In 1884, the prevailing public discontent in connection with the Government's treatment of the situation manifested itself in the press and in the House of Commons. The Post Office was accused of practising a policy of strangulation toward the companies, and the Postmaster-General, Mr. Fawcett, acknowledged that there was some truth in the charge. He advised the Treasury that the companies' areas of operation should be unlimited, and that their operations should be confined to the transmission of oral communications. The restricted licences were withdrawn and new, unrestricted licences granted, terminable in 1911 with the same qualifications with reference to royalties and government purchase that were inserted in the old licences. Nominally the result produced free competition, but actually competition was impossible until the expiration of the fundamental patents in 1892. The year before their expiration, the companies succeeded in getting control of the situation by an amalgamation of the United Telephone Company with its licencees under the name of the National Telephone Company. Mr. Dickinson, Deputy Chairman of the London County Council, stated that the nominal capital of the United Telephone Company, £900,000 (with an actual capital expenditure in 1887 within the Metropolitan District of £228,180) was taken over by the National Telephone Company at a cost of £1,484,375, and the Duke of Marlborough said in the House of Lords that of the £3,250,000 capital of the new company over £2,000,000 was "water." Mr. Raikes, the Postmaster-General, who was in favour of competition, wrote to the United Company, disapproving of the whole transaction. With the expiration of the patent rights, the New Telephone Company was resuscitated, with the Duke of Marlborough as chairman, an agreement having been concluded with the Telephone Subscribers' Protective Association for a twelve guineas' service in London, but it in turn was absorbed by the National Company, much to the disgust of the members of the Association. So far as way-leave rights were concerned the position of the companies remained in a very unsatisfactory condition. A committee of the House of Commons advised that certain way-leave rights should be granted, but nothing was accomplished, although a bill was introduced in the House of Commons in 1885 to enable the companies to erect posts without the consent of the road authorities.[828] [828] _Rep. Com._, 1884-85, xii, p. 63; 1892, xvii, 278, sess. 1, pp. 3-5; 1895, xiii, 350, pp. 1-6, 92, 188-93; 1898, xii, 383, p. 12; _Parl. Deb._, 3d ser., cclxxxviii, coll. 1052 f.; cccxxxvi, col. 1809; cccxxxvii, col. 1435; cccxlvi, col. 908.