Labor’s titan: the story of Percy Brookfield, 1878-1921, Gilbert Giles Roper
Source: Warrnambool Institute Press, 1983, edited by Allan and Wendy Scarfe. Copyright Allan and Wendy Scarfe. This digital edition for Marxists
Internet Archive is published with the permission of the copyright holders. It may be used for private study but not for any commercial purpose.
Transcription, mark-up: Steve Painter
“There is only one hope for Europe, and for civilisation as we know it, and that is that capitalism may be knocked on the head.”
After the conscription referendum the miners of Broken Hill expressed strong criticism of their state parliamentary representative, J.H. Cann, for his refusal to speak out against conscription. The Political Labor League held a secret ballot to gauge what support existed for him. The result was a major vote of no confidence. However Cann had already been appointed a Railways Commissioner, and he resigned his seat of Sturt.
On his release from jail Brookfield’s popularity was high and he was approached to contest the pre-selection ballot conducted by the Australian Labor Party to determine its new candidate for the impending by-election. At first he laughed at the suggestion.
But it was no longer the Australian Labor Party of four months earlier on the heated occasion of the conscription referendum, for that event had precipitated a bitter split in the Labor Party. Hughes being expelled from the federal party on November 14 and his conscriptionist “scabs” shortly afterwards. Hughes had now fused his National Labor Party with the Liberals to form the National Party, which kept him in the prime ministership. To Brookfield’s annoyance, the previous Labor premier of New South Wales, W.A. Holman, had behaved likewise, forming a state National Party that kept him the premiership. Through the previous year Brookfield had considered Holman reactionary and potentially anti-labour, so in pre-selecting him for the by-election as a fighter for unionists’ rights and an opponent of the war there was also the possibility that Brookfield would bring pressure to bear on at least Holman to cease extending the life of his parliament and go to the polls under his new Nationalist colours. His supporters firmly believed that Brookfield was a powerful enough man to challenge the renegade conscriptionist leaders.
The problem for Brookfield was whether to accept or decline nomination. If he moved from the world of direct action that he knew into the parliamentary arena, would he lose his effectiveness as a workingman’s advocate? He was convinced from his past experience that parliament failed to meet the legitimate demands of the working class and represented an undemocratic willingness to place one’s freedom in the hands of another. His observations of politicians convinced him that participating in parliaments had demoralising and corrupting effects. Many Labor representatives had succumbed to the fleshpots, the liquor, and the flattery. Brookfield even doubted his own ability to withstand these character-destroying influences and held earnest discussions with his friends and co-thinkers before deciding to accept nomination.
His friends in the Industrial Workers of the World wanted the state to disappear, with parliament replaced by six industrial departments within the different industries, all co-ordinated into One Big Union, which would elect a general executive board. Workers at the job level would thus directly control their society. They told Brookfield that parliament was “the dustbin of the trade union” and that Labor governments were “hard labour” governments dishing out jail to strikers and letting prices outstrip wages. Some of the extreme lefts spurned all reforms as worthless palliatives cunningly devised to sidetrack the workers from their objectives. It was a tribute to Brookfield’s sagacity that he was able to brush aside the qualms of the ultralefts about him entering parliament, perceiving dialectically the inestimable value of his genuine socialist voice in the legislature. On the other hand in blunt public statements he clarified his relationship with the Industrial Workers of the World:
Many statements have been made to the effect that I belong to the Industrial Workers of the World. Such is not the case. I never have been, and I do not think I ever shall be, a member of that organisation.[1]
To the electors at Broken Hill he pledged himself to work for the twelve Wobblies, despite his non-membership of the Industrial Workers of the World:
“I am not a member of the IWW but I believe in a lot of its principles, and if I win at the elections I will do my best to get the Sydney men a fair and impartial trial.”[2]
And he faithfully kept this promise. Brookfield was a socialisationist before the adoption of the socialisation objective by the Australian Labor Party. “The socialisation of industry,” he prophesied, “will come whether we want it or not.” While he advocated this change in the ownership and control of industry, he certainly did not abandon the struggle for reforms. Brookfield stood independent of those who pursued the reform of capitalism as an end in itself and of those who favoured a “pure” apocalyptic change in the social order.
