indicates the exchanges which are of most interest to England:--
_Foreign Exchanges._
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| | June 14. | June 15. | June 16. |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Paris, cheques | 25 f. 18 c. | 25 f. 18 c. | 25 f. 18 c. |
| " Mkt. discount | 2-1/2-5/8 p.c. | 2-1/2-5/8 p.c. | 2-1/2-5/8 p.c. |
| Brussels, cheques | 25 f. 23 c. | 25 f. 23-1/2 c.| .. |
| Berlin, sight | 20 m. 48-3/4 pf.|20 m. 48-3/4 pf.| 20 m. 48 pf. |
| " 8 days | 20 m. 46-1/2 pf.|20 m. 46-1/4 pf.|20 m. 45-1/2 pf.|
| " Mkt. discount | 3-7/8 p.c. | 3-7/8 p.c. | 3-7/8 p.c. |
| Vienna, sight | Holiday |24 kr. 02-1/4 h.|24 kr. 02-3/4 h.|
| Amsterdam, sight | 12 fl. 13-1/8 c.|12 fl. 13-1/4 c.| .. |
| Italy, sight | Holiday | 25 lire 15 c. | .. |
| Madrid, sight | " | 27 ps. 68 | .. |
| Lisbon, sight | " | .. | .. |
| St Petersburg, 3 ms. | 94 r. 10 | 94 r. 10 | .. |
| Bombay, T.T. | 1s. 4d. | 1s. 4d. | 1s. 4d. |
| Calcutta, T.T. | 1s. 4d. | 1s. 4d. | 1s. 4d. |
| Hong-Kong, T.T. | 2s. 1-1/16d. | 2s. 1-1/16d. | 2s. 1-1/16d. |
| Shanghai, T.T. | 2s. 10-3/4d. | 2s. 10-5/8d. | 2s. 10-5/8d. |
| Singapore, T.T. | 2s. 4-1/16d. | 2s. 4-1/16d. | 2s. 4-1/16d. |
| Yokohama, T.T. | 2s. 0-3/8d. | 2s. 0-3/8d. | 2s. 0-3/8d. |
|*Rio de Jan'ro, 90 days| 16-9/16d. | 16-9/16d. | 16-17/32d. |
|*Valparaiso, 90 days | | | |
| Coml. | 14-3/8d. | 14-3/8d. | 14-1/4d. |
|*B. Ayres, 90 days | 48-1/8d. | 48d. | 48d. |
+-----------------------+-----------------+----------------+----------------+
* These rates are telegraphed on the day preceding their receipt.
In the case of Paris and Berlin it will be noticed that the local rate
of discount is also given, as the value of money in these centres, in
relation to the value of money in London, is the most important factor
in a movement of the exchange. Vienna has become important owing to the
improvement in the financial position of Austria, and still greater
improvement is shown in the case of Italy, whose currency stands in the
above list better even than that of France. Spain, which should stand at
about the same rate, still has a depreciated paper currency. Lisbon
stands also at a discount, as the milreis should be worth 53-1/4 pence.
In Russia the exchange showing 94.10 roubles to L10 is carefully and
cleverly controlled in spite of the bad internal position. The India
exchanges move slightly, as the currency is firmly established at the
rate of 15 rupees to the L1. Hong-Kong quotes for the old Mexican dollar
and a British trade dollar; Shanghai for the tael containing on an
average 517-1/2 grains of fine silver. The Straits Settlements have
fixed their money on a gold basis at 2s. 4d. per dollar, on the lines of
the arrangement made in India. In Japan there is a gold standard, and
par of exchange is 2s. 0-1/2d. for the yen. Brazil, Chile and Argentina
have a depreciated paper currency, and the last quotation of 48d. is for
the gold dollar equal to five francs, but there is a premium on gold in
the River Plate of 127.27-1/2% and for the present a gold standard is
re-established on this basis. The letters T.T. with the eastern
exchanges signify telegraphic transfer or the rate for payments made by
cable. The very important New York rates are always given in another
part of the daily paper with other details of American commercial
interest.
These rates are all quotations for payments in England, and all over the
world the exchange on London is the exchange of the greatest importance.
This unique position was gained originally, probably, through the
geographical position of the United Kingdom, and has been maintained
owing to several reasons which secure to London a peculiar position by
comparison with any other capital. Britain's colossal trade ensures a
supply of and a demand for English remittances. Even when goods or
produce are dealt in between foreign countries a credit is opened in
London, so that the shipper of the produce can offer in the local market
a bill of exchange which is readily saleable. With the highly developed
banking system a large amount of deposits is collected in London, and
the result is that bills of any usance up to six months can be
immediately discounted, and the proceeds, if required, can be handed
over in gold. There are in London a great number of wealthy banks and
banking houses whose reputation and solidity allow any one of them to
accept bills for amounts varying from one to ten millions sterling,
whereby large commissions are earned.
These four advantages, namely, a free gold market, a huge trade, an
enormous accumulation of wealth, and a discount market such as exists
nowhere else, have made London an unrivalled financial centre, and
consequently bills on London are an international money and the best
medium of exchange.
AUTHORITIES.--_A B C of the Foreign Exchanges_, by George Clare;
_Foreign Exchanges_, by Goschen; _Arbitrage_, by Deutsch; _Arbitrages
et Parites_, by Ottomar Haupt; Swoboda, _Arbitrage_ (12th edition), by
Max Fuerst. (E. M. Ha.)
EXCHEQUER. The word "exchequer" is the English form of the Fr.
_echiquier_, low Lat. _scaccarium_, and its primary meaning is a
chess-board (see CHESS). As the name of a government department dealing
with accounts it is derived from the exchequer or the "abacus" by means
of which such accounts were kept, such a contrivance being almost
universally in use before the introduction of the Arabic notation. In
England the department or court of accounts was named originally "the
tallies" from the notched sticks or tallies which constituted the
primitive means of account-keeping (which were only abolished in 1826),
and was only subsequently, probably in the reign of Henry I., named the
exchequer from the use of the abacus. Both the name and the general
features of the institution may reasonably be attributed to Norman
influence, since we find both in Normandy and in the Norman kingdom of
Sicily, as well as in Scotland and Ireland; the two latter cases being
directly due to English example. As a court of law the exchequer owed
its existence in England, as elsewhere, to the necessity of deciding
legal questions arising from matters of account, and its secondary
activities soon overshadowed its original functions.
We cannot say whether the exchequer, as known in England, is older than
the beginning of the 12th century. The treasury, which may be regarded
as one of its constituents, dates from before the conquest, and the
officers of the exchequer who were drawn from the treasury staff can be
traced back to Domesday. But our earliest information about the
exchequer itself, apart from that afforded by the pipe rolls (see
RECORD), rests on a treatise (_Dialogus de Scaccario_) written about
A.D. 1179 by Richard, bishop of London and treasurer of England. His
father, Nigel, bishop of Ely, had been treasurer of Henry I., and nephew
to that king's great financial minister Roger, bishop of Salisbury.
