One hundred years ago, to be “drunk as a lord” was considered the height of human happiness. And at this period the Church had not severed its old connection with alcohol. In fact intemperance was encouraged by our pastors and masters; and in certain districts of England the churchwardens, at Whitsuntide, made collections of malt from the parishioners, and this was brewed into strong ale, and sold in the churches, the money so obtained being expended on the repairs of the sacred edifices; and it was a frequent and a saddening spectacle to see men who had drunk not wisely reeling about the aisles. Until as late as 1827—in which year the license was withdrawn—a church and a tavern were covered by the same roof, in the parish of Deepdale, a village between Derby and Nottingham; and a door which could be opened at will led from the altar to the tap-room. A Romish priest wrote in praise of the bowl as follows:— Si bene commemini, causae sunt quinque bibendi: Hospitis adventus; praesens sitis; atque futura; Aut vini bonitas; aut quaelibet altera causa. Which comforting and jovial sentiments were thus adapted for the use of colleges and private bars, by Dean Aldrich, D.D., the great master of logic at Oxford:— There are, if I do rightly think, Five reasons why a man should drink: Good wine, a friend, or being dry, Or lest you should be by and by⸺ Or any other reason why. {19} But after all no nation ever did themselves so well, in the matter of wines, as the inhabitants of bad old ancient Rome. “It was to excess of drinking,” wrote Whyte Melville, in _The Gladiators_, “that the gluttons of that period looked as the especial relief of every entertainment; since the hope of each seemed to be that when thoroughly flooded, and so to speak washed out with wine, he might begin eating again. The Roman was no drunkard, like the barbarian, for the sake of that wild excitement of the brain which is purchased by intoxication. No, he ate to repletion that he might drink in gratification. He drank to excess that he might eat again.” Further on the same writer remarks: “Whilst marvelling at the quantity of wine consumed by the Romans in their entertainments, we must remember that it was the pure and unadulterated juice of the grape, that it was in general freely mixed with water, and that they imbibed but a very small portion of alcohol, which is the destructive quality of all stimulants.” As to the Roman vintages being “in general freely mixed with water,” I have grave doubts. I have an idea that Maecenas would have made it particularly warm for that slave who might have dared to water his old Falernian; and, take them altogether, an amusement-loving, and playgoing public, for whom the legitimate drama took the form of certain brave men and fair women being torn and eaten by wild beasts, would hardly have been content with such drink for babes as “claret cold.” {20}