Drygull.  Of course, I entirely disagree with you as to any such necessity in regard to the moral requirements of the world, existing.  You must have met, in the course of your travels, that more enlightened and initiated class of Buddhists, with whom I sympathise, who are quite indifferent to considerations of this nature.

Rollestone.  And who were too much occupied with their subjective prospects in Nirvana, to be affected by the needs of terrestrial humanity.

Drygull.  Quite so.

Mrs Allmash.  And, Mr Allyside, I am afraid you are equally indifferent.

Ali Seyyid.  I am certainly not indifferent to the discovery of any force latent in Christendom which may check the force of its cupidity, and put a stop to the exploitation and subjugation of Eastern countries for the sake of advancing its own material interests, under the specious pretext of introducing the blessings of civilisation.

Coldwaite.  You have certainly presented the matter in a light which is altogether new to me, Mr Rollestone, and upon which, therefore, I am not now prepared to express an opinion.  I should like to discuss the subject with you further privately.

Rollestone.  It is a subject which should never be discussed except privately.

Mrs Allmash.  Now, I should say, Mr Rollestone, on the contrary, that it was just a subject you ought to write a book about.  You would have so much to tell,—­all your personal experiments, you know; now do.

Fussle.  Take my advice, Mr Rollestone, and don’t.  You would have very few readers, and those who read you would only sneer at what they would call your crude ideas; and indeed, you will excuse me for saying so, but I am not sure that they would not be right.

Lord Fondleton.  I quite disagree with you, Mr Fussle.  If Rollestone would write a book which would put a stop to this “religion of the future” business, he would earn the gratitude of society.  Do you know, I am getting rather bored with it.

Fussle.  Not if he introduced instead a latent force, which should overturn all existing institutions, and revolutionise society—­which it would inevitably have to do if we were all coerced by it into adopting literally the ethics of Christianity, instead of merely professing them.  Why, the “Sermon on the Mount” alone, practised to the letter, would produce a general destruction.  Church and State, and the whole economic system upon which society is based, would melt away before it like an iceberg under a tropical sun.  I don’t mind discussing the religion of the future as a subject of interesting speculation; but, depend upon it, we had better let well alone.  It seems to me that we—­at least those of us who are well off—­have nothing to complain of.  Let us trust to the silent forces of evolution.  See how much they have lately done for us in the matter of art.