Talk:Corn Laws/Archives/2018

Quarter/shilling

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. 88.112.11.179 (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Risto Pietilä

It says quarter = 480lb. Surely 28lb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.89.60 (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Sorry it took so long.--217.155.32.221 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

The 'quarter' measure of 'corn' (actually wheat) in The Corn Laws, and the measure used to report prices in the press, was a volumetric measure equal to 8 bushels, NOT a quarter of a hundredweight. The argument above relative to the price of gold indicates that a quarter hundredweight - 28 pounds weight - is absurd. Simpler than a measure against gold, is to compute the relative prices of wheat, flour and bread from a contemporary newspaper. The Salisbury & Winchester Journal, 28 January 1833, gives Essex Red Wheat, 42 shillings to 50 shillings (per quarter), Flour, per sack, 45 shillings to 50 shillings and a 4 pound loaf of bread 9 old pence. A bushel of wheat weighs around 60 pounds weight. A sack of flour was five bushels, approximately 280 pounds weight. Using these numbers, the price per pound of wheat is 1.05 old pence; the price of flour is 1.71 old pence and the price of bread 2.25 old pence. These figures are entirely consistent with the cost of milling and baking as well as transport and factoring costs. (12 old pence = one shilling, 20 shillings = one pound Sterling) Peter Maggs Peter Maggs 13:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Maggs (talk • contribs)

Blue book

In the Opposition section of this article, it says, "In 1840, under Villiers' direction, the Committee on Import Duties published a Blue book examining the effects of the Corn Laws. Tens of thousands of copies were printed..."

The phrase "Blue book" is linked only to an article that gives numerous different meanings for the phrase. I have to guess which one applies here. Could someone who knows what it means in this context, please expand a bit? In what way did this "Blue book" "examine" those effects? Without further clarification, the article tells a general audience like me as little as if it said only that the Committee published "a document about" the Corn Laws. -Egmonster (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)