MEETING OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' DELEGATES.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2081, 4 September 1875, Page 2

MEETING OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' DELEGATES.

According to advertisement a meeting of the Delegates of Friendly Societies was held at Mr Hoiiiss' house, Pollen street, the object being to give Mr Bagnall an opportunity of clearing himself from the imputation a resolution of a previous meeting of delegates had cast on him. There were present—Messrs Foy (in the chair) and Mcllhone of the Hibernian Society ; Messrs McGullougb, Ahier and Campbell (A.0.F.) ; W. J". Speight and Someryille (Eechabites) ; and Douglas, Kitchen and Plant (Protestant Alliance.)

The Chairman in opening proceedings read the resolution passed at the last meeting, viz., -" that it having come to the knowledge of the meeting that a member of the House of Representatives had written to Mr Bagnall asking for recommendations of alterations required in the Friendly Societies Act, this 1 meeting disapproves of Mr Bagnall answering such questions without consulting the delegates of the various societies on the Thames."

The question was then raised by Mr Plant whether reporters of the- Press should be present, and was unanimously answered in the affirmative.

The Chairman said his object in calling the meeting was to get over-the difficulty occasioned by the resolution if possible, and in justice to Mr Bagnall, as the matter had been the subject of controversy in the papers. Mr Plant said he believed that though neither proposer or seconder yet he had been the means of the motion being carried, because he had disapproved of Mr Bagnail's conduct in the matter.

Mr Douglas said Mr Bagnall had made a charge of falsehood against the delegates by saying they had caused what was untrue to appear in the papers, while he considered that the delegates had said nothing but what was true, therefore he thought before they could proceed further Mr iiagnall should withdraw the charge. Mr 'Speight Savl he thought it no use heating about'the b,usji, b,»t farthe be?t plan was, if Mr Bagnall had a grievance to hear him state it; if he had good caus.e for his grievance then let them withdraw the resolution, if the resolution was justified by his conduct why let it stand. Mr Bagnall said he had only been waiting an opportunity to justify himself, he had been charged with discourtesy and asked to withdraw a charge without being allowed to show that the charge made was tr-ue. "Wliat he complained of was the iopal jn'reference tq his conduct in the Thames Advertiser of August 11th. He asked was it just that the meeting which passed the resolution, should be palled a meeting of the Friendly Societies at the Thames S (¥ eg and no). He submitted it was not, as all the Friendly Societies were not represented. lhe truth was that there were seven, or really nine, Societies at the Thames of which only three were represented. This was one of the grounds of complaint. The resolution again stated he answered questions, when not a single question had been put to him. (Mr Bagnall here quoted from the Plant.^agnall controversy. 'Mr Speight rose to a point of order, and the chairman ruled that" Mr Baguall must lieep'to the point at issue, yiz., the conduct of the whole delegates, $ot of any one who chose to write to, the papers.)" Mr Bagnail continued. He had answered no questions; he was simply asked by telegram to state his own wants without reference to the other delegates of Friendly Societies. He therefore said that passing a resolution condemnatory of his actions was what the delegates had no right to do, as his communications to a member of the House of Representatives

were entirely of a private nature. He had constituted himself as representative of no society or societies, and had a pefect right to act in the manner he had. On this position he chose to stand or fall. The resolution had done him injury as it had been telegraphed lo different parts of the colony. If'the delegates showed him any thing he had done wrong he would retract it.

Mr Kitchen said he considered they had every right to censure Mr Bagnall for not being present at a meeting at which, though not a delegate, he. had sent .word he. would be t present...' He had proposed the resolution, and under the same circumstances he would do the same'thing again. : ,. Mr.;.. Somerville also considered . the meeting fully represented the Societies, as it vras their own fault if any societies chose to be unrepresented. The. societies found Mr Bagnall had been in correspondence with some membwrfpf Parliament, whether Billy Swanson* br some greater he could not say, and then heard through, the local Press that the Government were about to take action in th c matter.' The meeting met and neither Mr JBagnaU ,pr Mr Ahier appeared, consequently tne delegates got no information, and therefore the resolution of censure was passed, with which he himself agreed. He' complained of Mr Bagnall doing that himself of which all should have had cognizarfce. Mr Bagnall explained he simply acted as a private individual.

Mr Speight thought it was easy to simplify the matter. . Had Mr Bagnall a right to send any communication with the knowledge that it might have affecte4 any action they might take afterwards as delegates? He thought not. He therefore questioned the policy, the wisdom, or the- courtesy of stating ;bjs own views to a member of Parliament when he well knew there were delegates appointed to do that work.

Mr Ahier said he had not told Mr Bagnall the meeting was adjourned be: cause he- did not .believe there would be another meeting owing' 'to the apparent lukewarmness of thf lUegates. Mr McCullough,Mfl&jLp had been vrith others patiently iImMSSa and after all the explanation gwHJptfr Bagnall he. could see no lign'MftttM^n the matter. He believed that 3irKgirall imagined he could do the work better than the other delegatesj and as Mr Bagnall was,, no doubt, a competent man, he had sent his suggestions away. Looking at it in the other light, viz., that the delegates were appointed as such, they were justified in passing the resolution they did, he therefore proposed that "after hearing all the explanation the meeting sees no reason to rescind the resolution." '

Mr Bagnall said that if such a resolution was reiterated it would be an un^ merited slur on him, and he should consider himself most unjustly treated; as he had not endeavoured to interfere with the delegates in any. way whatever, but had only done what he or any other member had a perfect right to do. After a great, deal of discussion, Mt Plant seconded the resolution of 'Mr McCullough. Mr Campbell moved an amendment, as he thought the delegates "who had been present when the .resolution complained of was passed, had been under a misapprehension; He therefore moved, that under the circumstances, Mr Bagnall ia free from all cenfurY for^iny" action he has taken. . : """*""--

Mr Ahier seconded the amendment. The amendment was put, when there appeared for the amendment, 2; for tho proposition, 7. Mr Mcllhone then moved, that in the opinion of this meeting, had Mr Bagnall been as fully informed of the circumstances of the case as he is.now, he would not have taken the steps he did. Mr Ooughffe seconded the motion, which was.carried. '.

Mr Bagnall then thanked the delegates for hearing him, and withdrew.

It was resolved that the Chairman send circulars to each of the Friendly Societies on the field who had not appointed delegates requesting them to do so.

A sub-committee, consisting of Messrs McGullough, Speight, Douglas and Mcllhone, were appointed to draw -up suggestions to submit to the next meeting.

A vote of jthanks to the Chairman terminated the proceedings.