Nigel is said to have reconstituted the exchequer after the troubles of
Stephen's reign upon the model which he inherited from his uncle. The
Angevin, or rather the Norman, exchequer cannot be regarded in
strictness as a permanent department. It consisted of two parts: the
lower exchequer, which was closely connected with the permanent treasury
and was an office for the receipt and payment of money; and the upper
exchequer, which was a court sitting twice a year to settle accounts and
thus nearly related to the Curia Regis (q.v.). We dare hardly say that
either exchequer existed in vacation; indeed the word (like the word
"diet") seems to have been limited at first to the actual sitting of the
king's court for financial purposes. The Michaelmas and Easter
exchequers were the sessions of this court "at the exchequer" or
chess-board as it had previously sat "at the tallies." The constitution
of the court was that of the normal Frankish curia. The king was the
nominal president, and the court consisted of his great officers of
state and his barons, or tenants-in-chief, and it is doubtless due to
the fact that the exchequer was originally the curia itself sitting for
a special purpose that its unofficial judges retained the name of
"barons" until recent times. Of the great officers we may probably find
the steward in the person of the justiciar, the normal president of the
court. He sat at the head of the exchequer table. The butler was not
represented. The chancellor sat on the justiciar's left; he was
custodian _ex officio_ of the seal of the court, and thus responsible
for the issue of all writs and summonses, and moreover for the keeping
of a duplicate roll of accounts embodying the judgments of the court. On
the left of the chancellor, and thus clear of the table, since their
services might be required elsewhere at any moment, sat the constable,
the two chamberlains and the marshal. The constable was the chief of the
outdoor service of the court, and was responsible for everything
connected with the army, or with hunting and hawking. The two
chamberlains were the lay colleagues of the treasurer, and shared with
him the duty of receiving and paying money, and keeping safe the seal of
the court, and all the records and other contents of the treasury. The
marshal, who was subordinate to the constable, shared his duties, and
was specially responsible for the custody of prisoners and of the
vouchers produced by accountants. At the head of the table on the
justiciar's right sat, in Henry II.'s time, an extraordinary member of
the court, the bishop of Winchester. The treasurer, like the chancellor
a clerk, sat at the head of the right-hand side of the table. He charged
the accountants with their fixed debts, and dictated the contents of the
great roll of accounts (or pipe roll) which embodied the decisions of
the court as to the indebtedness of the sheriffs and other accountants.
These persons with certain subordinates constituted the court of
accounts, or upper exchequer, whereas the lower exchequer, or exchequer
of receipt, consisted almost exclusively of the subordinates of the
treasurer and chamberlains. In the upper exchequer the justiciar
appointed the calculator, who exhibited the state of each account by
means of counters on the exchequer table, so that the proceedings of the
court might be clear to the presumably illiterate sheriff. The
calculator sat in the centre of the side of the table on the president's
left. The chancellor's staff consisted of the _Magister Scriptorii_
(probably the ancestor of the modern master of the rolls), whose duties
are not stated; a clerk (the modern chancellor of the exchequer) who
settled the form of all writs and summonses, charged the sheriff with
all fines and amercements, and acted as a check on the treasurer in the
composition of the great roll; and a scribe (afterwards the comptroller
of the pipe), who wrote out the writs and summonses and kept a duplicate
of the great roll, known as the chancellor's roll. The constable's
subordinates were the marshal and a clerk, who, besides the duty of
paying outdoor servants of the crown, had the special task of producing
duplicates of all writs issued by the Curia Regis. The treasurer and
chamberlains, being colleagues, had a joint staff, the clerical or
literate members of which were servants of the treasurer, while the lay
or illiterate members depended on the chamberlains. Hence while the
treasurer and his clerks kept their accounts by means of rolls, the
chamberlains and their serjeants duplicated them so far as possible by
means of tallies. Thus the great roll was written by the treasurer's
scribe (the engrosser, afterwards the clerk of the pipe), while the
payments on account and other allowances to be credited to the sheriff
were registered by the tally cutter of the chamberlains.
In the exchequer of receipt the staff was similarly divided between the
treasurer and chamberlains; the treasurer having a clerk who kept the
issue and receipt rolls (the later clerk of the pells) and four tellers,
while each of the chamberlains was represented by a knight (afterwards
the deputy chamberlains), who controlled the clerk's account by means of
tallies, and held their lands by this serjeanty; these three had joint
control of the treasury, and could not act independently. The other
serjeants were the knight or "pesour" who weighed the money, the melter
who assayed it, and the ushers of the two exchequers. It should be noted
that all the lay offices of the treasury in both exchequers were
hereditary. Henry II. had also a personal clerk who supervised the
proceedings personally in the upper, and by deputy in the lower,
exchequer.
The business of the ancient exchequer was primarily financial, although
we know that some judicial business was done there and that the court of
common pleas was derived from it rather than from the curia proper. The
principal accountants were the sheriffs, who were bound, as the king's
principal financial agents in each county, to give an account of their
stewardship twice a year, at the exchequers of Easter and Michaelmas.
Half the annual revenue was payable at Easter, and at Michaelmas the
balance was exacted, and the accounts made up for the year, and formally
enrolled on the pipe roll. The fixed revenue consisted of the farms of
the king's demesne lands within the counties, of the county mints, and
of certain boroughs (see BOROUGH) which paid annual sums as the price of
their liberties. Danegeld was also regarded as fixed revenue, though
after the accession of Henry II. it was not frequently levied. There
were also rents of assarts and purprestures and mining and other
royalties. The casual revenue consisted of the profits of the feudal
incidents (escheat, wardship and marriage), of the profits of justice
(amercements, and goods of felons and outlaws), and of fines, or
payments made by the king's subjects to secure grants of land, wardships
or marriages, and of immunities, as well as for the hastening and
sometimes the delaying of justice. Besides this, there were the revenues
arising from aids and scutages of the king's military tenants, tallages
of the crown lands, customs of ports, and special "gifts," or general
assessments made on particular occasions. For the collection of all
these the sheriff was primarily responsible, though in some cases the
accountants dealt directly with the exchequer, and were bound to make
their appearance in person on the day when the sheriff accounted.
We gather both from tradition and from the example of the Scottish
exchequer that the farms of demesne lands were originally paid in kind,
by way of purveyance for the royal household, and although such farms
are expressed even in Domesday Book in terms of money, the tradition
that there was a system of customary valuation is a sufficient
explanation, and not of itself incredible. At some date, possibly under
the administration of Roger of Salisbury, the inconvenience of this
arrangement led to the substitution of money payments at the exchequer.
The rapid deterioration of a small silver coinage led to successive
efforts to maintain the value of these payments, first by a "scale"
deduction of 6d. in the L for wear, then by the substitution of payment
by weight for payment by tale, and finally by the reduction of most of
such payments to their pure silver value by means of an assay, a process
originally confined to payments from particular manors. Only the farms
of counties, however, were so treated, and not all of those. The amount
to be deducted in these cases was settled by the weighing and assaying
of a specimen pound of silver in the presence of the sheriff by the
pesour and the melter in the lower exchequer. The casual revenue was
paid by tale, and for the determination of its amount it was necessary
to have copies of all grants made in the chancery on which rents were
reserved, or fines payable. These were known first as _contrabrevia_ and
later as _originalia_; the profits of justice were settled by the
delivery of "estreats" from the justices, while for certain minor
casualties the oath of the sheriff was at first the only security. At a
later date many of them were determined by copies of inquisitions sent
in from the chancery. All this business might be transacted anywhere in
England, and though convenience placed the exchequer first at Winchester
(where the treasury was), and afterwards usually at Westminster, it held
occasional sessions at other towns even in the 14th century.
