JB/150/636/001: Difference between revisions

Transcribe Bentham: A Collaborative Initiative

From Transcribe Bentham: Transcription Desk

Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.

JB/150/636/001: Difference between revisions

Mfoutz (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Mfoutz (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE -->


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>and</del> drout every<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, there<lb/><del><gap/> and maximum appears to be confined within</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 Realms for need</del> by a strange<lb/>confusion all Bills <add>who</add> for incidents whatsoever <del>v</del><lb/><add>which in each instance happen to fall short, or are made to</add><lb/><del>meanting falling short in such separate instance</del><lb/><add>fall short</add> of £ 10. are lumped with postage.  Total payment<lb/>on this exact account notwithstanding for <del>1796,</del><lb/>£ 491 <gap/><gap/> 1782 <add>no more than</add> 11 ibid p. 44. 528: 16.4:  
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>and</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, there<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>who</add> for incidents whatsoever <del>remaining</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,</del><lb/><del>£ 491 viz</del> 1782 <add>no more than</add> 11 ibid p. 44. 528: 16.4:  
<note>6 Pap. Comm. <lb/>on Finance p. <del>44</del> <add>43</add></note><lb/>  
<note>6 Pap. 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 increase with the <del><gap/></del>  increase of<lb/>business arising from additional taxes, reduced to <lb/>£ 491:1:2 <note>ibid p. 44.</note><lb/>
d<hi rend="superscript">o</hi> for 1796, instead<lb/>of having increase with the <del><gap/></del>  increase of<lb/>business arising from additional taxes, reduced to <lb/>£ 491:1:2 <note>ibid p. 44.</note><lb/>

Revision as of 15:43, 28 April 2015

Click Here To Edit

In the case of the Stamp Office the maximum limits
of the abuse are given in a more and 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 who for incidents whatsoever remaining
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 11 ibid p. 44. 528: 16.4: 6 Pap. Comm.
on Finance p. 44 43

do for 1796, instead
of having increase with the increase of
business arising from additional taxes, reduced to
£ 491:1:2 ibid p. 44.

















Identifier: | JB/150/636/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 150.

Date_1

Marginal Summary Numbering

Box

150

Main Headings

police bill

Folio number

636

Info in main headings field

Image

001

Titles

Category

text sheet

Number of Pages

1

Recto/Verso

recto

Page Numbering

d7 / f207

Penner

jeremy bentham

Watermarks

Marginals

Paper Producer

Corrections

Paper Produced in Year

Notes public

ID Number

50857

Box Contents

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