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

Sir Henry Wrixon Colonial Conference at Ottawa, Canada the United States, and England. A Political Tour, 1895. An interview.

                                                 Sir Henry Wrixon in his office Kew Vic.

Weekly Times (Melbourne, Vic.: 1869 - 1954) Sat 30 Mar 1895 Page 12.

SIR HENRY WRIXON.

HIS RETURN TO MELBOURNE.

OLD AND NEW WORLD PROBLEMS. 

Sir Henry Wrixon returned to Melbourne on 22nd inst. after an absence from the colony extending over ten months. 

It will be remembered that he was selected by the late Premier, Sir James Patterson, to be one of the delegates from Victoria to the Colonial Conference at Ottawa, Canada. He had, however, a wider purpose in making his journey than just to do the business of the country in Canada, and then return to Melbourne. 

Sir Henry determined to make an extended tour, not merely for purposes of pleasure, but rather for the more serious purpose of making a close study of social problems in Canada, the United States, and England. 

Sir Henry gave our representative an hour of his time describing the lands he had seen, and especially the questions of pith and moment in which he has been concerning himself. 

"Well," he said, leaning back in his chair, in his study at his residence at Kew, "it has been a most delightful tour, indeed, though I have made it a matter of business as well as of pleasure. 

I have travelled across the United States, crossed the Rocky Mountains, seen Canada, travelled over to England, then back again to the States and have in every place I have been to, spent the greater part of my time in collecting information, pamphlets and books, seeing labour leaders, calling on workmen, visiting trades halls and making myself thoroughly acquainted with the labour question.

 "You have not had much time for sight-seeing, then, Sir Henry? 

"Oh, yes, I have done some of that; and, of course, the whole tour has been to a large extent one revealing fresh scenes and interesting phases of life. The journey through the Rocky Mountains, for instance, is one I shall never forget. 

Come up to expectations? 

Oh, the Rockies defeat all expectations. The immensity of the mountains, their vast solitudes, the magnificence of scenery simply defy description, and it is impossible to realise what they are like without seeing them. 

I have seen the mountains of Switzerland, but there you get a house occasionally dotting the mountain side and breaking the solitude. But in the Rockies there is nothing at all to break the immensity of the whole scene. 

It only needed a question to induce Sir Henry to talk about what he called the more serious purpose of his journey. At once he plunged into the heart of 

"the great question not only of the day," as he said, "but of the age".

 "You mean the social question? "The Socialist question? It is the question upon which, according to the way it works out, depends our whole civilization, and it is now coming home to every country. 

I found this question of Socialism uppermost in men's minds in every country I have visited. It is, depend upon it, the root question of everything. 

"Singular, was it not, that Sir Henry should use this phrase, "root question," bearing in mind Mr Champion's Socialist story, The Root of the Matter, which The Herald has recently published, while the subject of this interview was at sea? The coincidence flashed across the interviewer's mind as he asked: 

"Have you seen much, then, of the Socialist leaders in the countries you have visited? 

"Yes, I have cultivated their acquaintance. In England I met John Burns, Tom Mann, and Sydney Webb, of the Fabian Society. 

Mr Webb I found to be a most charming man, a diligent collector of facts, and, above all, most accurate. He and his wife have written a 'History of Trades Unionism,' which I have heard spoken of as an admirable book. The Fabian Society, as one may say, finds the brains of the Socialist movement in England. 

John Burns, whom I have met before in England, impressed me very much. He is a man of undoubted ability and of immense energy and force of character. He is not only a member of the House of Commons but also of the London County Council — a most important body — and he is, while doing his work in these bodies, continually addressing meetings night after night in various parts of London. 

His industry is simply tremendous. I was very much interested in seeing Burns's library. He is a well-read man, and he told me that many of his books were purchased at the cost of sacrificing a meal. 

Tom Mann struck me as being very sincere. His policy, however, differs from that of Burns, though both are Socialists. Mann believes in belonging to neither of the political parties of the State, but in the Labor and Socialist parties fighting for their own hand. Burns believes in working with the Liberal party.

 "I had the good fortune," continued Sir Henry, pursuing this subject, of being present at the Trades Union Congress at Norwich. They very courteously gave me a seat on the platform and were most obliging in giving me all the information I asked for. 

At the Congress I met Mr Lloyd, a delegate from America, who was of great use to me when I got over there, introducing me to leaders of the Labor party and enabling me to see the conditions of the lives of the working classes for myself. 

