homes, and the severance of family ties and friendly relationships, the telegraphists concerned felt they were the victims of injustice. They were informed that the transference would be made within eight hours; and in this short time were compelled to make what arrangement they could for the future, not even knowing to what distant part of the kingdom they would be severally deported. They, against whom nothing more than a suspicion rested of having communicated an innocent item of news, were actually transferred, with little time for leave-taking, next day. They were sent away to various offices. On the night that the first two were ordered away the staff held an impromptu meeting, and the places of the eight men who formed the secretaries and committee of the local branch of the association were filled up. But these officers were also, as soon as it was known, promptly given orders to hold themselves in readiness for transference. It has to be noted here, that Sunday pay was at the time an important item in the general programme, and these men at Cardiff had prepared to urge it strongly; for it was not till some months later that, through the instrumentality of Mr. Bradlaugh in the House of Commons, the question was settled in their favour. The despotic treatment meted out to the Cardiff men induced Sir E. J. Reed, M.P., to take up their case in real earnest. For the supposed dereliction of duty they were to be penalised by the loss of a £25 increment, besides being packed off to unknown regions within a few hours. Besides Sir E. J. Reed, other influential public men took the matter up, and the case of the Cardiff “exiles” commanded some attention in the House. But the Postmaster-General was not to be moved by any argument, and contended that it was not intended as punishment, and was ultimately for the men’s own good. Yet while it had been stated that the men were transferred for no other reason than that of communicating this piece of information to the local paper, the First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to Mr. Hanbury in June 1888, distinctly stated that such communications could not be considered as an offence against departmental regulations. So that if Mr. Raikes’s treatment was not arbitrary, it was inconsistent. It was doubly inconsistent, seeing that a higher postal official, and not a telegraphist in the first instance, had been accused and made to leave the service for this so-called offence.