The Lowell Offering: Mouthpiece of the Corporations?

Report of Speech by Sarah G. Bagley

A convention of the workingmen and women of New England was holden on the 4th inst at Woburn in a beautiful grove. Delegates from the vicinity continued to arrive until about 11 o'clock, principally from Lowell, Boston, and Lynn, numbering in the aggregate about 2,000. The delegates from Boston and Lowell were escorted by a band of music from the cars to the grove, which was tastefully arranged for the occasion.

Miss S. G. Bagley, of Lowell, a lady of superior talents and accomplishments, whose refined and delicate feelings, gave a thrilling power to her language and spell-bound this large auditory, so that the rustling of the leaves might be heard softly playing with the wind between the intervals of speech.

She spoke of the Lowell Offering,—that it was not the voice of the operatives—it gave a false representation to the truth— it was controlled by the manufacturing interest to give a gloss to their inhumanity, and anything calling in question the factory system, or a vindication of operative's rights, was neglected.

She had written several pieces of this character, which were rejected,—she said she had served an apprenticeship of 10 years in the mills, and by her experience claimed to know something about it,—and that many of the operatives were doomed to eternal slavery in consequence of their ignorance—not knowing how to do the most common domestic work, many could not do the most common sewing, and notwithstanding the present lengthened time of labor, which deprived them of the most human comfort, the proprietors or agents of these mills were striving to add two hours more to their time of labor, thus cutting off all hope of bettering their condition; but said she, the girls have united against this measure, and formed a society to repel this movement, she took her seat amidst the loud and unanimous huzzas of the deep moved throng, and was followed by some closing remarks from Mr. Albert Brisbane of New York, after which adjournment was called for and adopted.

1845.07.10

Sarah Bagley Defends Her Speech

The following from the pen of Miss S. G. Bagley, and published in the Lowell Advertiser was called forth in reply to a statement of Miss Farleys, editress of the Lowell Offering, which appeared in the Courier reflecting somewhat upon Miss Bagley's remarks at Woburn on the fourth. We had the pleasure of listening to Miss Bagley's remarks at Woburn, and can testify that she spoke in kind in and courteous terms of the present editress—brought no charge reply whatever against the Offering, farther than it was controlled by corporation influences—stated that she had written articles for the to Offering, which were rejected because they spoke of Factory girls as wronged—but by whom rejected she did not inform us—nor was it state the least consequence whether by Miss Farley or some of her predecessors, as it was the general character of the Offering that she o wished to illustrate.

We hold the literary merits of the Offering in high esteem—it reflects much honor upon its talented conductors—but still we were pleased to hear this exposition in relation to its true character and standing. It is, and always has been under the fostering care of the Lowell Corporations as a literary repository for the mental gems, of those operatives who have ability, time and inclination to write and the tendency of it ever has been to varnish over the evils, and literary wrongs, and privations of a factory life. This is undeniable, and we and we wish to inclination repository wish to have the Offering stand upon its own bottom, instead of going out as the united voice of the Lowell Operatives, while it wears the Corporation lock-and their apologizers hold the keys.

In looking over the Courier of Wednesday last, we found our  name in connection with the Lowell Offering saying that we had never presented an article that had been refused since Miss Farley had been its Editress. Well, as we did not say that we had we do not see any chance for controversy. But we did say (and we hold ourself responsible) that we have written articles for the Offering that have been rejected because they would make the Offering “controversial" and would change its “original design," which was that there is “mind among the spindles."

If any one will take the trouble to look at No. 2, specimen copy, that was published previous to the commencement of Vol. 1, they will find that controversy has not always been studiously avoided, and that the defence made was against O. A. Brownson and not corporation rules, which would change the propriety of “controversy" very materially. We preferred no charge against Miss Farley, but spoke respectfully of her, and should not have spoken of her or the Offering, had not Mr. Mellen, of Boston, made an attack upon the operatives of our city, and as an argument in favor of our excellent rules, stated that we had the Offering under our control, and had never made one word of complaint through its columns.

