The Argus (Melbourne, Vic.: 1848 - 1957) Sat 2 Jan 1897
SIR HENRY WRIXON ON SOCIALISM.
"Socialism: being Notes on a Political Tour"
A work by Sir Henry Wrixon must necessarily be read with interest by all thoughtful Victorians who desire to know something more about the views of their legislators on great social and political questions than can be gathered from the hasty perusal of unavoidably condensed reports of occasional Parliamentary speeches.
In his newly-published work, "Socialism: being Notes on a Political Tour," Sir Henry treats one of the most noticeable movements of modern times from the standpoint of the student and legislator, who is heartily desirous of promoting the welfare of the masses, but feels keenly the deep responsibility of laboriously weighing and considering all schemes of social improvement before approving or disapproving of them.
His task, as he tells us, has been to glean some facts which will "help towards the solution of the question of our age, how to better distribute wealth, but without impairing energy; to mitigate the struggle for life, yet maintain its progress; and while making the people more happy, still to keep them free."
But he has looked at the socialistic movement with a sympathetic eye, and has been in no way influenced by any unreasoning hatred of the socialist's aims, as indicated by his remark that socialists
"are quite right in demanding a great improvement in our social conditions; and so far they no more can be checked than they ought to be."
But whilst obviously impressed by the benevolent intentions of some amiable social reformers, he has examined with strict impartiality the socialistic movement as a whole and now gives his well-considered conclusions in the thoughtful work before us.
Though mainly concerned with the socialist movement, the work touches here and there upon other questions of interest to students of public affairs, and in the course of a brief sketch of the Sydney Legislature there occurs the following passage:—
"Some leading men told me that the personnel of the House was altering and going into the hands of men who followed the occupation of politics alone. The long hours of the sittings now as compared with those of even a few years ago are held to be accountable for this.
While we were there, Mr. J.H. Want, a leading barrister, and Mr. Bruce Smith, a prominent shipowner, announced their retirement from politics and wrote letters to the papers to explain it.
Mr. Want in his letter says that by an analysis of the records of the House he finds that in 1883 the days of meeting in the year came to 59, while in 1893 they were 116, and the hours of sitting were 419 in the former year, and 1,096 in the latter, while less work, he maintains, was done in the longer hours.
He declares that he has awakened to the fact that not only is he 'burning the candle of life at both ends, but that he is doing so in vain.'"
Nor was it only in Australia that Sir Henry found this influence at work. In his journey en route for the Ottawa Conference he saw the same tendency in the States, and to some extent in Canada.
"A leading American" he observes "Mentioned to me much the same facts as one cause of the absence from their Legislatures of men who hold positions in the world of learning, the professions, or in business; while in at least the provincial Legislatures of Canada the same evil is observed, and is explained in the same way."
After some observations on Fiji and Honolulu, in which latter place "the natives are a handsome, lazy race," the soil being so fertile that "there is no need for hard work in order to live".
We have a chapter devoted to Canada, and all who patriotically desire the integrity of the empire will read with pleasure the account of Canadian loyalty.
With the solitary exception of the voice of Mr. Goldwin Smith, Sir Henry Wrixon "Could discover no organ of public thought that favoured union with the republic as their destiny, while demonstrations of loyalty to the Queen, and pride in belonging to the empire, beset us everywhere.
'God Save the Queen' was sung with enthusiasm at all sorts of gatherings, social, official, business and more freely and persistently than is the habit in the mother land.
'The Maple Leaf for Ever' may be considered Canada's national song, and often did we listen to its pleasing notes. Its closing verse runs thus:—
'On merry England's far-famed land
May kind heaven sweetly smile;
God bless old Scotland evermore,
And Ireland's Emerald Isle.
Then sing the song both loud and long,
Till rocks and forests quiver,
God save our Queen, and heaven bless
The maple leaf for ever.' Chorus—The Maple Leaf, &c.
Socialism does not appear to have taken root very firmly in the Dominion, where, we are told, "they still depend more on private enterprise than on the state, and with reason, for enterprise has done wonders for them." Perhaps the chapters dealing with England and the growth of English socialism will be the most interesting to the majority of readers.
Of the socialist organisations, the Social Democratic Federation is the oldest, and the Fabian Society probably the most successful. Sir Henry Wrixon thus describes it:
"The Fabian Society is a teaching body, a sort of university for the socialist cause.
