This is the tenth letter that Ada Nield Chew sent to the Crewe Chronicle on the 4th August 1894.
Sir, — The storm of Friday, the 20th, was followed by a hurricane on Thursday, the 26th inst. As the full blast of the hurricane fell on the head of one individual, and that one of your correspondent, you will not be surprised to hear, sir, that my recollections of what took place while it lasted (an hour) are of a somewhat confused nature, and the feeling it has left is a decidedly sore one. I think, nevertheless, that I need not ask you to let me use the Chronicle for the purpose of justifying myself, and of stating and replying to whatever I can remember of what was said during this hurricane. Let me explain! When we returned from dinner on this particular Thursday we found that one of the employers had come down from London. We were immediately requested to assemble ourselves on the meeting ground described last week. It is utterly useless for me to try to give a precise and orderly account of this meeting, so that I shall have to ask you, sir, to let me give as clear an idea as l can, and to leave the rest to the imagination of my readers. The employer began by referring to my letters. I cannot regard the whole of his remarks on them as anything but a long series of insults and sneers against the girl who had written them and the Editor who had published them, and as such sneets deserve nothing but contempt I shall not particularise or comment upon them.
Now I played a prominent part in that meeting, sir, and I think to make Chronicle readers understand what took place during the meeting I had better explain two small matters. One is that from what transpired it is evident that the employer had come down with the express purpose of compelling the writer of the letters to reveal her identity, if she possessed any Sense of honour at all. The other item I want you to notice is that for some reason I myself had from the very beginning been suspected by everybody in the factory to be the writer of the letters.
To return to the meeting. What first brought me to the light of day was a question from the employer as to whether any of us were dissatisfied with the existing state of things. No diligent student of the Chronicle needs telling whether I am dissatisfied. Accordingly I acknowledged this to be the case. This was just what was wanted. The manager immediately descended from his high estate (alongside the employer) and fetched me — was so kind as to assist me. I was invited, I remember, by both the employer and the manager to the front, to take up my position between them and to address the audience. But not feeling able, as a matter this I resolutely refused to do — of fact. I stood, then just below them — quite by myself. I was naturally very much agitated. Before I proceed I want to ask you, in justice to me, to look calmly on both sides. On the one the employer, whom we only see occasionally; the manager, who, though better known to us, is yet an awe-inspiring personage in our midst, both of whom, as I can testify, had addressed audiences before, both prepared for this afternoon ‘s work; upwards of 400 girls and women, all knowing, though not daring to say, that what had been made public was true, many of them strongly in sympathy with the writer of the letters, others, for some reason, very bitter against her; and a number of men and boys, all intently looking on. That is one side. This is the other. One girl, who though she had used her pen occasionally, had never in her life faced an audience before, now suddenly brought face to face with one, without any preparation whatever. Are the two sides equal? I put it, sir, to you and Chronicle readers whether it was fair to come down suddenly with the express purpose of finding out the author of the letters, and of holding her up to ridicule before those for whom she had written. Had I known of the intention of the employer I, as the ‘Factory Girl’, would have come prepared. I should not have stayed away. By no means. But I, too, like the employer, should have prepared myself, like him I should have had notes in my hand, to refresh my memory and to keep my ideas clear, and I should have done my level best to have defended the position I had taken up.
Before I resume my narrative I want to accord justice to my fellow-workers. It is a fact, then, that though not one of them bore me out in anything I said — on the contrary went entirely against me and their own consciences (as they assured me later), yet they did not take advantage of the many hints which were given them to laugh me scornfully down, and the vast majority of them treated me respectfully, both then and later. Perhaps I may say here that my heart is full of gratitude to them for the kind things they said to me afterwards.