We were called upon to state the original design of the Offering; and gave it in nearly the same language in which it was expressed in a note by the editor in the No. referred to.

We stated that it had never been an organ through which the abuses of oppressive rules or unreasonable hours might be complained of but that both exist cannot be denied by the editress— and stranger-still it has been admitted by the editor of the Courier. We stated that the number of subscribers to the Offering among the operatives, was very limited; we were authorized to make such an assertion in conversation with Miss Farley a few months ago; and we would not charge her with telling an untruth either directly ed or indirectly, lest we should be deemed unladylike.

We asked the question, what kind of an organ of defence would the the operatives find with Mr. Schouler for a proprietor and publisher? We repeat that question, and if any one should look for an article in the publisher's columns, they would find something like  the following:

“Lowell is the Garden of Eden (except the serpent) the gates f thereof are fine gold. The tree of knowledge of good is there, but t the evil is avoided through the judicious management of the superintendents. Females may work nineteen years without fear of injuring their health, or impairing their intellectual and moral Co powers. They may accumulate large fortunes, marry and educate children, build houses, and buy farms, and all the while be operatives." Thus would the Offering under such a control, and those who are as stupid as Mr. Mellen made himself, would believe it.— We have not written this article to evince that there is “mind among the spindles," but to show that the minds here are not all spindles.

1845.07.17

The Offering Responds

From the Lowell Advertiser

MR. EDITOR: —I see by the Patriot of today that you have again devoted quite a generous portion of your columns to the Lowell Offering. A short time since, I stated to you my disapprobation of any thing tending to bring the Offering into a political controversy. And this I dislike because I know, and can know but very little about party politics, and could not do myself or my cause justice in a discussion of this kind. Party politics and party politicians, as such, have ever been my aversion—but I see not now how I can well avoid coming forward, unless I would be recreant to my cause, and a deserter of my poor Offering in its last days. You and I have, I think, conversed upon this subject so sufficiently as to understand each other. We do not agree in all things; but I thank you for your assertion that you believe me unwilling to become the medium and producer of false impressions—you do me no more than justice.

You say though, that you do not suppose I am conscious that the Offering is used by the corporations to produce erroneous impression; I do not think I am so unconscious of the impression it produces as you suppose me. The corporations do not take that lively interest in it that they have been represented to do; any thing like  an effort to foist it upon the community, cannot be attributed to n them, and I do not believe they wish it to be looked upon as aught o but what it simply professes to be—a collection of articles written the by Factory Girls—creditable to the writers, so far as they indicate het talent and education, as well as kind feelings and discriminating  judgment; and creditable to the corporations so far as they represent them as the home of New England females, who, in spite of weariness, toil, and long confinement, retain or improve the characters which they brought from their country homes.

You may possibly know of some who would wish it to be taken a as a proof of more than this, but it is not the general feeling. There  is not a livelier interest taken in the Offering any where than is evinced in our southern and south-western States. Indeed Boston and Lowell do very little for the Offering in comparison with New York and Baltimore, Augusta and Savannah; though these latter can only be considered as doing more in proportion to the efforts made in them; and everywhere out of New England, the interest manifested in our magazine is entirely irrespective of political feelings. They profess to look upon it as a national affair, (don't laugh!)  and are proud of their toiling countrywomen. A gentleman to whom it was sent while in France, and that when he had convinced a member of the Chamber of Deputies that it was indeed written by Lowell female operatives, his ejaculation was—“Sirs, yours will be the greatest country in the world."

It is impossible for the Offering to benefit the corporations only as it elevates the character of the operatives, and removes the unjust prejudice against them. If the Offering has produced erroneous impressions, and of late I have feared this might be the case, it has been by representing the mass of operatives in too favorable a light—that is, the light emanating from some, seemed, to distant observers, as reflected from all.—As there are yet four numbers to be issued we shall have an opportunity to retrieve this wrong.

But we challenge any one to find a misrepresentation or false assertion in the pages of the Offering, or articles written by others than those with whom they profess to originate.

