The new Trades and Labour Hall 1894

*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.]