The members number about seven hundred. In their report for 1894 they declare that their society consists of socialists, that their object is the emancipation of land and industrial capital from individual and class ownership, and vesting them in the community for the general benefit, also the transfer to the community of the administration of such industrial capital 'as can conveniently be managed socially.''
These measures are to be carried out without compensation, 'though not without such relief to expropriated individuals as may seem fit to the community,' and rent and interest thus added to the reward of labour." But though this society, in common with most others of its class, at present moderately demands the nationalization only of such property "as can be conveniently managed socially," it must not be supposed that this is the whole extent of its programme.
Its ultimate aim is nothing less than complete communism—a system under which bank manager, lawyer and labourer, would all be paid at an equal rate.
Here is an extract from the "Manifesto of English Socialists," which was signed by the representatives of this and other English organisations:— "It is therefore, opportune to remind the public once more of what socialism means to those who are working for the transformation of our present un-socialist state into a collectivist republic, and who are entirely free from the illusion that the amelioration or 'moralisation' of the conditions of capitalist private property can do away with the necessity of abolishing it.
Even those readjustments of industry and administration, which are socialist in form, will not be permanently useful unless the whole state is merged into an organised commonwealth.
Municipalization, for instance, can only be accepted as socialism on the condition of its forming a part of national, and at last of international, socialism, in which the workers of all nations, while adopting within the borders of their own countries those methods which are rendered necessary by their historic development, can federate upon a common basis of the collective ownership of the great means and instruments of the creation and distribution of wealth, and thus break down national animosities by the solidarity of human interest throughout the civilised world.
On this point all socialists agree. Our aim, one and all, is to obtain for the whole community complete ownership and control of the means of manufacture, the mines, and the land. Thus, we look to put an end forever to the wage-system, to sweep away all distinctions of class, and eventually to establish national and international communism on a sound basis."
"As to how," says Sir Henry Wrixon, "they propose to get the land and the other factors of wealth; briefly, they propose to take them." Truly, a process which has at all events the merit of extreme simplicity—supposing the present owners raised no objection.
In also advocating communism, or the "allotting to every worker an equal wage, whatever the nature of his work," Mr. Sidney Webb makes an admission which sounds curious as coming from a pronounced communist.
"The special energy or ability with which some persons are born," says he, "is an unearned increment due to the struggle for existence upon their ancestors."
Yet, though it is the "struggle for existence" which has been the means of bringing forth this "special energy or ability," this logical socialist proposes now to banish that struggle by paying clever and dull, idle and industrious, men the same wage. Such is the logic of socialism!
As regards the socialistic work of the London County Council, Sir Henry Wrixon has something of special interest to say about the alleged economy effected by that body in dispensing with contractors and carrying out their works themselves.
He says: "Later in the year the press gave the report of the works committee, which showed a loss of £3,000 on £180,000 worth of work without the contractor.
The causes which, it was stated, were assigned for this result were the architect, who was too exacting, the manager, too sanguine and easy-going and some of the men who were alleged to be indolent and careless." One is reminded of Mr. Trenwith's rash assertion that the L.C.C. had saved £250,000 upon an expenditure of £5,000,000 by managing its own works.
Sir Henry Wrixon was present at the Trades Union Congress held in Norwich in 1894 and has much of interest to say about the temporary capture of unionism then effected by the socialists.
He observes: — "The discussions were fairly carried on, the tone adopted towards employers and capitalists being, however, marked by that colouring that we have become accustomed to upon such occasions.
Some resolutions were passed that one would have expected at any meeting of labour representatives, but there were others that did not appear to be the result of any deliberate opinion of the meeting; they were of so grave a character yet adopted so suddenly, and after little discussion.
'No 36, Surplus Labour,' was as follows: —That this congress is of opinion that it should be made a penal offence for any employer to bring, or cause to be brought, to any locality extra labour where the already existing supply is sufficient for the needs of the district.'
This was seconded by a delegate who was a member of Parliament. A leading labour member, who was sitting next me, said, when the motion was read, 'This is absurd.' Nevertheless, it was carried, nemine contradicente, but with one vote against it."
"But the most interesting motion which one expected to hear discussed with some keenness, as it involved the question between the new trades unionism and the old, was that affirming the collectivist or socialist principle of carrying on national life and industry.