As I have alluded here and elsewhere to the proposed discontinuance of the Offering, you can inform those who are rejoicing over the fact—and inform them upon the authority of your friend Osgood, who mails them for us—that it is not on account of a meagre or decreasing subscription list.

That the Lowell girls do not support it we have ever thought more a discredit to themselves than to us. Once for all, I repeat that from the bottom of my heart, I believe the wrong impressions that may in some minds be created by the Offering, are but a tittle in comparison with those which it removes.

But I have almost filled my sheet and not alluded to Miss Bagley; I beg her pardon, but will write now as much as I dare hope you will publish.

She has cleared herself, at one bound, from all difficulty, by asserting that she did not say I had refused her articles an insertion; but she intimates that someone has, and you know I should be the sufferer from such an intimation. She was understood as speaking of the Offering as it exists now, and she must have been aware of it. Indeed the paragraph has commenced the rounds of the papers, as we can both see, as something of recent or constant occurrence, and many will read that item who will never be informed of this refutation. The world INVARIABLY, so emphatically printed, would necessarily convey the “erroneous impression," that at least, each of the only two editors had refused these long suffering essays.

Miss B. says “there is no chance for controversy," as though I had thrown down the gauntlet to her.—There was a brief and positive denial of a brief and positive assertion: And I am ready for aught of controversy which is necessary to maintain it, though I had ever before considered Miss B. and myself upon one side of that great question—what are the rights and capacities of the laborer?

Not that I can do all the things that she can, for I cannot make a speech or talk politics, or speak of the factory system as she represents it, for it never seemed to me a “durance vile," or Inquisition torture, or slave driven task work. I never felt disposed to croak or whine about my factory life, and have endeavoured to impose a cheerful spirit into the little magazine I edit; yet I suppose all my efforts to be upon the same side of the great question as Miss Bagley's. I know that my aim was like hen, to raise the operative. Vapid and inane might my exertions appear, compared to theirs, but they were on the same side. The Labor Question is the great Reform taper of the day. William Ellery Channing, Lydia Maria Child, and many others, work upon the same side with Gen.. Ripley, Michael Walsh and Sarah Bagley. In each of these I find something in which I can and must sympathize, though they are widely different.

I honor the laborer in this capacity, though as a man I may love, fear, or despise him. By my time, my strength, and whatever I may possess of ability, is enlisted in his or her cause.

Miss B. speaks of things which cannot be denied by me. The hours of labor have been explicitly stated in the Offering, and frequent allusions to them may be found, and to all the abuses have known.

Miss Bagley speaks of the limited circulation of the Offering among the operatives as something ascertained from me, though not generally known, of course; apparently placing herself in the unenviable enviable position of a reporter of a confidential conversation.

Yet I can bear very well to be misunderstood and misrepresented by the operatives, when I think they are, those, whose manner of of advocating their cause must be more congenial to the promiscuous mass, who are treated little better, indeed whose veracity is impeached, whose kind sympathy is doubted, and whose most earnest endeavors in their behalf are attributed to an unwomanly love of d e notoriety. But we must all keep silence if we cannot run the risk so o of being misrepresented.

Miss B. it appears, spoke respectfully of me while endeavoring to  undo the wrong which the Offering has so innocently done. It in r seems to me that I must have been represented as a very respectable g a dunce, and herself as a lady of endowments far superior to those t of the person of ordinary abilities, whose wise steps she was excusing i and rectifying.

There are more allusions in Miss B.'s article entirely beyond my comprehension. But one is to an article reprobating the assertion that “To work in the factory is sufficient to damn to infamy the most worthy and virtuous girl." As though the Offering was not now open to any refutation of such assertions—indeed it is of itself a refutation, and Miss Bagley, and myself, with every other factory girl in Lowell, have cause to bless the originator of The Lowell Offering.

Excuse this long trespass upon your patience and columns.

