Sir Henry Wrixon "Men at home. "Punch". 1903.

 Punch (Melbourne, Vic. : 1900 - 1918; 1925)

Thu 27 Aug 1903 Page 25

Victoria’s Representative Men At Home.  

NO. 2. — The President of the Legislative Council 

SIR HENRY WRIXON.

                                        Sir Henry Wrixon Lady Wrixon Miss Wrixon & doggo

Henry J. Wrixon, son of the late Judge Wrixon, claims, with many other distinguished Australians, Ireland as his place of birth. He was born in Dublin in the year 1839—came to Victoria as a boy in 1850. Was sent to Dublin University to complete his education in 1858. Here he obtained two gold medals given by the Historical Branch of the University. He was called to the Irish Bar in 1860, and to the Victorian Bar upon his return to Victoria in 1865. He entered the Victorian Parliament in 1870, and was several times Minister of the Crown. He was elected President of the Legislative Council upon the retirement of Sir Wm. Zeal in 1901. Knighted in 1892.

When the President of the Legislative Council of the State of Victoria is not in another place he is to be found at home at “Raheen,” a commodious mansion situated in the highest part of Kew. The building commands an extensive panorama of views. It overlooks Studley Park and the Yarra on one side, and on the other Heidelberg and the outer northern suburbs lie stretched below upon a variegated carpet, which stretches from the Dandenong Ranges to Mount Macedon.

Although the duties of the President of a Legislative Council are not, like a Governor’s, all-time-absorbing, Sir Henry Wrixon is not a man of leisure, as the word is usually understood. His official position demands attendance at functions and ceremonies that can scarcely be regarded as specially attractive or entertaining to a man who is by nature and inclination a student.

Some men when “at home” delight to take their leisure at other men’s work. One will toil patiently in his garden, digging and pruning; another, perhaps a judge, will exchange the Bench of Themis for that of the carpenter, and find his pleasure in chips and shavings; whilst yet another will work, as paid men do not work, at turning, fret-sawing, photography and what-not. These men do, willingly and without fee or reward, hard work which on compulsion they would not undertake for a thousand a year.

“The labour we delight in physics pain.”

Sir Henry Wrixon’s delights do not run in the muscular groove. His appetite in his leisure hours is for “the dainties that are bred in a book.” His playground is his library, richly stocked with volumes, many of them such as the average reader would consider excessively dry reading. Reports of commissions and weighty pamphlets form no inconsiderable portion of his library, and the occupant devours a choice report of an American or a European congress with the same enthralling interest as the man in the street experiences over a new novel.

                                  

Student and deep reader though he be, Sir Henry Wrixon has found sufficient leisure to write a novel. Its title is “Jacob Shumate,” and it has just been published in two volumes. Although a work of fiction, it is not of the popular or sensational kind. In part, it may be regarded as containing a good many autobiographical touches, and the incidents are such as have, or might have occurred in Sir Henry Wrixon’s own political career. “Jacob Shumate” is a study of many characters that the author has no doubt met, and, indeed, are tolerably familiar to all who have seen much of Victorian politics. 

The observations of his working life have furnished Sir Henry Wrixon with much material. Much of his leisure time has been devoted to recording his impressions and his observations, and this record he has again remoulded into the story of “Jacob Shumate.”

Link to:Jacob Shumate.

It is well known that men of legal and studious turn of mind have occasionally suggested appliances and inventions which have baffled more practical intellects. An instance is afforded by a contrivance of the simplest kind invented—but not patented—by Sir Henry Wrixon. The idea is simplicity and effectiveness combined, and it may be suggested for adoption by persons who write or read much by artificial light. 

Reporters and others shield their eyes by a screen on the forehead above the eyes, a method practically useless, even deleterious, if the light is above and in front, for the rays striking downwards upon the white paper are reflected with little loss of power straight into the eyes. Sir Henry Wrixon found this to be the case, and, thinking the matter out, perfected his “invention.” The lamp is placed above and behind the reader or the writer, and a dark, adjustable screen is hung upon the lamp. This screen is pulled open to any required extent. 

The result is that the rays of light falling upon the white paper from above and behind are reflected at an angle equal to that of incidence and away from the eyes. A maximum of illumination is thus secured with an absence of any direct and a minimum of reflected rays upon the vision. 

Sight is of all the senses the most precious and its care a vivid necessity to persons of middle age. Sir Henry Wrixon’s method may be recommended to all. The illustration in this article, showing Sir Henry in his library, will more fully explain the sight-saving appliance.

                                                             Sight-saving appliance.

At home and in private life Sir Henry Wrixon is one of the quietest of men. There is an utter absence of all “frill.” He is almost necessarily a pleasant companion and agreeable conversationalist, for he has read much and seen much, and all that he has read and seen he has observed and stored up in a particularly retentive mind. 

