252 EXCISE INTERFERENCE WITH THE SALE OF QUININE WINE. 
from the wine licence (unless in cases where this wine is sold under stamp and licence 
as a patent medicine) than the vendors of bitter ale, which is likewise considered and 
advertised as a tonic, could be exempted from the beer licence. 
I am, Sir, your obedient servant, 
R. Waters, Esq. Adam Young. 
2, Martin’s Lane , Cannon Street, August 3rd, 1865. 
To the Honourable the Board of Inland Revenue. 
Gentlemen,—In reply to your letter of July 29th, your petitioner begs further to be al¬ 
lowed to urge upon your Honourable Board the fact that your letter of December 3,1863, 
distinctly gives the public to understand that you would not interfere with the sale of 
medicated wines, except in cases where there may be reason to believe that a beverage 
is being sold under colour of a medicine. This, your petitioner submits, especially applies 
to his preparation of quinine wine, which cannot be used at all as a beverage, as it is 
well known quinine, from its extreme bitterness, and the effect it has upon the system, 
prohibits its use entirely except as a medicated wine. This is not the case with bitter 
ale, that article being simply a malt liquor more strongly impregnated with hops than 
other kinds, and is to all intents and purposes a beverage, and that only. 
Your petitioner would also submit that he would be a great sufferer by your present 
decision, and that, having permitted the letter authorizing its sale as a medicated wine 
to be published, it would now be a great hardship and injustice to reverse your previous 
judgment. 
Your petitioner, therefore, humbly submits that the matter be again taken under your 
consideration, as the amount of revenue which could by any possibility be derived from 
it would not compensate for the annoyance the trade would be put to. Your petitioner 
may here mention that, having reported your decision to two of the largest patent medi¬ 
cine houses, the reply has been that they shall at once give up its sale, and your peti¬ 
tioner has reason to "believe that this will be the case with most druggists throughout 
the kingdom. 
Your obedient servant, 
Robt. Waters. 
Inland Revenue , Somerset House , 31si August , 1865. 
Sir,—The Board having had before them your further application of the 3rd instant, 
I am directed to acquaint you that it had appeared to them, from their previous informa ¬ 
tion, that your preparation “ Orange Quinine Wine ” was sold as a beverage, and not as a 
medicine. But, after further inquiries, they are inclined to think that it is more pro¬ 
perly classed with medicines, and that the patent medicine licence and stamped label 
are required for its sale. 
This, however, does not make any substantial difference in the decision of the Board 
as already expressed. They have already stated that, if the patent-medicine stamped 
label and licence are used, they will not require a British wine license to be taken out 
by the vendors of the orange quinine wine ; the British Avine licence-duty would be im¬ 
posed only in cases where the vendor, by neglecting or refusing to use the patent-medi¬ 
cine stamped label and licence, might show that he sells the orange quinine wine rather 
as a beverage than as a medicine. 
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,' 
Adam Young, Assistant Secretary. 
It will be observed that the decision of the Commissioners, or at any rate the 
form in which it is expressed, in this case, differs essentially from that commu¬ 
nicated on the former occasion. This decision, it is true, relates only to one 
particular preparation—Waters’s quinine wine,—while the letter of December,. 
1863, related to medicated wines generally. It is possible that there may be 
something in the circumstances under which Waters’s quinine wine is sold that 
renders it liable to the stamp duty, and which would not apply to the prepara¬ 
tion as usually made and sold by chemists and druggists. We do not think our 
members need be under any apprehension, while they make quinine wine with 
