This is the twelfth letter that Ada Nield Chew sent to the Crewe Chronicle on the 22nd September 1894.
With your permission I should like to comment on the statements made by Messrs Compton in an interview with Mr. Thorne, an official of the Gasworkers’ Union, published in the current issue of the Chronicle. I read those statements, sir, with deep interest, with sincere satisfaction, and, if I may say so, a little amusement. I am glad to hear Messrs Compton reiterate their kind permission for their work people to organise in a union, for which permission I have always given them credit. I should be obliged if they would confirm their statement by instructing their subordinates to allow my late fellow-workers their liberty to exercise their right to this privilege without fear of its becoming known that they are doing or have done so, and without incurring the ridicule of those in authority.
I am very much pleased to hear that Messrs Compton have now no animosity against any of the dismissed girls. This is a change of feeling which does them credit. Messrs Compton have an undeniable right to discharge any number of hands they please when they have not work for them to do, but one point still puzzles the ordinary mind, sir, why in this case it was found necessary to do what had never ‘been done before, namely to discharge capable and experienced hands — against whom there was no animosity?
I am rather at a loss to understand why Messrs Compton should announce that, if the girls applied for work, ‘no objection would be made to them’. May I ask what possible objection could be made to us? What have we done for which we ought to apologise? Please allow me to ask also, sir, whether Mr. Wadkiss, the tailor who, after years of faithful and more than ordinarily effective service, was on the same day and apparently for the same reason (whatever that was) summarily dismissed with us, may now also apply for work? Is there any animosity against him? Personally I feel that it would hardly be fair to reinstate us and to leave the poor tailor out in the cold. Is there any objection to his returning with us? I have a keen and grateful remembrance, sir, of generous warm-hearted sympathy openly and unhesitatingly given me without fear of consequences, by Mr. Wadkiss, at a time when I sorely needed it. I am bitterly grieved that he should suffer through any action of mine.
Let me now say a few words on the remainder of Messrs Compton’s remarks which concern myself alone. I fully discussed and debated the point referred to by Mr. Compton with that gentleman on the day on which he kindly paid my fellow workers and me an unexpected visit during which he politely referred to my letter writing to the papers. I am sorry that he is still sore on that point, sir, but I still adhere to the opinion I expressed to him then, that I have a right to make public any knowledge I possess, with the sanction of the Editor to whom I submit my information. I have a profound respect for the public press; I look upon it as the most powerful agent for good this country possesses; I am thankful that it is a free press, open to employed as well as to employers; and I am thankful that the Chronicle was open to me and willingly extended and still extends a powerful helping hand to oppressed factory girls.
As to complaining to the firm, I may as well confess , sir, that if I could begin at the beginning again, and were positive that that the statement made by Mr. Compton were true — that I should not have been discharged — I should still prefer to exercise my undeniable right to write to you. And Mr.
Compton will admit, that when he invited me to complain to him, I was not backward in doing so, so that he will give me credit for honesty of purpose. If I exercise my right to complain in any way which pleases me best, Mr. Compton will forgive me, and being a gentleman, will allow a lady to use her prerogative of having her own way.
And now, sir, may I state a comment on some beneficial results of my letters which I briefly referred to last week. It will be remembered that in one of my letters I asked for proof that no profit was made out of the materials supplied the factory hands. I asked to see the bills for the materials; because, as I had to earn the money to buy them I considered and still consider, that I had a right to know where every farthing of my money went, in this way as in the tea-money. In the latter case, will be remembered, I was informed that my two-pence weekly went to buy china (which I do not possess) and to provide me with a tea once a year which, I admit, was a good tea, and which I enjoyed, though I did not know at the time that my money had helped to buy it. This was satisfactory in so far as I knew what was done with the profit, but in the case of the materials, while I was in the factory no proof was given that profit was not made.
The other week, however, considerable reductions were made in the charge for materials in the factory. Reels of silk for which I paid Is 4d, I understand are now one shilling; skeins of thread which formerly were 1 ½ d are now one penny; and a halfpenny in every two yards of two kinds of twist (for button-holes) is allowed. These are reductions which anybody who has had to buy to use them will appreciate thoroughly. I calculate that at the very least it will mean an extra 10 shillings a year in the pocket of each girl. That will go a long way towards providing her with a much needed holiday once a year.
I rejoice with my late fellow-workers in this most appreciable concession, and if I had written for nothing else, my letters would be worth this alone, but I hope you will pardon me if I say that I am not satisfied yet. If I were working in the factory I should still want to know whether the present reduced price is the original one or whether it is only a reduction of profit. In the case of the reels of silk, I believe they can be procured in the town of Crewe at a less price even than that now charged in the factory, and it is only reasonable to suppose that the shopkeeper wants to make a little profit by which to live, which does not apply to Messrs Compton. So that I should not be satisfied yet. And I cannot help wondering, sir, whether Messrs Compton have suddenly obtained the materials at a greatly reduced rate? Or whether the price formerly charged was with the addition of profit on the original? If the latter, whom did the profit benefit? Was it returned to us in some appreciable way, as in the china and sugar basins, or what became of it? I hope I am not of an insatiably curious disposition, but these thoughts certainly occur to me, and if I were working in the factory, I should want to know something about these points, and if I wrote to the Chronicle and you, sir, recognised the justice of my enquiries, I should still consider that I was acting within my rights in publicly making my wishes known.
Now, sir, it stands proved that profit was made out of the materials and tea-money, despite the emphatic denial of the manager. I ask if for that reason alone, to say nothing of the wretched prices paid for the work and the vicious system of favourites, I was not justified in writing to the press? And what might not the girls effect if they would all organise and stand shoulder to shoulder in a resolute body? I wished to-day to have referred to the Truck Act, and its application to the deduction for materials, for tea-money, for the sick club, and for breakages of machinery, which I understand is also practice in Messrs Compton’s factory. But as I should like to go into it again as well and as fully as I can, and have already, I am afraid, occupied considerable space, I think I had better leave it today , and will beg you to favour me again, sir. Perhaps next week, if you can give me space. It is a subject well worth the attention of my readers.
Thanking you for space, I am, sir
Yours sincerely
Ada Nield