The provincial male telegraphists had in the meanwhile issued a precisely similar circular to Parliamentary candidates, and Sir James Fergusson marked his disapproval of such action by specially calling attention to it in the House on June 14. The circular emanating from the telegraphists he quoted at some length, and, referring to the fact that the sorting branch of the service had adopted the same proceedings on the eve of a General Election, he strongly condemned their action as improper. He appealed to the members of the House to decline to give any such pledge as was solicited, and stated that he had the member for Midlothian (Mr. Gladstone) and the member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) in full agreement with his observations. Mr. Geo. Howell strongly criticised the attitude taken up by the Postmaster-General, and stoutly contended for the right of postal servants to combine, and further to carry out all the legitimate functions and obligations of combination. He was supported by Mr. Lawson and Mr. Story. It was hoped by the rank and file of postal servants that the Postmaster-General, Sir James Fergusson, would sustain a defeat at the poll; but North-East Manchester sent him back to the House of Commons, and for a time to his place at St. Martin’s-le-Grand, by a narrow majority of 110. Sir James Fergusson temporarily resumed his position as head of Post-Office affairs on July 18, immediately after the result of the election was known, and he as immediately made his presence felt. The very same day he reassumed office he called on the chairman and secretary of the Fawcett Association to explain their action in regard to signing and sending out the circular to Parliamentary candidates. In explaining their conduct, they took up the very natural position that they were simply carrying out the instructions of a general meeting, and had acted in a representative capacity; that they had been careful not to transgress the official warning as expressed by the Postmaster-General; and that they had been careful not to solicit pledges relative to their duties and pay. They thought that in the absence of any official order, and in view of the fact that they had been allowed to carry out the behest of their constituents, they were justified in thinking they had not contravened any official rule, since no intimation of such had been conveyed to them. On July 22 the Postmaster-General gave his decision on their case, which was that for their “insubordination” they be dismissed the service. This was a direct blow at the very root of representative principle, and the strongest rebuff that the spirit of trades unionism had yet sustained; besides, it had in one moment reduced the franchise for postal servants to the flimsiest mockery. The blow was regarded as so unnecessary and so unjust that there was an immediate outcry against it both from within the walls of the Post-Office and from without. To