Yours respectfully,

—Harriet Farley

Lowell Advertiser, July 15, 1845

1845.07.15

Sarah Bagley Answers

MR. EDITOR; I notice by the Advertiser of last week that I have been favored with a specimen of refined literature, from the pen of one of the geniuses of the age, and feel myself highly honored with a passing notice from such a high source, although it comes in the form of personal abuse. Miss Farley, in her comments on her “poor Offering," says that you do her no more than justice when you say that she would be “unwilling to become a medium or producer of false impressions, "—a justice she could not accept at her own hands; for in another paragraph she says “she is not so unconscious as you suppose her to be of the erroneous impressions made by the Offering; and of late that it might be the case that at a distance the light emanating from some, might seem to be reflected from all."

Now, to my weak judgment such a conclusion is very extravagant; for if such a glorious illumination as the Lowell Offering could emanate from fifty or an hundred female operatives, if seven thousand should lend their radiant beams the brightness would not only illuminate our own planet, but would be viewed by those surrounding ours, with wonder and admiration. Miss Farley says that she “has ever thought it more discredit to the girls that they do not support the Offering than to the publishers." Now, in my judgment the Offering has no more claim upon the operatives of this city than any other paper, nor so much as some; for there have been some papers, (one in particular, that have always called for reform in factory labor and rules.

In commencing her comments upon me she begs pardon for neglecting me so long. Now, I always feel obliged to pardon one where there is such strong manifestations of penitence as are evinced in the remainder of her communication. She prefers a very serious charge against me for the typographical arrangement of a word that was written by a special reporter for the Advertiser, an article I never read before nor since it was published, with the exception of an extract in another paper. If Miss Farley expects by the generous course she has pursued to drive me to an acknowledgement of making a misstatement, she mistakes me altogether; for I have not made one statement that I cannot abundantly prove, to the satisfaction of my candid mind. I have not the least objection to  controversy with Miss Farley on the Offering, although she has literary talents to which I lay no claim; but I have facts, and that is better.

She speaks of the labor question as the “reform topic of the day," and in her classification assigns me a place I could not hope to have attained, with all my “unwomanly love of notoriety."

Miss Farley has been a defender of the rights of operatives, it would seem, for she has not only defended them, but exposed “all the abuses she has known" to exist. It is somewhat strange that the operatives have not better appreciated her labors in that department.

She has complained of “all the abuses she has known."—Three sisters came from New Hampshire to work in the mill. They were placed by the mother in the care of her sister, who, by the way, lives across the street from the Corporation. A short time after an investigation was made by the agent, to find those who did not board in the Company's buildings. The sisters' boarding place was discovered to be off the Corporation, and they were notified to go to one of the Corporation boarding-houses or leave their employ forthwith. The eldest sister went to the agent—told him the circumstance—and was told that it was a universal rule from which he would not depart. She told him she would like to leave his employ, for which she received the consolatory assurance that he would report her at every Corporation in the city, and prevent her from getting work if she left his employ!

Has the Offering ever rebuked such exercise of power? Has its columns ever contended against oppression or abuse in any form? If so, I would like to read the number containing such an article; not because I want such facts to exist, but because they do exist and should not go unrebuked. The Offering, edited by an operative, (or, one that has been, and still retains the name,) should be the appropriate communication to the community of any abuses that exist.

Miss Farley says those that she knows are exposed. What says the pages of the Offering? Those that read can understand.

So far as she has made herself agreeable by personalities, I have nothing to say, only that I am accountable to public opinion for my saying and doings, and in that case Miss Farley can only be an offended witness.

In conclusion Miss Farley calls on me, with every other sister operative, “to bless the originator of the Offering." Now, as Miss Farley says of me, so I say of her, I cannot do all that she can. She can be thankful for “erroneous impressions" and their circulation; but owing to some constitutional inability I never could thank God nor Miss Farley for falsehood, nor “erroneous impressions," in any form whatever.

I am, yours, in behalf of justice.

Lowell, July 23, 1845

Lowell Advertiser, July 26, 1845

—Sarah G. Bagley

1845.07.26

The March of Lowell Reform

For the Voice of Industry

Mr. Editor: As I have been invited to furnish something for the readers of your pleasant and useful “Voice,” I thought it might interest them to learn that Lowell is onward.