Brookfield won the pre-selection ballot, by 675 votes to 384. Workers saw him as a “practical” man. They were gripped by his forthright oratory, spoken “from his heart” without notes, and transparently flowing from an implacable urge to aid the members of his class.
According to legend, Labor Party headquarters wired Brookfield seeking a public withdrawal of certain antiwar statements that the executive feared might handicap the party in the by-election. Brookfield crumpled up the telegram, exclaiming, “I never retract!”
His numerous convictions under the War Precautions Act raised last-minute doubts as to his eligibility to stand for parliament, but an official assurance was eventually received that these penalties raised no obstacle to nomination.
Brookfield’s campaign opened on January 14, 1917, in the Central Reserve, Broken Hill, before a huge crowd. “It is only the unexpected happenings due to the war that have made it possible for a man like me to successfully stand in the interests of Labor in Broken Hill,” he began humbly. “I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for selecting me as your candidate.” He went on to deliver one of the most extraordinary policy speeches ever delivered by an endorsed ALP candidate:
I feel the honour more deeply when I know you are tired of the way you have been diddled and fooled by politicians during the last twenty years, and have at times been bitterly disappointed with your choice of political representatives … If comes that you elect me, I will deal with Holman and his gang of political renegades by every possible means in my power. I am not going to mince matters or wrap up my words as Judge Bevan advised me to do. Holman has disfranchised the people of New South Wales for twelve months because he was afraid to go before them and meet the political doom he so richly deserves. For this reason I will do everything I can to prevent him giving effect to his reactionary policy and legislation. Think of the iniquitous Crimes Act he has passed! It is the most reactionary measure ever forced upon the working class, and in season and out I will use my utmost endeavours to obstruct Holman and the collection of parasites with whom he is associated.[3]
Brookfield then turned his impassioned oratory to the war policies:
The first thing we have to look at, whether we like it or not, is that we are at war. But what of the profit-grabbing plunderers who are bleeding the country today? Think of the squatters here in this very district who, when the soldiers were dying of frostbite in the trenches, doubled the price of wool, and thus took advantage of the nation’s need at a time of crisis. Remember, too … the meat trust, and the coal vend, and here at your very door the men who control the output of lead and silver. All these charged higher prices for their commodities because England had to have the things the workers produced for them. That is patriotism! Before I will agree to send any man to the war under a compulsory system, I will insist that the whole of the peace proposals be put to the people of Australia, and should they vote for a continuance of the war I will have no recourse than to fall into line … War is the greatest curse the workers of the world have ever had to contend with, and if returned I will advocate peace, not caring whether I annoy or please.[4]
Afterwards, the meeting decided unanimously and enthusiastically: “That Mr P.J. Brookfield is the only fit and proper person among the three candidates for the Sturt by-election to represent this Labor constituency in the state house.” Despite this strong support, the campaign was no easy task for Brookfield. Choosing to swim against the stream of chauvinism and war hysteria, he resolutely refused to “smouch to anyone for a vote” or “go back on anything” that he had said.
On January 20, 1917, as president of the Committee for the Release of the Twelve IWW Men, Brookfield presided at a big street rally at the corner of Argent and Sulphide Streets. He told his audience:
Any honest man, in looking through the evidence and reviewing the circumstances of the case, can come to no other conclusion than that the twelve IWW men have been viciously and brutally sentenced by Judge Pring.
The crowd responded: Hear! Hear!
