Perhaps the occasion when the use of the word "excise" proved of the greatest consequence was in Walpole's plan for avoiding all the evils of smuggling arising out of customs duties by taxing commodities, not at the ports, but as they went from a merchant's warehouse into consumption. His "Excise Bill," introduced in 1733 as the first step in the plan, related to tobacco and in its second part was to have included wine. "Walpole proposed in his Bill to do away" with "the customs duty on tobacco and to substitute for it an excise duty at a slightly lower rate. When tobacco was imported it would be stored in bonded warehouses, and no duty would be demanded until the owner wished to remove it for purposes of sale within the United Kingdom. It would then be weighed on government scales and the duty would be assessed and exacted before its removal. Or if, on the other hand, the owner wished to re-export it, he would be allowed to do so without hindrance. In this case there would be no need to weigh the bales at all, because, as no duty had been paid, no drawback could be claimed. By this means fraudulent practices of nearly every kind would be dried up at their sources" (F. S. Oliver, The Endless Adventure (1931), vol. ii., p. 241). The associations of the word "excise" formed a very powerful element in arousing against the proposal one of "the strange and feverish agitations which sometimes suddenly gripped the English people during this century," before which Walpole abandoned the plan (Cambridge Modern History (1909), vol. vi., c. II., p. 47). "The mass of the people did not object to the principle of excise, for they did not understand what the principle was. ... They merely hated a word, as people so often do" (F. S. Oliver, op. cit., p. 251). Where so much depended on the use of an unpopular term, it is not easy to suppose that Walpole gratuitously wrested the word "excise" from what he understood to be its true meaning and applied it to a tax which ought not to have been so called. Yet the "Excise Bill" dealt with imported commodities. Thirty-four years later, when there was again talk of such a tax, Lord Chesterfield wrote: "As for a general excise, it must change its name by Act of parliament before it will go down with the people who know names better than things" (Miscellaneous Works, vol. iv., p. 214, quoted by Dowell, op. cit., vol. ii., p. 105). Blackstone's account of the excise, which was published about that time and is the source of many dictionary definitions, begins by drawing a contrast with customs duty: - "Directly opposite in its nature to this is the excise duty; which is an inland imposition, paid sometimes upon the consumption of the commodity, or frequently upon the retail sale, which is the last stage before the consumption. This is doubtless, impartially speaking, the most economical way of taxing the subject: the charges of levying, collecting and managing the excise duties being considerably less in proportion, than in other branches of the revenue. It also renders the commodity cheaper to the consumer, than charging it with customs to the same amount would do; for the reason just now given, because generally paid in a much later stage of it." After tracing the history of the tax, he concludes his account with a description of the taxes then in force under the name of excise which shows that already the tendency had set in of bringing under that head inland taxes of another description, namely, licence fees exacted from those using such things as carriages, a tendency which has led to still wider applications of the word "excise." "From its first original to the present time, its very name has been odious to the people of England. It has nevertheless been imposed on abundance of other commodities in the reigns of King William III., and every succeeding prince, to support the enormous expenses occasioned by our wars on the continent. Thus brandies and other spirits are now excised at the distillery; printed silks and linens, at the printer's; starch and hair powder, at the maker's; gold and silver wire, at the wire-drawer's; all plate whatsoever, first in the hands of the vendor, who pays yearly for a licence to sell it, and afterwards in the hands of the occupier, who also pays an annual duty for having it in his custody; and coaches and other wheel carriages, for which the occupier is excised; though not with the same circumstances of arbitrary strictness with regard to plate and coaches, as in the other instances. To these we may add coffee and tea, chocolate and cocoa paste, for which duty is paid by the retailer; all artificial wines, commonly called sweets; paper and pasteboard, first when made, and again if stained or printed; malt as before mentioned; vinegars; and the manufacture of glass; for all which the duty is paid by the manufacturer; hops, for which the person that gathers them is answerable; candles and soap, which are paid for at the maker's; malt liquors brewed for sale, which are excised at the brewery; cyder and perry, at the vendor's; and leather and skins, at the tanner's. A list, which no friend to his country would wish to see farther increased" (Blackstone, Commentaries, vol. i., pp. 318, 320). During the War of Independence the system of taxing by means of licences was extended. There existed already annual taxes on hawkers, hackney-coachmen, publicans and dealers in gold and silver plate which dated from the Marlborough Wars, or shortly after. Toward the end of the War of Independence, Burke was able to say of Lord North's taxation that "the blessed fruits of the noble lord's administration were an additional load of ten new taxes," including impositions in respect of beer, wine, houses, coaches, post-chaises, post-horses and servants. "He did not wonder that the noble lord was at a loss about new taxes. We were already taxed if we rode or if we walked; if we kept at home or went abroad; if we were masters or if we were servants; if we drank wine or if we drank beer; and, in short, we were taxed in every way possible" (Dowell, op. cit., vol. ii., pp. 82, 172, 174; cf. vol. iii., pp. 223 et seq., 240, 243). The extension of the system of taxation by means of licences was an important part of Pitt's budget of 1784, and the extension continued during his administration. It was natural to seek to place the collection of inland taxes under one authority, and this was done, but only by steps. In deciding a case depending on referential provisions in the confused excise laws, Ashhurst J. expressed as early as 1788 the difficulty of distinguishing between the original excises and taxes placed under the authority of the Commissioners of Excise. In R. v. Justices of Surrey[65] he says that he was led "to apply to a person who has long been concerned in the business of the Excise, to know what was the distinction generally understood between excise laws, and inland duties under the management of the Commissioners of the Excise. He said the difference they understood is this, that the law of excise is understood to relate only to liquors; and that inland duties under the management of the Commissioners of Excise are understood to relate to malt, dry goods, and other articles, which have of late been put under their management." The distinction thus taken did not depend upon the true meaning of the word "excise"; it depended on the use of it in the course of legislation. But, in the case of licences to carry on pursuits of business or pleasure, the course of legislation ignored the meaning of the term and so caused its misapplication. In 1824 one set of commissioners was established, but in the subsequent consolidation of the laws relating to the management and regulation of the excise the expression "revenue of excise" could only be defined as "the whole revenue under the collection and management of the Commissioners of Excise" (7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 53, sec. 3).