- Email: [email protected]
The nineteenth century Gazette Corn Returns: a word of warning
Journal of Historical Geography, 4,3 (1978) 291-293
Debate
The nineteenth century Gazette Corn Returns: a word of warning Wray Vamplew In her recent article in this Journal Lucy Adrian made excellent use of the Gazette Corn Returns to analyse the workings of several East Anglian grain markets.[” She also suggested that among other themes worth investigation using the Gazette data would be the relationship between national and various local prices. It must be pointed out, however, that there are possible major faults in the national price figures. Prior to 1821 the national weekly figures are almost valueless. They were calculated from the local data without any weighting for the variation in quantity of sales at the different markets. At that time the 139 towns whose sales entered into the calculation of the national price were divided into twelve maritime districts. District average prices were calculated by adding up the prices of each town in the district and dividing the total by the number of towns. The national price was obtained by summing the district averages and dividing the total by twelve. Thus it was possible for an individual market to have an effect on the national price out of all proportion to its share in national sales. One example will suffice. In the week ending 16 January 1819 Burton had sales of one quarter and one bushel of wheat whereas the dealers in Fakenham sold 3,030 quarters.L2’ Yet, because of the weighting system, the former, one of six towns in the sixth district, had twice as much influence on the national price as had the latter, one of twelve towns in the third district. In 1821, as Adrian points out, the method of calculating the national average was changed so as to allow due weight to sales in various markets. Thus from then on the weekly national average price was a fair representation of the market situation. However, when it comes to the official monthly, quarterly, and annual national prices no weighting was given for the varying volume of sales in different weeks: the weekly national prices were simply totalled and divided by 4, 13 or 52 as the case might be. The significance of this is illustrated in Table I which shows [l] L. Adrian, The nineteenth century Gazette Corn Returns from East Anglian markets Journal of Historical Geography 3 (1971) 217-36 [2] Select Committee on Petitions Relating
Appendix A 0305-7488/78/0004-0291
$01.00/O
to Agricultural
01978
Distress
(Parl. Papers 1820, I l),
Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd
DEBATE
292
TABLE 1 Oficial and recalculated annual grain prices 1829-59 Year
Official s. d.
Recalculated s. d.
Official s. d.
Recalculated S. d.
1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859
66. 3 64. 4 66. 4 58. 10 52. 11 46. 2 39. 5 48. 6 55.11 64. 7 70. 8 66. 4 64. 4 57. 4 50. 2 51. 4 50.11 54. 8 69. 9 50. 7 44. 2 40. 3 38. 7 40. 10 53. 3 72. 5 74. 9 69. 2 56. 5 44. 3 43. 10
64. 10 63. 9 65. 9 58. 7 52. 11 45.11 39. 3 48. 11 55. 10 64. 9 70. 4 66. 7 64. 8 56. 7 50. 3 50. 10 51. 1 55. 0 68. 0 50. 8 43. 9 40. 3 38. 4 40. 9 52. 9 70. 10 75. 3 68. 9 56. 4 44. 3 43. 7
32. 32. 38. 33. 27. 29. 29, 32. 30. 31. 39. 36. 32. 27. 29. 33. 31. 32. 44. 31. 27. 23. 24. 28. 33. 36. 34. 41. 42. 34. 33.
32. 7 33. 2 39. 8 32. 11 28. 0 29. 2 30. 3 33. 0 31. 8 31. 5 40. 2 36. 11 32. 3 27. 9 29. 4 33. 10 33. 0 34.11 40. 7 31. 8 28. 4 24. 3 24. 8 29. 2 35. 4 37. 1 35. 10 40.11 42. 11 35. 10 34. 6
7 8 0 1 7 0 11 10 5 6 6 5 11 7 7 8 8 8 2 8 9 6 9 7 3 0 9 2 2 9 6
Source: P.R.O. Corn office Papers M.A.F. 10125-7, 298-301, 368-9; London Gazette passim. Notr: Price is per imperial quarter.