I have been told that my opinion on the matter will jeopardise my chance of getting into parliament, but rather than not advocate the cause of these men I will carry my swag out on the river. (There was applause.) They were condemned by William Morris Hughes long before the trial; also by the toady capitalist press. Such despicable tactics should be condemned by every honest man. (Applause.) I desire that these men should have a fair and impartial trial, and not before a prejudiced man like Judge Bevan, for instance, proved himself to be. Judge Bevan said that it is impossible for a man to rid himself of class feeling. It was the same with Judge Pring who only did that which might have been expected of him.[5]
Other speakers included Mick Considine and J.J. O’Reilly, who attacked the contempt of court charge brought against Henry Boote for his article in the Australian Worker in which he stated that Donald Grant had got one year’s jail for each of the fifteen words he spoke at the Sydney Domain. A.E. Sinclair attacked the way police jailed anti-conscriptionists but not the conscriptionists who attacked them with golf clubs, sticks and other weapons. “If Jack Brookfield,” he remarked, “did no more in parliament than secure the liberation of these men it would be enough.” Brookfield himself commented:
I am not in the habit of refuting anything which appears in the local conscriptionist press, but I have been told by that paper that if I go into parliament I will have to repudiate the Labor’s Volunteer Army pledge. Through that pledge I have sworn “that I will never be a conscript, military or industrial”, and whether I get into parliament or not I will not be conscripted. I am out to defeat the conscriptionist crowd.[6]
At all Brookfield’s rallies the public were free to throw questions at him. When asked his opinion of the prime minister he replied: “It took me 31 days to get over what I last said about him, but I have not altered my mind.” Asked, “Are you in favour of the unimproved land tax?” he replied, “I am strongly in favour of it, because it would compel the man with large and idle holdings to either improve them or sell out.” Asked on rents, he said: “If returned, I will endeavour to have the wings of the landlords clipped.” Asked whether he favoured arbitration he retorted: “I believe it is only a farce.”
At all his rallies it was also customary for the audience to sing The Red Flag. Brookfield had often declared that the only flag beneath which he was prepared to fight was the red flag, which he saw as symbolising the common blood and brotherhood of man. His opponents sought to make political capital of his internationalism but he made short work of them.
Questioner: What flag will you fight for?
Brookfield: I will not fight against any man with a bayonet, but will do my best to organise the workers under the red flag. That accomplished, there will be no more war.
Another Questioner: Are you prepared to take the oath of allegiance, should you be returned?
Brookfield: Why should I not?
Same Questioner: Because it is a lot of tommy-rot.
Brookfield: The only flag I think we have got is the red flag of the workers throughout the world. Incidentally, I have expert legal advice on this point. Judge Bevan told me in court that when the words “God save the King” were uttered when the court opened and closed, it meant “God save the country”. In the country there is only one class of any importance and they are the workers. Yes, I will swear to serve the country and the workers, and do my best for the bottom dog every time.
Brookfield won the by-election by 570 votes. He packed his few clothes in his hotel room ready to leave the town that had become his family and fight for its interests in the capital more than seven hundred miles away. As soon as he was established in “diggings” in Sydney, Brookfield began visiting the twelve imprisoned Wobblies. He listened sympathetically to their account of what had happened and promised to work for their release. They were separated from one another and from contact with other prisoners. They suffered a number of jail punishments, Donald Grant for objecting to diseased potatoes in the food. Their health suffered badly. At various times they were moved from one jail to another, from Long Bay to Parramatta, Maitland, Bathurst or Goulburn jails. Donald Grant always remembered with gratitude that when he was moved from Long Bay to Bathurst Brookfield immediately traveled there by train to help keep up his spirits.
Grant wrote:
I first met Brookfield during the conscription campaign of 1916. I was at Broken Hill doing what I could to prevent the young manhood of this country being sent, against their will, to the European slaughter-house. It will be remembered that public feeling ran high at this time. One did not know what might happen next. It was, to quote Tom Paine, “A time which tried men’s souls”. Men were being jailed on the most flimsy evidence and the authority of the commonwealth government was being used to silence any man who was at all prominent in the cause of no conscription. All manner of rumours were current at the Hill; stories of machineguns that were within easy distance and would be used if the slightest opportunity offered. So agitated was the public mind that anything was possible, and the consequences of one’s actions might result in the most severe penalties.