But he is always willing to learn, and he will listen with profound and respectful attention even to a novice. 

It is his opinion that something may be learnt from every book and every human being. Therefore he never casts either aside, but “looks through” it or him or her, certain that he will add some little pebble of information to the mound of his knowledge.

His leisure may be truly said to be spent in reading—it may be the books in his library or it may be those still more varied and interesting books, men and women, the curious volumes that crowd the shelves of each man’s life.

LINK TO:-

Sir Henry Wrixon   Colonial Conference at Ottawa 1895

Sir Henry Wrixon   Sir Henry Wrixon "Socialism: being Notes on a Political Tour" 1897

Sir Henry Wrixon   Jacob Shumate.

Sir Henry Wrixon   Pattern Nation1906

Sir Henry Wrixon.  THE RELIGION OF THE COMMON MAN. Published Book reviews 1909

SIR HENRY WRIXON'S NOVEL. Jacob Shumate, Book review by 1903.

                                                 Sir Henry in his office library Raheen Kew. Vic.

The Australasian (Melbourne, Saturday 15 August 1903)

Sir Henry Wrixon's Novel.

Jacob Shumate 

(Or The People's March, A Voice From The Ranks) 

An author, whether he is concerned with social problems or his visit to throw his message into the form of fiction. Numbers of people will read a novel who would close the door to a more austere form. 

Sir Henry Wrixon has elected to do this in order to bring before the community a picture of democracy and democratic public life as it has presented itself to him during his long career in Victoria, and his choice can be thoroughly justified. 

To a large extent Jacob Shumate may be accepted as giving the real experiences of the writer, but had he confined himself to writing his reminiscences he would not have appealed to so large a body of readers as he is now likely to secure, and he would not have had the freedom which he enjoys when he attributes sentiments and opinions to different people. 

Probably a just criticism would be that he has not trusted to fiction sufficiently. There is so little fiction, that from the standpoint of a novel the book is soon felt to be a make-believe. 

But readers have to thank Sir Henry Wrixon for an interesting and often vivid narrative of the experiences of a candidate new to public life; of the incidents that befall him; of the difficulties that beset his path; of the people he meets with. 

The whole gives us, what the author desires to set forth, a lively view of the working of democracy in a new country.

Of the people who are depicted, it may be said that every candidate comes across them, one and all. Very odd some of them are, and of the oddities we have careful studies.

Those who know anything of a political canvass will meet with familiar figures at every page, and will enjoy meeting them also.

"Among the many persons sketched in these pages," writes Sir Henry Wrixon, "there will be found neither great names nor great villains. 

The only excuse that the writer can offer for the absence of characters so useful to the dramatic force of a story is that he has not, in fact, found either heroes or villains in his every-day experience of democratic institutions; and he has sought throughout to be above all things a truthful chronicler of what he has observed." 

Sir Henry has good-naturedly closed his eyes to a few men who have had their day on the political stage; men who could easily have been posed for the wicked parts in the play; and, on the other hand, he finds a very complete hero in Edward Fairlie Frankfort, the young University professor, with whose political fortunes the book is concerned. 

His ideas are exalted, his principles are those of the high-toned, philosophical, but cautious radical whom Sir Henry Wrixon has always dearly loved. The author has had evident delight in fashioning the character, and in no situation in which he is placed would Sir Henry Wrixon himself have desired to act differently from the Frankfort decision.

Frankfort is installed as professor of sociology in the city of Miranda, in the province of Excelsior, and it will be noted that the coincidence that occurs between Monmouth and Macedon repeats itself in Miranda and Melbourne. 

He becomes known as an advanced and earnest social teacher, and he is invited to stand for the constituency of Brassville, the electors of which are utterly disgusted with the sitting member, Mr. Ebenezer Meeks, because the last loan bill was allowed to pass without any provision for the £250,000 reservoir to which the district considered itself entitled. 

Ebenezer had also fairly enraged the local temperance party by voting for the transfer of a license from a bush shanty to a palace hotel. But all the communications from Brassville conclude, as did the letter from Frankfort's banker uncle, "Of course you go hammer and tongs for the reservoir." 

That the candidate will work night and day to secure the expenditure of £250,000 in the district is assured us as a matter of course. Indeed, nothing is brought home to the reader more thoroughly than the perils that face our local democracy through the local scramble for public works, and through the electioneering power of the ever-growing mass of the public servants in their organised associations. 

Sir Henry Wrixon bears willing witness to the patriotism and to the humanitarian aspirations of the people, and also to the personal honesty of the representatives as a body. But every district demands its share of the scramble, and its just share looms very large in the local imagination, and the member who will not, or cannot, strike log-rolling bargains, is apt to go to the wall.