True there is not the general interest manifested that we should be glad to witness; but our cause is progressing, and a commendable degree of zeal among the friends of true liberty exists. The discussion going on about the Lowell Offering, has been useful, as an impetus to action, and the pretended friends of reform have had an opportunity to define their true position. The readers of the Offering have generally been able to decide where to find the Offering and its influence, but its publisher has settled the question if any doubt has existed.

It requires some moral courage to speak and set independently in Lowell, as those who have made the experiment, know full well. Those who possess a firm adherence to the good and true, whether approved or censured will not be turned aside by contumely or abuse in any form. Such are some of the friends of reform in Lowell.

There are many, very many here, who are prepared to allow others to think and act for them; and themselves be only the machines to give expression to the will and opinions of others.

If there is a state of servitude more servile than slavery itself, it is that to which I have alluded. A man who in addition to being a servant physically will be one mentally; has descended a little lower than any man could possibly descend who has a decent amount of self-respect.

We feel very much the need of a periodical here devoted to our cause. We are determined to speak here more clearly with your “Voice” in the future, and see if we cannot awaken a more general interest.

You will hear from us and be apprised of things in general and some things in particular every week. I will give you a brief sketch of our Union Meeting last week.

We appointed a committee of investigation of the purpose of tracing some of the false stories published in some of the papers of this city, and exposing them to the public. I trust if they had been appointed three months past, they would have had an abundance of material furnished them. You will hear from our committee in the future.

We wish you much success in your efforts to be useful, and remain

Yours in the cause of humanity,

—Oliva

Lowell, August 1st, 1845.

1845.08.14

Improvement Circle Report

Report of an Adjourned Meeting of the Improvement

Circle Held in Lowell, Mass., Sept. 16th, 1845

MR. EDITOR: —Having received from Miss Farley, editress of the Lowell Offering, and mistress of ceremonies at the above named, and in our humble estimation, misnamed Improvement Circle, an invitation to be present on this important occasion, and understanding also, that the discussion recently laid before the public, relative to the Offering; its origin, commencement past and present character, was to form part of the evening's entertainment; and that Miss Bagley her opponent therein, was to be present with such of her friends as she chose to accompany her, we felt no small curiosity to know “what manner of things these were," or in other words, what would be the result of a private comparison of these principles which had been so thoroughly proved in public, viz: Truth and Falsehood, and accordingly, an early hour found us at the appointed place, prepared to become an attentive listener to the exercises of the evening.

The first in order, was an article from Col. Schouler, editor of the Courier, showing the manner in which the Offering passed from his hands to those of Miss F., which for low scurrilous abuse and party prejudices we have seldom seen equalled.—This Miss F. requested a gentleman present to read, which he did, stating however, at the close, that he did not wish to be considered as endorsing all the sentiments therein contained, far from it, on the contrary, he deemed many of them unjust and reprehensible in the extreme. Then followed the remarks of the same editor (on an extract from the Advertiser, concerning Miss B.'s statement at Woburn, respecting the Offering, viz: “that it was not, and never had been a medium, through which the Operatives could complain of unreasonable hours, or abusive treatment from the Corporation's, that she herself had written articles of this kind, and that they had been invariably rejected,") out of which the discussion grew, stating that Miss F. requested a contradiction of the above statement, which she positively denied stating to the meeting, that she did not request such contradiction, but merely authorized him to make such if he pleased.

