BOOKS.

A LODGE IN THE WILDERNESS.*

THE anonymous author of this remarkable book must have sat down to write it in much the same frame of mind as that in which Disraeli wrote Coningsby. In both cases the aim of the author was to think things out from the beginning again, to revivify formulas which had become stale and tarnished by vulgar use. In both cases the story is only a vehicle for preaching a gospel. What Disraeli did for young Toryism the author of A Lodge in the Wilderness wishes to do for Imperialism. It is a gospel worth listening to; and we can say at once that few men in England are more competent than this writer shows himself to be to argue reasonably with opponents, even with fanatical opponents. Indeed, he rather likes fanatics, and thinks, with penetration, that they are the enemies best worth fighting. For if they are converted they are converted to vehement support of their conqueror, whereas the listless mercenaries of politics are of little use on either side.

The similarity between a novel like Coningsby and this book goes even deeper. In both cases the ardent purpose of the writer drives its ear over a good many conventions ; it demands its sacrifices. If Disraeli's novels have innumerable passages ofstartling unreality, the sacrifices which the writer of A Lodge in the Wilderness has made are even greater. It is convenient to come to this point at once, as we think the charge of unreality likely to be made; and for our part we think it would be made unjustly, certainly if it were pressed far. The writer is much too intelligent not to see that he risks this very obvious 'criticism; what he has done he has done with his eyes open. His characters are intellectually distinguishable, but nothing more. We have no idea what most of them looked like; they invite no sympathies except the kind of sympathy one gives to an unknown political can- didate whose cause one approves. There is a mere suggestion of a love affair between two of the younger characters, but it is left at that. A story, then, is deliberately chosen as an excuse for a very *brilliant homily, and the story is only worked upon just enough to make it carry the weight hung upon it. Having once made up our minds that the writer has not failed at something be tried to do—because he has re- nounced the very attempt—we axe not disconcerted at finding a whole party in a country house talking philosophy in finished antitheses. Why should we be P The method is

Lodo in tha.Wildarnass. London: W. Blackwood and Bona. [68.]

true to itself ; there is no mixture of aims. We do not (to take quite different eases) delight the less in the cold flushes of Sheridan's wit because we think that such brilliant talkers as his never walked in real drawing-rooms. We do not reject the incredibly ingenious sallies of Congreve. Nor do we shy here at a method which has for its object, not the pursuit of wit in the abstract, but the conveyance of "thoughts for the times" which the nation has need of; thoughts which are generous, reasonable, inspiriting, often noble, and make no vulgar assumptions.

The chief character of this story round whom the others revolve is one Francis Carey, described as an "intelligent millionaire." The reader will not have turned ninny pages before he wonders if this person is meant for Mr. Cecil Rhodes, and the other characters for recognisable .men and women in the life of to-day. He will wonder if it is not all

a story a clef. We ourselves thought it was at first; but quite apart from the fact that Mr. Rhodes is mentioned later as a character outside the story, we soon came to the conclusion

that the writer has only done what his intelligence might have made us expect,—taken his suggestions from life, but sternly avoided any attempt to play with illegitimate curiosity.

Carey is the Rhodesian type, but not such a "man of destiny."

as Rhodes. "The feudal manors of impoverished English squires, the castles. of impecunious Highland chiefs, held for him no charms." Did not Mr. Rhodes himself express his contempt for the ambition of "founding a family" P Carey

bad houses in many parts of the world : "A bungalow in a Pacific isle, a fishing-lodge in New Zealand, and a superb farm of the old Dutch style in the Blaartwberg." Again, "a vast scheme of education inaugurated by him tied the schools of the colonies to the older institutions of England. One

ancient University owed the renewal of her fortunes to his

gifts."

We are introduced to Carey at a time when the word " Imperialism " has been dragged through the mud.

Imperialists were in need of nothing more than to be saved from their friends, from the horde of " maffickers," from base and wilful, but, above all, stupid, misunderstanding. How to rehabilitate the honour of Imperialism, to vindicate the essential right-meaning of the word P Of course, if we all used it sanely there would be no one outside the lunatic asylums who was not an Imperialist. We remember a very distinguished Socialist saying: "Once you have a foreign frontier to guard, and have to send two hundred policemen to

do it,—there is Imperialism. Every one who consents to retaining the frontier at all is an Imperialist in the strict sense of the word." And Mr. Morley said in a speech just

before the Boer War : "I believe in a just Empire, a clean Empire, a right-doing Empire, and the bigger the better." So say all of us ; and all we have to do is to determine why so many people who are all agreed in principle reject the name of Imperialists, and to find out whether there is any possible Imperialistic policy which would be removed above all faction. To thresh out that problem Carey invited a party of intelligent men and women—a Conservative ex-

Prime Minister, an ex-Viceroy, a Canadian statesman, a Jewish financier, an explorer, a journalist, the wife of a Liberal

Duke, the wife of a Liberal Cabinet Minister, and so on—to spend a few months with him in his country house at Musuru, on the high land looking over Equatoria. There they conduct

an informal debate. The story records the debate. No doubt Carey's ideal is only an ideal, for in politics a difference in

method has the same value as a difference in principle, but an ideal is none the less good for us all. Carey calls himself a transcendentalist. So did Matthew Arnold. It is a difficult world to deal with!

