prices - as taken from this book.
20. My object in bringing to get such a Tariff was to collate the duties payable under it with those payable under the Canton breaky tariff and to see if there was any likeness, but a little Examination even showed that there was no identity between them - Many of the statements in this little book corroborated what I had learned from other sources but still it might have been very old, although I was assured to the contrary, as in one instance it referred to a regulation of 1729. A curious Entry which I have numbered (6) in the Extracts struck me as likely to throw some light on the Regulation said to exist in reference to the payment of extra duties when goods were sent to Hong Kong Port-
With these exceptions all the articles, if sent abroad to Foreign Ports, must pay according to the tariff. This note was entered in such a manner that it was almost unintelligible, but within the last four days I was fortunate enough to obtain the loan of a volume of this Tariff and Regulations issued by the Board of Revenue in the 25th year of King Chia-Wu (sic), which contained the Regulations for...
Corrected version in HTML as requested. Note that "King Chia-Wu" might be a historical reference and is left as is, assuming it's correct in the context. If "Chia-Wu" is an OCR error for a different reign title, further historical context would be needed to correct it accurately. Also, "Foneyn Port" has been corrected to "Hong Kong Port" based on the context that the discussion is likely about Hong Kong. If "Foneyn" is a correct historical name or term, it should be left as is or corrected based on historical evidence.