Such is the fate that awaits poor Ebenezer Meeks. Meeks was very willing to log-roll, but he was jockeyed. The district can be corrupted in this way, and though the member does not pocket cheques, he often has to pocket his convictions. 

If any innocent mortal should suppose that Sir Henry Wrixon has put too much "local works" colour into his picture, he may be reminded of the statement just made by the Premier of an adjacent state:—

"I am besieged for money wherever I go. This district has very little claim on the Government. Their member constantly votes against it." Sir Henry Wrixon could not make any one of his characters talk more plainly of a demoralising practice that borders on corruption.

The letters, appeals, and articles come as a shock to Frankfort. "Could it be, here, on the very threshold of his public career, his prospects of usefulness in public life depended on a reservoir? 

All his knowledge, ability, aspirations, ideals, prospects mixed up in some way with the reservoir? No, that was too absurd." However, it is so. 

Frankfort has to study the reservoir question, and he soon discovers that the work is a melancholy, palpable job; that it will never pay interest, and that it will be inevitably thrown on the hands of the Government. 

However, he can canvass the constituency before making up his mind about the undue pressure. He goes on with his canvass because the opportune failure of the proposed £10,000,000 loan sets the reservoir question aside for the time being. The interest of the book lies in the people Frankfort meets, and in the demands they make. 

Quiggle, the electioneering agent, is capitally drawn, with his cheery manner, his constant advice, "Keep her free, sir; keep her free," meaning that the candidate should never commit himself to a refusal, and his ready undertaking to give the pledges Frankfort could not.

Any demand made by an elector Quiggle can explain is right, and one that really ought to be granted. On outside subjects there is a bewildering if charming variety of opinion. 

In every hut and shanty, in every homestead men and women are to be found, thinking and theorising, spinning out devices of the brain, to cope with the questions of life. 

"Thinking has become democratised. It used to be the privilege of the few. Now it is the recreation of the many. If our civilisation fails it will not be for want of advice." 

Frankfort visits Mother Dole, who keeps a refreshment shanty, "because," as Quiggle explains, "though she can't vote herself she makes the others vote, and as she tells them, too." Mother Dole is emphatic on the woman's right question.

 "If I've got to get my dray along the bog road there I put a team of bullocks till't. If I mixed them, half heifers and half steers, the dray would get stuck there, stuck there, well, till I'd begun to say my prayers." 

A delightful conversation follows on these lines. But Mrs. Quiggle—for the agent has a wife as bright as himself—puts the issue this way.

 "Only married women should have the franchise. What a single woman wants is not a vote but a husband. She ain't a real woman if she is satisfied with a vote." 

While a third speaker declares, "You and your friends quite overlook the obvious fact that if every woman is entitled to one vote, the woman who is a mother is entitled to two. She has performed a service, perhaps at the risk of her life, which is not only useful to the community, but essential to its existence. Is she to get nothing for this from the state that she builds up?" 

Jacob Shumate, whose name, oddly enough, is given to the book, is known to all politicians. He is disappointed in life, he has been fed by the radical press. He is shrewd, lean, and discontented. 

His fixed idea is that the people have been robbed of the land, though the land laws are the direct making of the people. 

He strongly objects to the Government helping to extirpate the rabbits:—"Fifty-three families in this district are supported by trapping rabbits, and others are employed by the wire-fencing; but surely, Mr. Shumate, you would not preserve the rabbits merely to bleed the land-owners?"  

"Why not, sir? If you will only count all the value grasped by the land-owner on the unearned increment, as was set out by John Stuart Mill, you will see that the rabbits make a very moderate levy indeed on behalf of the community at large."  

"Still, as a thinking man, you will not say that the prosperity of the country would be increased by the destruction of any kind of wealth."  "Pardon me, sir, but I do say it," Jacob Shumate replied.

And he proceeds to argue the proposition in the terms with which our local radicals have been duly supplied. What Shumate argues for is a Government grant to the Red Parrot Exportation Company, for the catching of the parrots will employ thousands, and the industry will be novel and honest. 

A kindred spirit is Karl Brumm, the German selector:—"Quiggle tells me that you favour the decimal system?"  "What intelligent man does not? Only there, too, people will miss the point. It should be a duodecimal system. You can take an even quarter, half, or three-fourths of twelve, but you cannot of ten. Yet people do not notice these simple fundamental things.

"The selector who gives his vote to the member who will help to get him his title deeds without his complying with the conditions, and the local land officer who touts for sham testimonials, the railway guard who is a political boss as local president of the Train and Rail Workers' Association, Mr. Seeker, the secretary of the great State Workers' Association itself, and his mode of operation, all appear on the scene. 