The Angevin exchequer, described by Richard the Treasurer, remained the
ideal of the institution throughout its history, and the lineaments of
the original exemplar were never completely effaced; but the rapid
increase both of financial and judicial business led to a multiplication
of machinery and a growing complexity of constitution. Even in the time
of Henry II. we gather that the great officers of state, except the
treasurer and chancellor, commonly attended by deputy. In the reign of
Henry III. the chancellor had also ceased to attend, and his clerk
acquired the title of chancellor of the exchequer. To the same period
belongs the institution of the king's and lord treasurer's
remembrancers. These at first had common duties and kept duplicate
rolls, but by the ordinance of 1323 their functions were differentiated.
Henceforward the king's remembrancer was more particularly concerned
with the casual, and the lord treasurer's remembrancer with the fixed
revenue. The former put all debts in charge, while the latter saw to
their recovery when they had found their way on to the great roll. Hence
the preliminary stages of each account, the receiving and registering of
the king's writs to the treasurer and barons, and the drawing up of all
particulars of account, lay with the king's remembrancer, and he
retained the corresponding vouchers. The lord treasurer's remembrancer
exacted the "remanets" of such accounts as had been enrolled, as well as
reserved rents and fixed revenue, and so became closely connected with
the clerk of the pipe. Before the end of the 14th century these three
offices had already crystallized into separate departments.
In the meantime the increasing length and variety of accounts, as well
as the growth of judicial business, had led to various efforts at
reform. As early as 22 Henry II. it became necessary to remove from the
great roll the debts which it seemed hopeless to levy, and further
ordinances to the same end were made by statute in 54 Henry III. and in
12 Edward I. By this last a special "exannual roll" was established in
which the "desperate debts" were recorded, in order that the sheriff
might be reminded of them yearly without their overloading the great
roll. But the largest accession of financial business arose from the
"foreign accounts," that is to say, the accounts of national services,
which did not naturally form part of the account of any county. These
did not in the reign of Henry II. form a part of the exchequer business.
Such expenses as appear on the pipe roll were paid by the sheriffs, or
by the bailiffs of "honours"; payments out of the treasury itself would
only appear on the receipt and issue rolls, and the "spending
departments" probably drew their supplies from the camera curie, and not
directly from the exchequer. In the course of the 13th century the
exchequer gradually acquired partial control of these national accounts.
Even in 18 Henry II. there is an account for the forests of England, and
soon the mint, the wardrobe and the escheators followed. The undated
statute of the exchequer (probably about 1276) provides for escheators,
the earldom of Chester, the Channel Islands, the customs and the
wardrobe. During the reign of Edward I., the wardrobe account became
unmanageable, since it not only financed the household, army, navy and
diplomatic service, but raised money on the customs independently of the
exchequer. The reform of 1323-1326, due to Walter de Stapledon, in
remedying this state of things, greatly increased the number of "foreign
accounts" by making the great wardrobe (the storekeeping department),
the butler, purveyors, keepers of horses or of the stud, the clerk of
the "hamper" of the chancery (who took the fees for the great seal), and
the various ambassadors, directly accountable to the exchequer. At the
same time the sheriffs' accounts were expedited by the further
simplification of the great roll, and by appointing a special officer,
the "foreign apposer," to take the account of the "green wax," or
estreats, so that two accounts could go on at once. Another baron (the
5th or cursitor baron) was appointed, and the whole business of foreign
accounts was transferred to a separate building where one baron and
certain auditors spent their whole time in settling the balances due on
the accounts already mentioned, as well as those of castles, &c., not
let to farm, Wales, Gascony, Ireland, aids (clerical and lay),
temporalities of vacant bishoprics, abbeys, priories and dignities,
mines of silver and tin, ulnage and so forth. These balances were
accounted for in the exchequer itself, and entered on the pipe roll, but
the preliminary accounts were filed by the king's remembrancer, and
enrolled separately by the treasurer's remembrancer as a supplement to
the pipe roll.
The next important change, about the end of the 15th century, was the
gradual substitution of special auditors appointed by the crown, known
as the auditors of the prests (the predecessors of the commissioners for
auditing public accounts), for the auditors of the exchequer. Accounts
when passed by them were presented in duplicate and "declared" before
the treasurer, under-treasurer and chancellor. Of the two copies, one,
on paper, was retained by the auditors, the other, on parchment, was
successively enrolled by the king's and lord treasurer's remembrancers,
and finally by the clerk of the pipe, to secure the levying of any
"remanets" or "supers" by process of the exchequer.
Besides the two great difficulties of the postponement of financial to
legal business, and of preventing the sheriffs from exacting the same
debt twice, the exchequer was, as has been seen, hampered in its
functions by the interference of other departments in financial matters.
Its own branches even acquired a certain independence. The exchequer of
the Jews, which came to an end in 18 Edward I., was such a branch. In 27
Henry VIII. the court of augmentations was established to deal with
forfeited lands of monasteries. This was followed in 32 & 33 Henry VIII.
by the courts of first-fruits and tenths and of general surveyors. These
were reabsorbed by the exchequer in 1 Mary, but remained as separate
departments within it. But the development of the treasury, which
succeeded to the functions of the camera curie or the king's chamber,
ultimately reduced the administrative functions of the exchequer to
unimportance, and the audit office took over its duties with regard to
public accounts. So that when the statute of 3 & 4 William IV. cap. 99,
removed the sheriff's accounts also from its competence, and brought to
an end the series of pipe rolls which begins in 1130, the ancient
exchequer may be said to have come to an end. (C. J.)
In 1834 an act was passed abolishing the old offices of the exchequer,
and creating a new exchequer under a comptroller-general, the detailed
business of payments formerly made at the exchequer being transferred to
the paymaster-general, whose office was further enlarged in 1836 and
1848. And in 1866, as the result of a select committee reporting
unfavourably on the system of exchequer control as established in 1834,
the exchequer was abolished altogether as a distinct department of
state, and a new exchequer and audit department established.
The ancient term exchequer now survives mainly as the official title of
the national banking account of the United Kingdom. This central account
is commonly called the exchequer, and its statutory title is "His
Majesty's Exchequer." It may also be described with statutory authority
as "The Account of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland."
This account is, in fact, divided between the Banks of England and
Ireland. At the head office of each of these institutions receipts are
accepted and payments made on account of the exchequer; but in published
documents the two accounts are consolidated into one, the balances only
at the two banks being shown separately.
Operations affecting the exchequer are regulated by the Exchequer and
Audit Departments Act 1866. Section 10 prescribes that the gross revenue
of the United Kingdom (less drawbacks and repayments, which are not
really revenue) is payable, and must sooner or later be paid into the
exchequer. Section 11 directs that payments should be made from the fund
so formed to meet the current requirements of spending departments.
Sections 13, 14, 15 lay down the conditions under which money can be
drawn from the exchequer. Drafts on the exchequer require the approval
of an officer independent of the executive government, the comptroller
and auditor-general. But the description of the formal procedure
required by statute cannot adequately express the actual working of the
system, or the part it plays in the national finance. The simplicity of
the system laid down by the act of 1866 has been disturbed by the
diversion of certain branches or portions of revenue from the exchequer
to "Local Taxation Accounts," under a system initiated by the Local
Government Act 1888, and much extended since.