I had been told by a socialist authority in London not to miss the keen discussion that might be expected at Norwich upon this subject. But the manner of its treatment was disappointing. What discussion there was short and heated, all on one side, and the dissentients, such as they were, seemed cowed.
The motion was, 'That in the opinion of this congress it is essential to the maintenance of British industries to nationalise the land, mines, minerals, and royalty rents, and that the Parliamentary committee be instructed to promote legislation with the above objects.'
On this a simple amendment was moved by Mr. Keir Hardie, M.P., to omit after 'land' the words, 'mines, minerals, and royalty rents,' and insert, 'and all the means of production and exchange,' thus affirming the complete socialist programme.
One delegate objected that this meant a complete revolution in the national life, and that before it was accepted proof should be given as to how it would work, and whether it would work at all.
Were they to throw over altogether the spirit of enterprise, self-reliance, thrift, personal foresight? He agreed to the state taking the land and mines, because they stood upon a special footing, and were different in their nature from the other instruments of production.
This solitary champion of the old school—though, indeed, it was the dominant one only ten years ago, fared badly in the fight. His position was forthwith attacked, and with some acrimony, by several of the leading members of the congress, who appeared not only to feel strongly in favour of the socialist programme, but also to feel that confidence that is imparted by being on the winning side.
They had a good opening for their onset, in the fact that their opponent was willing for the state to take the land, though not to take anything else.
If the one was right, why not the other? If the one needful, why not the other? If there were oppressions connected with the private ownership of land, were there not just as great wrongs owing to the domination of the capital? Why be half-hearted, and halt on the broad road to justice and reform? Had the dissentient objected to all state ownership his position would have been stronger."
No wonder that Mr. Chamberlain characterised this declaration in favour of socialism as "impracticable and absurd." It is pleasing to read that the Cardiff conference in the following year collectivism was condemned.
Regarding that form of socialism, which would not confiscate all property, but only one particular kind of property, Sir Henry further says:— "One marked incident of the socialist discussion at Norwich was the manner in which it illustrated, as I have stated, the weakness of the position of those who would save the state by confiscating property in land, while they would hold sacred all other kinds of property.
I will next refer to a meeting that was held in Philadelphia, because there, also, it so happened that this same point was forcibly illustrated. It met under the auspices of the Single Tax League of Philadelphia, in a large and handsome hall in the principal street of that city.
The audience, though not very large, was distinctly 'respectable,' all being well-dressed and apparently well-to-do. Several ladies were present. Two or three ready speakers explained and lauded the principles of their cause.
No man was entitled to his own land, though he was entitled to hold any other kind of property, and the state should therefore resume possession of its value, as it is when unimproved, by quietly taking it away.
In support of their argument, they laid down, with that calm confidence that Americans often display in dealing with fundamental questions, two propositions as being incontrovertible, one, that no man could have a right to anything that he had not created; and, two, that he had an absolute right to what he had created.
This seemed to me a very imperfect analysis of the question. When a man catches a fish, he does not create it, but he has expended labour on it, and is the first in possession.
When Abraham argued his right to the well with Abimelech, he did not pretend that he had made the stream of water that he wished to enjoy; it was only a natural gift, improved and made available first by his labour. 'I have digged this well.' These theoretical reflections were soon, however, interrupted by a practical episode.
A rather sour, ill-favoured looking man rose up from the audience, and requested to be allowed to address the meeting. This was agreed to, and he came upon the platform. They told me that he was a well-known workman of the city, who lost no opportunity of addressing meetings.
He had a vigorous style of declamation, and evidently thought that the stronger expressions he used the better. He said that he addressed them as an absolute socialist, who would confiscate all property, and then went on to denounce the single taxers as contemptible halters between two opinions.
They said it was right to take a man's land; if so, why not his tramways? (the tramways were then unpopular with the working classes of Philadelphia, and I always found that general principles were coloured by the local grievance in each place).
The law secured the one just as much as the other. Free land might be a sop. That was just why he opposed it, as it might allay discontent, and delay the time of general reckoning, when they would crush all the propertied classes.
Single taxers allowed a man to keep his interest upon capital, because the law allowed it; the law equally allowed the robbery of rent. And what was the use of giving him a block of land unless they gave him capital too? He could not cultivate it with his ten fingers. The single taxers were merely playing into the hands of the democrats.