And the volumes are studded with valuable obiter dicta. Thus we have the opinion of Ernest Hooper, the state school teacher, on religion in schools. He insists on opening with a devout prayer, in which all sane men can join, and an inspiriting hymn. But he holds that "religious teaching by a state teacher would be of little value.

 This teaching is a very difficult matter in our times. The danger is obvious. When children grow up and find that some things taught them by rote as facts are not really facts, they are very apt to think that all they have learned is much the same, and that religion generally is a make-believe.

"The curious can make many guesses at the political characters introduced. Some of them are sufficiently obvious. Two of them — Mr. Dorland, the founder of the University in which Frankfort is a professor, and Jortin, a large manufacturer, are avowedly American types, and they and the University and currency episodes in which they figure might have been omitted with great advantage as irrelevant, and as unduly swelling the size of a work, the huge proportions of which are its great drawback. 

The author's friends, who will wish the book to be the success its merits deserve, must regret that it was not cut down by some judicious editor by at least one half. 

After a failure in Parliament and a defeat at an election, when he repudiates the reservoir, Frankfort marries the daughter of the big local land-owner, and settles down in life and becomes the local member again. 

But the individual fictional part of the work, as we have said, is very small. There is a final chapter, in which the future of the province of Excelsior is sketched. 

The most important paragraph reads:—"The problem of combining state industries with political independence, it was not given to the present generation of Excelsior to solve. They tried experiments. 

The more the Government drifted under the Socialist impulse into industrial undertakings, the more helpless it got politically, and the more true political life withered.

How it will ultimately work out experience, not speculation, must reveal. Either it will result in the full Socialist ideal, with the loss of political independence, or the individuality of the people will assert itself, and private enterprise and self-reliance will live again. "No doubt this is a true statement; no doubt also we are at the parting of the ways.

👇

                                                       Lady Wrixon Miss Wrixon and doggo.

The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 - 1954)

Sat 4 Jan 1913, Page 4

NEW BOOKS.

Frankfort, or Politics Among the People, by Sir Henry Wrixon, K.C. (London: Macmillan and Co.)

Sir Henry Wrixon has published what may be regarded as a revised and elaborated edition of his previous political study, “Jacob Shumate.” The learned author makes no pretence to artistic work as a novelist, and his object is not to furnish an example of literary style. 

He is an experienced observer of political Vanity Fair; he has first-hand knowledge of its motive forces, private or public, and he chooses the most popular form of presenting his thoughts and conclusions.

The characters are numerous, and for the most part represent types familiar in our own community. The author does not develop them according to the methods of most modern fiction. 

They are not left to reveal themselves by their own acts and words, and they do not betray their strength or weakness through the medium of ingenious dramatic situations. 

After the manner of a kindly guide, philosopher and friend, he appears to conduct his reader on an inspection of his creations; explaining their peculiarities and political views, occasionally passing judgment on their personal and political merits. 

Very often the characters have little or no connection with the story; they are needed merely to make the political gallery the more representative.

Of necessity these methods are fatal to economy of material and directness of treatment. The narrative expands amazingly. It carries the weight, too, of many aphorisms, proverbs, quotations and lecturettes—all very interesting in themselves, but detrimental to the progress of the story.

As the object of the book is to illustrate the practical working of present-day politics and indicate political tendencies, these things are comparatively unimportant.

The hero — Edward F. Frankfort — is a Scotchman born of English parents, who by spare living and high thinking earns an education and is admitted to the bar. After a little press work in the old country he leaves for the colony of “Excelsior,” there to make his career. 

He is a young man of high principles and self-reliance. He is ambitious and believes in facing the battle of life like a man “the very opposite of a more recent gospel for the poor, which professes to abolish the need for struggle by making all comfortable upon the dead level of the plain beneath.”

It is not long before he is a candidate for the suffrages of “Brassville.” The main object of that constituency is to secure Government loan moneys to the amount of £500,000 for the construction of a reservoir. 

Incidentally the greater part of Brassville’s politics seems to consist of personal greed, trickery and selfishness. The reservoir business is a job. Still it is necessary for the local member to support it with enthusiasm. 

Frankfort’s conscience rebels. All his closest and most influential friends want the reservoir, right or wrong; his public career depends upon its advocacy. Just as he is about to announce his decision against the project the Government loan fails; other subjects arise, and he wins his election.

Frankfort’s career as a member serves to introduce a series of everyday happenings, all designed to show the state of practical politics.

“What was wanted of a politician now was not to die for his country, but to live for his constituency.” In Excelsior “there was a broad and generous sentiment against any severe exaction of efficiency from your brother man, live and let live. 

