as by the Dutch and Jews, and by all other men, who have come to vaste Estates by Trade, doth appear.
Thirdly, No man payes double or twice for the same thing, forasmuch as nothing can be spent but once; whereas it is frequently seen, that otherwise men pay both by the Rent of their Lands, by their Smoaks, by their Titles, and by Customs, (which all men do, though Merchants chiefly talk of it) they also pay by Benevolence and by Tythes; whereas in this way of Excize no man need pay but one way, nor but once, properly speaking.
Fifthly,[1] By this way an excellent account may be taken of the Wealth, Growth, Trade, and strength of the Nation at all times. All which Reasons do make not for particular compoundings with Faculties[er 1], nor for letting the whole to farm, but for collecting it by special Officers, who having a full employment, will not be a fourth of the charge of our present many multiform Levies; for to put extraordinary trouble and hazzard upon the Countrey Officers, is a sorer Taxing of them, then to make them pay a small Reward unto practised Persons to be their Substitutes. All which are the common Objections against Excize.
13. I should here adde the manner of Collecting it, but I refer this to the practice of Holland; and I might also offer how men may be framed to be fit for this and other Publick Trusts, as to be Cashiers, Storekeepers, Collectors, &c. but I refer this Enquiry unto a more ample and fit occasion. ||
- ↑ No "fourthly" in any edition.
- ↑ In the 1662 ed., this catch-word occurs on p. 75 (signature L2). The verso of the leaf is blank. The next leaf, unpaged, has signature M and begins "Errata." The 1662 ed. being in quarto, two leaves, apparently, are missing. But the Index calls for no more than is here printed, and the nine copies I have seen contain no more.
errata:
- ↑ read [families] for [faculties]