And now to resume. The employer proceeded to interrogate me in the most merciless manner. Out of my confused recollections I distinctly remember telling him that he was not treating me in a gentlemanly way, and after further reflection in cooler moments I do not withdraw that statement, and shall never withdraw it. The impression I received and conveyed to him has deepened a hundredfold since. I remember also acknowledging myself to be the writer of the letters, and emphatically declaring that I was not ashamed of having written them. I remember too, and very keenly, what led me to do this. One reason was that the employer persistently referred to the writer as ‘she or they’ , and made it evident that he suspected more than one; and the other reason was that he repeatedly said whoever wrote anonymously was ashamed of what they wrote. Now, sir, I am not invulnerable, and I could not withstand that attack. Hence the declaration quoted above. Perhaps I may say that though I could not withstand that last sentiment expressed by the employer directed against myself, still I do not agree with it, and strongly disputed it with him.
The employer’s next course, on my acknowledging myself to be the writer of the letters, was to subject me to a searching cross-examination as to who had helped me — suggested several means of help which I had probably availed myself of, finally suggested that you yourself, sir, had probably had a great deal to do with the composition and arrangement of the letters. Of course I denied all this, and a great deal followed which is all very personal indeed, and has nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. I think I will not say anything more about the meeting itself, except that the employer told my fellow-workers in concluding that he hoped they would not let what I had done make any difference in their treatment of me — that they would not show me any disrespect. I was very much astonished to hear that, sir, and am still greatly puzzled about it. If any Chronicle reader can give any enlightenment as to why such a caution should have been deemed necessary, I shall be glad.
And now, sir, with your permission I will state and reply to whatever I can remember of what was said during the hurricane. A great deal was said about the tea-money, and profit being made out of it. Well, we have at last obtained the long asked for information, and despite the denial of the manager the previous Friday, it was acknowledged that there certainly is profit made out of it. Such profit, however, we were informed, has been expended in 46 (l believe) sets of china, sugar basins, etc., for the use of the annual tea party (on no other occasion). The tea party itself, it was acknowledged, is also in some degree provided for out of this tea-money; and also gifts made by the manager to very needy cases amongst us, which we have all been aware of, it now transpires, are provided for out of our tea-money. I believe the yearly amount of profit was given, but my mind was in too great a state of confusion by that time to get a clear idea of figures. My reply is that I do not know whether we have ever been consulted about these things — not in my time — but I certainly think that as we have a share in paying for them we ought to be consulted in the matter of buying china, etc. , with our money. And about making presents. I do not think we should have any objection to five shillings or ten shillings being given occasionally to deserving cases which are well-known to us all, but I think it should have been made known before this from what source the money was drawn. Honour to whom honour is due. And it is clear also, as I remember pointing out to the employer and also to the manager, who interviewed me later in the day, that we who have not been taking the tea have been paying more than others towards the tea party. I cannot see justice in that. I do not remember what reply they gave me — it was not clear, I think. But I personally should give my 8s 6d a year the preference of the tea party. I could easily get a good tea for that, and could treat myself to an entertainment as well, and should besides have the privilege of selection, which I have not in this case.
I also obtained a portion of the information for which I asked in one of my letters — whether the ladies and gentlemen in the Office contributed their share towards the expenses of the ‘cook’? Of late there has been only one gentleman in the office — the manager — and he was kind enough to inform me that he did not take tea in the office, but that the two ladies — his daughter and her assistant — did not pay for their tea. My answer to that is that they ought to pay — that they have no right to drink tea at other people’s expense, on the unanimous vote of my fellow-workers, the decision come to by the employers to close the tea-room was at the close of this meeting rescinded. Accordingly this week the boy has again visited us with his money bag and checks. Some of us have refused to buy the checks. Our names have been recorded in the office, for what purpose we are not aware. The fines at the door were also reinstated on the unanimous vote of the factory hands. A balance sheet of the funds of the sick club, and the addition of the fines, was read out to us, but I have not the slightest idea of it which is of any use. Something was said, too, about the system of ‘favourites’, and the employer asked me what I meant by it. I informed him that I had explained it in my letters. I did not feel able to repeat my explanation verbally, and he persisted that what I considered favouritism consisted in the work being given to those best qualified to do it. Now I have shown that this is not the case, and I am willing to submit and leave it to Chronicle readers whether I, who see it every day, know anything about it, as well as the employer, who does not see it at all. A great deal was said, too, about the prices paid for our work, and the employer assured us that he gave us the best price he could afford, and that if the Government or others would pay him more he would in turn pay us more, and that sometimes he was actually a loser after vouchsafing to us a somewhat more munificent price than usual. Well, sir, I am a little dubious about all this. I do not quite believe all I am told! But my reply is that if this is true then the Government or whoever else pays these ridiculously low sums for the clothing of soldiers and policemen ought to be made to pay more, and the sooner they are made the better, so that those who do their work can live by the work they do.
