JB/122/475/002: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/122/475/002: Difference between revisions

BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
Auto upload
 
BenthamBot (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


''This Page Has Not Been Transcribed Yet''
<head>S.6. Contractor's own expected rate of profit</head>
 
<p>that way might have been done: and if under his <lb/> plan of maintenance, A<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> <hi rend="underline">1811</hi> £8.7.11 or £9.5.5 1/2<lb/> sufficed to afford them what in his Judgment was <lb/> sufficient, so in <hi rend="underline">1793</hi> would a much less sum than<lb/> £8.7.11 or £9.5.5 1/2, say for example £6.0.0; while<lb/> in that same Year for the feeding of each of <hi rend="underline">my</hi><lb/> Prisoners, I should have had £12.0.0; a sum the <hi rend="underline">double</hi><lb/> of that which, according to the supposition here in<lb/> Question, would, in the Opinion of the Reverend &#x2014; <lb/>Magistrate, have been sufficient. True it is, that, unless, <lb/> on the score of the rise of prices, an Increase of<lb/> Head Money had been allowed to me, I should <hi rend="underline">at <lb/> this time</hi> by the Terms of the Contract, have had<lb/> no more than £12 a year per head. But, in the<lb/> interval, if the price of <hi rend="underline">provisions</hi> and <hi rend="underline">other necessaries</hi><lb/> has <sic>encreased</sic>, so has that of <hi rend="underline">labour</hi> likewise. Had<lb/> the prosperity of my Establishment approached in<lb/> any degree to the <hi rend="underline">expectations</hi> formed, as above, on<lb/> the <hi rend="underline">Grounds</hi> therein mentioned, even supposing the<lb/> <hi rend="underline">rise</hi> in the Amount of <hi rend="underline">Earnings</hi> not to have kept<lb/> pace with the rise in the price of labour, I should<lb/> have had no <hi rend="underline">need</hi>, nor perhaps any sufficient <hi rend="underline">right</hi>, to<lb/> call for any <hi rend="underline"><sic>Encrease</sic></hi> of the <hi rend="underline">Head Money</hi>: but in the<lb/> opposite event, there seems no reason why I should <lb/> <hi rend="underline">not</hi> have had such right. &#x2014;</p>
 
<p>The supposition here in Question, is made for the<lb/> purpose of <hi rend="underline">simplification</hi>. But, in the Opinion of my<lb/> Arbitrators, should it not have been practicable for me,<lb/> consistently with my engagement as above mentioned, to<lb/> keep the Prisoners <add>&amp;c.</add> for so little as £12 a Year per<lb/> head, they will deduct what on that score appears<lb/> reasonable, from the £37,500 a Year, and thence<lb/> from the £918,750.0.0 above mentioned, or from<lb/> the 3/4<hi rend="superscript">ths</hi> of it &#x2014; the £659,062.10.0. The cut they<lb/> make upon <hi rend="underline">that</hi> Ground may be pretty large (I<lb/> have already said why) without my feeling it. &#x2014;</p>


<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE -->
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}}

Latest revision as of 10:33, 4 February 2020

'Click Here To Edit

S.6. Contractor's own expected rate of profit

that way might have been done: and if under his
plan of maintenance, Ao 1811 £8.7.11 or £9.5.5 1/2
sufficed to afford them what in his Judgment was
sufficient, so in 1793 would a much less sum than
£8.7.11 or £9.5.5 1/2, say for example £6.0.0; while
in that same Year for the feeding of each of my
Prisoners, I should have had £12.0.0; a sum the double
of that which, according to the supposition here in
Question, would, in the Opinion of the Reverend —
Magistrate, have been sufficient. True it is, that, unless,
on the score of the rise of prices, an Increase of
Head Money had been allowed to me, I should at
this time
by the Terms of the Contract, have had
no more than £12 a year per head. But, in the
interval, if the price of provisions and other necessaries
has encreased, so has that of labour likewise. Had
the prosperity of my Establishment approached in
any degree to the expectations formed, as above, on
the Grounds therein mentioned, even supposing the
rise in the Amount of Earnings not to have kept
pace with the rise in the price of labour, I should
have had no need, nor perhaps any sufficient right, to
call for any Encrease of the Head Money: but in the
opposite event, there seems no reason why I should
not have had such right. —

The supposition here in Question, is made for the
purpose of simplification. But, in the Opinion of my
Arbitrators, should it not have been practicable for me,
consistently with my engagement as above mentioned, to
keep the Prisoners &c. for so little as £12 a Year per
head, they will deduct what on that score appears
reasonable, from the £37,500 a Year, and thence
from the £918,750.0.0 above mentioned, or from
the 3/4ths of it — the £659,062.10.0. The cut they
make upon that Ground may be pretty large (I
have already said why) without my feeling it. —



Identifier: | JB/122/475/002"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 122.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

122

Main Headings

Panopticon

Folio number

475

Info in main headings field

Image

002

Titles

Category

Copy/fair copy sheet

Number of Pages

2

Recto/Verso

Recto"Recto" is not in the list (recto, verso) of allowed values for the "Rectoverso" property.

Page Numbering

F31 / F32

Penner

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Jeremy Bentham

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

002

Box Contents

UCL Home » Transcribe Bentham » Transcription Desk
  • Create account
  • Log in