The new Postmaster-General’s reply was unequivocal refusal to all the points raised. That, however, was not exactly the first move in the game of postal chess which Sir James Fergusson, as Mr. Raikes’s successor, had sat down to play. Meanwhile the sorters already had come to realise that whatever the benefits vouchsafed to them by the provisions of the Raikes scheme, they still suffered disabilities sufficient to entitle them to make a further effort to gain their removal. Sir James Fergusson had come to them with the reputation of a stern disciplinarian, but that did not accuse him of want of justice. As the result of much deliberation and a general meeting, a memorial was drawn up and presented February 18, 1892. The memorial, in pleading for an interview, stated that the object was to urge (1) that the London sorting force may be placed in, at the least, an equal position as regards scales of pay, &c., with the telegraphists at the Central Station; (2) that they be designated “sorting clerks” instead of “sorters”; (3) that they may be eligible for promotion to higher positions, including clerkships; and (4) that the number of higher appointments be regulated strictly according to the number of duties corresponding. Sir James Fergusson’s reply was in the negative on every single count, nor would he grant an interview on any pretence. He issued an official circular, March 25, 1892, to the staff reminding them of the benefits already procured to them by Mr. Fawcett and Mr. Raikes, and expressing a regret—clearly intended as a rebuff—that they should reiterate their claims, which were so fully answered by his predecessor. To the refusal of the Postmaster-General the Fawcett Association drew up a reply, respectfully expressing dissent from the view taken of their case, reiterating their claims, and urging that, while they were not unmindful of the material advantages lately gained by many of those they represented, they were none the less convinced that many of those concessions, with the additions they now asked for, should have been conceded years earlier. They trusted that their renewed request for investigation would not be thought unreasonable, or other than in the interest of the public service. This was signed and forwarded, May 6, by the committee of the Fawcett Association on behalf of the London sorting force. This met with scant courtesy, and a few days afterwards it was intimated to them that Sir James Fergusson directed that they be informed that his previous reply was to be taken as final, that the reiteration of requests which after full consideration had been refused, and the objectionable tone adopted, presumably because of that, was an abuse of the privilege of presenting memorials to the head of the department.