Here then is falsehood somewhere, where shall it rest? with Miss F., or Col. Schouler; they must settle this matter to their own satisfaction, it is immaterial to us, but one query we should really like to have answered, which is; if Miss F. had never received any such articles, why did she apply to J. G. Whittier, Esq., for advice respecting them, for that she most certainly did, as we have it on the authority of one of her most intimate friends, who moreover told us that he advised her to refuse all such, and on no account whatever, to meddle with such matters at all, but keep her publication, what it always had been, purely literary and I also, added the friend in question, gave my advice to the same amount, and Miss F. resolved to act in unison with the same, yet after all this, Miss. F. has the effrontery to come before the public, and makes it appear, that she never received any such articles; but to return to our subject. Miss F. also stated, that no article of Miss B.'s had been rejected since she published the work in question, and moreover, that she had received information from very respectable sources, that Mr. Thomas, while editor of that work, had never rejected one single article of hers on such grounds, but on the contrary, quite a number, because very badly written, &c.

Now had not the gag law been so rigidly enforced, Miss B. might have presented to the meeting at least one article rejected by Mr. Thomas on the ground, that it would render the Offering controversial, and change its original design, which was to show that there is mind among the spindles, and also a note written about the same time (which by the way, we have at this moment before us) requesting a continuance of her other articles for the Offering. But no, that would never do, they would have seen why one article was rejected and the other accepted, accordingly when at the close of the article, Miss B. would have offered some explanation of the matter, and defended herself against the charge of falsehood so pitifully made, but the honorable, refined, lady-like Miss F. turning toward her peremptorily commanded her to be silent, and speak not one word in her defence. Was not this the very quintessence of justice, and generosity, if it was not, we know not what is. But jesting aside, was not this mean, contemptible course, all sufficient proof of the falsehood of her assertion, did it not savor strongly of the declaration, “We love darkness rather than light, because our deeds are evil."

Next followed the principal article of the discussion in regular succession, commencing with one from Miss Bagley, proving the statements made at Woburn, to be true, with the various comments on the original character and design of the Offering, and finally asking the question: “What kind of an organ of defence would the operative find, with Mr. Schouler for proprietor and publisher, saying that were any one to look for an article in the publisher's columns," they would find something like the following. “Lowell is the garden of Eden, (except the serpent,) the gates thereof may be of fine gold, the tree of knowledge of good is there, but the evil is avoided through the judicious management of the superintendents. Females may work nineteen years without fear of injuring their health or impairing their intellects or moral powers. They may accumulate large fortunes, marry and educate children, build houses and buy farms, and all the while be operatives."

This, Miss F. stated she had used her best endeavors to discover the meaning of, but as yet, had been unable to do so. Now taking into consideration the fact that it is almost an extract verbatim from an editorial which appeared in the gentleman's columns not many months ago, and has since been the rounds of nearly every paper in the union; we can only account for the lady's ignorance of its meaning, by allowing her an unusual share of stupidity in such matters. Much more might be said on this article, but we pass to Miss F.'s rejoinder, if such it may be called, as more than half of the same is addressed to the editor of the Advertiser, instead of her opponent.

She commenced by stating her “disapprobation of any thing tend-ing to bring the Offering into a political discussion," for which she has, doubtless abundant reason, knowing as she does, that its political character is such, as utterly to sink it in the estimation of every honorable mind, if once fairly displayed before them; she then goes on to thank him for his assertion, that he believed her unwilling to become the medium, and producer of false impressions stating that he did her no more than justice, and quoting his remarks, that he believed her unconscious, that it was used by the Corporations to produce those impressions. She declares herself not so unconscious of the impressions it produces, as he supposed her to be; thereby verbally admitting that she does know it is used by the Corporations for that purpose, and is willing to become their agent in the matter. She then goes on to state that the Corporations have not that lively interest in it, which they have been represented to do, as proof of the falsity of this assertion, we need only give her own evidence, which she presented to the meeting as follows: “Many of the agents subscribe for two, five and even ten copies, and did all they could for it," liberal efforts truly for those altogether uninterested.