1829-59
the difference between the official figures and a recalculated price which weights the weekly prices according to weekly sales. Between 1829[11 and 1859 the mean percentage difference between the official wheat price and the recalculated one was O-7 with a maximum variation of 2.5. For barley, however, the mean variation was 2-2 per cent and the maximum 8-l per cent. In many cases, particularly for wheat, the variation is slight but at least two instances of significant difference occur. In 1847 the official price of barley was 35 per cent above the previous year’s level, but the recalculated average shows that the actual increase was less than half this. Even more startling is the reweighted wheat price for 1845 which turns an official price fall into an actual price rise. [l] The first full year in which sales from major inland consumption centres such a Birmingham, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester were used in the calculation of the national figures
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
Debate
The nineteenth century Gazette Corn Returns: a word of warning Wray Vamplew In her recent article in this Journal Lucy Adrian made excellent use of the Gazette Corn Returns to analyse the workings of several East Anglian grain markets.[” She also suggested that among other themes worth investigation using the Gazette data would be the relationship between national and various local prices. It must be pointed out, however, that there are possible major faults in the national price figures. Prior to 1821 the national weekly figures are almost valueless. They were calculated from the local data without any weighting for the variation in quantity of sales at the different markets. At that time the 139 towns whose sales entered into the calculation of the national price were divided into twelve maritime districts. District average prices were calculated by adding up the prices of each town in the district and dividing the total by the number of towns. The national price was obtained by summing the district averages and dividing the total by twelve. Thus it was possible for an individual market to have an effect on the national price out of all proportion to its share in national sales. One example will suffice. In the week ending 16 January 1819 Burton had sales of one quarter and one bushel of wheat whereas the dealers in Fakenham sold 3,030 quarters.L2’ Yet, because of the weighting system, the former, one of six towns in the sixth district, had twice as much influence on the national price as had the latter, one of twelve towns in the third district. In 1821, as Adrian points out, the method of calculating the national average was changed so as to allow due weight to sales in various markets. Thus from then on the weekly national average price was a fair representation of the market situation. However, when it comes to the official monthly, quarterly, and annual national prices no weighting was given for the varying volume of sales in different weeks: the weekly national prices were simply totalled and divided by 4, 13 or 52 as the case might be. The significance of this is illustrated in Table I which shows [l] L. Adrian, The nineteenth century Gazette Corn Returns from East Anglian markets Journal of Historical Geography 3 (1971) 217-36 [2] Select Committee on Petitions Relating
Appendix A 0305-7488/78/0004-0291
$01.00/O
to Agricultural
01978
Distress
(Parl. Papers 1820, I l),
Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd
DEBATE
292
TABLE 1 Oficial and recalculated annual grain prices 1829-59 Year
Official s. d.
Recalculated s. d.
Official s. d.
Recalculated S. d.
1829 1830 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1848 1849 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859
66. 3 64. 4 66. 4 58. 10 52. 11 46. 2 39. 5 48. 6 55.11 64. 7 70. 8 66. 4 64. 4 57. 4 50. 2 51. 4 50.11 54. 8 69. 9 50. 7 44. 2 40. 3 38. 7 40. 10 53. 3 72. 5 74. 9 69. 2 56. 5 44. 3 43. 10
64. 10 63. 9 65. 9 58. 7 52. 11 45.11 39. 3 48. 11 55. 10 64. 9 70. 4 66. 7 64. 8 56. 7 50. 3 50. 10 51. 1 55. 0 68. 0 50. 8 43. 9 40. 3 38. 4 40. 9 52. 9 70. 10 75. 3 68. 9 56. 4 44. 3 43. 7
32. 32. 38. 33. 27. 29. 29, 32. 30. 31. 39. 36. 32. 27. 29. 33. 31. 32. 44. 31. 27. 23. 24. 28. 33. 36. 34. 41. 42. 34. 33.
32. 7 33. 2 39. 8 32. 11 28. 0 29. 2 30. 3 33. 0 31. 8 31. 5 40. 2 36. 11 32. 3 27. 9 29. 4 33. 10 33. 0 34.11 40. 7 31. 8 28. 4 24. 3 24. 8 29. 2 35. 4 37. 1 35. 10 40.11 42. 11 35. 10 34. 6
7 8 0 1 7 0 11 10 5 6 6 5 11 7 7 8 8 8 2 8 9 6 9 7 3 0 9 2 2 9 6
Source: P.R.O. Corn office Papers M.A.F. 10125-7, 298-301, 368-9; London Gazette passim. Notr: Price is per imperial quarter.
1829-59
the difference between the official figures and a recalculated price which weights the weekly prices according to weekly sales. Between 1829[11 and 1859 the mean percentage difference between the official wheat price and the recalculated one was O-7 with a maximum variation of 2.5. For barley, however, the mean variation was 2-2 per cent and the maximum 8-l per cent. In many cases, particularly for wheat, the variation is slight but at least two instances of significant difference occur. In 1847 the official price of barley was 35 per cent above the previous year’s level, but the recalculated average shows that the actual increase was less than half this. Even more startling is the reweighted wheat price for 1845 which turns an official price fall into an actual price rise. [l] The first full year in which sales from major inland consumption centres such a Birmingham, Derby, Nottingham and Leicester were used in the calculation of the national figures
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