At the Norwich Congress, Collectivist resolutions were passed. I do not think, however, that this fact must be taken as proving that the resolutions represented the deliberate conviction of the delegates in favor of Socialism or Collectivism. 

Great allowance has to be made for enthusiasm setting the better of the judgment of some of the representatives. Still, however, I am bound to say that Socialism is making great strides in England. 

I think, indeed, that in older countries we find Socialism taking a greater hold than ever in democratic Australia. Here we have some measures of practical Socialism; as, for instance, in the State ownership of the railways; but it is theoretic Socialism that is spreading so rapidly in England and America. 

For the moment it has been checked in London, by the defeat of the Progressives at the County Council elections. The Socialists, however, expected that result to follow. The main point against them, you see, was that the rates were increasing. 

They laid down the rule, which is admirable if it can be carried out, that they would give every man employed by the council a good wage, irrespective of whether the work could be done cheaper or not; and also that ground should be found for making more open spaces for the people. 

Well, a good many ratepayers thought there was extravagance, and unquestionably the rates were increased. Nothing touches the ratepayer more than finding he has to put his hand in his pocket, and consequently there was a rebuff to the Socialists at the polls. 

"Do you think this Socialist movement is as marked in the United States as in England? 

"Oh, you find the movement going on in all parts of the world, and substantially I found that the Socialists were agreed as to their platform and objects in England, in Canada, in European countries, and in the United States. 

As to your question, I think the movement is less powerful in the United States than elsewhere; but, oddly enough, I came to the conclusion that though there was more appearance of popular domination there was really less reality behind it in the United States than in England. 

That surprises you; and the fact surprised me; but the central executive in the States is very powerful, and in cases where the trades unions have resorted to violence, the disturbance has been put down very determinedly by the central executive force. 

As to Canada, that is a much more Conservative country. You find there that one Government has been in office for a long term of years. I think the Macdonald Government was in office for thirty years, with a break of only five years. Political forces in Canada, you may say, are more settled than ours, or than the forces in England. 

"How do you account for that? have you any theory? 

"Well, I think the climate has something to do with it. There is a slowness, a solidity about the Canadians, which you don't find among British people generally. 

No doubt, too, the long winter has a sedative influence on the people. They seem a steady solid people. Canada is very interesting altogether. Some parts of it, you know, are really more antiquated than some parts of Europe.

 "Speaking of Canada, did you form any impression of the results of the federal system there? 

"I inquired very carefully into it, and the conclusion was that the sooner we people in Australia secure federation for ourselves the better it will be for us politically, socially and commercially. I found that the people had a great respect for the Federal Government, and yet that the local territorial Governments had not lost in prestige. 

The Premiers of provinces like Ontario, Quebec, and Montreal, are men of great ability, who stand very high in the opinion of the people. The great thing is that by federation Canada is able to speak with one united voice on any subject, we felt that at the conference. 

The Canadian delegates were able to speak unitedly; we Australians, though indeed we were pretty unanimous in opinion, could not speak for the whole of our country. Oh, I think that the Canadian example is certainly a strong argument for federation.

"Do you think that any good results are likely to follow from the Ottawa Conference? 

"Unquestionably; but of course, that depends upon ourselves. I was the means, at the Conference, of getting a resolution passed favoring an alteration of the law so as to permit various parts of the Queen's Dominions to make commercial treaties with each other; so that, say, we may make a treaty with the Cape, or with Canada. 

Since then a bill has been brought into the Imperial Parliament carrying the resolution into effect, and I dare say it is law by this time. That is one good result from the Conference. 

"Sir Henry was so interesting with his reminiscences of travel, that he really talked enough for two good interviews. We must, however, bring this one to a close for reasons of time and space. Suffice it to say that Sir Henry found everywhere the keenest interest in Australia. 

In America he had an interview with President Cleveland, who seemed particularly well posted in Australian affairs, and asked several questions about our tariff difficulties. 

Sir Henry hopes to enter Parliament again shortly, but before seeking re-election intends to devote himself to putting into some permanent record the impressions, opinions and facts he has formed and collected in this long and useful tour round the world. 

Notes on the Article

 fascinating layer to Sir Henry Wrixon's story that makes his later critiques even more credible and nuanced. In this 1895 interview (right after his big world tour), Wrixon speaks warmly and respectfully about the Fabian leaders he met in England: 

Sidney Webb: "a most charming man, a diligent collector of facts, and, above all, most accurate." He praises the Webbs' History of Trade Unionism as "an admirable book."

