Talk:Corn Laws
|
|
| Contents |
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 Just taking the second paragraph as an example, when the Corn Laws were repealed, it was observable that supplies started coming in from European countries with the main suppliers switching one further along as each previous one developed a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.
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)
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.
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] (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/gladstone_and_ireland.htm)) 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] (http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.lighterside.07.html) Have I basically understood correctly? Does the bill deserve its own article? --Quuxplusone 21:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)