"This is not a question which can be settled by reasoning: it must be decided entirely by experience. No one who has always been in the habit of using stimulants can be heard on this point, because, having had no experience of life without alcohol, such a person cannot draw a comparison between life with and life without that agent." These are the words of Dr. Buckle, of London, Ontario, and this practical way of testing the question will commend itself to all. What is the experience, then, of those who have tried both moderation and total abstinence? The Rev. Canon Farrar found that "even a single glass of wine, when engaged in laborious work, was rather injurious than otherwise." Mr. A. J. Ellis did not find that wine increased his power of work, and Professor Skeat says the less stimulant he takes the better. Contrary to medical advice, Dr. Martineau reverted to abstinence, and for twelve or fifteen years he has been practically a total abstainer, and, at 77, he retains the power of mental application. For many years, the Rev. Mark Pattison found great advantage from giving up wine. Lieutenant-Colonel Butler finds that a greater amount of _even_ mental work is to be obtained without the use of alcohol. The belief that alcohol invigorated the body was held by Mr. Cornelius Walford, but he now finds that it does not do so, and believes that in sedentary occupations it is positively injurious even when taken with meals. Professor Skeat has given up beer with benefit to himself, and has almost given up wine. M. Barthelemy St. Hilaire has abstained from wine for many years, indeed, for nearly a life-time, with great advantage. Mr. Hamerton has abstained for long periods from stimulants, feeling better without them.