in the commercial crisis that was staved off only by
 the cotton famine. Although they formed one-third of the total number of
 manufacturers, yet their mills absorbed a much smaller part of the capital
 invested in the cotton trade. As to the extent of the stoppage, it appears
 from authentic estimates, that in October 1862, 60.3% of the spindles,
 and 58% of the looms were standing. This refers to the cotton trade as
 a whole, and, of course, requires considerable modification for individual
 districts. Only very few mills worked full time (60 hours a week), the
 remainder worked at intervals. Even in those few cases where full time
 was worked, and at the customary rate of piece-wage, the weekly wages of
 the operatives necessarily shrank, owing to good cotton being replaced
 by bad, Sea Island by Egyptian (in fine spinning mills), American and Egyptian
 by Surat, and pure cotton by mixings of waste and Surat. The shorter fibre
 of the Surat cotton and its dirty condition, the greater fragility of the
 thread, the substitution of all sorts of heavy ingredients for flour in
 sizing the warps, all these lessened the speed of the machinery, or the
 number of the looms that could be superintended by one weaver, increased
 the labour caused by defects in the machinery, and reduced the piece-wage
 by reducing the mass of the product turned off. Where Surat cotton was
 used, the loss to the operatives when on full time, amounted to 20, 30,
 and more per cent. But besides this, the majority of the manufacturers
 reduced the rate of piece-wage by 5, 7½, 430and 10 per cent.
 We can therefore conceive the situation of those hands who were employed
 for only 3, 3½ or 4 days a week, or for only 6 hours a day. Even in
 1863, after a comparative improvement had set in, the weekly wages of spinners
 and of weavers were 3s. 4d., 3s. 10d., 4s. 6d. and 5s. 1d. [159] Even in this miserable state of things, however, the inventive spirit of the master never stood still, but was exercised in making deductions from
 wages. These were to some extent inflicted as a penalty for defects in
 the finished article that were really due to his bad cotton and to his
 unsuitable machinery. Moreover, where the manufacturer owned the cottages
 of the workpeople, he paid himself his rents by deducting the amount from these miserable wages. Mr. Redgrave tells us of self-acting minders (operatives
 who manage a pair of self-acting mules)