While the exchequer is, as already stated, the central account, it is
not directly in contact with the details of either revenue or
expenditure. As regards revenue, the produce of taxes and other sources
of income passes, in the first instance, into the separate accounts of
the respective receiving departments--mainly, of course, those of the
customs, inland revenue and post office. A not inconsiderable portion is
received in the provinces, and remitted to London or Dublin by bills or
otherwise, and the ultimate transfers to the exchequer are made (in
round sums) from the accounts of the receiving departments in London or
in Dublin. Thus, there are always considerable sums due to the exchequer
by the revenue departments; on the other hand, as floating balances are
(for the sake of economy) used temporarily for current expenses, there
are generally amounts due by the exchequer to the receiving departments;
such cross claims are adjusted periodically, generally once a month. The
finance accounts of the United Kingdom show the gross amounts due to the
exchequer from the departments, and likewise the amounts payable out of
the gross revenue in priority to the claim of the exchequer. On the
expenditure side a similar system prevails. No detailed payments are
made direct from the exchequer, but round sums are issued from it to
subsidiary accounts, from which the actual drafts for the public
services are met. For instance, the interest on the national debt is
paid by the Bank of England from a separate account fed by transfers of
round sums from the exchequer as required. Similarly, payments for army,
navy and most civil services are met by the paymaster-general out of an
account of his own, fed by daily transfers from the exchequer.
This system has two noticeable effects. Firstly, it secures the
simplicity and finality of the exchequer accounts, and therefore of all
ordinary statements of national finance. Every evening the chancellor of
the exchequer can tell his position so far as the exchequer is
concerned; on the first day of every quarter the press is able to
comment on the national income and expenditure up to the evening before.
The annual account is closed on the evening of the 31st of March, and
there can be no reopening of the budget of a past year such as may occur
under other financial systems. The second effect of the system is to
introduce a certain artificiality into the financial statements. Actual
facts cannot be reduced to the simplicity of exchequer figures; there is
always (as already explained) revenue received by government which has
not yet reached the exchequer; and there must always be a considerable
outstanding liability in the form of cheques issued but not yet cashed.
The suggested criticism is, however, met if it can be shown that, on the
whole, the differences between the true revenue and the exchequer
receipts, or between the true (or audited) expenditure and the exchequer
issues, are not, taking one year with another, relatively considerable.
The following figures (000's omitted) illustrate this point:--
_Expenditure._
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------
| Year. |Exchequer | Audited | Difference.|
| | Issues. | Expenditure. | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| 1888-1889 | L85,674 | L86,070 | L+396 |
| 1889-1890 | 86,083 | 86,033 | - 50 |
| 1890-1891 | 87,732 | 87,638 | - 94 |
| 1891-1892 | 89,928 | 90,125 | +197 |
| 1892-1893 | 90,375 | 90,164 | -211 |
| 1893-1894 | 91,303 | 91,530 | +227 |
| 1894-1895 | 93,919 | 93,818 | -101 |
| 1895-1896 | 97,764 | 97,667 | - 97 |
| 1896-1897 | 101,477 | 101,543 | + 66 |
| 1897-1898 | 102,936 | 103,010 | + 74 |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| Total for |L927,191 | L927,598 | L+407 |
| 10 years | | | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
_Revenue._
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| Year. |Exchequer | Actual | Difference.|
| |Receipts. | Revenue. | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| 1888-1889 | L88,473 | L88,038 | L-435 |
| 1889-1890 | 89,304 | 89,416 | +112 |
| 1890-1891 | 89,489 | 89,282 | -207 |
| 1891-1892 | 90,995 | 91,428 | +433 |
| 1892-1893 | 90,395 | 90,181 | -214 |
| 1893-1894 | 91,133 | 91,265 | +132 |
| 1894-1895 | 94,684 | 94,873 | +189 |
| 1895-1896 | 101,974 | 102,031 | + 57 |
| 1896-1897 | 103,960 | 104,089 | +129 |
| 1897-1898 | 106,614 | 106,691 | + 77 |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| Total for | L947,011 | L947,294 | L+273 |
| 10 years | | | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
_Surplus._
+-----------+----------=--------------+------------+
| |Exchequer |Diff. between | |
| Year. | Accounts.| Actual Rev. | Difference.|
| | | and Aud. Exp.| |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| 1888-1889 | L2,799 | L1,968 | L-831 |
| 1889-1890 | 3,221 | 3,383 | +162 |
| 1890-1891 | 1,757 | 1,644 | -113 |
| 1891-1892 | 1,067 | 1,303 | +236 |
| 1892-1893 | 20 | 17 | - 3 |
| 1893-1894 | -_170_ | -_265_ | - 95 |
| 1894-1895 | 765 | 1,055 | +290 |
| 1895-1896 | 4,210 | 4,364 | +154 |
| 1896-1897 | 2,473 | 2,546 | + 73 |
| 1897-1898 | 3,678 | 3,681 | + 3 |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
| Total for | L19,820 | L19,696 | L-124 |
| 10 years | | | |
+-----------+----------+--------------+------------+
The third column in the above shows the price which has to be paid (in
the form of discrepancies between facts and figures) for the simplicity
secured to statements and records of the national finance by the present
system embodied in the term exchequer. Probably few will think the price
too high in consideration of the advantages secured.
The principal official who derives a title from the exchequer in its
living sense is, of course, the chancellor of the exchequer. He is the
person named second in the patent appointing commissions for executing
the office of lord high treasurer of Great Britain and Ireland; but he
is appointed chancellor of the exchequer for Great Britain and
chancellor of the exchequer for Ireland by two additional patents.
Although, in fact, the finance minister of the United Kingdom, he has no
_statutory_ power over the exchequer apart from his position as second
commissioner of the treasury; but in virtue of his office he is by
statute master of the mint, senior commissioner for the reduction of the
national debt, a trustee of the British Museum, an ecclesiastical
commissioner, a member of the board of agriculture, a commissioner of
public works and buildings, local government, and education, a
commissioner for regulating the offices of the House of Commons, and has
certain functions connected with the office of the secretary of state
for India. The only other exchequer officer requiring mention is the
comptroller and auditor-general, whose functions as comptroller-general
of the exchequer have been already described.
The ancient name of the national banking account has been attached to
two of the forms of unfunded national debt. Exchequer bills, which date
from the reign of William and Mary (they took the place of the tallies,
previously used for the same purpose), became extinct in 1897, but
exchequer bonds (first issued by Mr Gladstone in 1853) still possess a
practical importance. An exchequer bond is a promise by government to
pay a specified sum after a specified period, generally three or five
years, and meanwhile to pay interest half-yearly at a specified rate on
that sum. Government possesses no general power to issue exchequer
bonds; such power is only conferred by a special act, and for specified
purposes; but when the power has been created, exchequer bonds issued in
pursuance of it are governed by general statutory provisions contained
in the Exchequer Bills and Bonds Act 1866, and amending acts. These acts
create machinery for the issue of exchequer bonds and for the payment of
interest thereon, and protect them against forgery.
Some traces may be mentioned of the ancient uses of the name exchequer
which still remain. The chancellor of the exchequer still presides at
the ceremony of "pricking the list of sheriffs," which is a
quasi-judicial function; and on that occasion he wears a robe of black
silk with gold embroidery, which suggests a judicial costume. In England
the last judge who was styled baron of the exchequer (Baron Pollock)
died in 1897. In Scotland the jurisdiction of the barons of the
exchequer was transferred to the court of session in 1856, but the same
act requires the appointment of one of the judges as "lord ordinary in
exchequer causes," which office still exists. In Ireland Lord Chief
Baron Palles was the last to retain the old title. A street near Dublin
Castle is called Exchequer Street, recalling the separate Irish
exchequer, which ceased in 1817. The old term also survives in the full
title of the treasury representative in Scotland, which is "The King's
and the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Exchequer," while his office in
the historic Parliament Square is styled "Exchequer Chambers."
