(most probably from the Latin excidere, to cut off), a term used in finance to signify a duty charged in a country upon articles produced in it before they are permitted to get into the possession of the public.

Some articles are much better suited than others for being subjected to excise duties. But they have been imposed on a great variety of articles, and have, for a lengthened period, furnished a large portion of the public revenue of most European countries.

Excise duties have, indeed, existed in one form or other in all modern, and perhaps also in all ancient, states. They were introduced into Rome by Augustus, who imposed a duty of one per cent. (centesima rerum venalium) on all articles, whether great or small, sold in public markets or by auction. Though extremely moderate, a duty of this sort could not fail, from the difficulties in the way of its assessment, its interference with the dealings of individuals, and the abuses to which it must have led, to occasion clamour and discontent. And these in no long time became so very prevalent, that Tiberius was obliged to declare that the maintenance of the army, for the support of which this tax had been appropriated, depended on its being continued. (Taciti Annae, lib. i., § 78.) In the sequel it underwent various changes. It appears to be sufficiently well established that it applied only to Rome, and, perhaps, to some few of the other great towns. In the smaller towns its produce would not indeed have sufficed to defray the cost of its collection. It, therefore, had at bottom a good deal in common with the octrois or town duties charged on commodities coming into Paris and other great continental cities. But the defective mode of its assessment must have made it infinitely more troublesome and onerous. (Gibbon, Decline and Fall, i. 211, ed. 1838; Dureau de la Malle, Economie Politique des Romains, ii. 459, &c.)

It is said that the first attempt to introduce excise duties into England was made in 1626 by a commission under the Great Seal. But parliament having remonstrated against the measure, the commission was cancelled. This description of duties had, however, been previously established in Holland, and the large revenue which they afforded pointed them out to the leaders of the popular party in the great civil war as the most likely means by which they could raise funds to carry on the arduous contest in which they had embarked. They were, consequently, introduced by a parliamentary ordinance issued in 1643, which imposed duties on ale, beer, cider, and perry, and on the makers and venders thereof. The Royalists soon after followed the example set by the Republicans; though, as the duties were from the outset exceedingly unpopular, both parties took special care to ascribe their introduction to necessity, and to pledge themselves to their abolition at the close of the war. But they were soon found to be far too productive to be voluntarily abandoned; and after the nation had been accustomed to them for a few years, and they had been considerably increased, parliament did not hesitate to declare in 1649 that "the impost of excise was the most easy and indifferent levy that could be laid upon the people." (Blackstone, book i., cap. 8.) And it is worthy of remark that the regulations embodied in Cromwell's Excise Act of 1657, authorizing officers to make searches, and directing the giving of notices, &c., are very similar to those now in force.

The same reasons that made the excise be continued down to the Restoration, secured its existence subsequently to that epoch. A portion of its produce was, at the same time, assigned in perpetuity to the crown, in compensation for its relinquishing the hereditary revenues arising from wardships and other feudal prerogatives which were then abolished. And, notwithstanding Blackstone says that, "from its first origin to the present time, its very name has been odious to the people of England" (Com. ubi supra), it has continued progressively to gain ground; and has, for a lengthened series of years, furnished a large portion of the public revenue.

It is probable that the prejudice to which Blackstone alludes did not originate so much in any dislike to the duties themselves as in the peculiar circumstances connected with their imposition. Originally they were let in farm, which is always a most unpopular proceeding. And down to a recent period there was hardly a single duty the assessment of which was not made the subject of numerous lengthened, obscure, and contradictory statutes, so that it was hardly possible for any trader, however desirous to comply with the law, to avoid getting into serious scrapes. The duties being frequently, also, carried to an oppressive extent, smuggling was practised; and when a party was prosecuted, whether for an intentional or unintentional infraction of the law, or for attempting to defraud the revenue, the case might be laid before judges (without the intervention of a jury) in whose decision the public had little confidence. No wonder, therefore, that the excise should have been unpopular. But the obnoxious practice of letting the duties to farmers has been long abandoned, and of late years the laws and regulations connected with their assessment have been much simplified. In this respect, indeed, nothing should be omitted to render the rules for assessing the duties brief, level to the comprehension of every one, and calculated to interfere as little as possible with the details and processes of manufacture. And, supposing their assessment to be sufficiently simplified, and that they are of a reasonable amount, but little objection can be made to the duties because of the summary jurisdiction exercised by the commissioners and justices. On the contrary, this practice has some material advantages. When parties are prosecuted in the court of exchequer for offences against the revenue, their case is, of course, submitted to a jury. But in this court, as in others, delays frequently take place, and the expenses are always very considerable; whereas, in cases of summary jurisdiction, or those adjudged by the commissioners and justices, there is little or no delay, and little or no expense. And, considering that all parties who fancy themselves aggrieved by the decision of the commissioners are entitled (4th Vict., cap. Exclusion 20, sec. 26), to appeal at a very trifling cost to a baron of exchequer, who rejudges the case; while those who suppose themselves aggrieved by a sentence of the justices may appeal to the quarter-sessions (7th and 8th Geo. IV., cap. 53, sec. 82), there really appears to be more to approve than to object to in the summary jurisdiction.

The excise duties formerly imposed on salt, leather, candles, beer, glass, and other less important articles, have been repealed within these few years. And we doubt whether there be one of the existing duties which can be fairly objected to on principle, or for its injuriously interfering with the manufacture, or being too high. Whatever may have been the case formerly, the excise is now fully entitled to the eulogium passed upon it by Arthur Young, "Excises are by much the fairest, most equal, and least burdensome of all taxes. They are paid voluntarily. Not a shilling is contributed but in proportion to the free consumption. The Dutch, who have been deservedly esteemed the wisest nation in Europe in all matters of taxation, have been enabled to preserve their industry under burdens of which we have no experience and scarcely any conception, principally by their having adopted this mode of taxation" (Political Arithmetic, part ii., p. 46). For farther information in regard to the excise duties, see art. Taxation in this work.