Mr. Thomas Bayley replied that "he was not willing to give up the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, whose duty it was to remedy the grievances of the public service.... And although he had been assured by those whom he represented [_i. e._, post office servants] that the Post Office officials would loyally abide by the decision of a Committee of the House of Commons, the Right Honorable Gentleman [the Postmaster General] could not expect the same loyalty with regard to the decision of the Committee he proposed to appoint." Sir Albert Rollit said: "The Tweedmouth Committee was a one-sided tribunal; the officials were represented on it, but the men not at all...." Captain Norton replied: "The Right Honorable Gentleman had also referred to the question of Members on both sides of the House coming to him for protection. That was very startling, because the reason they were there at all was that they might represent every section of their constituents,[206] ... but presuming the Post Office servants were organized, he submitted they were within their rights to appeal to their Members.... If the postal officials were such terrible tyrants he hoped they would take note that they could never hope for fair play from the present Government. The Right Honorable Gentleman had appointed a packed jury of five individuals to deal with a fraction of the question.... In other words, he was going to take shelter behind this bogus committee.... He was going to appoint five Members, possibly sweaters, to determine the rate of wages.... It would be astounding if the postal officials accepted any such bogus arbitration. If it was to be a Board of Arbitration, why should not they have five postal servants added to the five employers of labor?" Captain Norton is a Junior Lord of the Treasury in the present Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman Ministry. * * * * * On May 17, 1903, the National Joint Committee of the Postal Association unanimously resolved: "That this National Joint Committee views with extreme dissatisfaction the appointment of a Court of Inquiry which is not composed of members of Parliament, but is an altogether irresponsible body, and protests against the scope of the inquiry being limited to a single grievance and to a minority of the Staff. It pledges itself to continue to use every legitimate endeavor to obtain an impartial Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry into the causes of discontent in the postal and telegraph service."[207]