PM disheveled, with bleeding knuckles

Second Conscription Referendum
The violence which characterised the first conscription campaign in 1916 was exceeded by that of the second in 1917, and the fact that the momentous decision had to be given a few days before the commencement of the traditional season of goodwill did not lessen or weaken the heat infused into the campaign oratory. The supporters of the Government stressed the point that the general election of the previous May proved that the mind of the country had undergone a radical change, and that the people were convinced that the seriousness of the military situation made compulsory service necessary in the interests of Australia and the Empire. The opponents of the Government maintained that the decision given in October, 1916, ought to have been accepted as final; that the issue was then closed; and that the reopening of it was a political trick on the part of a discredited leader anxious to save himself from the consequences of his own party’s distrust.
On this occasion, the form taken by the campaign in opposition was anti-Hughes as well as anti-conscription. The Prime Minister was assailed with the most vehement fury. When he was on his way back from Brisbane, a crowd rushed the railway platform at Warwick (November 29th), where supporters of his cause had gathered to hear a few sentences from him while the train waited at 3 o’clock in the afternoon An opponent threw an egg of indubitable antiquity, which just missed Mr. Hughes, but a second from the same source broke upon his hat. A returned soldier threw himself upon
416 AUSTRALIA DURING THE WAR [Nov.-Dec, 1917
the egg-thrower, whereupon the station platform became the scene of a fierce fight. Fists and sticks and a varied assortment of missiles gave emphasis to the cries of rage. Mr. Hughes was in the centre of the disturbance, from which he at length emerged disheveled, with bleeding knuckles testifying to his personal participation in the melee. When Mr. Hughes asked the police officer in charge to take action against his assailants, the officer ( Senior Sergeant Kenny) refused to do so. Upon Mr. Hughes repeating his request as Attorney- General of the Commonwealth. the sergeant replied that he recognised the laws of Queensland and would act under no other. The Prime Minister then attempted to address the crowd, the policeman appealing to it to give him a “ fair and square deal ” ; but after these sensational occurrences nobody was in the mood for listening to a speech.
Mr. Hughes despatched a strongly-worded telegram to the Premier of Queensland, Mr. Ryan, blaming the police at Warwick for the inadequacy of their arrangements and their indifference towards the chief instigator of the disturbance, who, it was alleged. after being ejected from the platform, was not placed under arrest, but permitted to return and resume the offensive. Mr. Ryan, in a frigidly polite letter, expressed his regret, and his hope that Mr. Hughes had not suffered any personal injury, but added that a preliminary enquiry showed that “ the affair was not so serious ” as Mr. Hughes’s telegram indicated. But Mr. Hughes was satisfied that the police at Warwick had inclined in sympathy towards the unruly crowd. He therefore intimated his intention to form a Commonwealth police force. The very few officers subsequently engaged, however, could never have prevented so unexpected an occurrence as the unfortunate Warwick incident.44
In all parts of the country there were disturbances at meetings held to support or oppose the policy of the Government I n some constituencies it was impossible for speakers to secure a hearing, and it required no small amount of courage and determination to face the angry crowds who surged into the halls where one human voice, endeavouring

44 The jest of the day was that the Commonwealth had “one policeman.” The Commonwealth Year Book for 1919 and 1920 overlooked even that one.