These have been the chief causes of intemperance in past times, and in the present day there are many others peculiar to a comparatively high state of civilisation. The chief, amongst the poor at least, are unhappy and unhealthy homes, and he who does something to improve the dwellings and the sanitary condition of the humbler classes, or to amend their domestic habits, is one of the most effective workers in the cause of temperance reform. Smoking, too, in which some teetotallers indulge to such excess, is another stimulus to drinking; so is the custom, peculiarly English, of associating the consumption of drink with commercial, religious, moral, and charitable undertakings. But worst of all is the needless multiplication of public-houses, and the strenuous efforts which are made by the vendors of intoxicating drink to render their establishments and their wares as attractive as possible to every human sense, often at a great sacrifice of honesty, and without any regard to the feelings of humanity. Of the agencies which are at work to counteract all these injurious influences we shall speak presently; but, meanwhile, we must make a brief reference to the somewhat delicate subject of moderate drinking. And, first of all, we must inquire, “What is moderate drinking?” One writer on the subject, who is usually considered an authority, says that “for a hard-working student, politician, professional man, or busy merchant, there is no better arrangement possible than that of taking as the regular daily allowance, a bottle of sound ordinary wine of Bordeaux.”[376] Such wine, we are told, is to cost one shilling per bottle. Another quotation from the same writer will, however, relieve us from the necessity of showing that this can hardly be called moderate drinking: “We did not intend,” he says, “when recommending the ‘hard-working _student_’ to allow himself a bottle per diem of weak Bordeaux wine” [it was ‘sound’ just now], “to give that recommendation to young lads. We are thinking of ‘hard-working students’ of middle age; and we would state our firm conviction that for youths, say under twenty-five, whose bodily frame is as yet not fully consolidated, the proper rule is, _either no alcohol, or very little indeed_.”[377] We trust that “young lads” under twenty-five will appreciate the compliment and the advice; and as to politicians and busy merchants, we may safely leave them to enjoy a bottle of shilling claret per diem, if they like that “arrangement.” Another medical authority, the “Lancet,” in a very temperate article on the “Drink Question,” says that, “For young and active men a glass of beer, or one or two glasses of claret, at dinner, is, we believe, an ample supply; while men of middle age may, with advantage, stop at the third glass of claret, sherry, or port, and feel no ill result.” But the same writer admits that no definite quantity can be fixed, and that “the ultimate test in every case must be experience,