John Burns: "impressed me very much… a man of undoubted ability and of immense energy and force of character." Notes his tremendous industry, well-read library, and sacrifices to buy books.

Tom Mann: "very sincere."

Fabian Society overall: "finds the brains of the Socialist movement in England" — he gives them credit for intellectual seriousness and organization.

Link to: 

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

SIR HENRY WRIXON "The Pattern Nation" 1906

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

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

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

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

                                                                    Sir Henry Wrixon

 The Argus (Melbourne), Saturday 20 February 1909, Page 6:

"RELIGION OF THE COMMON MAN."
SIR HENRY WRIXON'S NEW BOOK.
How the plain man of average intellect and no wide knowledge of philosophy may arrive at belief in a God who ought to be worshipped is what Sir Henry Wrixon, President of the Legislative Council, endeavours to explain in his latest book, The Religion of the Common Man (London: Macmillan).
It is undoubtedly a book for the many. There is practically none of it beyond the comprehension of any person of ordinary educational attainments. The language is generally simple — the technical jargon of the schools being carefully eschewed — the reasoning is clear enough to leave no doubt of the points the writer intends to make, and the whole subject is treated in a thoroughly popular manner.
Another quality which will be appreciated by the everyday reader is what we may describe as the lay standpoint of the author. His attitude is that of the inquiring layman. He displays no trace of that clerical tone, that ex cathedra priestly polemic, which so often repels the “common man” in the treatises of trained theologians.
Yet to the making of the little work, it runs to no more than 187 small octavo pages of large print, have evidently gone many years of thought and study in metaphysics, ethics, and theology, besides the special labour of sifting and condensing ideas for the book itself. 
In fact, the chief merit of the book lies in the skill with which Sir Henry Wrixon has translated into the language and thoughts of ordinary educated men the conceptions and the arguments of experts in philosophy and religious lore. Though the reasoning is not novel, the presentment is not only fresh but laudable.
The “common man” for whom the book is written will find it both interesting and suggestive. Even though he may not agree wholly with the author’s views, he must at least acquire as he reads a better understanding of, and a greater respect for, the religious faith of the worshipping deist or theist of every creed. 
The book is not an apology for any particular form of religion, but a defence of the fundamental religious postulate, axiom, premise or conclusion — call it what you will — that there is a supreme moral Deity, the creative and informing intelligence upon which both the physical and moral universes ultimately depend.
Sir Henry Wrixon contends, in spite of the apparent domination at the moment of “the materialistic hypothesis of science,” with its chain of purely mechanical causes, that “man remains the religious animal that he ever was, and the moral and spiritual principle in his nature imperatively demands relations with his Maker.” He wishes to find an answer to the all-important question whether all these religious aspirations are really but vain illusions.
The question is a vital one to him, because he regards the outlook for both our civilisation and the individual man as dreary and unsatisfying if religion is to lose its hold upon men. 
“Civilizations,” he contends, “cannot start afresh in matters of faith any more than in other conditions of national life. As for the individual man, his needs remain as much as ever a part of his nature, the want of some support on which to stay himself in this life, and also the rest for his soul demanded by his spiritual aspirations. These cannot be satisfied by a philosophy of negation or incredulity, which proposes to wave aside the claims of the human soul and the needs of man in the stress of life by telling him not to mind them.”
Sir Henry Wrixon makes much of the new and large idea of “design” in the universe — not the old, narrow idea, which was pitted against natural selection and other established generalisations of science, but an idea of intelligent purpose operating through such laws to the fulfilment of some divine, far-off event. He insists that this idea of an intelligent, purposive being, presiding over the whole universe of human experience, is also in harmony with the needs of individual human nature.
That the fundamental tenet of religion cannot be fully explained or demonstrated Sir Henry Wrixon frankly admits, but he asks, does it make any greater demand upon faith than the ultimate assumptions and theories of science?
A passage bearing upon this point may be quoted: — 
“The common man admits that the ultimate postulate upon which his faith rests is insoluble by mere reason. And if the other mysteries of Nature, if the problems of science were capable of clear intellectual definition the common man confesses that it would be an argument against his faith, that it alone was, in the last resort, faced by an enigma. But in every science, as well as in religion, you come to a point where you can only stop and wonder. … 
In secular science man can only do his best with his mental faculties, and go as far as they will carry him, groping a little further, perhaps, where speculation may give him a helping but uncertain lead. 
But in regard to religious faith when the reasoning powers of man direct him towards Deity, he finds his nature gifted with natural impulses, inherent instincts, all ready to catch up and respond to the conclusion which his intellect was pointing to. 
While the spiritual power would be imperfect without the intellectual basis, the intellectual process is completed, and made effective by the spiritual capacity with which man is naturally gifted, and which he finds ready, and adapted to follow the lead which his intellect gives. 
We have a better justification for the conclusions of our intellect in religion, and more reason to trust them than we have in general science.”
Generally speaking, Sir Henry Wrixon is cautious in his statements and in the illustrations which he adduces to fortify his arguments, but we note on page 125 a passage which presumes telepathy as a fact of experience.
 “It is a matter of experience,” he says, “that mind communicates with mind, owing to some mysterious influence, when the two minds are apart from one another, and notwithstanding any material obstacles which may intervene.” We doubt whether the majority of men of science would admit that this is “a matter of experience.” 
Again, we question whether it can be shown, as stated on page 82, that the teaching of the Buddha seems “to assume the existence of the Deity, though not to enforce it.” Yet again we hardly think modern scholars in Hebrew history would endorse the assertion on page 90 that the Jews of to-day “worship the God of Israel in just the same fashion, so far as principles and belief go, as did their remote ancestors 3,000 years ago.” These statements, however, do not, it must be admitted, materially affect the arguments of the book.