Very early in the debate a definition of Imperialism was demanded :—

"No," said Carey, "we don't want a definition. By its fruits ye shall know it. It is a spirit, an attitude of mind, an unconquerable hope. You can phrase it in a thousand ways without exhausting its content. It is a sense of the destiny of England. It is the wider patriotism which conceives our people as a race and not as a chance community."

In that last sentence all the ethnological law and the prophets are suggested. It is the nature of man to cling to other men of similar nature and habits. It is useless to disregard this capillary attraction, so to speak. Just as bubbles in a cup rush together, so do men of similar birth or interests. Those who condemn Imperialism commonly encourage Nationalism. But what is Nationalism but a manifestation of the same -power at work?

Although a definition of Imperialism may be unattainable, we get nearer to it negatively in the debate by the very - divergences of the debaters. Wakefield, the Canadian states- man, cannot tolerate the dreamy mysticism of Carey. "1 speak from a wide knowledge of the Colonies," he said, "and I assure you that what they want is a business proposition.

Let every man add his own poetry to the facts, but for Heaven's sake let us get the facts agreed upon first."

If there are differences among the debaters, they are - conscious all the time of the disservice done to their cause by the embarrassing support of some of their friends. We -have mentioned this already, but must give the following -extract :—

" You have omitted," said Mrs. Wilbraham, "the greatest source of opposition—the folly of some of our own people. Why is it • that many of us—myself for one—grow nervous when the word 'Empire' is mentioned, and get hot all over ? Human nature is so hopelessly silly. A dear creature, whom most of us know, - started a league last year to ensure that women throughout the Empire should be reading Shakespeare at the same time every

evening I had a collection of imperial songs from the

• works of popular poets sent me this summer. One had the chorus We can all do our little bit for England.' Another was an invoca- tion to empire= Empire, the very thought of thee ! ' "

Do we not all know these embarrassing allies P We our-

• selves would like to see respect taught for the national flag in ,-schools as a matter of manners, just as we would see every boy 'taught to respect his father—reverence, unhappily, not being implanted in us naturally—but we would rather not see it taught at all than have the flag regarded as a vainglorious • emblem. It is in itself valueless unless it be a symbol of a great ideal. If we fall short of teaching that, we had better leave it alone, according to our national habit of not talking much about affairs of sentiment. At Musuru the house-party, imposed on itself a humorous self-denying ordinance that the .word "Empire" was not to be mentioned till the evening.

The discussion on an Imperial Council is extremely well -done. Here is an extract from the remarks of the Canadian, states man :—

"A colony begins with a struggle for bare life, scarcely -conscious of her own existence, only of her needs. And then -success comes, and more success, and one morning she wakes to find that she has become a nation and can call the older people -cousins. She has no standard of comparison, and begins by being extremely self-confident and bumptious. Take a young man and plant him with a wife in the wilds and tell him to make a home.

-So soon as he has done it he will begin to brag We call him a braggart, but we are wrong, for he is something subtler than that.'

Englishmen very often misjudge Americans for the reason -given here. The difference in self-estimation is the result of .a difference of circumstance. Americans and our Colonists, moreover, are inclined to think it more wrong to say that they -cannot do a thing which they know very well they can do—we icall this "modesty "—than to say that they can do something which perhaps they cannot. At all events, the distinct sense -of nationalism in young Colonies is at first an impediment to federal ideas ; later, humility comes with a desire for the• .graces of life which are to be found in the older world; and then nationalism desires union, because, after all, it perceives that thereby it is sacrificing no pride.

We cannot do more than suggest some of the subjects -which follow in a natural sequence,—the possibility of an eventual change in the centre of gravity of the Empire; the method of administering unhealthy countries by opening up 4' vantage-grounds" where white men can have frequent brief holidays on those highlands which, by a happy dispensation of Providence, are generally to be found near low-lying -pestilential tracts ; the way to make labour mobile so that it may be conveyed to the places where it is wanted at the right 'moment instead of languishing where it is not wanted; and the question of "patriotism," which virtue our sane Imperialists deny to no one who is honestly trying to keep his country in the right way. To quote would be to upset -the balance of the argument, and to do injustice to the eloquence of many of the passages. There is in the whole book a power of vision which makes one feel as though one looked down from a great height, saw the world laid out, and were entrusted with the sobering, yet fascinating, task of saying how the pieces shall be moved, how the great game of our heritage shall be played.