The national banner, the stars and stripes, was every thread of it a fraud, all for the capitalist. The people must fight. He wound up by denouncing religion and marriage." "The man who says that the state is not justified in doing a wrong, even for the supposed benefit of the people, and that having sanctioned private property for centuries, and induced people to put the fruits of their labour into it, cannot now honestly seize it, occupies a logical and just position.
The man who says that the safety of the people is the supreme law, and that it now calls for the appropriation by the state of all the means of production and exchange, comes also to a logical, though unjust, conclusion. But the man who says all property is sacred except land, and the state must confiscate all the land, but nothing else, occupies a position that is both illogical and unjust."
As to America and the progress of socialism there, Sir Henry remarks:— "Direct socialism has not the same hold on the United States that it has on the Continent of Europe, or even on England. Bellamy's sketch, which is taken seriously abroad, is smiled at here. All new projects are allowed a fair field.
The presumption at first is rather in their favour, because they are new, and so many come to nothing that public opinion has a skeptical tone.
Notwithstanding the enormous fortunes of some, and which appear, indeed, to be increasing in number, there is still a great distribution of wealth among the people, and there is plenty of free land yet in the newer states.
The education of the school and of self government for generations, also, has its effect. Unquestionably, too, the distrust of politicians, and the dissatisfaction with the results of Government action in its present sphere, indisposes many to the paternalism of the state."
On the question of woman suffrage Sir Henry's remarks will repay careful attention. "The women's suffrage movement is an instance of how experience tells upon the public mind. A generation ago its prospects looked brighter in the United States than they do now. It was the watchword then never to rest till the suffrage had been secured and also a woman elected President of the United States.
America has the advantage of being able to try experiments in one or more of its numerous states, while the rest look on and take note of them. Female suffrage has been tried in Wyoming, Washington, Colorado, and Utah, where strangely enough, the women supported polygamy by their votes.
In Colorado their victory was owing to the Populist party carrying that state. The friends of the movement do not claim that it has achieved any great results in those states. Women who have homes and children do not vote at all. The Governor of Colorado, who supports it, says:—'It must be admitted that the effect which equal suffrage will produce upon the states and nation is a matter of conjecture.
In Utah, the right of women to vote under the territorial laws did not injuriously affect polygamy. In Wyoming and Washington, to my knowledge, no extraordinary progress has been made that can be traced to female suffrage; and in Colorado sufficient time has not elapsed to speak understandingly of the result.
Certainly, there is little hope of the future, unless women, admitted to the suffrage, acquaint themselves more thoroughly than men with political affairs.
The socialist and labour parties in England were all for 'women's suffrage and the absolute equality of woman with man in all things.' But some of the most advanced platforms in America, such as those of St. Louis and of Omaha, reject it.
In Nebraska, several years ago, the Legislature passed an act submitting the question to a convention of the people, and the National Womens Suffrage of the Union had a special gathering in Omaha, the capital of the state, and worked vigorously to secure a favourable vote. But out of nearly 90,000 who polled only 25,756 declared for it.
The Dominion Parliament in Canada rejected the proposal for woman's suffrage last year by 105 votes to 47. In New York the Constitutional Convention rejected it, and Bishop Doane, of Albany, who is a representative man with his party, declared that he was 'sick and tired of the way in which the talk of woman's vocation fills the air.'"
The fact that socialism means slavery, however mild and benevolent the reigning despots might be is clearly recognised by the author of this book.
The tendency of socialism in this direction is, indeed, made sufficiently apparent from time to time by the contemptuous manner in which socialistic labour members refer to "that ancient bogey, Liberty."
Says Sir Henry Wrixon:— "Personal independence must be given up in the socialist state. Some that I spoke to seemed rather to enjoy the prospect. But the idea in their minds was that they and their friends would govern the rest. They never contemplated what it would really be like to live under an industrial despotism. They would be the very people who would resent it.
But when the system became a Government, with all men subject beneath it, the love of liberty, which is so indestructible in man, and which has played so large a part in his history, would reappear, divine discontent, with the longing for change, would be present as it was in the beginning and has been ever since, and the old cause of personal freedom now neglected because securely achieved, would again stir the hearts and rouse the energies of men. It would again have its poets, heroes, martyrs. That would then be the line of progress."