👇                               Sir Henry Wrixon, Lady Wrixon, Miss Wrixon & doggo

 Western Mail (Perth, WA : 1885 - 1954) Sat 27 Feb 1909    "THE RELIGION OF THE COMMON MAN."

"The Religion of the Common Man," by Sir Henry Wrixon, is a small volume of less than two hundred pages. It treats an engrossing subject and is certainly written in an engaging manner.
Sir Henry, like Lord Avebury and men of that type, takes a serious view of mortal life; not necessarily gloomy, but deliberately and thoughtfully serious. Already Sir Henry has several volumes to his credit, all of which have received considerable attention, and one, "The Pattern Nation", much criticism of varied shades of opinion.
It would indeed be well for mankind if the reflections which the author attributes to the "Common Man" were more widely diffused than is quite apparent at present.The first three chapters are of rather a discursive nature, though it is difficult to see how that could be avoided in dealing with a theme like this. In these chapters Creation, as it appears to man, and matter, force, and motion are reviewed, and the cogitations of the Common Man are interpreted by the author. He is said to see purpose and design in everything.
In Chapter IV. the reader is called upon to contemplate "mind," "instinct," "moral sense" and "conscience." Scientists, philosophers, and theologians, from Confucius to Darwin, are quoted in support of a moral law, or inward indicator, pointing out the right and the wrong. This has been attested in nations great and small in every state of civilisation.
This Sir Henry thinks points to the conclusion "that there is an Intelligence behind it, animating and directing the whole." Such conclusion, he says, does not prove "religion," but it lays a foundation for it.
In his appeal to history he refers to Assyria, Egypt, India, Persia, in regard to their conceptions of the "Great Spirit," and to the Jewish and Christian religions with their concepts of God. All this cannot be a figment of the imagination or a mere fancy come among men to mislead them.
It is interesting to note Sir Henry's deductions from a contemplation of astronomy. The Common Man accepts at the hands of the astronomer what he can never comprehend. The astronomer tells him that the light of a certain star requires two thousand years to reach this planet. The scientist tells him of "generating impacts that should follow each other a hundred million times a second." It is possible to believe, but never to adequately comprehend, such problems.
The line of argument here is akin to that of Professor Henry Drummond, in his "Natural Law in the Spiritual World." 
After stating the difficulties of human existence, showing how necessary they are, and how they may be considered as a partial explanation of the mystery of life, the author says: — "If we knew certainly about God and a future existence, it would be impossible to retain interest in the little affairs of this life." Absolute knowledge is not possible; faith and hope are.
In a recent address the Rev. R. J. Campbell, in reply to the oft-repeated demand, "Why does God permit so much evil?" said "Why do we?" Sir Henry takes the same ground, pointing to the evils of mankind, and saying they are mostly of man's making. 
The deliberate use of that great God-given implement, free will, could quickly end much of the misery and crime so apparent in human society.
This little book is no theological treatise; it is an honest, earnest endeavour to induce the Common Man to scrutinise the ways of life, to see a great, loving Father behind it all, rather than blind unfeeling force; and in Faith and Hope to await the issue lying beyond the boundary line.The publishers are Macmillan and Co., London.
👇

