Haynes was a prolific writer and seems to have been popular, though no facor figures are available. Probably he was a crypto-Jew or Jew; his life suggests that. His publications (first printing dates given) are listed as Standards of Taste in Art (1904) | Religious Persecution, a Study in Political Psychology (1904) | Early Victorian and Other Papers (1908) | Divorce Problems of To-day (1912) | The Belief in Personal Immortality (1913) | A Study in Bereavement (one-act comedy) (1914) | Divorce as it Might Be (1915) | The Decline of Liberty in England (1916) | Personalia (1918) | The Case for Liberty (1919) | Concerning Solicitors (1920) | The Enemies of Liberty 1923) | Fritto Misto (1924) | Lycurgus, or the Future of Law (1925) | Much Ado About Women (1927) | A Lawyer's Notebook (1934) and works on marriage law and divorce law reforms.
I include these titles to show the trends of Haynes's interests. It seems that the Great War was not important to him, but at least he noticed it, unlike the USA Federal Reserve Act, and he was unaware of the tremendous consolidation of Jewish and Freemasonic power around the world.
My copy of The Decline of Liberty in England is signed in ink by P H Wallis, with Xmas greetings, in 1949. Looking at the gold foil title on the hardback, I wondered if its author had found some way to define 'liberty' in some rational and impressive way. But it seems not. Haynes was influenced by Roman Law (he praised their marriage laws) though he seems to have been solidly ignorant of Jews. He was mutually friendly with Hilaire Belloc in his Servile State days, but whether this friendship survived Belloc's later book on The Jews I don't know. Haynes was very influenced by common opinions of British people at the time, which of course means largely Jewish news and media. He's sure England had a tradition of liberty, and that the Germans wanted war.
One feels there should be some way to outline human beings and their basic needs and abilities, and shade into the difficult themes of beliefs, impulses, and possible genetic developments. I think the most difficult issues are of groups of people with the habits, contracts, and conflicting arrangements. The recent discoveries about parasitic life and the Jewish version illustrates this. Perhaps 'liberty' can become defined in a precise way. But Haynes is caught up in literary woolliness.
On the subject of ‘Liberty’ Haynes quotes: "Liberty, in the sense it regularly bears in medieval Latin, is a right, by way of monopoly, custom, or otherwise as it may be, to get all you can out of somebody." This usage may be the source of an occasional English saying, that someone is 'taking a liberty', meaning doing something insulting or intrusive. Parts of England were legally liberties; I believe Norfolk was one such, in which the local Lord could follow his own rules, though presumably subject to common law. (I thought I remembered an account in Charlton Ogburn's 1984 book on Shakespeare, but failed to find it. I have the impression that this sort of thing obtained in cases of special skill or long-term work or possession; for example southern England's 'New Forest' had a special class of miners.
Brewer's Phrase and Fable includes 'liberties of the Fleet', 'the old debtors' prison in the City of London, in which prisoners were sometimes allowed to reside...' And it was used 'to denote the areas belonging to the City of London, but lying immediately without the City walls...' Brewer lists Civil Liberty, Moral Liberty, Natural Liberty, Political Liberty, and Religious Liberty.
There's a vagueness about 'Liberty', which is unsurprising in any world in which one set of people find another set of people in some conflict with them. This of course allows unspoken differences to flourish: when Jews want liberty to run their 'Kahal' system, this is not what their victims think of as 'liberty'. The slogan “Liberté, Egalité Fraternité” looks like a Jewish construction, meaning freedom for Jews to what they want, equality as defined by Jews, meaning demeaning equality for victims of Jews, and fraternity for people such as francmaçons.
To return to Haynes' book, his ten chapters are:
I. LIBERTY OF CONTRACT
II. LIBERTY OF PRIVATE MORALS
III. LIBERTY OF THE FAMILY
IV. LIBERTY IN REGARD TO WOMEN
V. FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION
VI. SOCIAL FREEDOM
VII. LIBERTY AND MINORITIES
VIII. LIBERTY OF RELIGION
IX. LOOKING BACKWARDS
X. LOOKING FORWARD
All these chapters are interesting, but all have the same limitations: conflicts are evaded, for example when one person's contracts conflict with another person's. All of them ignore Jews, and the consequences of Jewish activities, for example the habit of concealment behind collaborators, in for example Jesuits, or presumably many mediaeval guilds, and female Jew infiltrators. All take the English side, or historical groups considered English, such as Greeks and Romans; he doesn't consider whether the Great War was justified, but assumes it was—as of course most people did. His examples are often extreme and obviously considered ridiculous; he seems unable to see the sense of such practices, having little feeling for conditions at such times. He is a type of the 'piecemeal social engineering' type, proceeding by little steps, and completely outmanoeuvred by scheming secret societies.
However, his book is online at archive.org and I'll say no more about it.