EXCISE INTERFERENCE WITH THE SALE OF QUININE WINE. 161 
a short time in business for myself, and would never think of breaking any known law 
Now that I find my quinine wine is liable to licence I will take out the licence for it; 
and I humbly beg your Honourable Board will consider my case favourably and please 
to withdraw the summons requiring me to appear before a justice of the peace. 
“ I am, honourable Sirs, your obedient servant, 
“Charles Kerr.” 
You will observe, from the foregoing letter, I did not want to fight the 
matter with the Board, there was no time for that; I was anxious I should not 
appear before a justice; and would rather pay the licence, however unjust I 
might think it. To my letter I received the following answer:— 
“ Inland Revenue , London , 11 th June, 1866. 
“ Sir,—I am desired to acquaint you, in reply to your application of the 8th inst., that 
the information pending against you will be withdrawn on your paying the expenses, 
and taking out a sweets licence. 
“ I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
“ (Signed) Adam Young, Assistant Secretary. ” 
I took out the licence, paid expenses, and so ended my trouble with the ex¬ 
cise; since then I have paid the yearly licence twice. It is not a great sum,— 
22s. yearly; yet there is a principle involved in the matter affecting every 
chemist in the country, which I think ought to be set right, so I have thought, 
by bringing it before the present meeting, it might be discussed to some advan¬ 
tage. I have only introduced the matter for discussion, so will not occupy your 
time by giving any lengthy remarks of my own ; but it must be evident to all 
that chemists stand in an equivocal position to the excise, when they can be 
made to pay licence for making medicated wine with British wine, and not 
made to do so for making them with foreign wines. Why not make us pay 
£10. 10s. for making antimonial or ipecacuan wine? There is something radi¬ 
cally wrong, when we are obliged to pay a licence for making a preparation 
authorized by the new British Pharmacopoeia; and I am curious to know whether 
the Honourable Board are aware of the new turn matters have taken, and what 
their opinion now is? I would therefore propose that the Excise Board be com¬ 
municated with on the subject, and with that proposal I now leave the matter 
in the hands of the meeting. 
Mr. Young thought the right of a chemist to send out quinine wine when ordered in 
a prescription was so clear that he would not for a moment hesitate to do it. 
Mr. Deane stated that the question of the sale of quinine wine was not altogether 
new, haying already been brought under the notice of the Council of the Pharmaceutical 
Society, but the particular grievance now exposed by Mr. Kerr demanded close investi¬ 
gation, and he was sure that the Council would give this when the case was laid before 
them. 
Mr. Nicol said that although the word “tonic” appeared upon the label, that did 
not in the least affect the question before them, which was the excise claim to impose a 
licence upon all those who sold quinine wine, on the ground that it came under the de¬ 
finition of “sweets.” It was nothing new for the excise to ride over them roughshod, 
and he trusted that the question would be taken up earnestly by the Conference. 
Mr. Mackay alluded to the supposed infringement of the Patent Medicine Act by 
the use of the word “tonic,” without a stamp being added. If the employment of this 
word created the liability, then many of their medicines must, by analogy, be infringe¬ 
ments of the Act; for instance, Gregory’s Powder, to which he supposed they all added 
the descriptive word “Stomachic.” Mr. Mackay gave, as an illustration of the severe 
course adopted by the excise towards persons who had unwittingly infringed their laws, 
the following case from his personal experience:—A flavouring liquid had been re¬ 
peatedly sent to London, and he was assured in Edinburgh that such a course was per¬ 
fectly regular. On one occasion, a seizure was made, and a fine of £200 imposed, which, 
after extreme annoyance and heavy cost, was reduced to £10. 
YOL. IX. 
M 