The Telegraph (Brisbane, Qld. : 1872 - 1947)Sat 27 Feb 1909Books.
"The Religion of the Common Man," by Sir Henry Wrixon, Macmillan and Co.
By the “Common Man” the author means “a man of average intellect and ordinary information, as he muses upon and wrestles with the problem of his existence here and his future destiny; and seeks to discover if not a complete solution of that problem, light at least enough to guide him on his earthly journey.”
This definition is intended, on the one hand, to exclude “philosophers and theologians”; and on the other hand to exclude “speakers at Sunday gatherings in parks.” Very fairly the author might have said of himself: “I am a specimen of the Common Man.” He writes without the vulgarity of the Sunday park speaker; and also without the exactness and polish of the philosopher and the scientist. 
He writes in the spirit of one who cherishes a sincere faith; and therefore the tone of the book throughout is most excellent. Indeed it is a remarkable book, the reading of which perchance would be of more benefit to the Sunday park speaker on the one hand and to the philosopher, scientist, or theologian on the other hand, than to the “Common Man” whose thoughts are admirably herein written down. 
It is because the author writes as a “Common Man” that we should spare him in criticism for the indefinite use of terms. He speaks of “the revelations of science,” whereas science never reveals anything; “the truth of religion,” “the truths upon which religion rests,” “the truth of religion,” “the foundation facts of any science,” “authority in matters of faith,” “revealed religion,” “moral sense,” “moral faculty,” “the existence of evil,” and “spiritual principle,” as if we all very well know the meaning of these terms when not one of them has any meaning at all.
Some notably faulty examples of interpretation might be given. If it is a fact that “the heart has a natural instinct for communion with its Creator” — a statement more than once repeated — that should go a long way towards answering the question, here discussed — namely, “Is there a God whom men ought to worship?” But that really is not the question. The dispute is not as to whether there is a sovereign power in the universe, but whether there is a God at all answering to what is so called orthodox teaching.
It is not correct to say that we owe the idea of “the unity of Deity” to the proclamation made on Mount Sinai. This proclamation did not extend to the “oneness” of God; it was intended to point out to the Israelite that only Yahweh was to be his God. Nor is it right to say that unless we accept this or that theory about God “a life devoted to virtue and self-sacrifice would be the most meaningless and unaccountable thing in God’s creation.” It would be nearer the truth to say that without an elevating theory of God, a life of virtue and self-sacrifice is impossible.
These faults are almost inseparable from the thinking and writing of the “Common Man”; but such inaccuracies not infrequently confuse the uncommon man of the lower grade, leading him to reject all because some things are in error. Some parts of the little book are very good indeed. On pages 8, 9, 10, and 11 may be found some telling observations on the religious education of children. 
The pages devoted to the task of pointing out signs of the superhuman in nature, and the mysteries of organised life, are equal to the best work of the uncommon man of the higher grade. We should like to give a column of comment; meanwhile we heartily commend the little book; it will bear reading more than once; it is a book to be studied.
👇The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931)  Sat 6 Mar 1909 THEOLOGY OF TO-DAY.THROUGH NATURE TO GOD.
"The Religion of the Common Man." By Sir Henry Wrixon, K.C. London: Macmillan & Co.
Matters affecting theology are now freely discussed by laymen of all classes; and their interest is of such large moment that it is not surprising that there should be a continually growing literature on the subject from the pens of men who are neither ministers of the Gospel nor lecturers in theological academies.
The present author states the object of his work as being to record “the reflections and conclusions of a man of average intellect and ordinary information as he muses upon and wrestles with the problems of his existence here and his future destiny, and seeks to discover, if not a complete solution of that problem, light at least enough to guide him on his earthly journey.” 
The problem is faced in a broad spirit, and the pages betoken a sincere desire to present the thoughts which are influencing many a “common man.” Religion, it is stated, has reality behind it, and is indestructible in the heart of man. It is because of this that “it survives the attacks of foes and the mistakes of friends, and also the revelations of science” … It remains to-day still a living force among us, responding to a natural instinct of the heart for communion with its Creator, and supplying a needful support to mankind in the stress of life.
The author, however, believes that the days of prophets lie in the past, and that the world has reached a stage of development in which each man is his own prophet. “If the masses are to be inspired they must get the inspiration from themselves.” Although this is the case, it is contended that the problems which lie at the base of religious beliefs are not less difficult now than they were found to be by the philosophers of every age.
From self-observation and the study of nature the common man finds himself continually brought to the conclusion of the reality of Deity. A moral sense, an ideal of what ought to be done simply because it is right, the feeling of self-condemnation if the wrong course is chosen, these are factors in general experience which have to be accounted for.
“Our common man thus from these lines of observation and reflection, the abounding evidence of purpose and arrangement, denoting intelligence behind the screen of creation; the mind of man, circumscribed though it be, yet so amply fitted to his needs in this life, together with the marvel of instinct and the moral sense, with its sublime inspirations in the heart of man, demanding some source from on High — from these lines of thought our common man, we say, is led to believe that there is a God.” 
The book is written in a pleasing style and treats the subject thoughtfully and reverently.
👇
Leader (Melbourne, Vic. : 1862 - 1918, 1935)  Sat 6 Mar 1909 

