|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
There's a fair bit of nonsense in this article. Just taking the second paragraph as an example, when the Corn Laws were repealed, it was observable that supplies started coming in from European countries with the main suppliers switching one further along as each previous one developed a little more and started having its own industrial base to provide markets. (I think that pattern may have helped mislead Marx.) So, the first imports were from France and the last (nearly) from Russia, with the USA being significant too. But Britain's own colonies were a long way from ever being the most important. PML.
JAM: There is some nonsense here. For a discussion of the competition provided by the Continental powers in the field of manufactures, see C Kindleberger's "Rise of Free Trade in Western Europe."
It might be worth pointing out explicitly that "corn" in this case means "wheat", rather than "maize", for the benefit of American readers. Marnanel 19:35, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The comment regarding the corn laws as a crossroads in the transition from feudal to modern is simplistic. In many ways the corn laws represented a 'golden age' for British landowners, having established a level of control and power over the course of the eighteenth century that they did not previously possess.
- Well, I agree that it's an oversimplification, but not quite in the way that you suggest. In what way didn't the British Landowners have a high level of control and power before the Corn Laws? I think that rather the repeal of the Corn Laws was a manifestation of the new industrial rich gradually gaining more power in Parliament, to the expense of the landed elite. Also, on the point of feudalism, I don't think many historians would argue that Britain was still in any way feudal in the early eighteenth-century. Tommaisey 20:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Irish Coercion Bill
I'd like to know more about the exact meaning of the Irish Coercion Bill. I infer from this article and other online resources that "Coercion Bill" (Coercion Act?) was just another name for the repeal of the Corn Laws. (Not to be confused with an 1880(?) Coercion Act for Ireland, which suspended habeas corpus.) Apparently, the word "Coercion" in the title (was that the title?) of the bill was Parliament's way of indicating that the bill applied only to a specific region, and not to the whole country. Have I basically understood correctly? Does the bill deserve its own article? --Quuxplusone 21:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The Irish Coercion Bill was one of many attempts to maintain order in Ireland. Its only relation to the Corn Laws was that Disraeli could use it to show that Peel had split the Tories and could no longer command a majority in parliament. Since it failed, it probably does not deserve an article of its own, but the various 19th centrury bills and acts could have a single article. --Henrygb 00:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a link of the Anti-Corn Law League when it just redirects you to this page?Troyc001 20:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
WHIGS, LANDOWNERS AND CONSERVATIVES
I question the passage in this article that makes a distinction between the Whigs and the Conservatives, with the Whigs supposedly being businessmen and the Conservatives supposedly being landowners.
The little I've read in British history suggests there were great landowning families among the Whigs throughout the 18th century and into the early 19th. In short, I believe many historians would agree the Whigs were not all businessmen -- at least not initially. The article's discussion of the reorganization of British politics and the formation of the Liberal Party thus seems a bit misleading, or at least confusing.
AJFeeney 12:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC) AJFeeney
If you go back further in history, the Whigs were more closely aligned with the aristocracy, and the tories with the gentry - of course, back then they were not really "parties" in the modern sense. Probably "tendancy" is a better description TriMesh (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Effects on Canada
I don't know enough about the topic (though when school's over in the summer I may be able to change that), but under the "Effects" heading I think it's worthwhile noting the effect on Canada. From my little research it seems the repeal of these laws and the significance of Britain moving to free trade sped the development of Canadian Confederation by which having colonies to improve economic self-sufficiency was no longer important. --The Fwanksta, May 23, 2007, 20:32.
Improving the article
It's a decent article, but we could do with some more pictures, hopefully not fair-use ones. Also, how could the article be improved?? I'm willing to do some work on it if anyone leaves suggestions here! --SunStar Net talk 18:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a topic I know much about but after seeing your request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England I though I'd take a look. A few comments:-
- Referencing should use Template:Cite book, Template:Cite web etc as appropriate. I avoid ibid as all it needs is someone to move or change a previous citation & this becomes useless.
- In "effects of repeal" where acres (square Km) are used the Template:Convert would be appropriate.
- also in effects of repeal where there are lots of percentages etc a graph may be useful in explaining
- Hope this helps— Rod talk 20:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Goal of the laws
The article currently states
- In 1813, a House of Commons Committee recommended the exclusion of foreign-grown corn until domestically grown corn reached 80 shillings per quarter.
- A quarter was (until metrication) an imperial unit of weight, equal to 28 pounds. There doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia article on this unit, although it is mentioned in hundredweight. Bluewave (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Can this be right? If so, what does it mean? "until domestically grown corn reached £4 (£2,520:2007) using average per quarter-hundredweight." Does this mean twenty-five hundred twenty? Or is the comma a decimal mark as in Germany? If so, why three decimals?
I read in other locations in WikiAnswers that "1820: one pound corresponds roughly to 85 pounds now." Something is screwy here, either the facts or the presentation.ProudPrimate (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Central Agricultural Protection Society (CAPS, commonly known as the "Anti-League")
Meaning of corn
The article contains a throwaway line saying that corn meant cereal. However the article does not make clear that the Corn Laws cover all grains and what the composition of grain/corn production and imports were. I assume that maize was not the dominant "corn" of the time, but could not tell from the article. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
The prices don't make sense. 4 pounds sterling at that time was 29 grams of gold. It is inconceivable that 12,7 kg of wheat could cost that much. Wheat does not cost 1/500 of its weight in gold, does it? (About 1000 times more than today.) To me it seems obvious that the unit of weight should be in error. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Risto Pietilä
Prior Corn Laws
While I grant that the focus of the article should be about the notorious "Corn Laws" of 1815, these were not the first restrictions on importation of grains into the UK. It would be helpful if there was a bit more background of previous corn laws. It will also be informative to mention corn export bounties (export subsidies, which went hand-in-hand with import restrictions). Walrasiad (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)