A most interesting section of the book treats of the relation of socialism to religion and the family, and it is here that one of the ugliest characteristics of the socialist state shows itself. Our author observes:—
"Socialism is incompatible with fixed marriage and separate family life. These are inextricably mixed up with individualism with allowing a man to work for his own people and keep what he earns, and so are condemned by advanced socialists in an absolute manner, while others hesitate at the conclusion to which their principles naturally lead."
"I cite Mr. Belfort Bax again, as he is one of the most active members of the Socialist League, and the author of many works on socialism.
He says:—'I should observe that we are concerned not with the civilised man, but with the socialised man, which makes all the difference; for collectivism is undeniably a reversion, if you like to call it so, to primitive conditions. The fact that group marriage obtained in early society should rather be, as far as it goes, a presumption in favour of something analogous to it obtaining in the future.'
The same author, in his "Religion of Socialism," says:—'We defy any human being to point to a single reality, good or bad, in the composition of the bourgeois family. It has the merit of being the most perfect specimen of the complete sham that history has presented to the world. There are no holes in the texture through which reality might chance to peer. The bourgeois hearth dreads honesty as its cat dreads cold water.'
Further on he writes:—'The transformation of the current family form, founded as it is on the economic dependence of women, the maintenance of the young and the aged falling on individuals, rather than on the community, &c., into a freer, more real, and therefore higher form, must inevitably follow the economic revolution which will place the means of production and distribution under the control of all for the good of all.
The bourgeois hearth, with its jerry-built architecture, its cheap art, its shoddy furniture, its false sentiment, its pretentious pseudo-culture, will then be as dead as Roman Britain.'
Another socialist authority refers to the 'cant talked about family life—man, after all, being but the highest animal, and there being no family life among cats and dogs.' Mr. Bernard Shaw looks forward to the 'happy time when the continuity of society will no longer depend upon the private nursery.'
Mrs. Besant and Mr. Belfort Bax would take the education of the family away from the parents. 'Bourgeois liberty of conscience' is to give way to true liberty. The core of the matter is to make motherhood a business, arranged and paid for by the state, and to root out the institution and the very idea of the exclusive family.
All this, however, is based upon, and only follows upon, the previous carrying out of the other proposals of socialism. At present it is of importance only as showing to what these necessarily lead. As Karl Pearson, a gentleman whose authority is frequently invoked, puts it, the change in the mode of possessing wealth must connote a change in the sexual relationships." Nor is the socialist attitude towards religion one whit less hostile than towards the family.
"Karl Marx is regarded by English as well as German socialists as the high priest of the system. No one is more frequently referred to by socialist authors of repute in both countries. He says:—'We are content to lay down the foundation of the revolution. We shall have deserved well of it if we stir hatred and contempt against all existing institutions. We make war against all prevailing ideas of religion. The idea of God is the keystone of a perverted civilisation. It must be destroyed. The true root of liberty, of equality, of culture, is Atheism.'
Feuerbach thus explains the new idea:—'Man alone is our god, our father, our judge, our redeemer, our true home, our law and rule. . . Man by himself is but man, man with man, the unity of I and Thou, is God.'" These may be taken as samples of German thought upon this subject.
Some English writers express themselves with equal directness, at least against all the existing forms of belief; others express the same thing inferentially, or quietly assume the negation as true. A few seek to join socialism to Christianity.
Mr. Belfort Bax, who is always outspoken, and whose works are recommended in the Fabian tract entitled 'What to Read,' puts it in his 'Ethics of Socialism' thus:—'It is useless blinking the fact that the Christian doctrine is more revolting to the higher moral sense of today than the Saturnalia of the cult of Proserpine could have been to the conscience of the early Christians
"Ye cannot serve God and humanity" is the burthen of the nobler instincts of our epoch.
The higher human ideal stands in opposition at once to capitalism, the gospel of success, with its refined art of cheating, through the process of exchange, or, in short, to worldliness; and to Christianism, the gospel of success in a hypothetical other life, or, in short, to other worldliness.' He goes on to urge that if we want an object of personal reverence, we should look, not to Christ, but to some of the modern martyrs of socialism.
The Fabian Essays may be considered the text book of the school in England." Even some socialist writers who are the favourites of certain "Christian socialists" appear to regard the hopes of religion as resulting largely from man's dissatisfaction with his circumstances here, and as therefore likely entirely to disappear when those circumstances are socialistically improved.
