- Email: [email protected]
The nineteenth century Gazette Corn Returns
DEBATE
293
If studies are to be undertaken using the official national average prices for grain then the researcher must proceed with caution. Before 1821 no reliance can be placed in the validity of either the weekly or the annual prices. After the change in the weighting procedure in 1821, and especially after the revision of the list of markets in 1828, the weekly national price can be held to be a fair reflection of the actual market situation. Less confidence, however, can be placed in the national monthly, quarterly and annual prices unless they are recalculated using a more correct weighting procedure. School of Social Sciences, The Flinders University of South Australia
The nineteenth century Gazette Corn Returns Lucy Adrian
I fully endorse Wray Vamplew’s caution over using the national figures for the nineteenth century Corn Returns. His recalculation of the national annual average prices as weighted means of the weekly returns clearly exemplifies his point and at the same time makes a usefu1 contribution to any analysis using them as indicators of the national grain market. They would also be interesting recalculated in this way by harvest year. Of the various aggregate averages that were calculated, one in particular had significance far greater than its merit as a guide to the state of the market: this was the Duty Average price by which the import trade was regulated. Up to 1804, each Maritime District was governed by its own Duty Average; but thereafter the Duty Average became a single national figure which also covered Scotland after 1805. During the first part of the century, until 1828, this Duty Average remained in force (with certain provisos under the 1815 Act) for three months at a time. It was calculated at first as an unweighted mean of the weekly national average price for the six weeks preceding the fifteenth day of February, April, August and November ; but after 1821 the six-week average was the weighted mean price of sales over that period. Each six-week average regulated the import trade for the succeeding three months. After 1828 this Duty Average price was calculated weekly as a sixweek unweighted running mean of the weekly national price. The often heard accusations of fraudulent dealings or manipulation were chiefly concerned with influencing this average; but quite apart from these deliberate deceits the Returns in the individual markets were said to change rapidly as the Duty Average neared critical levels. This was both as a result of the increased attention that dealers gave to returning accounts of their purchases to the Inspectors, and from a genuine increase in business.[ll A study of the activity in individual markets compared to the level of the Duty Average could well throw interesting light on trade practices in local markets. Newnham College, Cambridge
[l] Evidence of J. Sandars, B.P.P. 1834 VII, q. 1564, and J. Sturge, B.P.P. 1836 VIII Part 1, qq_ 7202, 7203 20
293
If studies are to be undertaken using the official national average prices for grain then the researcher must proceed with caution. Before 1821 no reliance can be placed in the validity of either the weekly or the annual prices. After the change in the weighting procedure in 1821, and especially after the revision of the list of markets in 1828, the weekly national price can be held to be a fair reflection of the actual market situation. Less confidence, however, can be placed in the national monthly, quarterly and annual prices unless they are recalculated using a more correct weighting procedure. School of Social Sciences, The Flinders University of South Australia
The nineteenth century Gazette Corn Returns Lucy Adrian
I fully endorse Wray Vamplew’s caution over using the national figures for the nineteenth century Corn Returns. His recalculation of the national annual average prices as weighted means of the weekly returns clearly exemplifies his point and at the same time makes a usefu1 contribution to any analysis using them as indicators of the national grain market. They would also be interesting recalculated in this way by harvest year. Of the various aggregate averages that were calculated, one in particular had significance far greater than its merit as a guide to the state of the market: this was the Duty Average price by which the import trade was regulated. Up to 1804, each Maritime District was governed by its own Duty Average; but thereafter the Duty Average became a single national figure which also covered Scotland after 1805. During the first part of the century, until 1828, this Duty Average remained in force (with certain provisos under the 1815 Act) for three months at a time. It was calculated at first as an unweighted mean of the weekly national average price for the six weeks preceding the fifteenth day of February, April, August and November ; but after 1821 the six-week average was the weighted mean price of sales over that period. Each six-week average regulated the import trade for the succeeding three months. After 1828 this Duty Average price was calculated weekly as a sixweek unweighted running mean of the weekly national price. The often heard accusations of fraudulent dealings or manipulation were chiefly concerned with influencing this average; but quite apart from these deliberate deceits the Returns in the individual markets were said to change rapidly as the Duty Average neared critical levels. This was both as a result of the increased attention that dealers gave to returning accounts of their purchases to the Inspectors, and from a genuine increase in business.[ll A study of the activity in individual markets compared to the level of the Duty Average could well throw interesting light on trade practices in local markets. Newnham College, Cambridge
[l] Evidence of J. Sandars, B.P.P. 1834 VII, q. 1564, and J. Sturge, B.P.P. 1836 VIII Part 1, qq_ 7202, 7203 20