Literature.

THE RELIGION OF THE COMMON MAN.If it be true that there are times of ebb and flow in the religious faith of civilised humanity, that periods of fervid spiritual belief and of shallow apathetic scepticism alternate in the public mind, religion at the present time, judging by the loosened hold of the churches upon the mass of the people, would seem to be at the ebb.
Sir Henry Wrixon's book, "The Religion of the Common Man", dealing as it does with the foundations of religion and with problems that have engaged the minds of thinking men ever since we have any record of human thought, and treating them with a plainness and lucidity that will make it easily understood by the average intellect, is therefore a timely contribution to the subject. 
This is especially so in view of the fact that topics of inquiry which were once confined to the study of the theologian and the philosopher are now debated in the street and the market place.The author states that his object is "to record the reflections and the conclusions of a man of average intellect and ordinary information, as he muses upon and wrestles with the problem of his existence here and his future destiny, and seeks to discover, if not a complete solution of that problem, light at least enough to guide him in his earthly journey."
What the author has done is really to marshal in logical sequence, and with an understanding sympathy, the thoughts and conclusions of an ordinary man who starts out with an unbiased mind and a clear intellect on an investigation as to the bases of his religious belief, and who in the process makes himself familiar with what the great minds of the race have said on the subject. For, as the author himself remarks, "in the last resort all philosophy and all metaphysics must justify itself to the plain mind of mankind."
Sir Henry Wrixon touches on a pertinent point when he says that the difficulties of religion have been increased by the false positions which its friends have taken up in the past, and which have, one after another, to be abandoned before the onward sweep of knowledge. "It cannot be wondered at if this leaves the impression that the rest of what was taught in the name of religion will in time be as readily refuted as have been the false positions which have now been abandoned."
And in this connection he puts in a protest against the methods, too often employed now in the teaching of the young — the presentation of a series of narratives as actual facts, surrounded by all the authority of religion — which, when they are out of the schoolroom and begin to read and think for themselves, they find are generally regarded as mythical and legendary stories, embodying, no doubt, living truths, but in the garb of symbol, and not of fact.
The natural, though mistaken, conclusion of the young people is to settle down to the conviction, not only that the narratives are myths or mere legends, but that all they were taught as connected with them is equally illusory. There have been very good people who have maintained that if the obviously pictorial and symbolical narrative of the creation in Genesis were not literally true the whole fabric of Biblical truth must totter to ruin.
Our author says: — "No thinking person now holds that the Bible is literally inspired, or believes in the reality, as facts, of all the narratives which it contains." Yet there are a few belated survivals of a past age who still hold that belief, as witness the recent fulminations in a Collins-street meeting hall of a militant controversialist of the "old orthodoxy."
But man remains the religious animal that he ever was, and the moral and spiritual principle in his nature imperatively demands relations with his Maker. From the infancy of the race man has been ever seeking for light upon his own destiny — on the "whence and whither" — and ever struggling to wrest a response from the heavens to the promptings of that moral faculty which is a part of his nature.
"Are all those aspirations vain? Are these longings delusions?" he asks. "If so, then our existence here must be declared to be not merely perplexing, but unmeaning and futile. The problem of human life would become more inexplicable than ever, and the spectacle of a noble man devoting his life to virtue and self-sacrifice would be the most meaningless and unaccountable thing in God's creation."
The outlook of our civilisation, then, is dreary if its religion is going to lose its hold upon men. It has no newer development of Christianity to look to. It has not yet lived up to the standard which Christ set before mankind. It possesses the foremost religion of the world, and the alternative of casting it off is not some new faith, but a delusive Pantheism or a dreary Materialism.
Civilisations cannot start afresh in matters of faith any more than in other conditions of national life. As for the individual man, his needs remain as much as ever a part of his nature; the want of some support on which to stay himself in this life, and also the rest for his soul demanded by his spiritual aspirations. These cannot be satisfied by a philosophy of negation or of incredulity, which proposes to waive aside the claims of the human soul and the needs of man in the stress of life, by telling him not to mind them.
It is with earnestness, therefore, that the thinking man asks himself the question, "Is it indeed true that there is no God?"This is the problem which Sir Henry Wrixon sets before his common man, whose reasonings and momentous conclusions he follows and unfolds in the course of his investigations: — Whether it is a true conclusion that there is one stupendous power and intelligence, an infinite and independent essence, the source and preserver of all things; or whether the Universe is the product of, and is impelled by, the unconscious force of material powers, streams of blind impulse generating we know not how and tending we know not whither.
He recognises that the incomprehensible faces him as the ultimate phase of the existence of Deity, but experience has taught him that he must at times "believe" in things he cannot understand, only it must be something which his intellect recommends to him as a proper subject for faith.
Starting with the philosophic basis of his own existence, "I think therefore I exist," the investigator after a study of his own nature, and the observation of the world outside him, concludes that there is some Causing Power, some Intelligence, behind the manifold phenomena of life and nature. The mind, instinct, the moral sense, and conscience are made to complete the conviction.
