In the House of Commons, Lord Stanley, the Postmaster General, said: "As to the Committee's Report, it did not comply with the reference, because no comparison was made with the rates of pay in other occupations ... but they conclude that as there was discontent there ought to be an increase of wages. That was a direct premium on discontent, a direct encouragement to the employees to say among themselves that if they were to be discontented and to agitate, they would get more in the future. The Committee, on the other hand, went outside the reference, because they proposed a complete reorganization of the Post Office, including overseers, who were not referred to in the reference. On this particular subject they took no evidence.... Since the employees of the Post Office had said in a circular: 'We wish to make it perfectly clear that we do not regard the Committee as in any sense an arbitration board,' that was rather against the argument that the Report ought to be accepted as an arbitration award. He did not complain of the ordinary circulars of the employees [sent to Members of Parliament], but he did object to one circular [sent to every Member of the House of Commons], at the bottom of which was a paragraph, which could be torn off, for Members to sign [and mail to the Postmaster General], informing him [the Postmaster General] that he ought to do this or that.[220] That [circular] he [Lord Stanley] would not receive.... Coming to the main question, he thought it was obvious that it was impossible for either side when in power to go on for long being swayed in all these questions of increases of wages by any pressure, political or otherwise, that might be put upon them. [Cheers.] The Post Office was not the only party concerned. There was not a class employed by the Government, who, if it saw another class getting an increase of wages by agitation, would not try the same method. He supported cordially the suggestion which had been made in the debate that all questions of pay of employees of the Government should not be referred to the House, but referred to some judicial body on whom no outside influence could be brought to bear, who would look at the matter in dispute as between employer and employee with the object of giving to the employee the wages which in the open market a good employer would give, while at the same time protecting the master--in this case the State--from any outside influence."[221] In conclusion, Lord Stanley made the statement that the adoption of the Committee's Report would cost "well over $5,000,000 a year."