Knowing all this, I went to address a meeting which was held in the Central Reserve. I was introduced to the chairman and I took stock of the man and made mental notes. I had heard of Brookfield, and now for the first time I met him. And the mental note I made was that whatever happened in the next few weeks, this man would not be frightened to see it through, wherever the end might be. He did not engage in mock heroics. He said what he had to say in a reasoned, direct manner. He said it so that the people not only could understand him, but so that they could not misunderstand him.
Later I met him under different circumstances. I was in jail. The by-election had been fought at Broken Hill, and Brookfield won. During his campaign he made no secret of his attitude towards the imprisoned IWW men and advocated their release. Not many days after the election he came and saw me at the jail and his visit inspired me with hope. Brookfield promised that he would do all that he could to obtain the release of we twelve men. And I knew that he would keep his promise. I cannot attempt to even outline all the work he did in those early days. At this time we IWW prisoners were, perhaps, the most unpopular people in the country. The powerful press and political platforms almost without exception, were pointing out to the public what brutes we were. And above the thousand voices which were raised against us, Australia heard the voice of Brookfield as he told the plain truth about the IWW case.
“With remarkable energy he carried on the campaign on our behalf. When others became tired or forgot us, he infused new life into the committees which were responsible for the work of obtaining our release. Much as I admire the public stand Brookfield made at this time, I admire and respect his memory more because I know that he said in public what he believed in private. I received at Brookfield’s hands many personal kindnesses quite apart from the public service which he rendered to my comrades and myself. I remember once, after a bit of brutal treatment at Long Bay Prison, I got a message from him but before he had time to come to the jail I was put on the train and sent to Goulburn. Brookfield went to Long Bay Prison, and was told of my removal, and he at once took the train to the station, and came to Goulburn by the next train. Wherever we might be, whatever jail we might be in at the time, and there was anything to be done, Brookfield would always do it, and — the biggest thing of all — he would do it without any fuss or limelight.[7]
For the six weeks he was in parliament Brookfield added his voice to the swelling public opinion that forced Holman finally to go to the polls under his National Party colours. The loss of the conscription referendum seemed an ill omen for the National Party, but Holman won handsomely and the Labor Party vote fell. It seemed that anti-conscription did not mean opposition to the war. Shortly afterwards, emboldened by Holman’s success, Hughes belatedly went to the polls and also won a victory.
Brookfield stood again in the state general election. He summarised his attitude as: “Though I desire to get back into parliament, I want to get there as a man, not as a crawler.”
The Barrier Daily Truth published this report of an electioneering speech by Brookfield, who, it was claimed, had gained greatly in oratorical fluency:
Holman said that “they must choose between a man like Brookfield and the grand old Union Jack”, but in spite of that the crowds at street corners had stood up and given three cheers for “Red Flag” Brookfield. He had told them in Sydney and the country districts how they in Broken Hill had fought the 44-hour strike, and how they had closed the “great munitions works” at the Barrier. (Laughter.) Previously many of the people to whom he spoke really thought that the closing down of those works was responsible for the failure of the Gallipoli gamble, yet they had not turned out a shell there.[8]
The general election resulted in an even bigger win for Brookfield, his majority rising to 1090. For “Brookie” this meant no promise of ease or security. Prominent in his policy had been a pledge to work unremittingly for the release of the twelve imprisoned men. The fight for better conditions in the mines was urgent. War-weariness and industrial unrest were rife, and increasing numbers of workers were looking to him for a lead, and overhanging everything was an ever-present threat that Hughes would stage another referendum on conscription.
1. NSWPD Vol LXVII, 106
2. Barrier Daily Truth, January 15, 1917
3. loc cit “Holman has disenfranchised the people of New South Wales …” This refers to a law passed by Holman’s government extending the length of parliament to four years.
4. loc cit
5. Barrier Daily Truth, 21 January, 1917.
6. loc cit
7. ibid, 1 April, 1921.
8. ibid, Precise reference not provided by Roper, and subsequent search has not located it.