(S. E. S.-R.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--For the early exchequer Thomas Madox's _History and
Antiquities of the Exchequer_ (London, 1711) remains the standard
authority, and in it the _Dialogus de Scaccario_ of Richard the
Treasurer (1179) was first printed (edited since by A. Hughes, C.G.
Crump and C. Johnson, Oxford, 1902). The publications of the Pipe Roll
Society (London, 1884 et seq.), the Pipe Rolls and Chancellor's Roll,
printed by the Record Commission (London, 1833 and 1844), and H.
Hall's edition of the _Receipt Roll of the Exchequer 31 Henry II._
(London, 1899) should also be consulted. A popular account is in H.
Hall's _Court Life under the Plantagenets_ (London, 1901), and a
careful study in Dr Parow's thesis, _Compotus Vicecomitis_ (Berlin,
1906). For the 13th and 14th centuries H. Hall's edition of the _Red
Book of the Exchequer_ (London, Rolls Series, 1896) is essential, as
also the Public Record Office _List of Foreign Accounts_ (London,
1900). Later practice may be gathered from the similar _List and Index
of Declared Accounts_ (London, 1893), and from such books as Sir T.
Fanshawe's _Practice of the Exchequer Court_, written about A.D. 1600
(London, 1658); Christopher Vernon's _The Exchequer Opened_ (London,
1661), or Sir Geoffrey Gilbert's _Treatise on the Court of Exchequer_
(London, 1758), as well as from the statutes abolishing various
offices in the exchequer. H. Hall's _Antiquities of the Exchequer_
(London, 1891) gives many interesting details of various dates. For
the Scottish exchequer _The Exchequer Rolls of Scotland_ (Edinburgh,
1878 et seq.) should be consulted, while Gilbert's book noted above
gives some details on that of Ireland. See also Appendix 13 to the
great account of _Public Income and Expenditure from 1688 to 1869_, in
three volumes, prepared for parliament by H.W. Chisholm (1869); and
for sidelights on the working of the office from 1825 to 1866 the
reminiscences of the same author (the last chief clerk of the
exchequer) in _Temple Bar_ (January to April 1891).
EXCISE (derived through the Dutch, _excijs_ or _accijs_, possibly from
Late Lat. _accensare_,--ad, to, and census, tax; the word owes something
to a confusion with _excisum_, cut out), a term now well known in public
finance, signifying a duty charged on home goods, either in the process
of their manufacture, or before their sale to the home consumers. This
form of taxation implies a commonwealth somewhat advanced in
manufactures, markets and general riches; and it interferes so directly
with the industry and liberty of the subject that it has seldom been
introduced save in some supreme financial exigency, and has as seldom
been borne, even after long usage, with less than the ordinary
impatience of taxation. Yet excise duties can boast a respectable
antiquity, having a distinct parallel in the _vectigal rerum venalium_
(or toll levied on all commodities sold by auction, or in public market)
of the Romans. But the Roman excise was mild compared with that of
modern nations, having never been more than _centesima_, or 1%, of the
value; and it was much shorter lived than the modern examples, having
been first imposed by Augustus, reduced for a time one-half by Tiberius,
and finally abolished by Caligula, A.D. 38, so that the Roman excise
cannot have had a duration of much more than half a century. Its
remission must have been deemed a great boon in the marts of Rome, since
it was commemorated by the issue of small brass coins with the legend
_Remissis Centesimis_, specimens of which are still to be found in
collections.
The history of this branch of revenue in the United Kingdom dates from
the period of the civil wars, when the republican government, following
the example of Holland, established, as a means of defraying the heavy
expenditure of the time, various duties of excise, which the royalists
when restored to power found too convenient or too necessary to be
abandoned, notwithstanding their origin and their general unpopularity.
On the contrary, they were destined to be steadily increased both in
number and in amount. It is curious that the first commodities selected
for excise were those on which this branch of taxation, after great
extension, had again in the period of reform and free trade been in a
manner permanently reduced, viz. malt liquors, and such kindred
beverages as cider perry and spruce beer. The other excise duties
remaining are chiefly in the form of licences, such as to kill game and
to use and carry guns, to sell gold and silver plate, to pursue the
business of appraisers or auctioneers, hawkers or pedlars, pawnbrokers
or patent-medicine vendors, to manufacture tobacco or snuff, to deal in
sweets or in foreign wines, to make vinegar, to roast malt, or to use a
still in chemistry or otherwise. It may be presumed that the policy of
the licence duties was at first not so much to collect revenue, though
in the aggregate they yielded a large sum, as to guard the main sources
of excise, and to place certain classes of dealers, by registration and
an annual payment to the exchequer, under a direct legal responsibility.
The excise system of the United Kingdom as now pruned and reformed,
however, while still the most prolific of all the sources of revenue, is
simple in process, and is contentedly borne as compared with what was
the case in the 18th, and the beginning of the 19th century. The wars
with Bonaparte strained the government resources to the uttermost, and
excise duties were multiplied and increased in every practicable form.
Bricks, candles, calico prints, glass, hides and skins, leather, paper,
salt, soap, and other commodities of home manufacture and consumption
were placed, with their respective industries, under excise surveillance
and fine. When the duties could no longer be increased in number, they
were raised in rate. The duty on British spirits, which had begun at a
few pence per gallon in 1660, rose step by step to 11s. 8-1/4d. per
gallon in 1820; and the duty on salt was augmented to three or fourfold
its value.
The old unpopularity of excise, though now somewhat out of date, must
have had real enough grounds. It breaks out in English literature, from
songs and pasquinades to grave political essays and legal commentaries.
Blackstone, in quoting the declaration of parliament in 1649 that
"excise is the most easy and indifferent levy that can be laid upon the
people," adds on his own authority that "from its first original to the
present time its very name has been odious to the people of England"
(book i. cap. 8, tenth edition, 1786); while the definition of "excise"
gravely inserted by Dr Johnson in the _Dictionary_, at the imminent risk
of subjecting the eminent author to a prosecution for libel--viz. "a
hateful tax levied upon commodities, and adjudged not by the common
judges of property, but wretches hired by those to whom excise is
paid"--can hardly be ever forgotten.
The duties of excise in the United Kingdom were, until the passing of
the Finance Act 1908, under the control of the 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. [Greek: chernibon eirgesthai]
(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.
_Choeph._ 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 (_herem_) 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, [Greek: anathema](1 Cor. xvi. 22,
Gal. i. 8-9, Rom. ix. 3), is the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew
_herem_. 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 (_herem_) 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 church exercising discipline
independently of apostolic advice. Up to this point there is no
established formal practice. 1 Tim. i. 20 ("Hymenaeus and Alexander whom
I delivered unto Satan that they might be taught not to blaspheme")
seems to refer to an excommunication, but it does not appear whether the
apostle had acted as representing a church, nor is there anything to
explain the exact consequences or limits of the deliverance to Satan. 1
Cor. xvi. 22, Gal. i. 8, 9, Rom. ix. 3 refer to the practice of
regarding a person as anathema. Taking these passages as a whole they
seem to point to an exclusion from church fellowship rather than to a
final cutting off from the hope of salvation. In the pastoral letters
there is already a formal and recognized method of procedure in cases of
church discipline. 1 Tim. v. 19, 20 requires two or three witnesses in
the case of an accusation against an elder, and a public reproof. Tit.
iii. 20 recognizes a factious spirit as a reason for excommunication
after two admonitions (cf. Tim. vi. and 2 John v. 10). In 3 John v. 9-10
Diotrephes appears to have secured an excommunication by the action of a
party in the church. It is clear from these illustrations that within
the New Testament there is development from spontaneous towards strictly
regulated methods; also that the use of excommunication is chiefly for
disciplinary and protective rather than punitive purposes. A process
which is intended to produce penitence and ultimate restoration cannot
at the same time contemplate handing the offender over to eternal
punishment.
