★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''[{{fullurl:JB/150/636/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | '''[{{fullurl:JB/150/636/001|action=edit}} Click Here To Edit]''' | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<p> | |||
In the case of the Stamp Office the <del>maximum</del> <add>limits</add> <lb/>of <add>the</add> abuse are given in a more <del>ind</del> direct way<lb/>than in that of the Customs, and though the field <lb/>of correspondence is here as well as in the case <lb/>of the Excise an entire <hi rend="underline">area</hi>, and not as in the<lb/>case of the Customs a mere circumference, the<del>re</del><lb/><del>turns out maximum appears to be confined with</del><lb/><add>limits appear to be <del>still</del></add> still narrower <del>limits</del> than in the case of the Customs.<lb/>Here <del>all Bills for incid</del> by a strange<lb/>confusion all Bills <add><del>wha</del></add> for incidents whatsoever <del>amounting</del><lb/><add>which in each instance happen to fall short, or are made to</add><lb/><del>falling short in each separate instance</del><lb/><add>fall short</add> of £ 10. are lumped with postage. Total payment<lb/>on this mixt account notwithstanding for <del>1796,<lb/>£ 491 viz</del> 1782 <add>no more than</add> £ 529:16.4: <note>6 Rep. Comm. <lb/>on Finance p. <del>44</del> <add>43</add></note><lb/> | <note>Inserenda<lb/> | ||
d<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> for 1796, instead<lb/>of having increased with the <del>in</del> increase of<lb/>business arising from additional taxes, reduced to <lb/>£ 491:1:2 <note>ibid p. 44.</note><lb/></p>In point of <add>amplitude of</add> correspondence the <del>may</del> <add>case may possibly</add> be<lb/>after all, <add><del><gap/></del></add> that the <del>case</del> <add>field</add> of the Stamp Office bears<lb/>a greater resemblance to the <del>narrow</del> <add>less <del>ample</del> fruitful</add> field of the Customs<lb/>than to the more <del>ample</del> <add>fruitful</add> field of the Excise: since<lb/>the <del>hed</del> Head Distributors are for the whole of <del>Great <lb/>Britain</del> <add>England</add> but 66: <note>ib. p. 36, 37.</note><lb/>and the Head Distributors pay,<lb/>appoint, and are answerable for their respective<lb/>Sub-Distributors: thence it seems probably that<lb/>it is the Head Distributors only <del>that</del> and not <lb/>the Sub-Distributors, that maintain any direct<lb/>correspondence with the Board. If the expense of<lb/><del>any of those letters</del> <add>the whole or any considerable part of the correspondence</add> between the Head Distributors<lb/>and their respective Sub-Distributors is included in the<lb/>above account, <note>which appears <lb/>rather to be the case,</note><lb/> the moderation of it seems to be truly wonderful.<lb/><pb/> | Observations<lb/> | ||
VI. Miscellanea<lb/> | |||
§.52<lb/> | |||
Exemption from Passage</note> | |||
<p>In the case of the Stamp Office the <del>maximum</del> <add>limits</add> <lb/>of <add>the</add> abuse are given in a more <del>ind</del> direct way<lb/>than in that of the Customs, and though the field <lb/>of correspondence is here as well as in the case <lb/>of the Excise an entire <hi rend="underline">area</hi>, and not as in the<lb/>case of the Customs a mere circumference, the<del>re</del><lb/><del>turns out maximum appears to be confined with</del><lb/><add>limits appear to be <del>still</del></add> still narrower <del>limits</del> than in the case of the Customs.<lb/>Here <del>all Bills for incid</del> by a strange<lb/>confusion all Bills <add><del>wha</del></add> for incidents whatsoever <del>amounting</del><lb/><add>which in each instance happen to fall short, or are made to</add><lb/><del>falling short in each separate instance</del><lb/><add>fall short</add> of £ 10. are lumped with postage. Total payment<lb/>on this mixt account notwithstanding for <del>1796,<lb/>£ 491 viz</del> 1782 <add>no more than</add> £ 529:16.4: <note>6 Rep. Comm. <lb/>on Finance p. <del>44</del> <add>43</add></note><lb/> | |||
d<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> for 1796, instead<lb/>of having increased with the <del>in</del> increase of<lb/>business arising from additional taxes, reduced to <lb/>£ 491:1:2 <note>ibid p. 44.</note><lb/></p>In point of <add>amplitude of</add> correspondence the <del>may</del> <add>case may possibly</add> be<lb/>after all, <add><del><gap/></del></add> that the <del>case</del> <add>field</add> of the Stamp Office bears<lb/>a greater resemblance to the <del>narrow</del> <add>less <del>ample</del> fruitful</add> field of the Customs<lb/>than to the more <del>ample</del> <add>fruitful</add> field of the Excise: since<lb/>the <del>hed</del> Head Distributors are for the whole of <del>Great <lb/>Britain</del> <add>England</add> but 66: <note>ib. p. 36, 37.</note><lb/>and the Head Distributors pay,<lb/>appoint, and are answerable for their respective<lb/>Sub-Distributors: thence it seems probably that<lb/>it is the Head Distributors only <del>that</del> and not <lb/>the Sub-Distributors, that maintain any direct<lb/>correspondence with the Board. If the expense of<lb/><del>any of those letters</del> <add>the whole or any considerable part of the correspondence</add> between the Head Distributors<lb/>and their respective Sub-Distributors is included in the<lb/>above account, <note>which appears <lb/>rather to be the case,</note><lb/> the moderation of it seems to be truly wonderful.<lb/></p><pb/> | |||
| Line 36: | Line 42: | ||
<!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
{{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}} | {{Metadata:{{PAGENAME}}}}{{Completed}} | ||
Inserenda
Observations
VI. Miscellanea
§.52
Exemption from Passage
In the case of the Stamp Office the maximum limits
of the abuse are given in a more ind direct way
than in that of the Customs, and though the field
of correspondence is here as well as in the case
of the Excise an entire area, and not as in the
case of the Customs a mere circumference, there
turns out maximum appears to be confined with
limits appear to be still still narrower limits than in the case of the Customs.
Here all Bills for incid by a strange
confusion all Bills wha for incidents whatsoever amounting
which in each instance happen to fall short, or are made to
falling short in each separate instance
fall short of £ 10. are lumped with postage. Total payment
on this mixt account notwithstanding for 1796,
£ 491 viz 1782 no more than £ 529:16.4: 6 Rep. Comm.
on Finance p. 44 43
do for 1796, instead
of having increased with the in increase of
business arising from additional taxes, reduced to
£ 491:1:2 ibid p. 44.
In point of amplitude of correspondence the may case may possibly be
after all, that the case field of the Stamp Office bears
a greater resemblance to the narrow less ample fruitful field of the Customs
than to the more ample fruitful field of the Excise: since
the hed Head Distributors are for the whole of Great
Britain England but 66: ib. p. 36, 37.
and the Head Distributors pay,
appoint, and are answerable for their respective
Sub-Distributors: thence it seems probably that
it is the Head Distributors only that and not
the Sub-Distributors, that maintain any direct
correspondence with the Board. If the expense of
any of those letters the whole or any considerable part of the correspondence between the Head Distributors
and their respective Sub-Distributors is included in the
above account, which appears
rather to be the case,
the moderation of it seems to be truly wonderful.
---page break---
|
Identifier: | JB/150/636/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 150. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
150 |
police bill |
||
|
636 |
|||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
d7 / f207 |
||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
50857 |
|||
