­in, Boots and all

The announcement by Boots the Chemist that it wants to license some of its stores may have caught some people by surprise. But it is by no means new. Chemists have been licensed for alcohol for many years ­ and since 1968 they have technically held a justices' off-licence in many cases. I remember several years ago going to a licensed trade show in Harrogate where, as usual, I lost my voice! I popped in to the chemist opposite the exhibition centre for some throat lozenges, and there in front of me was a fine array of wines, sherries and other goodies, ready for purchase. On quizzing the pharmacist, I found that he had got one of the famous chemists' licences which were hastily invented in 1968 after the abolition of excise licences in 1967 (remember the phrase "excisable liquors", so beloved of pub-trade notices and announcements?). What happened was that the only licences then available were the ones we know now ­ on-licences, off-licences and hotel or restaurant licences. In the case of off-licences, there were only two descriptions: all liquors or "beer, cider and wine only". So where a retail chemist wanted to include medicated wines among his goods for sale, he had to get an off-licence. But he gave an undertaking to the justices not to sell anything as damaging as beer or cider ­ just wine! However, on the face of the licence it would clearly state that it was valid for beer, cider and wine only. Whether or not the undertaking is or was valid, over the years it may well be that some chemists just decided that they could sell a range of wines quite legally under the terms of their licence. I have no reason to suppose that Boots did not have some of these medicated wine licences in their estate and though I have been unable to contact their legal people, I wonder whether they know what they already have? There are a great many interesting and historical elements of licensing that are going to disappear when the new-style council licensing system starts, including "old on-licences" that date back to the 1880s. My only hope is that some of the records which the licensing justices and their clerks have kept so assiduously over the years can be preserved, because they contain some fascinating glances into the past that should not be lost. I know some courts are making arrangements for their record books to be preserved, which is good news for historians.