4. _Medieval and Monastic Usage._--The writings of the church Fathers
give sufficient evidence that two degrees of excommunication, the
[Greek: aphorismos] and the [Greek: aphorismos panteles], as they were
generally called, were in use during, or at least soon after, the
apostolic age. The former, which involved exclusion from participation
in the eucharistic service and from the eucharist itself, though not
from the so-called "service of the catechumens," was the usual
punishment of comparatively light offences; the latter, which was the
penalty for graver scandals, involved "exclusion from all church
privileges,"--a vague expression which has sometimes been interpreted as
meaning total exclusion from the very precincts of the church building
(_inter hiemantes orare_) and from the favour of God (Bingham,
_Antiquities of Christian Church_, xvi. 2. 16). For some sins, such as
adultery, the sentence of excommunication was in the 2nd century
regarded as [Greek: panteles] in the sense of being irrevocable.
Difference of opinion as to the absolutely "irremissible" character of
mortal sins led to the important controversy associated with the names
of Zephyrinus, Tertullian, Calistus, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Novatian,
in which the stricter and more montanistic party held that for those who
had been guilty of such sins as theft, fraud, denial of the faith, there
should be no restoration to church fellowship even in the hour of death.
On this point the provincial synods of Illiberis (Elvira) in 305 and of
Ancyra in 315 subsequently came to conflicting decisions, the council of
Elvira forbidding the reception of offenders into communion during life,
and the council of Ancyra fixing a limit to the penalty in the same
cases. But the excommunication was on all hands regarded as being
"medicinal" in its character. It is noteworthy that the word [Greek:
anathema] had fallen into disuse about the beginning of the 4th century,
and that, throughout the same period, no instance of the judicial use of
the phrase [Greek: paradounai to Satana] can be found.
A new chapter in the history of the church censure may be said to have
begun with the publication of those imperial edicts against heresy, the
first of which, _De summa trinitate et fide catholica_, dates from 380.
Till then exclusion from church privileges had been a spiritual
discipline merely; thenceforward it was to expose a man to serious
temporal risks. Excommunication still continued to be occasionally used
in the spirit of genuine Christian fidelity, as by Ambrose in the case
of Theodosius himself (390); but the temptation to wield it as an
instrument of secular tyranny too often proved to be irresistible. The
church fell back on carnal weapons in her warfare and invoked the
secular powers to uphold the ecclesiastical. In the formula used by
Synesius (410) which is to be found in Bingham's _Antiquities_, we
already find the attention of magistrates specially called to the
censured person. The history of the next thousand years shows that the
magistrates were seldom slow to respond to the appeal. Even the hastiest
survey of that long and interesting period enables the student to notice
a marked development in the theory and practice of excommunication. One
or two points may be specially noted. (1) When the Empire became
nominally Christian and the quality of the church life was sacrificed to
the quantity of its adherents, the original character of excommunication
was lost. The power of excommunication was transferred from the
community to the bishop, and was liable to abuse from personal motives:
Gregory the Great rebukes a bishop for using for private ends power
conferred for the public good (_Epist._ ii. 34). Excommunication became
a common penalty applied in numberless cases (see the _Penitential_ of
Archbishop Theodosius: Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils and Documents_, iii.
1737), and was invested with superstitious terrors. (2) While it had
been held as an undoubted principle by the ancient church that this
sentence could only be passed on living individuals whose fault had been
distinctly stated and fully proved, we find the medieval church on the
one hand sanctioning the practice of excommunication of the dead
(Morinus, _De poenit._ x. c. 9), and, on the other hand, by means of the
papal interdict, excluding whole countries and kingdoms at once from the
means of grace. The earliest well-authenticated instance of such an
interdict is that which was passed (998) by Pope Gregory V. on France,
in consequence of the contumacy of King Robert the Wise. Other instances
are those laid respectively on Germany in 1102 by Gregory VII.
(Hildebrand), on England in 1208 by Innocent III., on Rome itself in
1155 by Adrian IV. (3) While in the ancient church the language used in
excommunicating had been carefully measured, we find an amazing
recklessness in the phraseology employed by the medieval clergy. The
curse of Ernulphus or Arnulphus of Rochester (c. 1100), often quoted by
students of English literature, is a very fair specimen of that class of
composition. With it may be compared the formula transcribed by Dr
Burton in his _History of Scotland_ (iii. 317 ff.). To the spoken word
was added the language of symbol. By means of lighted candles violently
dashed to the ground and extinguished the faithful were graphically
taught the meaning of the greater excommunication--though in a somewhat
misleading way, for it is a fundamental principle of the canon law that
_disciplina est excommunicatio, non eradicatio_. The first instance,
however, of excommunication by "bell, book and candle" is comparatively
late (c. 1190).
5. _Modem Survivals in Existing Christian Churches._--At the Reformation
the necessity for church discipline did not cease to be recognized; but
the administration of it in many Reformed churches has passed through a
period of some confusion. In some instances the old episcopal power
passed more or less into the hands of the civil magistrate (a state of
matters which was highly approved by Erastus and his followers), in
other cases it was conceded to the presbyterial courts. In the Anglican
Church the bishops (subject to appeal to the sovereign) have the right
of excommunicating, and their sentence, if sustained, may in certain
cases carry with it civil consequences. But this right is in practice
never exercised. In the law of England sentence of excommunication, upon
being properly certified by the bishop, was followed by the writ _de
excommunicato capiendo_ for the arrest of the offender. The statute 5
Eliz. c. 23 provided for the better execution of this writ. By the 53
Geo. III. c. 127 (which does not, however, extend to Ireland) it was
enacted that "excommunication, together with all proceedings following
thereupon, shall in all cases, save those hereafter to be specified, be
discontinued." Disobedience to or contempt of the ecclesiastical courts
is to be punished by a new writ, _de contumace capiendo_, to follow on
the certificate of the judge that the defender is contumacious and in
contempt. Sect. 2 provides that nothing shall prevent "any
ecclesiastical court from pronouncing or declaring persons to be
excommunicate on definite sentences pronounced as spiritual censures for
offences of ecclesiastical cognizance." No persons so excommunicated
shall incur any civil penalty or incapacity whatever, save such
sentence of imprisonment, not exceeding six months, as the court shall
direct and certify to the king in chancery.