The employer asked me, I remember, what the remedy was for this? I have plainly shown throughout that I do not expect to get this evil remedied by merely asking him. The only remedy that I can see is for the girls themselves to unite, and in a body to set to work earnestly and intelligently, and not only — a living wage. If this course to ask but to demand their right is so certain to prove ineffectual, as the employers assure us, why are they so careful and persistent in advising us not to adopt it? Where is the need for the advice if what they tell us be true? Is it their overwhelming desire for our welfare which influences them in giving us this advice? Whose interests are they considering? Ours or their own?
Reference was made to the number of hours worked in busy seasons. The employer did not think they were excessive compared with the hours of other workers. I say in reply to that that it is time the hours of other workers were reduced if that is the case. Reference was made also to my having been kept waiting at the office window when getting materials. The employer could not promise that it would not occur again. An excuse was made in that the young ladies are sometimes adding up columns of figures. My answer is that I can see when they are adding up columns of figures, and it is not only on such occasions that I have been kept waiting. This is a very small matter, and I do not wish to dwell on it. If the young ladies are not truly lady-like enough to object to keeping girls waiting unnecessarily I have nothing further to say, and my fellow-workers and I must submit to what we cannot alter.
Nothing whatever was said about the system of selling us materials, and we have still no certain knowledge that profit is not being made out of these as out Of the tea-money. I had not presence of mind to make any enquiries about this matter. Finally, sir, the one great objection of both employer and manager, to which they persistently referred, was that I had ‘blazoned forth’ (the employer’s term) our grievances in the public press. I ought, they said, to have made my objections to them. As an illustration they asked me repeatedly whether, if anything were wrong at home, I should write to the newspaper about it? My answer is no, most decidedly I should not, for two reasons. First, because I am quite sure that you, sir, would not lend me the columns of the Chronicle for such a trivial purpose; secondly, because I should object to have my private affairs ‘blazoned forth’. But the cases are not parallel. What I have made public concerns not only the 400 employed in the factory in which I work, but also those employed in several other factories in Crewe, and indirectly every inhabitant of Crewe, and therefore is a fitting subject for the public press. I ought to have appealed to the employer as to a father, he tried to convince me. I Say no, sir. I do not look on the employer in the light of a father, nor does he look on mc and my fellow-workers with fatherly eyes. No father would have treated his child as the employer treated me on Thursday last, if proof is necessary. So that I may be excused, I think, for applying to other sources for help in my need.
This is all I can remember of what took place on Thursday last which is of any consequence. If there is anything else which I have forgotten to which I ought to reply, I shall be glad if anybody will point it out to me. If you will allow me, sir, I should like to inform my employer that I shall be glad to meet and answer anything he may wish to ask me, and to defend myself to the best of my ability, either in the columns of the Chronicle or personally. I should, however, greatly prefer the former, for my pen obeys my will far more readily than my voice. And if the latter I must stipulate that I have due notification of the intention of the employer, and that we have an unbiased arbitrator present to See fair play between us.
The employer now knows whom he is combating. He very tenderly assured me that he had read all my letters, so that he will no doubt read this one also. I should like now to make a very emphatic and, I hope, final declaration. During the time that my letters have been appearing I have heard several people, men and women, some employed in the factory, some outside, accused, in conjunction with myself, of complicity to a greater or lesser degree in the production of the letters. My declaration is as follows: That no other single person in the factory or out of it has had anything whatever to do with them in any way whatever. The writer is herself now known, and she alone is responsible for what has been made public.
I remain, sir, yours sincerely,
A CREWE FACTORY GIRL