The Duke’s French way of speaking English was charming; he gave an expressive roll to his r’s, especially when he said “the moral sense,” that of itself almost carried conviction.  His wife smiled as she heard him, and her smile was not altogether pleasant.  Perhaps she wondered by what criterion of excellence he measured his own “moral sense,” or whether, despite his education and culture, he had any “moral sense” at all, higher than that of the pig, who eats to be eaten!  But Alwyn spoke, and she listened intently, finding a singular fascination in the soft and quiet modulation of his voice, which gave a vaguely delicious suggestion of music underlying speech.

“To guide people by their moral sense alone”—­he said—­“you must first prove plainly to them that the moral sense exists, together with moral responsibility.  You will find this difficult,—­as the virtue implied is intangible, unseeable;—­one cannot say of it, lo here!—­or lo there!—­it is as complicated and subtle as any other of the manifestations of pure Spirit.  Then you must decide on one universal standard, or reasonable conception of what ‘morality’ is.  Again, you are met by a crowd of perplexities,—­as every nation, and every tribe, has a totally different idea of the same thing.  In some countries it is ‘moral’ to have many wives; in others, to drown female children; in others, to solemnly roast one’s grandparents for dinner!  Supposing, however, that you succeed, with the aid of all the philosophers, teachers, and scientists, in drawing up a practical Code of Morality—­do you not think an enormous majority will be found to ask you by whose authority you set forth this Code?—­and by what right you deem it necessary to enforce it?  You may say, ’By the authority of Knowledge and by the right of Morality’—­but since you admit to there being no spiritual or divine inspiration for your law, you will be confronted by a legion of opponents who will assure you, and probably with perfect justice, that their idea of morality is as good as yours, and their knowledge as excellent,—­that your Code appears to them faulty in many respects, and that, therefore, they purpose making another one, more suited to their liking.  Thus, out of your one famous Moral System would spring thousands of others, formed to gratify the various tastes of different individuals, precisely in the same manner as sects have sprung out of the wholly unnecessary and foolish human arguments on Christianity;—­only that there would lack the one indestructible, pure Selfless Example that even the most quarrelsome bigot must inwardly respect,—­namely, Christ Himself.  And ‘morality’ would remain exactly where it is:—­neither better nor worse for all the trouble taken concerning it.  It needs something more than the ‘moral’ sense to rightly ennoble man,—­it needs the spiritual sense;—­the fostering of the instinctive immortal aspiration of the creature, to make him comprehend the responsibility of his present