Speaking of Mr. Laurence Gronlund, our author says:— "He would, however, allow an undefined religion of his own, which might or might not include the belief in a life beyond the grave, the longing for which 'has been fostered by creeds whose whole strength consists in offering a consolation to people who feel miserable here. It is possible that when men live to a good old age, and enjoy during life all the delights which nature permits this longing will disappear.' This touches the keynote of socialism."
Sir Henry Wrixon's summing up on this part of his subject is as follows:— "The conviction left upon the mind by the literature of socialism, and by what one hears from its exponents, is not only that it does declare against religion, marriage and the family, but that it must do so, if it is to prevail. It cannot succeed so long as they are in the way.
The antagonism between them is absolute and lasting. Religion forbids us to center all our hopes in this life, and declares that men cannot find full contentment here.
Marriage of one man to one woman for life gives to each some of the most sacred attributes of property in the other. The family unquestionably means some exclusiveness, so long as good men think first of the happiness of wife and children, and prefer it to the pleasure of others, or even to their own.
It would be futile to allow the old domestic institutions to continue while you condemn the economic conditions upon which they rest, and the virtues—as they have been considered—upon which their value and usefulness depend." Such being the character of true socialism, what should be thought of those estimable gentlemen who persist in calling themselves "Christian socialists?"
Let Sir Henry Wrixon supply the answer:— "How far removed these worthy men are from the socialist who means business we can readily learn by a glance at their 'Church Socialism' publications.
The Lambeth Conference of Bishops appointed a committee to report upon the social problem. It, after due deliberation, reported in favour of the extension of the system of small farms, of co-operation, boards of arbitration for labour disputes, the acquisition of municipalities of town lands, and the abolition of entail.
It states further that it does not doubt that the Government can do much to protect the proletariat from the evils of unchecked competition.' The bishops also declare themselves for a peaceful solution of social problems 'without violence or injustice.'
Most of these proposals not only would not satisfy the socialist, but would be tenaciously opposed by him.
A paper by the Bishop of Durham on socialism is apparently regarded as a declaration of faith by the socialist church guilds. It begins by stating that the socialism that the bishop contemplates has 'no necessary affinity with any forms of violence in confiscation, or class selfishness, or financial arrangement.' It is obviously, therefore, not the movement with whose champions I have been conversing.
The 'Guild of St. Matthew' is declared to be the true socialist organization in the church. Its principles are stated to be two, each equally obvious and just; that all should work, and that the produce of labour should be distributed on a more equitable system than at present.
Sermons and papers of excellent tone are published by the Christian Socialist School, which deplore social inequalities and reprobate the selfishness of many. They proclaim no more than the truth, but do not do it as vigorously as Hugh Latimer did when he hurled Christian anathemas against the wealthy Londoners who allowed the poor to languish at their doors.
But an impassable gulf yawns between the true Christian and the true socialist. A man can be either, but not both. None proclaim this in louder tones than do the outspoken socialists.
I quote Mr. Bax again, because he, as usual, speaks directly:— Lastly, one word on that singular hybrid, the "Christian socialist." Though the word socialism has not been mentioned, it will have been sufficiently evident that the goal indicated in the present articles is none other than socialism.
But the association of Christianism with any form of socialism is a mystery, rivalling the mysterious combination of ethical and other contradictions in the Christian Divinity himself.
Notwithstanding that the soi-disant Christian socialist confessedly finds the natural enemies of his socialism among Christians of all orthodox denominations, still he persists in retaining the designation, while refusing to employ it in its ordinary signification.
It is difficult to divine the motive for thus preserving a name which, confessedly, in its ordinary meaning, is not only alien, but hostile to the doctrine of socialism.'"
Altogether, Sir Henry Wrixon may be heartily congratulated upon the production of this work. It evinces an extensive acquaintance with socialistic literature, and with the views of many leading socialists both in England and America, and it goes without saying that all those who wish to become thoroughly acquainted with the real meaning of the movement known as modern socialism should attentively study the book.
Possibly some reverend gentlemen in our midst might derive considerable advantage from its perusal.
Link to:
Sir Henry Wrixon Colonial Conference 1895
"The Pattern Nation"1906
Sir Henry Wrixon. THE RELIGION OF THE COMMON MAN. 1909
"Jacob Shumate"
No comments:
Post a Comment