Our common man thus, from these lines of observation and reflection — the abounding evidences of purpose and arrangement denoting intelligence behind the screen of creation — the mind of man, circumscribed though it be, yet so amply fitted to the needs of this life, together with the marvel of instinct, and the moral sense, with its sublime inspirations in the heart of man, demanding some source from on high — from these lines of thought our common man, we say, is led to believe that there is a God.
This conclusion certainly by no means involves all the postulates of religion, but it lays the foundation for them. The superstructure, as the author points out, is raised partly by deductions which naturally follow from the great fact, and partly by the spiritual instincts which are a portion of the nature of the common man.
In arriving at this conclusion Sir Henry Wrixon shows that the common man is acting in unison with the general belief of the great family of mankind in all its branches, and in every period of the world's history, and that this belief in a superior power has been acknowledged by the greatest intellects of the race. 
The world's great religions, its imperial thinkers, its wisest philosophers, its most renowned teachers, are all brought forward to testify to the universal belief in the existence of God, in the reality of the unseen, and in the immortality of the soul. And finally the Christian revelation about the Deity is adduced as the greatest fact in the spiritual history of mankind.
It is admitted that while the common man may find the central fact, he could not, as an intellectual process, define and prove all that is involved in the nature of the Deity. The idea is surrounded with much that passes his comprehension and by much that is quite inexplicable to him. But this is only what happens to him in regard to many other problems on mental and physical matters. The greatest thinkers have to confess that with them, as with the smaller men, knowledge begins and ends in wonder.
The weight of testimony may make a belief in the existence of Deity an irresistible conclusion. But the thinking man cannot stop short at this belief. There are other postulates arising from it which face the investigator, and about which there may be many perplexities. Under the heading of "Difficulties" some of these are discussed.The comparative insignificance of man in the material universe is met by the argument that in the mental and spiritual world vastness assumes a different aspect. 
Space and time, as far as we can grasp them, depend on conditions within our own minds. The operations of the spirit world are extant throughout all creation, and are not affected by the immensity of material nature nor the illimitableness of space itself. Distance and time and size have no longer to be contended with.
Connected with the triviality of mankind is another difficulty: "Why are we left in such obscurity about the unseen God and our future destiny?" It is admitted that this perplexity is not fully explainable, at least by the light of human reason.Yet there is not wanting a partial explanation, at least derived from the conditions of human life here, which suggests itself to the common man. 
It is obvious that it is the intention of the Creator that all forms of life in this planet (and probably wherever in His universe forms of life exist) should take the deepest interest in their present state of existence and should be devoted to the claims of that life in which they find themselves placed. This is shown by the instinct of living being one of the strongest planted in our nature. ... We have such an inherent love of and interest in life that we cling to it through all trials, and when of itself it would not seem worth living.
It being then the obvious purpose of the Creator that we should be devoted to the claims upon us of our life here, it would be inconsistent with this purpose if there was placed before men in the blaze of actual knowledge the view of God Himself, and of a further state of being to which men were hurrying through this short stage of existence. For then all interest in the affairs of this present world would be gone. Who would have energy to struggle on at his work here if he had direct knowledge of a wonderful future state immediately at hand?
Napoleon, as a young man, was absorbed in the politics of Corsica, and had there been no revolution in France, possibly might have remained so all his life. But while busied in writing that eager philippic, which, as a youth, he composed on the condition of his native island, if his future career had been revealed to him, would he have cared to finish his letter, or to further nurse his enthusiasm for Paoli?
Providence, in short, accords us only such knowledge of Himself, and such grounds of expectation as to our future destiny as is sufficient for the purpose of development and guidance here. Thus, it is that scope is given for the cultivation of faith and hope, the foundation principles of all religions.
And with regard to the still greater and more inexplicable problem of evil, whether it be the evil which men do, or the evil which men suffer, how is it reconcilable with the rule of a just and merciful God? While the difficulty is in no way shirked, it is dealt with in a way which, so far from destroying a belief in a righteous Providence, is made to support such a belief, to incline the investigator, not to atheism, but to religion.
To give to our present life a meaning intelligible to the moral sense there must be a life beyond. Notwithstanding the baffling problem of evil the purpose of the world points to just judgment and a beneficent Creator.
After all, the problems of the common man of the 20th century are those which exercised the mind of some of the master spirits of the race 2000 years ago and more, and which were resolved by them much in the same way as sincere thinkers resolve them to-day. But there are always thoughtless people, with no intellectual or religious anchorage, and who are blown about by every wind of doctrine, and for their benefit it is desirable to restate those ancient truths which are the heritage of the race, especially when they can be set forth in the light of any new thought or any fresh way of regarding an old thought.
It is this useful purpose which Sir Henry Wrixon has served in the sane and suggestive treatise under notice.
The Religion of the Common Man, by Sir Henry Wrixon, K.C., author of The Pattern Nation, &c., London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd.; Melbourne: Melville and Mullen.