If the public were inconvenienced at times that was considered a lesser evil than would be the enforcement of a stern discipline upon the workers who served the public.” Reliance upon the Government gradually became more pronounced. 

When the secretary of the State Workers’ Union wrote to his member his letter came not as the appeal of a suppliant, but the claim of an attendant. On receiving it the member was reminded of “the old system of guilds, under which powerful corporate bodies established monopolies and taxed the rest of the people to support them.”

There was a leaning also towards Socialism. As one of the characters observes, “the people are to give up freedom for a full belly, or at least the promise of it, from the Government.” “The taking over by the Government of a fresh industry was always hailed as the true remedy for the depression in it.” 

Perhaps the most suggestive of the political essays with which Sir Henry Wrixon interleaves his story is that relating to “the caucus.”

“The fact is,” he observes, “that Parliaments have had their day. A fatal blow was struck at Parliamentary institutions when representation glided down into delegation, when men were returned to Parliament not to give their judgment upon public questions according to their principles avowed to their constituents, and accepted generally by them, but to carry out the instructions given from time to time from outside. 

This is the chief factor in the change in the nature of Parliamentary government which the present generation is witnessing. It is true that this change is only one feature in a general movement upward, or at least onward, which we see to be in progress; and which appears to involve as a part of it the decay of Parliaments. They are no longer the popular ideal, nor are they acclaimed by the masses as the people’s champions. 

The popular feeling is trending more and more from Parliament towards some outside, direct, executive authority which is to do what the people want quickly, and to alter what is done as readily when they direct. 

The outcome of this trend is seen in some of the most democratic communities, where, though Parliaments are retained, the desired legislation is first settled in secret at the caucus of the dominant party and afterwards presented to the Legislature only to be passed into formal law.”

The book is a conscientious attempt to represent fairly all sections of opinion. It is characterised by a broad, genial tolerance. No piece of political quackery is too foolish to represent honestly for what it is worth, and no political puppet is too insignificant to be heard and considered on his merits. 

There is a delightful, good feeling towards even our old friend “Jacob Shumate” the Socialist cobbler, who had “honesty for a dozen men but not sense enough for one.”

As for the hero, his high principles cost him very dearly. Through his attitude on the great reservoir question, when it was resurrected at the next election he lost his seat, and, what was infinitely worse, some good friends and a charming heiress whom he loved with all his heart.

Sir Henry Wrixon’s book merits the study due to the work of a high-minded, cultured and experienced observer of public events.

Link to: 

 Sir Henry Wrixon Colonial Conference 1895

 Sir Henry Wrixon "Socialism: being Notes on a Political Tour" 1897

Sir Henry Wrixon "Men at home. "Punch". 1903.

Sir Henry Wrixon Pattern Nation 1906

Sir Henry Wrixon. The religion of the common man 1909.

SIR HENRY WRIXON "The Pattern Nation" 1906

 

The Australasian (Melbourne, Vic.) Sat 17 Nov 1906 Page 47 

SIR HENRY WRIXON ON SOCIALISM.

"The Pattern Nation"

Sir Henry Wrixon, President of the Legislative Council of Victoria, has written an admirably clear and suggestive examination of socialism, under the title "The Pattern Nation" (Macmillan and Co. Ltd.).

Prolixity is the fault of most books on socialism, but Sir Henry has thought out the subject so thoroughly that, in a little volume of 170 pages, he presents as complete a view of the question as anyone need desire. 

He has carefully marshalled his facts and arguments, and selected his illustrations, the result being a well-reasoned, popularly written, and convincing treatise on what has already become the one absorbing political question of the day. 

A change in the whole structure of society so stupendous as is involved in socialism could never be carried if it were submitted in its entirety to a direct vote of the people, or their representatives. The common sense of the community would unhesitatingly reject such a monstrous and revolutionary scheme. 

But, as Sir Henry Wrixon well points out, the danger is that so much of it may be carried in instalments or piecemeal that the adoption of these must inevitably follow. 

One of the most original features of the book is the distinction drawn between socialists and the semi-socialists — the latter being the larger class, who are in favour of what is called gradual nationalisation of industry. 

This policy of bringing under the control of the Government more and more of the functions of production, distribution, and exchange must necessarily pave the way for complete socialism, as it will gradually weaken and destroy individual initiative and enterprise, and force an ever-increasing number of people into the position of state employés.  

The result of complete socialism will be the destruction of the liberty for which the more advanced divisions of mankind have struggled for the last thousand years; and the substitution for it of tyranny as oppressive as that of the Russian autocracy. 

What sort of government would be the industrial despotism of democracy that would follow upon the establishment of socialism? It would, as Sir Henry Wrixon shows:—"Spring from the same source and be aided and moulded by the same influences as now produce the city boss in the United States. 

