commissioners of inland revenue; they are now under the control of the commissioners of customs; the amount raised, apart from changes in the rate, shows a fairly constant tendency to increase, and is usually regarded as one of the best tests of the prosperity of the working classes.
The spirit duty is levied according to the quantity of “proof spirit” contained in the product of distillation, and the charge is taken at three different points in the process of manufacture, the trader being liable for the result of the highest of the three calculations. What is known as “proof spirit” is obtained by mixing nearly equal weights of pure alcohol and water, the quantity of pure alcohol being in bulk about 57% of the whole. Owing to the high rate of duty as compared with the volume and intrinsic value of the spirits, the whole process of manufacture is carried on under the close supervision of revenue officials. All the vessels used are measured by them and are secured with revenue locks; the premises are under constant survey; and notice has to be given by the distiller of the materials used and of the several stages of his operations. Though the charge for duty is raised at the time when the process of distillation is completed, the duty is not actually paid until the spirits are required for consumption. In the meanwhile they may be retained in an approved “warehouse,” which is also subject to close supervision.
The beer duty dates from 1880, in which year it was substituted for the duty on malt. The specific gravity of the worts depends chiefly on the amount of sugar which they contain, and is ascertained by the saccharometer.
Excise licences may be divided into—(a) licences for the sale or manufacture of excisable liquors, (b) licences for other trades, such as tobacco dealers or manufacturers, auctioneers, pawnbrokers, &c., (c) licences for male servants, carriages, motors and armorial bearings, and (d) gun, game and dog licences. Nearly the whole of the licence duties is paid over to the local taxation account.
The railway passenger duty, which was made an excise duty by the Railway Passenger Duty Act 1847, applies only to Great Britain. It is levied on all passenger fares exceeding 1d. per mile, the rate being 2% on urban and 5% on other traffic.
The other items which go to make up the excise revenue are the charges on deliveries from bonded warehouses, and the duties on coffee mixture labels and on chicory.
For more detailed information reference should be made to Highmore’s Excise Laws, and the annual reports of the commissioners of inland revenue, especially those issued in 1870 and 1885. See also Taxation; English Finance.
EXCOMMUNICATION (Lat. ex, out of, away from; communis,
common), the judicial exclusion of offenders from the rights
and privileges of the religious community to which they belong.
The history of the practice of excommunication may be traced
through (1) pagan analogues, (2) Hebrew custom, (3) primitive
Christian practice, (4) medieval and monastic usage, (5) modern
survivals in existing Christian churches.
1. Among pagan analogues are the Gr. χερνίβων εἴργεσθαι (Demosth. 505, 14), the exclusion of an offender from purification with holy water. This exclusion was enforced in the case of persons whose hands were defiled with bloodshed. Its consequences are described Aesch. Choëph. 283, Eum. 625 f., Soph. Oed. Tyr. 236 ff. The Roman exsecratio and diris devotio was a solemn pronouncement of a religious curse by priests, intended to call down the divine wrath upon enemies, and to devote them to destruction by powers human and divine. The Druids claimed the dread power of excluding offenders from sacrifice (Caes. B.G. vi. 13). Primitive Semitic customs recognize that when persons are laid under a ban or taboo (ḥerem) restrictions are imposed on contact with them, and that the breach of these involves supernatural dangers. Impious sinners, or enemies of the community and its god, might be devoted to utter destruction.
2. Hebrew Custom.—In a theocracy excommunication is necessarily both a civil and a religious penalty. The word used in the New Testament to describe an excommunicated person, ἀνάθεμα (1 Cor. xvi. 22, Gal. i. 8-9, Rom. ix. 3), is the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew ḥerem. The word means “set apart” (cf. harem), and does not distinguish originally between things set apart because devoted to God and things devoted to destruction. Lev. xxvii. 16-34 defines the law for dealing with “devoted” things; according to v. 28 “No devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord, of all that he hath, whether of man or beast, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed. None devoted shall be ransomed, he shall surely be put to death.” As in Greece and Rome whole cities or nations might be devoted to destruction by pronouncement of a ban (Numbers xxi. 2, 3, Deut. ii. 34, iii. 6, vii. 2). Occasionally Israelites as well as aliens fall under the curse (Judg. xxi. 5, 11). A milder form of penalty was the temporary separation or seclusion (niddah) prescribed for ceremonial uncleanness. This was the ordinary form of religious discipline. In the time of Ezra the Jewish “magistrates and judges” among their ecclesiastico-civil functions have the right of pronouncing sentence whether it be unto death, or to “rooting out,” or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment (Ezra vii. 26). There is also a lighter form of excommunication which “devotes” the goods of an offender, but only separates him from the congregation. Both major and minor kinds of excommunication are recognized by the Talmud. The lesser (niddah) involved exclusion from the synagogue for thirty days, and other penalties, and might be renewed if the offender remained impenitent. The major excommunication (ḥerem) excluded from the Temple as well as the synagogue and from all association with the faithful. Spinoza was excommunicated (July 16, 1656) for contempt of the law. Seldon (De jure nat. et gen., iv. 7) gives the text of the curse pronounced on the culprit. The Exemplar Humanae Vitae of Uriel d’Acosta also deserves reference. The practice of the Jewish courts in New Testament times may be inferred from certain passages in the Gospels. Luke vi. 22, John ix. 22, xii. 42 indicate that exclusion from the synagogue was a recognized penalty, and that it was probably inflicted on those who confessed Jesus as the Christ. John xvi. 2 (“Whosoever killeth you,” &c.) may point to the power of inflicting the major penalty. The Talmud itself says that the judgment of capital cases was taken away from Israel forty years before the destruction of the Temple. “Forty” is probably a round number without historical value, but the circumstance recorded by this tradition and confirmed by the evangelist’s account of the trial of Jesus is historical, and is to be regarded as one of several restrictions imposed on the Jewish courts in the time of the Roman procurators.
3. Primitive Christian Practice.—The use of excommunication as a form of Christian discipline is based on the precept of Christ and on apostolic practice. The general principles which govern the exclusion of members from a religious community may be gathered from the New Testament writings. Matt. xviii. 15-17 prescribes a threefold admonition, first privately, then in the presence of witnesses (cf. Titus iii. 10), then before the church. This is a graded procedure as in the Jewish synagogue and makes exclusion a last resort. Nothing is said as to the nature and effects of excommunication. The tone of the passage when compared with the disciplinary methods of the synagogue indicates that its purpose was to introduce elements of reason and moral suasion in place of sterner methods. Its object is rather the protection of the church than the punishment of the sinner. The offender is only treated as a heathen and publican when the purity and safety of the church demand it. In the locus classicus on this subject (1 Cor. v. 5) Paul refers to a formal meeting of the Corinthian church at which the incestuous person is “delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.” These are mysterious words implying (1) a formal ecclesiastical censure, (2) a physical penalty, (3) the hope of a spiritual result. The form of penalty which would meet these conditions is not explained. There is a reference in 2 Cor. ii. 6-11 to a case of discipline which may or may not be the same. If it be the same it indicates that the excommunication had not been final; the offender had been received back. If it be not the same it shows the Corinthian
