*THE
WORKER*
Brisbane May
12, 1894
TRADES AND
LABOUR HALL.
The Labour
Church.
The new Trades
and Labour Hall was opened on last Saturday afternoon in the presence
of a large gathering of prominent agitators and friends of the Labour
movement. Many ladies were present and took a great interest in the
proceedings, probably preparing for the exercise of that noble
privilege – the right to vote. Mr. F. M'Donnell, trustees, opened
the business in a few chosen words by handing the key of the building
to Mr. Hewitt, the president of the Trades and Labour Hall Board of
Management, and requesting him to declare the building open in the
name of the workers of Queensland.
It is
significant of the growing solidarity of the Labour movement that
there was no disposition to go outside the labour ranks to secure a
man fitted to take the responsibility of declaring the hall open. In
the past Labour has been too prone to invite some person – often
the Governor or some other equally well – paid gentleman – to
condescend to rub shoulders for the time being with workers, and
silver trowels and golden keys have been purchased with money which
might have been better applied; but on this occasion Labour showed a
commendable absence of jealousy and growing confidence in itself by
appointing to the position of honour one of its own men. The only
gentleman outside the Labour movement present as a speaker was Sir
Charles Lilley, who laid the foundation stone. However, Mr. Hewitt,
who is a member of the Stonemason's Union, acquitted himself very
creditably. In the course of a good speech he briefly sketched the
history of the building, and pointed to it as an evidence of what
could be done by means of co-operation. “If a Trades Hall could be
so built, why not any other? The building stood erect there
proclaiming what societies united could do. It would not have been
possible for one society to accomplish so much. It was proof of the
necessity there was for all to act concertedly. Let them all have
their little differences of opinion. It was human for them to do so;
but let them also agree to differ. No one society could afford to
remain isolated for long. As it was good for the individual to unite
with his mates so also was it good for societies to come together and
join hands under the roof of the Church of labour. (Applause)
The proceedings
up to this time had been carried on in front of the hall on a raised
platform. Mr. Hewitt then invited the large audience into the public
hall, when the member for the Flinders Charles M'Donald, took the
floor.
After an
apology for the absence of Messrs. Dawson and Dunsford, M.L.A.,
Charters Towers, Mr. M'Donald said he was pleased at the erection of
the hall, as it was another temple erected to the sacred cause of
Labour within the walls of which he hoped to hear preached the
doctrines which would ultimately emancipate the people. Referring to
unionism he said he had great faith in industrial organisations –
(applause) – and he believed that it was through their industrial
organisations they were eventually going to be emancipated, and the
sooner the workers of Queensland and other colonies recognised that
the better it would be for them. Now from their industrial
organisations they were enabled to wield a large political influence,
but in the exercise of that political influence they would have to be
very careful whom they selected for their candidates at various
elections. He also would like them to understand this, that there
could be no compromise between the Labour Party and any other party.
The Labour Party was a distinct party – (applause) – and anyone
who ran with the Labour Party must sign the Labour platform. If a man
was not prepared to do that then he was against them. It was far
better to have an open opponent than a man sitting on a rail
pretending to be their friend.
[Sir Charles
Lilley; “hear, hear,” and applause.] Anybody who wished to sit
between the Labour Party and the Capitalistic Party let them not
touch him. (Laughter and applause.) Let him go right for them or
right against them. (Applause.) Mr. M'Donald also urged the meeting
not to forget the terrible sufferings of many of the bushmen, who,
notwithstanding the depression and the distress he believed, would
have their union stronger by thousands this year than it was last.
(Applause.)
Cambooya
Daniels, M.L.A., followed Mr. M'Donald, and in his usual happy vein
dilated on the benefits of unionism. The conditions under which
shearers now had to shear was far different to what they were before
the union came into existence. It was unionism which enabled the
workers to return men to Parliament. The fact that they could return
their own men showed the remarkable growth of the power of unionism.
He supposed that nine or ten years ago, before the time of unionism,
if any man from among the labouring class had put up for Parliament,
he would have been brought up before a gentleman holding a position
similar to the one recently held by Sir Charles Lilley, and sent to a
lunatic asylum or to gaol. (Laughter.) Referring to the views held by
the farmers on the Darling Downs and in other agricultural centres,
he said the people, like the office boy's kittens, now had their eyes
open, and if they were given a chance would not return followers of
Sir Thomas M'Ilwraith, but would go straight out for labour,
(Applause.) He was sure this would be the case in Warwick and
Stanthorpe. He urged upon every man, woman and child the necessity
for combination. He had not time that day to go into all the benefits
that would spring from it, but this much he would say: That if they
had had fair government and proper legislation there need not be one
man out of work in Queensland. (Applause.)
