Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1908 edition. Excerpt: ... not have been altogether pleasant, because in July, 1630 21 it was resolved to re-consider the Act and perhaps decide to repeal it. On the one hand it five or six shillings, then about 120 shillings was the price of a " mille weight." Therefore (on the assumption that mille weight=10 hundredweight), one hundredweight would cost 12 shillings. But in 1617 the price of a hundredweight was about 40 shillings (see p. no, note (3). If the assumption is true, there must have been a remarkable fall in price in the space of eleven years. 20 Min. October 1, 1628. 21 Min. July 7, 1630. was feared that if the company persisted in paying only the prices fixed by the Act, the Dutch traders and others--the competing tradesmen--would buy up all the currants at a higher price. On the other hand it was feared that if the price was left quite unfettered, the factors would out-bid each other, and in consequence, the price might rise to even 40 ducats.22 It was therefore decided to continue the Act which fixed the buying price of currants, but not to stand too closely by it. Moreover, for that year (1630) the price should remain 20 ducats,23 provided there were great quantities of the currants and that the quality was not specially good. But if they were good and the quantity small, then the factors might pay more, but never more than 25 ducats.23 In every case, however, they were to pay 2 ducats less for the currants of Cephalonia than for those of Zant. In the same month 24 the whole question was 22 Here ducats are spoken of; in the Minute of the year 1628 (on previous page) dollars was term used. But it would appear that the two were used as interchangeable terms. 23 See above note (22). 24 Min. July 29, 1630. considered afresh and it was agreed...