These are the practical examples of the consequences that follow, when, in the most advanced democracy, the political authority takes in hand the management of industrial affairs. The style of work to be done; the largesses to be distributed; the wire-pulling necessary to maintain the socialist autocracy: will be of the same kind, only more extensive and demoralising in their scope and operation. 

It would be the lowest type of the spoils system, controlling the common funds, allotting work, pleasant and unpleasant, to competing citizens; appointing the vast army of industrial officials, granting concessions, enforcing duties, remitting penalties—these functions, and such as these would represent a lower strata of public affairs than even that reached under the city boss in America.

"Such a system would be destructive, not only of freedom, but of civilisation. Invention and industrial enterprise would cease; capital would disappear; production would dwindle; national bankruptcy would be inevitable; the population would diminish, and what was left would soon be face to face with starvation.

These direful consequences would be first felt among the dense populations of Europe. In a thinly-peopled country like Australia they would be longer in coming, but come they would, unless a determined stand is made by the electors against the first insidious approaches of the socialistic policy. 

The Commonwealth general election is the first occasion on which the issue has been directly raised in a British community, and much will depend on how it goes. Everyone who has anything to lose should not neglect to vote in favour of the anti-socialist candidates. 

Sir Henry Wrixon has done good service by his impartial and dispassionate analysis of the socialistic problem. His excellent little book ought to be read by all who wish to understand the subject. (Melville and Mullen.)  

👇

The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842–1954)

Saturday 17 November 1906

THE PATTERN NATION

Sir Henry Wrixon, K.C., of Victoria, finds that there is a certain problem in practical politics which must be solved somehow, and he sets himself in "The Pattern Nation" (Macmillan and Co.) to consider the difficulties in the way of the solution.

The problem is: What will the poor do with the rich? It will arise when political control will be in the hands of the majority, on the principle that all men are equal, whilst the industrial and social sides of life are still governed by conditions and methods that are rooted in the fact that men are unequal.

Obviously, if the people who have seized the political machine use their power to equalise the conditions of social and industrial life, they must revolutionise the world as we know it. What will they do with the rich?

If they adopt the idea that property is not the natural result (as it has been the natural cause) of civilisation, but that it is merely the harvest of robbery in the past and the temptation to further robbery, they will make short shrift of the holders of property of whatever kind.

Not, indeed, that one need fear the application of the crude methods of "reform" which marked the rise and progress of the French Revolution, for the simple reason, if for no other, that the "reformers," being in unchallenged possession of the legislative and executive machine, can effect the desired end by methods which are free at least from the reproach of personal violence.

Thus, they could abolish proprietorship in land by the simple but effectual process of taxation, leaving out for a moment the holders of small estates, so that their proposals will have full support to the beginning; but determined always to bring the minimum lower and lower until finally private property in land is abolished.

We see indeed the beginnings of this process in the progressive land tax which the socialists propose in our Federal Parliament. It would be fatal to this proposal’s chance of success if its authors were openly to declare that they want to do away with all private ownership of land. 

By so doing they would startle the comfortable folk who vote Labour at the elections. So they declare their aim to be the breaking-up of big estates for the benefit of people who want to go on the land. That is always a popular cry. 

If the socialists are successful, however, and the thin end of the wedge is introduced, it will not be long before the scope of the Act is increased, and farmers and other small holders will find that they must share the fate of the big estates. All kinds of property will in time be penalised in similar fashion if the socialists once got unchecked control of the political machine. 

Sir Henry Wrixon imagines a Pattern State, in which old conditions have been superseded by a socialist rule. In these circumstances a start is made with reforms which appeal to humanitarian sentimentalism, such as State employment for the unemployed, the whittling away of hours of labour, old-age pensions, free education, and so forth.

Upon this the axiom is laid down that the wants of all men must be supplied by somebody, and before long the conclusion is arrived at that this "somebody" must be private property and the private employer.

Once the determination has been made to make this "somebody" bear the burden of State charity and State activities generally, then, in Sir Henry’s opinion, socialism is established. 

The State taxes private property, which means that the majority taxes the minority; the State assumes more and more generally the position of employer, which means that the majority has decided to abolish the private employer.

According to our author, Australia is now in the semi-socialist period; but the signs are not wanting that if the socialist campaign at present being waged is crowned with success, or anything like success, at the elections, the full rigour of the socialistic ideas will be felt before long in the Commonwealth.

Sir Henry Wrixon’s book, all the more valuable because of its dispassionate tone, may be read with particular interest and profit at the present crisis.

👇

Western Mail (Perth, WA : 1885–1954)

Saturday 21 September 1907 Page 49

THE PATTERN NATION 

A new edition of "The Pattern Nation" by Sir Henry Wrixon has been published by Messrs. Macmillan. It is identical with that reviewed in these columns some time ago, except for a preface and an addition to the title.

