EXCISE INTERFERENCE WITH THE SALE OF QUININE WINE. 251 
wines generally. It has been referred to as an authority for selling quinine 
wine without a wine license, and Mr. Waters himself has used it for this pur¬ 
pose when the question has been put to him by his customers. 
We have heard of no cases in which the Excise have interfered with the 
sale of quinine wine, since the publication of Mr. Corbett’s letter, until a few 
months ago, in July last, when Mr. Waters was informed that his quinine wine 
could not be sold without a wine license; and this led to the following corre¬ 
spondence :— 
2, Martin's Lane , Cannon Street , July 25, 1865. 
To the Honourable the Board of Inland Revenue. 
Gentlemen,—My attention has been called by the Supervisor of Excise of this district 
to your decision respecting the sale of quinine wine. He informs me that your 
Honourable Board have decided that the sale of this article requires a British wine 
licence. As your decision in this matter materially affects my trade, and the sale of an 
article that is universally admitted to be a boon to humanity itself, I humbly pray to 
be allowed to state various reasons why your Honourable Board should withdraw your 
late decision. 
That my wine is called “ Waters’s Quinine Wine,” a label of which I enclose, and that, 
as the maker of it, I have for years paid a licence (being a dealer in British wines). 
That on December 3, 1863, your secretary, Mr. William Corbett, wrote a letter (copy 
enclosed), in which it was stated your Board would not interfere with its sale. Upon 
the strength of that letter your petitioner has incurred considerable expense in inform¬ 
ing his customers that no licence was required, and has in each case referred them to 
your letter. 
That, since your petitioner has been a maker of quinine wine, many others have also 
made and advertised it; in fact, there are few druggists throughout the kingdom who 
do not make such an article, and probably in no single instance are they called upon to 
pay a licence. 
If this wine is liable, why should not steel wine, antimonial wine, and various other 
medicated wines be so also ? 
Your petitioner respectfully begs to call your attention to the fact that, while spirit 
is liable to a duty, yet methylated spirit is not, the spirit being rendered unfit for con¬ 
sumption ; the addition of quinine to British wine renders that totally unfit to be drunk 
as British wine. There is not one of the patent medicine houses or wholesale druggists 
in London who do not occasionally send to your petitioner for various small quantities 
to make up their assorted orders, and your petitioner respectfully submits that it would 
be neither policy nor justice to compel them to take out a British wine licence. It is 
true that there are comparatively few cases in which this wine is sold without a licence, 
as almost all grocers, confectioners, oilmen, etc. take out the British wine licence. 
Your petitioner, therefore, respectfully submits that your Honourable Board should ad¬ 
here to their letter of December 3, 1863, and that the trade in an article of so much real 
good should be left unfettered, and its sale not interfered with by the Excise throughout 
the country; and that, had your letter not been penned, this question could not have 
arisen. Your petitioner would be most happy to be permitted to appear before your 
Honourable Board to give any further explanation you may require. 
I am your obedient servant, 
Kobt. Waters. 
Inland Revenue , Somerset House , 29 th July , 1865. 
Sir,—With reference to your application dated the 25th instant, the Board desire me 
to inform you that the letter of which you enclose a copy was an answer to one from 
the secretary of the United Society of Chemists and Druggists, the question before the 
Board at that time being, as put by the President of the Pharmaceutical Society, whether, 
when wine was used as a menstruum for medicinal substances, and as medicine and medi¬ 
cine only, so as to be entirely taken out of the category of beverages, the Board would 
exact the licence duty payable on the sale of wines. 
On the other hand, it appears in the present case that the wine is notified and used 
as a tonic beverage, and that the vendors could no more be exempted with propriety 
