if the “futures” do “bear” and “bull,” as has been supposed, they probably influence these magnitudes. It might be thought that the “futures” of different months, being substitutes in proportion to their temporal proximity to one another, should vary together exactly; but it would seem to be a sufficient reply that as they are not perfect substitutes they are in some slight degree independent variables. The “spot” market might be judged generally as too high, in view of crops and the probable normal demand of the year, but it might not therefore drop immediately, owing partly to the pressure of demand that must be satisfied instantaneously. “Current futures” would be affected more than “spot” by this impression as to the relation of “spot” to a conceived normal price for the year, and they might therefore be expected to drop more than “spot” when this impression was at all widely entertained. But the fall of “current futures” would be checked by the demands that must be satisfied in the near future. Probably the prices of the more distant “futures” are determined in a higher degree by far-reaching imagination than the prices of nearer futures. This explains what has been called above the unintentional “bearing” of “spot” by “futures.” And it is immediately evident that the deliberate “bear” works by selling “futures,” and that the effect of his sales is propagated to “spot.” These statements are equally true of “bulling.” The influence of expectations of the new crop on “futures” running into the new crop is plain on inspection; but owing to the gap between the two crop years it would be astonishing if “futures” against which cotton from a new crop could be delivered were not appreciably independent of “spot” at the time of their quotation. However, it is noticeable that they are still so closely bound up with “futures” culminating in the old crop year that the daily movements of the former are closely correlated with those of the latter. Concluding cautiously, we may admit the probability of the relations between near and distant “futures” and “spot” (even in respect of “futures” running out in the same crop year) indicating sometimes at least the intentional or unintentional “bulling” or “bearing” or “spot” by “futures.” But nothing has yet been proved from these facts as to the effect “futures” are having upon the steadiness of prices. In the case of any crop year, if the relations which are suggested as indicating the “bulling” work of “futures” usually corresponded with “spot” prices being below the normal price of the crop year, or of what was left of the crop year, while the relations which are suggested to indicate the “bearing” work of “futures” on the whole corresponded with a relatively abnormal height of “spot,” it would be a legitimate inference that “futures” were tending to smooth prices. However, it is made clear as the result of an elaborate examination that the generality of these correspondences cannot be affirmed.[1] The outcome of the whole matter is that the investigator is still baffled in his attempt to discover what effect the use of “futures” is having upon prices to-day. The sole piece of evidence, from which probable conclusions may be drawn, is that three separate measurements of price fluctuations over some forty years reveal a growing unsteadiness of late, whether they be expressed absolutely or as percentages of price.
The uneasiness caused by the excessive dependence of Great
Britain upon the United States for cotton, coupled with the
belief that shortages of supply are more frequent than
they ought to be, and the fear that diminishing returns
Recent
attempts
to open
up new
cotton-
fields. may operate in America, occasioned the formation in
England of the British Cotton Growing Association on
the 12th of June 1902. The proportions of England’s
supplies drawn from different fields is indicated in the
table below.
British dependence on American supplies is greater even than that of the continent of Europe, for Russia possesses some internal supplies, and more Indian cotton is used in continental countries than in England.
from the following Countries in the Periods 1896–1900 and 1901–1904.
| Country. | 1896–1900. Million ℔. | 1901–1904. Million ℔. |
| United States | 1436 | 1424 |
| Brazil | 13.8 | 31.5 |
| Peru | 8.5 | 8.6 |
| Chile (including the Pacific coast of Patagonia) | .8 | 2.2 |
| Venezuela and Republic of Colombia | .5 | .5 |
| British West Indies and British Guiana | .3 | .6 |
| Turkey (European and Asiatic) | .5 | 1.1 |
| Egypt | 295.7 | 314.4 |
| British possessions in the East Indies | 40.7 | 61.9 |
| Australasia | .035 | .041 |
| All other countries | 2.3 | 3.8 |
| Total | 1800 | 1849 |
| Re-exported | 223 | 260 |
The annual average shipments from Bombay to the European continent and to Great Britain in 1900–1904 were as follows:—
| To the continent | 600 bales of 3½ cwt. |
| To Great Britain | 50 bales of 3½ cwt. |
At the end of the 18th century the bulk of British cotton was obtained from the West Indies. Approximately the supplies were as follows in million ℔:—
| British West Indies | 6.6 |
| French and Spanish settlements | 6 |
| Dutch settlements | 1.7 |
| Portuguese ” | 2.5 |
| East Indies ” | .1 |
| Smyrna or Turkey | 5.7 |
The British Cotton Growing Association works under the sanction of a royal charter and has met with valuable official support. Financial assistance and assurances as to sales and prices have been given liberally by the association where they are needed; ginning and buying centres have been established; experts have been engaged to distribute seed and afford instruction; and some land has been acquired for working under the direct management of the association. The governments of some colonies have aided the efforts of the association. Professor Wyndham Dunstan of the Imperial Institute, on a reference from the government, made favourable reports as to the possibilities of extending cotton cultivation. The results may be seen in the approximate estimates below of cotton grown more or less directly under the auspices of the association.
| 1903. | 1904. | 1905. | 1906. | |
| Gambia | 50 | 100 | 300 | · · |
| Sierra Leone | 50 | 100 | 200 | 250 |
| Gold Coast | 50 | 150 | 200 | 250 |
| Lagos | 500 | 2,000 | 3,200 | 6,300 |
| Nigeria | 100 | 200 | 650 | 1,200 |
| —— | —— | —— | —— | |
| West Africa | 750 | 2,550 | 4,550 | 8,000 |
| West Indies | 1,000 | 2,000 | 4,000 | 6,000 |
| East Africa | 150 | 850 | 2,000 | 3,500 |
| Sind | · · | · · | 500 | 2,000 |
| Sundries | · · | 100 | 250 | 500 |
| Total | 1,900 | 5,500 | 11,300 | 20,000 |
| Approximate value | £29,000 | £75,000 | £150,000 | £270,000 |
In the West Indies results are most favourable, both as regards quantity and quality of the crops. West Indian grown cotton has realized even higher prices than American grown Sea Island. In West Africa also prospects appear encouraging. In Sierra Leone little success has been met with, but on the Gold Coast some cotton better than middling American has been grown, and the association has concluded an agreement with the government for an extension of its work. In Lagos crops increased rapidly. The cotton is almost entirely grown by natives in small patches round their villages, and generally it
- ↑ See the paper already mentioned in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society for June 1906, where the several points noticed briefly above are fully discussed.