In the preface Sir Henry Wrixon deals with the criticism that his work is destructive and negative, that he condemns socialism without offering a substitute. In reply he argues that as socialism is a definite and organised proposal, a book devoted to exposing some of its fallacies is justified and required.

To make the scope of the book clear to the reader, he gives this second edition a fuller title — "The Pattern Nation; or Socialism, its Source, Drift and Outcome." 

👇

Wellington Times (NSW : 1899–1954)

Thursday 24 January 1907

THE SOCIAL UNREST.

SIR HENRY WRIXON AND 'THE PATTERN NATION.'

THE POWER OF THE POOR.

In The Pattern Nation, published by Macmillan and Co., Sir Henry Wrixon adds another to the attractive books in which he has placed his mind before the public of Australia and the world. It is a lengthy pamphlet, running to 172 pages, undivided into chapters, a frank consideration of the social problem as it presents itself to one who has thought long over it from the standpoints of law, politics, and administration.

The subject is so interesting, and the treatment is so masterly, though inconclusive, that we give a series of extracts rather than an ordinary review.

The problem, as Sir Henry phrases it, is

“What will the poor do with the rich?”

“This,” he says, “arises when, on the political side of life, lawful government by the majority of the people becomes an established fact, in vindication of the principle that men are equal; while the industrial and social side of life is still left to be controlled by methods that have for their foundation the fact that men are unequal, and that their rewards in life are to be unequal also.”

All this “is but a new manifestation of the old problem between the rich and the poor which fills so many pages of history; only, the question now is, not what the rich will do with the poor, but what the poor will do with the rich. And this does involve the fate of our present civilisation; for if the socialist scheme of life, which is clearly avowed by its authors, is carried out, our present form of civilisation must pass away. We are told we shall have a better one. All that we can be sure of is, that we cannot maintain that one which we have now.”

The Domination of the Wage Earners.

“This domination of the wage earners will be the great factor of our age. In due time it will be uniform in its effect over our civilisation. The idea that some Western peoples will accept and some reject it, owing to racial and other differences, will prove imaginary. 

For the wants, the grievances, and the object of the masses are substantially the same in all our Western peoples; and the differences in nationality will be found less potent in dividing them than will the community of feeling and needs among the poor be in uniting them. There will soon be a sameness in the people’s politics the Western world over. The wage earners are of one brotherhood.”

This has most beneficent results in some directions. “All must rejoice at two at least of the results that follow from this uplifting of the poor. One is, that they will be cared for with a thoroughness and an earnestness that, such is the imperfection of mankind, they never would have been were it not that now even the self-interest of men prompts loyal efforts to improve their lot.”

“The other valuable result is that, under the people’s rule, the people are governed in peace, and with such wisdom as each community may have at its hand. This is a great thing in times when the only way of ruling the people is through themselves. You solve the question of how to govern the people by the people governing you. But there is a settled government. Thus far have things grown, that there is no other solid basis of human rule now left in our civilisation.”

The Rise of the ‘Boss’.

On the other hand, the new system has a most selfish side. “The elector, instead of being taken out of himself and taught to venerate himself as a trustee for his country, becomes absorbed in the struggle for his share in the good things going; while the representative, who has to live too, forgets the general interests of the general public — further, perhaps, than at present — in satisfying the clamorous wants of the most active section of his supporters. Politics, from being the work of looking after the nation, becomes the work of taking care of yourself. Instead of the statesman, you have the ‘Boss,’ and instead of the elevating spectacle of a people’s election for the high purposes of national life, you have the debasing wire-pulling of the ‘machine.’

Socialism v. Freedom. 

Still more important is the essential antagonism of the old and new ideals — “If you maintain the freedom of industry and its reward, private property, you cannot have the social plan of life. But if you undermine the freedom of industry and the institution of property, you cannot get on without it.”

“This much may be said, whether the socialistic scheme is good or bad, and whether it is coming upon us, or whether it is not. For it may be coming, and at the same time it may be a mistake. The history of man would not be the blurred page it is if all his social movement had been under wise direction.”

Sir Henry Wrixon is at his best in defining what is and what is not socialism... “When under the free system you abolish all class privilege, when you educate all, when you protect the rights of labour, when you exempt the poor from undue burdens, when you leave the course open for all to enter, you do all that you can to give men an equal opportunity — if you leave them free to run the race at all. If you do leave them free to run this race and the best man to win, then you are not a socialist, and no amount of clearing the course and giving all an equal chance will make you one.”

Human Nature’s Veto.