Sir Charles
Lilley then addressed the meeting, and was well received. In opening
he spoke favourably of the woman suffrage movement, his remarks being
received with applause. Then referring to the speech of Mr. C.
M'Donald he said: Their friend from the West had spoken of men who
sat on the rail. Well, he (Sir Charles) was not sitting on the rail –
(laughter) – and he declined to be so classed, although he could
not perhaps sign the Labour manifesto or whatever it was. [A Voice;
“Why?”] He believed in every principle contained in it, but he
had a very curious spirit. He would submit to no man's dictation. He
was born free; he had lived free; he had been a free lance; and to
place him under the dictation of King or council, Kaiser or prince,
would be impossible. He had been and would still be his own King and
prince; following only his own lights and conscience. As he began so
he would continue and end. But the Labour Party in all the principles
with which he agreed would have his aid, whether he ever saw the
inside of Parliament or not. There was applause during this part of
Sir Charles's address, but it was not the unanimous cheering which
greeted other portions of his remarks when he spoke of the urgency of
many reforms.
Mr. Thomas
Glassey said he was glad to be with them on the present occasion,
however, and he joined in the very commendable congratulations which
had been tendered to the promoters of the building. Reference had
been made by Sir Charles Lilley to the law which operated in Prussia
100 years ago. He believed it was sometimes a British boast – nay,
it was British brag, to say that all good things belonged to the
genius of the British people. He believed there was genius and
ability in every land in the world, and that there were hearts in
those lands which throbbed for human elevation and happiness. It was
a very reasonable law which was passed in Prussia, which enacted that
it was the duty of the State to see that every man capable of working
should be found work to do; and working – this was the point which
Sir Charles had perhaps neglected – of such a character that the
individual was capable of doing. That was both wise and prudent. Some
of their critics would say. “That is Utopian.” It might be
Utopian; but was it wise, prudent, or just to say the aged or
infirm, or the weak should carry the same load that persons of strong
physique were capable of carrying? That he believed was the spirit
which had animated the people of Prussia when they executed the law
to which he had referred. It had been said that men declined work
when it was offered them. He did not wonder if they did, if they were
asked to do work which was beyond them. Would it not be wrong to ask
a person of 55 or 65 years of age to take a pick and a shovel and do
roadmaking which stronger men were only able to do? But those making
the charge did not tell them the reason why the work was not taken.
One of the elements in the successful discharge of human labour was
touched by the Labour Party when it said that the persons who were
least able to perform the hardest work should not be asked to do it,
but so far as the working of the machinery of the State was concerned
work was to be provided for those who were able to perform it, and
what was more that it should be well and sufficiently rewarded when
it was done. (Applause.)
Mr. J. M.
Cross, member for Clermont, said like the other speakers he
congratulated them on this building. He regarded it as the outward
sign and symbol of a great organisation. He denied that the Labour
movement was a movement for class legislation, as was frequently
stated by the Brisbane press. With Mr. Frederick Harrison, than whom
there were few abler men, he fully agreed when he told them that the
“working class is the only class which is not a class – it is the
people, the nation.” (Applause.) They knew also that nearly 90 per
cent of the people in any country of considerable population were
wage – earners, wealth producers. That being so he maintained that
they formed the people and not a class. (Applause.) The crash of the
banks in 1893 was the result of persistent class legislation of the
most cruel character. (Applause.) He did not think that would be
denied at all. So long as party government existed and so long as
party warfare went on in politics, the Labour Party would have to
stick together round the Labour platform, and fight for its
accomplishment. (Applause.) The strength of the Labour movement and
its guarantee for success in the future was its hopefulness. It
asked nothing more than fair play for the labourer and a full reward
for his labour, not as beasts of burden, as some men would make and
keep them, but as brethren and heir's of God's bounty, of the
legacies of progressive ages, and of the benefits of civilisation.
These were the ends of the Labour movement; its unconquerable plea
and its unconquerable moral force. (Applause.)
Mr. W. H.
