Talk:Corn Laws
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Nonsense
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 Just taking the second paragraph as an example, when the Corn Laws were repealed, it was observable that supplies started coming in from European countries with the main suppliers switching one further along as each previous one developed a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.
[edit] Word choice
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)
[edit] Oversimplification
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)
[edit] 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.[1]) 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.[2] 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)
[edit] Links
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
[edit] "FUCKERSFUCK"
When I went to edit the word "protect" with a link to the economic policy of protectionism, I found the edit code, at the beginning, riddled with the word "FUCKERSFUCK" written a lot of times. Not quite sure what's going on here. I'll leave it to someone who understands the system better to work out quite what was going on.
