DISPOSITION OF THE PENALTIES 



113 



gether with a copy of the estreats for which they give re- 

 ceipts to the justices, while a dupHcate copy is sent by 

 the latter to the exchequer. The collectors now pass on 

 to the subcollectors in each district (who are often the con- 

 stables), the estreats of the penalties imposed in that dis- 

 trict, together with the memorandum of the amount " al- 

 lowed " it in penalties by the committee of apportionment. 

 It is evident that each district might receive as an allow- 

 ance the exact sum to be levied on it in penalties ; in this 

 case, the subcollectors' task is to collect the penalties and 

 the difference between their amount and that of the tax, so 

 that the total to be raised by them is no greater than ac- 

 cording to the original assessment; but it is equally evident 

 that with the plan of giving most aid to the neediest dis- 

 tricts, the subcollectors, while sometimes receiving a larger 

 sum of penalties than they had been forced to collect, might 

 also have to levy a larger sum than would be " allowed " 

 their district, and thus would have additional labour with 

 no corresponding benefit. The Colchester case, which will 

 be referred to later, is an excellent example of the friction 

 naturally arising from such a situation.^ 



The existence of several of the original schedules of pen- 

 alties imposed by the justices ^ (probably the duplicates 

 called for by the exchequer) makes possible a direct com- 

 parison with the memoranda of apportionment and seems 

 to warrant the inference that the simpler method of the 

 statute was the more usual ; that is, the " allowance " to 

 each district normally equalled the sum imposed in penalties 

 within that district. 



After receiving from the subcollectors the quota due 

 from them, the collectors make up their accounts in vari- 

 ous ways. Very often they give the amormt of the tax, 



^See p. 130. ^App., .332-334; 338; 361. 