“The chief thing, and the crucial fact, for the socialistic scheme to face, [is] the power of self-interest upon men, [which] still remains the same as it ever was. It has the same effect upon men, whether singly or in masses, that it had at the dawn of history. It is still the main-spring of human nature.”

Paying the Bill.

“If you start with the principle that people must have things right about them, so long as there is somebody else to pay the bill, you enter upon a course of action under which you may hope to supply the needs of those who want but you may be certain that you will exhaust the resources of those who have.”

Semi-Socialism’s Issue.

The gradual increase of civil servants, the socialisation of monopolies, and other stages of semi-socialism will finally be known in practice... “Its leaders seek to combine the comfort of socialism without its discipline, with the freedom of individualism, without its spur, competition. They glory in the beneficence of the socialistic state, but do not face its responsibility, and denounce the tyrannical, capitalist system, while they live on the fruits of its industry.”

A Better Path.

The author’s path of development would be different — “Without dogmatising upon the new methods which the enlarged experience and growing improvement of the wage-earners may in time point out to them, we may safely say that the true goal for labour to have worked towards is to rise from the condition of wage-earners to that of profit sharers, but preserving at the same time, individual freedom. 

And this would have been its natural destiny had not its energies been turned aside by the plausible but enervating principles of paternalism.”

The Sacrifice of Freedom.

“Socialism begins with democracy; but it cannot stop there. On the contrary, its trend is round again to despotism... The popular feeling has been so engrossed with the cause of social amelioration, and especially with the passion for equality, that it waxes cold on its old love of liberty.”

The Fate of Our Civilisation.

“Things change more quickly in our time, and the present century will see either socialism discredited or Europe declining. A social system, the foundation of which is the sacrifice of freedom for ease, contains within itself the conditions of decay.”

👇

The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854–1954)

Saturday 3 November 1906

NEW BOOKS.

"The Pattern Nation," by Sir Henry Wrixon.

(Macmillan and Co.)

Philosophical, rather than strictly practical, is the examination into the trends and tendencies of Socialism which Sir Henry Wrixon discusses in this interesting and, in many ways, suggestive essay on modern political economy.

To his arguments there is no definite concrete application, local or otherwise, though for his illustrations he draws, of course, upon the experiences of the United States and other democratic Governments.  

His theme is the ultimate development of the present state of society in a highly civilised community, whether it will evolve into “freedom, with the struggle for life,” or “Socialism, with promised ease and comfort.”

The free Democracy represents a progressive movement that is political in its scope and aims, and which, while pursuing the social amelioration of the people, seeks to do it through themselves, and has for its foundation principle, before all things necessary for true popular progress, freedom and the natural individuality of man.

The other, which may be termed the Democracy of Socialism, cares for political power, and prizes it chiefly as an instrument by which to promote social equality and the industrial relief of its citizens, which it holds can only be achieved by changing the present constitution of society, which it terms “capitalistic,” and constituting it anew under the benevolent despotism of Socialism.

The foregoing sentences outline the attitude which Sir Henry Wrixon takes up. He presupposes a nation which has accepted Government interference and control to the extent of, say, Australia, a condition which he describes as semi-Socialism, and then follows out the train to which such surrendering of the rights of individualism must, in his opinion, inevitably lead, to the consummation of a complete Socialistic community, and the danger of decadence and risks of retrogression attendant thereon.

There is much close reasoning in the pages, and a thoroughly able survey of the circumstances of the future. Naturally, the survey is that of a man who views with dislike the prospect of a thorough-paced Socialistic State, though at the same time he regards that State as the logical outcome of the present-day rise of the worse-off classes, unless wiser counsels prevail and the Democracy accept a more stable condition of discipline.

Sir Henry Wrixon is not an alarmist, flying off at heady denunciations of an improbable perversion of ethics and morals when the Socialists shall have power. His monograph is, on the contrary, temperate and well considered, the work of a man of culture, to whom the respect of his most pronounced political opponents is undoubtedly due.

Sir Henry Wrixon Colonial Conference 1895

Sir Henry Wrixon "Socialism: being Notes on a Political Tour" 1897

Sir Henry Wrixon "Men at home. "Punch". 1903.

SIR HENRY WRIXON'S NOVEL. Jacob Shumate, Book review 1903

Sir Henry Wrixon. THE RELIGION OF THE COMMON MAN. Book reviews 1909   

Sir Henry Wrixon "Socialism: being Notes on a Political Tour" 1897

                                                                      Sir Henry Wrixon 

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

SIR HENRY WRIXON "The Pattern Nation" 1906

 Sir Henry Wrixon "Men at home. "Punch". 1903.

SIR HENRY WRIXON'S NOVEL. Jacob Shumate, Book review 1903.

Sir Henry Wrixon. THE RELIGION OF THE COMMON MAN. 1909