👇
Geelong Advertiser (Vic. : 1859 - 1929) Wed 10 Mar 1909
THE RELIGIOUS WORLD.
What is “The Religion of the Common Man”? Sir Henry Wrixon, of Victoria, discusses this subject in a volume of nearly two hundred pages just published by Macmillan, London. Sir Henry lays it down that religion has reality behind it and is indestructible in the heart of man; hence it survives the attacks of its foes, and is still a living force. 
He then sets out to record the reflections and conclusions of “a man of average intellect and ordinary information” as he muses upon and wrestles with the problem of his existence here and his future destiny, and seeks to discover, “if not a complete solution of that problem, light at least enough to guide him on his earthly journey.
”This “common man,” not conversant with the lore or the metaphysics of the subject, and having no aid from revelation, meditates and reasons very lucidly, and with great acuteness, and arrives at the conclusion, from the history of belief, from Nature, and from conscience that there is a conscious, intelligent and beneficent Ruler of the Universe.
Sir Henry Wrixon does not shirk difficulties; on the other hand, he frankly recognises them in order that he may be able to conquer them as far as finite human knowledge can do. On some points, however, such as the problem of evil, he lands the “common man” in that hopeless perplexity which besets all who seek to find a solution. The book is full of references to the works of philosophers, and is an exceedingly thoughtful contribution to that speculative religious literature fascinating to so many men.
👇
 Bendigo Advertiser (Vic. : 1855 - 1918) Sat 13 Mar 1909    
"RELIGION OF THE COMMON MAN."WORK BY SIR HENRY WRIXON.
We have received through Melville and Mullen a book entitled The Religion of the Common Man, by Sir Henry Wrixon, K.C. 
This is a book dealing with the foundation principle of religion, namely, the fact of God. It is written in plain language for plain men. It does not profess to deal with anything new, but rather to “record the reflections and the conclusions of a man of average intellect.” 
It affords the ordinary reader an opportunity of studying these “reflections and conclusions” in words easily understood. The book is reverent and able, and indicates a wide range of reading, and a familiarity with the literature of the subject. In the ten chapters, covering 187 pages, the interest is maintained throughout. 
The average man may here read the discussion of a subject which has engaged the mind of man through ages, but which is usually clothed in abstruse and metaphysical language. It is a book for the people, and should prove of much interest, being the conclusions of an Australian publicist and statesman, who, having wrestled with the problems of his own existence and his future destiny, holds to the belief in God as the great reality behind religion. 
LINK TO Sir Henry Wrixon Colonial Conference at Ottawa 1895   Sir Henry Wrixon "Socialism: being Notes on a Political Tour" 1897Sir Henry Wrixon "Men at home. "Punch". 1903.Sir Henry Wrixon Jacob Shumate, Book review by 1903.              SIR HENRY WRIXON "The Pattern Nation" 1906