The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-12 00:00:00

again.

We have recently explained the vast import-
ance of the financial scheme which will probably
be promulgated on Friday next, or at all events
in the ensuing week, by the Chancellor of the ,
Exchequer. On that scheme will, in all proba-
bility, depend the permanency of the Government.
Should it be satisfactory to the great body of the
people, it will be impossible to displace those who
have acted fairly towards them on the point where
they are most sensitive—the pocket ; and any
factious vote would be speedily rewarded by an
immediate appeal to the country, which would,
we believe, be clearly and unequivocally answered
—and by no means to the satisfaction of those
who provoked the manifestations of popular feel-
ing by free and independent constituencies.
We have already stated the leading features
that ought to appear in the new Budget—viz., a
renewal of the Exchequer Bonds, and a modifica-
tion of the Income-tax, discriminating between
permanent and precarious receipts. The people
know that they have nothing to expect from Sir
G. C. LEWIS in the •way of relief. He is wedded
to the Income-tax in its present unequal and
oppressive form. He would make no change to
render the assessments more equitable. It is
probable that, if in office, he would propose its
continuance at sevenpence in the 1/. until
1860, by which he would gain 2,000,0001.
per annum, towards supplying the defi-
ciency which he himself had created by paying
off the Exchequer Bonds last year, and redeeming
the Sound Dues by a sin sle payment, in place of
by instalments spread over at least 20 years,
and not taking any equivalent for the Sardinian
loan, which was creating capital for the benefit of
posterity at the expense of the present generation.
He might also impose additional imposts, or in-
crease those already in operation until they
become intolerable. But there would net be the
slightest hope of his affording the slightest relief
to the overburdened tax-payers in any matter
however impolitic or inequitable. The stereo-
tpyed answer of Sir CHARLES Woon, when ho
was at the head of the Financial Department,
that "the tax produced so:many thousands, which
he was certainly not disposed to part with," would
be that returned to every complaint, however
well founded.
It has been more than hinted that one of his
projects for obtaining money would be increasing
the duty on Irish spirits to the rate now paid in
England. We are convinced that any such scheme
would not only prove a total failure, so far as the
revenue is concerned, but that it would be pro-
ductive of very disastrous and demoralising conse-
quences. In Ireland we quite agree that spirits may
be properly taxed to the very highest amount
that can be procured without creating
an illicit trade. But, unfortunately, there is a
certain limit that cannot be passed 1 The mo-
ment that illicit distillation becomes profitable,
that a sufficient insurance fund can be created
against loss, at that very moment the dangerous
traffic will be stimulated and fostered. No mea-
sures of precaution will suffice to put it down.
All the efforts of the Revenue Police will be fruit-
less—when the success of one attempt will more
than recompense the failure of two others.
Many well-informed per Sons are of opinion that
the utmost limit has already been touched. Nay, it
is more than probable that it has been passed.
Corn is fortunately cheap, and that is the illicit
1
distill, is opportunity. His stake is less in
amount, while the grain, in case of success, is in-
, creased in an inverse ratio. The temptation to
" wet grain" is therefore incomparably greater
than while it was comparatively scarce and dear,
and war or semi-famine prices were maintained.
Under such circumstances it would be most
unwise to put on a further duty ; but these are
matters with which Sir G. C. LEWIS could not
grapple. He would go on without con-
sideration, until he found the revenue ma-
terially damaged, and illicit distillation with its