In the churches which consciously shaped their polity at or after the
Reformation the principle of excommunication is preserved in the
practice of church discipline. Calvin devotes a chapter in the
_Institutes_ (bk. iv. chap. xii.) to the "Discipline of the Church; its
Principal Use in Censure and Excommunication." The three ends proposed
by the church in such discipline are there stated to be, (1) that those
who lead scandalous lives may not to the dishonour of God be numbered
among Christians, seeing that the church is the body of Christ; (2) that
the good may not be corrupted by constant association with the wicked;
(3) that those who are censured or excommunicated, confounded with
shame, may be led to repentance. He differentiates decisively between
excommunication and anathema. "When Christ promises that what his
ministers bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, he limits the power of
binding to the censure of the church; by which those who are
excommunicated are not cast into eternal ruin and condemnation, but by
having their life and conduct condemned are also certified of their
final condemnation unless they repent. For excommunication differs from
anathema: anathema which ought to be very rarely, or never, resorted to,
in precluding all pardon, execrates a person, and devotes him to eternal
perdition: whereas excommunication rather censures and punishes his
conduct. Yet in such a manner by warning him of his future condemnation
it recalls him to salvation" (_Inst._ bk. iv. chap. xii. 10). The
Reformed churches in England and America accepted the distinction
between public and private offences. The usual provision is that private
offences are to be dealt with according to the rule in Matt. v. 23-24,
xviii. 15-17; public offences are to be dealt with according to the rule
in 1 Cor. v. 3-5, 13. The public expulsion or suspension of the offender
is necessary for the good repute of the church, and its influence over
the faithful members. The expelled member may be readmitted on showing
the fruits of repentance.
In Scotland three degrees of church censure are recognized--admonition,
suspension from sealing ordinances (which may be called temporary
excommunication), and excommunication properly so-called. Intimation of
the last-named censure may occasionally (but very rarely) be given by
authority of a presbytery in a public and solemn manner, according to
the following formula:--"Whereas thou N. hast been by sufficient proof
convicted (here mention the sin) and after due admonition and prayer
remainest obstinate without any evidence or sign of true repentance:
Therefore in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and before this
congregation, I pronounce and declare thee N. excommunicated, shut out
from the communion of the faithful, debar thee from privileges, and
deliver thee unto Satan for the destruction of thy flesh, that thy
spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." This is called the
greater excommunication. The congregation are thereafter warned to shun
all unnecessary converse with the excommunicate (see _Form of Process_,
c. 8). Formerly excommunicated persons were deprived of feudal rights in
Scotland; but in 1690 all acts enjoining civil pains upon sentences of
excommunication were finally repealed (Burton's _History_, vii. 435).
The question whether the power of excommunication rests in the church or
in the clergy has been an important one in the history of English and
American churches. Hooker lays down (_Survey_, pt. 3, pp. 33-46) four
necessary conditions for the execution of a sentence involving church
discipline. "(1) The cause exactly recorded is fully and nakedly to be
presented to the consideration of the congregation. (2) The elders are
to go before the congregation in laying open the rule so far as reacheth
any particular now to be considered, and to express their judgment and
determination thereof, so far as appertains to themselves. (3) Unless
the people be able to convince them of errors and mistakes in their
sentence, they are bound to joyn their judgment with theirs to the
compleating of the sentence. (4) The sentence thus compleatly issued is
to be solemnly passed and pronounced upon the delinquent by the ruling
Elder whether it be of censure or excommunication." In this passage it
is clear that the effective power of discipline is regarded as being
wholly in the power of the individual church or congregation. Hooker
expressly denies the power of synods to excommunicate: "that there
should be Synods, which have _potestatem juridicam_ is nowhere proved in
Scripture because it is not a truth" (_Survey_, pt. 4, pp. 48, 49).
The confession of faith issued by the London-Amsterdam church (the
original of the Pilgrim Fathers' churches) in 1596 declares that the
Christian congregation having power to elect its minister has also power
to excommunicate him if the case so require (Walker, _Creeds and
Platforms of Congregationalism_, p. 66). In 1603 the document known as
"Points of Difference" (i.e. from the established Anglicanism) submitted
to James I. sets forth: "That all particular Churches ought to be so
constituted as, having their owne peculiar Officers, the whole body of
every Church may meet together in one place, and jointly performe their
duties to God and one towards another. And that the censures of
admonition and excommunication be in due manner executed, for sinne,
convicted, and obstinately stood in. This power also to be in the body
of the Church whereof the partyes so offending and persisting are
members." The _Cambridge Platform_ of 1648 by which the New England
churches defined their practice, devotes ch. xiv. to "excommunication
and other censures." It follows in the main the line of Hooker and
Calvin, but adds (S 6) an important definition: "Excommunication being a
spirituall punishment it doth not prejudice the excommunicate in, nor
deprive him of his _civil_ rights, therfore toucheth not princes, or
other magistrates, in point of their civil dignity or authority. And,
the excommunicate being but as a publican and a heathen, heathen being
lawfully permitted to come to hear the word in church assemblyes; wee
acknowledg therfore the like liberty of hearing the word, may be
permitted to persons excommunicate, that is permitted unto heathen. And
because wee are not without hope of his recovery, wee are not to account
him as an enemy but to admonish him as a brother." The Savoy Declaration
of 1658 defines the theory and practice of the older English
Nonconformist churches in the section on the "Institution of Churches
and the Order appointed in them by Jesus Christ" (xix.). The important
article is as follows:--"The Censures so appointed by Christ, are
Admonition and Excommunication; and whereas some offences are or may be
known onely to some, it is appointed by Christ, that those to whom they
are so known, do first admonish the offender in private: in publique
offences where any sin, before all; or in case of non-amendment upon
private admonition, the offence being related to the Church, and the
offender not manifesting his repentance, he is to be duely admonished in
the Name of Christ by the whole Church, by the Ministery of the Elders
of the Church, and if this Censure prevail not for his repentance, then
he is to be cast out by Excommunication with the consent of the Church."
In contemporary English Free Churches the purity of the church is
commonly secured by the removal of persons unsuitable for membership
from the church books by a vote of the responsible authority.
(D. Mn.)
EXCRETION (Lat. _ex_, out of, _cernere_, _cretum_, to separate), in
plant and animal physiology, the separation from an organ of some
substance, also the substance separated. The term usually refers to the
separation of waste or harmful products, as distinguished from
"secretion," which refers to products that play a useful or necessary
part in the functions of the organism.
EXECUTION (from Lat. _ex-sequor_, _exsecutus_, follow or carry out), the
carrying into effect of anything, whether a rite, a piece of music, an
office, &c.; and so sometimes involving a notion of skill in the
performance. Technically, the word is used in law in the _execution_ of
a deed (its formal signing and sealing), an _execution_ (see below) by
the sheriff's officers under a "writ of execution" (the enforcement of a
judgment on a debtor's goods); and _execution of death_ has been
shortened to the one word to denote CAPITAL PUNISHMENT (q.v.).
_Civil Execution_ may be defined as the process by which the judgments
or orders of courts of law are made effectual. In Roman law the earliest
mode of execution was the seizure, legalized by the _actio per manus
injectionem_, of the debtor as a slave of the creditor. During the later
Republic, imprisonment took the place of slavery. Under the regime of
the _actio per manus injectionem_, the debtor might dispute the
debt--the issue being raised by his finding a substitute (_vindex_) to
conduct the case for him. By the time of Gaius (iv. 25) the _actio per
manus injectionem_ had been superseded by the _actio judicati_, the
object of which was to enable the creditor to take payment of the debt
or compel the debtor to find security (_pignus in causa judicati captum:
Cautio judicatum solvi_), and in A.D. 320 Constantine abolished
imprisonment for debt, unless the debtor were contumacious. The time
allowed for payment of a judgment debt was by the XII. Tables 30 days;
it was afterwards extended to two months, and ultimately, by Justinian,
to four months. The next stage in the Roman law of execution was the
recognition of bankruptcy either against the will of the bankrupt
(_missio in bona_) or on the application of the bankrupt (_cessio
bonorum_; and see BANKRUPTCY). Lastly, in the time of Antoninus Pius,
judgment debts were directly enforced by the seizure and sale of the
debtor's property. Slaves, oxen and implements of husbandry were
privileged; and movable property was to be exhausted before recourse was
had to land (see Hunter, _Roman Law_, 4th ed. pp. 1029 et seq., Sohm,
_Inst. Rom. Law_, 2nd ed. pp. 302-305).
