>"792' en revenue lavjS; 321 



case, a cargo of the above desci-iption would bring 



L.1381 5 

 And the cost the same as before 850 o © 



So that, in this case, there is aproht ofL.531 5 o 



With not a farthing more riik than in the other 

 instance ; so that a smuggler now saves himself, if 

 he can get clear away with i» cargoes for every one 

 Jie loses. 



The inference to be drawn from the above, n, 

 that if, by their exertions, the servants of the 

 crown could seize two vefsels and their cargoes, out 

 of three and one-fourth, and no more, smuggling 

 would be entirely annihilated, in the case of the duty 

 being 3 s. per gallon ; but in the case of its being 5 s. 

 and 10 d. as it is at present, there would be a profit 

 of very nearly 25 per cent, on the stock -so em- 

 ployed ; and the money, would be turned over com- 

 pletely in the space of three or four months. 



This statement may be erroneous in some parti- 

 culars (as I am no smuggler,) but that the general 

 ■principle is founded in truth, I do not think v.'ill be 

 denied. 



Hence it appears evident that there is a certain 

 rate at which the duties ought to be fixed, in order 

 to prevent smuggling ; and that if they were fixed at 

 that rate, that branch of trade would infallibly fall 

 to the ground. 



It is very certain that the duty is by no means 

 low enough at present to prevent smuggling, unlefs 

 we establifh yet more revenue cruizers, excise of- 

 ■ficers, Ijff. (with which we are far too much clogged 



roL. X. s s t 