Browne, member for Croydon, said he had always been a straight-out
trades unionist and, leaving politics alone, he wished, on behalf of
the Croydon Miners Association and Gulf Workers' Association, to
congratulate the Trades Hall Committee on the success of their work
which had resulted in this building, which, he was sure. Would be a
credit to any town in Australia. In speaking of unionism and strikes
he said; Strikes had never been favoured by the unionists. They had
been forced on them. When speaking of strikes, the question was often
asked; “Well, how will you remedy them?” One remedy they had time
after time offered – namely, conciliation and conferences. And in
speaking of conciliation he meant that alluded to by Phillips in his
“Labour and Wages” when he said, “Arbitration is perfectly
useless unless backed up by the strong arm of the law.” At present
a few men who were up in the matter, and who were, perhaps, greater
than some of the Labour men could ever hope to be, and certainly
greater than those who were opposed to them, came to his mind. First
and foremost, in his opinion, was Sir Gearge Grey – (applause) –
a man at the very least equal in ability to any of the opponents of
compulsory arbitration in Queensland. There was Mons. Goblet, an
ex-Premier of France, who sought to introduce compulsory arbitration
in dealing with mining disputes in that country. The bill he
introduced provided that if after the lapse of five weeks the
mine-owners persisted in their refusal to meet the men in conference,
the workmen should resume the mines. (Applause.) Then there was
Cardinal Manning and Cardinal Moran, Mr. Reeves, of New Zealand,
wound up a recent article in the Review of Reviews by
saying that the only remedy was compulsory arbitration. (Applause.)
There were few men and women in Australia who had not indirectly or
directly suffered from strikes; the matter of arbitration therefore
was one which interested everyone in the community, unionist or
non-unionist, labourer or capitalist. (Applause,)
Mr.
M. Reid, member for Toowong, referred in terms of praise to the work
done by the Australian Labour Federation, without which, he claimed,
there would have been no Labour in Politics movement, and no WORKER.
He spoke of the strike question. They heard a great deal about
strikes and Labour agitators. He had been an agitator and he was
proud of it. (Applause.) He was more proud of that than of being an
M.L.A. It was not the agitators who brought about strikes, but the
men themselves, and the men themselves did not love strikes. The men
only struck because they could suffer it no longer. (Applause.) Now
they heard strikes universally condemned. He was going to have the
audacity to say a word or two in their favour. Take the cotton strike
in Lancashire. The employers there about eighteen months ago were the
most bitter opponents of the eight-hour movement they had. They were
the most conservative working men in England. Since the cotton strike
the men had revolted – and it was one of the most magnificent
fights from a battle point of view that the workers of the old
country ever went through – and now every one of these cotton men
and every working man in Lancashire were the strongest supporters of
the eight-hour movement that they had got there. (Applause.) Now they
would put all these strikes together and balance the suffering
against the advantages and the education that the workers had
received from them, and he dared to say that with all the suffering,
with all the misery, and with all the money that had been wasted
through the strikes the workers in England and Australia to-day were
better educated and in a better position to look after their own
affairs than they would have been had the strikes never occurred.
(Applause.)
Mr.
Reid then referred to the signing of the Labour Platform. Sir Charles
Lilley had said that the Labour party, in the shape of Mr. M'Donald,
had rejected him [Cries of “No, no,” and Sir Charles Lilley: “I
said I did not know who I belonged to,” and a Voice: “That is
better,”] He said the other side would not have him. [Sir Charles
Lilley: “No, not at any price.”] He (Mr. Reid) said that the
Labour Party, as far as they were concerned – he said as far as
they were concerned as the Labour Party, that if they were going to
take up their position in politics they would have to keep solid, and
the only thing that they could do before they took a man into their
party was to get him to sign their platform. [Sir Charles Lilley:
“Hear,hear.”] And if Sir Charles Lilley wished to belong to the
Labour party he could sign the labour Platform the same as Mat Reid
or anyone else did. (Applause.) He had not lost his liberty in doing
that, nor had he lost his individuality. (Applause.) Mr. Reid
concluded his remarks by explaining briefly the principles of
Socialism, and using the hall as an illustration of what the workers
could do by united efforts.
Mr.
Fisher, M.L.A. for Gympie, moved, and Sir Charles seconded, a vote of
thanks to the chairman
which
was carried with acclamation, and the meeting terminated.
[It
is impossible with the small space at the disposal of the WORKER to
give anything like a fair record of the speeches delivered at the
opening of the hall. The Brisbane Courier and
the Brisbane Telegraph contain
most excellent reports, which will repay anyone who takes the trouble
to peruse them – Ed.]
