In the mean time there was evidence of considerable opposition to the practical monopoly of the company within the exchange areas. A motion introduced in the House of Commons by Doctor Cameron, member of Parliament for Glasgow, in favour of government purchase of the telephones, received considerable support, but was rejected by the Government on the ground that the resulting increase in the number of civil servants, not paid at market wages and constantly trying to bring pressure to bear on members, was too serious an evil to receive the sanction of the Government.[831] The claim was also made by some of the towns and by Glasgow in particular that the municipalities should be allowed to install their own telephone systems in opposition to those of the company. A select committee was appointed to consider this demand on the question of "whether the provision made for telephone service in local areas is adequate, and whether it is advisable to grant licences to local authorities or otherwise," but, owing to the dissolution of Parliament, the committee did not present a report. Considerable evidence was heard, however, and the committee recommended that another committee should be appointed during the next session to consider and report upon the evidence already taken and, if necessary, take more evidence. The witnesses examined were as a rule of the opinion that the telephones should be taken over by the state; but there was a difference of opinion as to whether municipal licences should be granted. Dissatisfaction with existing conditions seemed to be widespread. The Glasgow Corporation expressed disgust with the service of the company on account of the difficulty of getting into communication with subscribers, frequent interruptions and noises, and the chance of being overheard by a third party, the first complaint being due in their opinion to inadequate exchange accommodations, the second and third to the one-wire system. The corporation was accused on the other hand of attempting to dislocate the company's system by refusing them permission to lay underground wires, while the overhead wires were unfavourably affected by the electric tramway currents. The Deputy Town Clerk of Liverpool was in favour of government telephones, but opposed municipal licences on the ground that they would increase the expense of telephoning between a municipal exchange and one belonging to the company. The London County Council advised that severe restrictions should be laid upon the company by imposing maximum rates, etc., or that the state should take over the company's system or that the municipality should do so. Questions were sent to subscribers in London by the County Council, by the company, and by the Commissioner of Sewers, asking for their opinion on the service rendered by the company there. As may be imagined, the replies sent to the County Council and the Commissioner were on the whole unfavourable to the company, while those sent to the