GREAT BRITAIN.--The English law of execution is very complicated, and
only a statement of the principal processes can here be attempted.
_High Court.--Fieri Facias._ A judgment for the recovery of money or
costs is enforced, as a rule, by writ of _fieri facias_ addressed to
the sheriff, and directing him to cause to be made (_fieri facias_) of
the goods and chattels of the debtor a levy of a sum sufficient to
satisfy the judgment and costs, which carry interest at 4% per annum.
The seizure effected by the sheriff or his officer, under this writ,
of the property of the debtor, is what is popularly known as "the
putting-in" of an execution. The seizure should be carried out with
all possible despatch. The sheriff or his officer must not break open
the debtor's house in effecting a seizure, for "a man's house is his
castle" (_Semayne's Case_ [1604], 5 Coke Rep. 91); but this principle
applies only to a dwelling-house, and a barn or outhouse unconnected
with the dwelling-house may be broken into. The sheriff on receipt of
the writ endorses on it the day, hour, month and year when he received
it; and the writ binds the debtor's goods as at the date of its
delivery, except as regards goods sold before seizure in market overt,
or purchased for value, without notice before actual seizure (Sale of
Goods Act 1893, s. 26, which supersedes s. 16 of the Statute of Frauds
and s. 1 of the Mercantile Law Amendment Act 1856). This rule is
limited to goods, and does not apply to the money or bank notes of the
debtor which are not bound by the writ till seized under it (_Johnson_
v. _Pickering_, Oct. 14, 1907, C.A.). The mere seizure of the goods,
however, although, subject to such exceptions as those just stated, it
binds the interest of the debtor, and gives the sheriff such an
interest in the goods as will enable him to sue for the recovery of
their possession, does not pass the property in the goods to the
sheriff. The goods are in the custody of the law. But the property
remains in the debtor who may get rid of the execution on payment of
the claim and fees of the sheriff [as to which see Sheriffs Act 1887,
s. 20, and order of 21st of August 1888, _Annual Practice_ (1908),
vol. ii. p. 278]. The wearing apparel, bedding, tools, &c., of the
debtor to the value of L5 are protected. Competing claims as to the
ownership of the goods seized are brought before the courts by the
procedure of "interpleader." After seizure, the sheriff must retain
possession, and, in default of payment by the execution debtor,
proceed to sell. Where the judgment debt, including legal expenses,
exceeds L20, the sale must be by public auction, unless the Court
otherwise orders, and must be publicly advertised. The proceeds of
sale, after deduction of the sheriff's fees and expenses, become the
property of the execution creditor to the extent of his claim. The
Bankruptcy Act 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71, s. 11 [2]) requires the
sheriff in case of sale under a judgment for a sum exceeding L20 to
hold the proceeds for 14 days in case notice of bankruptcy proceedings
should be served upon him (see BANKRUPTCY). The form of the writ of
_fieri facias_ requires the sheriff to make a return to the writ. In
practice this is seldom done unless the execution has been ineffective
or there has been delay in the execution of the writ; but the judgment
creditor may obtain an order calling on the sheriff to make a return.
A sheriff or his officer, who is guilty of extortion in the execution
of the writ, is liable to committal for contempt, and to forfeit L200
and pay all damages suffered by the person aggrieved (Sheriffs Act
1887 [50 & 51 Vict. c. 55], s. 29 [2]), besides being civilly liable
to such person. Imprisonment for debt in execution of civil judgments
is now abolished except in cases of default in the nature of
contempt, unsatisfied judgments for penalties, defaults by persons in
a fiduciary character, and defaults by judgment debtors (Debtors Act
1869 [32 & 33 Vict. c. 62]; Bankruptcy Act 1883 [46 & 47 Vict. c. 52],
ss. 53, 103). Imprisonment for debt has been abolished within similar
limits in Scotland (Debtors [Scotland] Act 1880 [43 & 44 Vict. c. 34]
and Ireland, Debtors [Ireland] Act 1872, 35 & 36 Vict. c. 57). There
may still be imprisonment in England, under the writ--rarely used in
practice--_ne exeat regno_, which issues to prevent a debtor from
leaving the kingdom.
_Writ of Elegit._--The writ of _elegit_ is a process enabling the
creditor to satisfy his judgment debt out of the lands of the debtor.
It derives its name from the election of the creditor in favour of
this mode of recovery. It is founded on the Statute of Westminster
(1285, 13 Ed. I. c. 18), under which the sheriff was required to
deliver to the creditor all the chattels (except oxen and beasts of
the plough) and _half_ the lands of the debtor until the debt was
satisfied. By the Judgments Act 1838 the remedy was extended to _all_
the debtor's lands, and by the Bankruptcy Act 1883 the writ no longer
extends to the debtor's goods. The writ is enforceable against legal
interests whether in possession or remainder (_Hood-Barrs_ v.
_Cathcart_, 1895, 2 Ch. 411), but not against equitable interests in
land (_Earl of Jersey_ v. _Uxbridge Rural Sanitary Authority_, 1891, 3
Ch. 183). When the debtor's interest is equitable, recourse is had to
equitable execution by the appointment of a receiver or to bankruptcy
proceedings.
The writ is directed to the sheriff, who, after marking on it the date
of its receipt, at once in pursuance of its directions holds an
inquiry with a jury as to the nature and value of the interest of the
debtor in the lands extended under the writ, and delivers to the
creditor at a reasonable price and extent in accordance with the writ,
the lands of which the debtor was possessed in the bailiwick. When the
sheriff has returned and filed a record (in the central office of the
High Court) of the writ and the execution thereof, the execution
creditor becomes "tenant to the elegit." Where the land is freehold
the creditor acquires only a chattel interest in it; where the land is
leasehold he acquires the whole of the debtor's interest (_Johns_ v.
_Pink_, 1900, 1 Ch. 296). The creditor is entitled to hold the land
till his debt is satisfied, or enough to satisfy it is tendered to
him, and under the Judgments Act 1864 the creditor may obtain an order
for sale. Until the land is delivered on execution and the writs which
have effected the delivery are registered in the Land Registry, the
judgment does not create any charge on the land so as to fetter the
debtor's power of dealing with it. Land Charges Registration Acts 1888
and 1900. (See R.S.C., O. xliii.)
_Writs of Possession and Delivery._--Judgments for the recovery or for
the delivery of the possession of land are enforceable by writ of
possession. The recovery of specific chattels is obtained by writ of
delivery (R.S.C., O. xlvii., xlviii.).
_Writ of Sequestration._--Where a judgment directing the payment of
money into court, or the performance by the defendant of any act
within a limited time, has not been complied with, or where a
corporation has wilfully disobeyed a judgment, a writ of sequestration
is issued, to not less than four sequestrators, ordering them to enter
upon the real estate of the party in default, and "sequester" the
rents and profits until the judgment has been obeyed (R.S.C., O.
xliii. r. 6).
_Equitable Execution._--Where a judgment creditor is otherwise unable
to reach the property of his debtor he may obtain equitable execution,
usually by the appointment of a receiver, who collects the rents and
profits of the debtor's land for the benefit of the creditor (R.S.C.,
O. l. rr. 15A-22). But receivers may be appointed of interests in
personal property belonging to the debtor by virtue of the Judicature