The next thing worthy of notice, is the declaration “that the Lowell girls do not support it, we have ever thought more discredit to them than to us." Here she added by way of comment for the especial edification of the company present, that had she lowered or degraded the character of the Offering so as to have made it the medium of low scurrilous abuse, and complaint against the corporations, she would undoubtedly have received as much greater support from the operatives, than she had done, though not so much from the class to which it now owed its existence, and we ask, are the class which it is principally indebted for support; who but the wealthy aristocratic slaveholder of the South, the no less guilty capitalists of New York and Boston, and the miserable drivelling agents of fraud and oppression in Lowell. It is from these and such as these it has ever found a welcome, and not from those who know full well, that it is but a specious link in the chain of oppression weaving around them. After putting a few worthless remarks, she continues “I never felt disposed to croak or whine about my factory life," in connection with this, she read to the meeting a short extract from some paper, which gave so good an idea of her position, that we insert it, here it is as follows:

“Miss Farley's remarks that she never felt disposed to croak or whine about her factory life, reminds us of the answer of a petted and pampered negro slave, who perchance had lived in luxury and ease, being his master's favorite, when interrogated about becoming free, ‘they say slavery is an evil, but me no feel it.' " She remarked that she had never been a pet or a favorite in any sense of the term —had never asked or received any favors whatever; she was capable of doing without them. How happens it then, that the Company employed another person to take charge of her looms one half of the time, while she remained absent arranging matter for the same Offering; was it as a favor to her, if not, then it must have been, as many already said, because they saw in that work a medium, through which to defend and strengthen their darling system of slavery and oppression.

Miss F. next goes on to state, that she “has exposed all the abuses she has known," which according to her own admission, are just none at all, for she says (perchance by way of explanation,) that she wished to be distinctly understood, that in her estimation, there were no abuses connected with the factory system, that there might be evils, she would not deny, but none that could be avoided. She quotes Miss B.'s remark, that she spoke respectfully of her, remarking that she ought not to have done so, (and we are of her opinion) but the last paragraph in this precious article is something of a curiosity, it reads thus: “There are more allusions in Miss B.'s article, entirely beyond my comprehension. But one is an article respecting the assertion, that ‘to work in a factory is sufficient to doom to infamy the most worthy and virtuous girl.' As though the Offering was not now open to any refutation of such assertions—indeed, it is of itself a refutation, and Miss Bagley and myself with every other factory girl in Lowell, have cause to bless the originator of the Lowell Offering."

So Miss B.'s allusion to said article, is entirely beyond her comprehension is it; well, we sincerely pity the poor soul's want of understanding, and will endeavor to enlighten her concerning it; and first, let us prove the allusion itself. “If any one will take the trouble to look at No. 2, specimen copy that was published previous to the commencement of Vol. 1, they will find that controversy has not always been studiously avoided, and that the defence made against O. A. Bronson [sic], and not Corporation rules which would change the propriety of controversy very materially."

Now does not every one comprehend at a glance, that this allusion was made, to show that when the character of the operative was attacked from abroad, it might be defended through the Offering, it was considered a fit subject for its columns, controversial though it might be; but when their rights were trampled upon, themselves insulted and abused by their employers, then it was a different affair altogether, then the Offering was no longer controversial; and as to our blessing the originator of the Offering, it is the opinion of a majority of the operatives, that we have much more reason to bless the day of its death, which is now close at hand. We would gladly comment upon the remaining articles, but must pass them by, lest we transcend the limits of this communication, but one circumstance we cannot forbear mentioning. Miss Farley stated at the close of the meeting, that the editor of the Advertiser, utterly refused to publish a reply to Miss B.'s last article, whereas we have it on good authority, that by the advice of her friends, Miss Farley herself requested said editor to stop the discussion. Now to quote the words of another, we will not say that she has told a lie, but this much, we will say, she has “walked all round the truth, and that at a very respectful distance too;" but the length of this article admonishes us that it is high time we draw to a close, and asking your pardon for this long trespass on your columns, we are,

Yours Respectfully,

—Amelia Sargent

—Since writing the above, we have received positive information, that one agent in this city, is at this very moment a subscriber for 25 copies of the Offering, another for 20, some for 10, 12 Sec., while the whole number of female operatives, who support it, are but 52, 12 of whom only reside in the city.

1845.09.25

‘

The Voice of Industry is in the public domain.

 

Design by Gil Martinez for BigGuyStudio.ca