The men demanded that these restrictions should be withdrawn. In the second place, the Postmaster-General refused to receive deputations from those employees not directly interested in the question at stake, refused to recognize officials who were not also employees of the Department, and exercised more or less control over the meetings of employees. Finally, in addition to the general demand for higher wages due to the higher cost of living, the telegraphists contended that they had been deceived by the promise of a maximum salary of £190 a year, whereas they actually received only £160. Mr. A. Chamberlain opposed the appointment of a select committee of members of the House of Commons because of the pressure likely to be brought upon them and because of their unfitness to decide upon the question at issue. He agreed, however, after consultation with various members of Parliament and the men themselves, that a committee of enquiry might reasonably be granted, composed of business men not in the Civil Service and not members of the House of Commons.[317] [316] _Rep. P. G._, 1897, pp. 27 f. [317] _Parl. Deb._, 4th ser., viii, col. 673; xxix, col. 117; lxxxii, coll. 199 f.; xciv, coll. 1357 f.; cvi, coll. 660-683, 715, 747; cxxi, coll. 1021-64; cxlviii, coll. 1367-69, 1382. In accordance with this promise the so-called "Bradford Committee" was appointed to report on "the scales of pay received by the undermentioned classes of established civil servants and whether, having regard to the conditions of their employment and to the rates current in other occupations, ... the remuneration is adequate." In the meantime Mr. Chamberlain retired, but his successor, Lord Stanley, asked that the enquiry be continued. The members of this committee, interpreting their instructions very loosely, extended their report to include their own recommendations as to changes in pay, and refrained entirely from making any comparison between the wages of postal servants and those in other employments, on the ground that such information was easily accessible from the statistics published by the Board of Trade. They added that it was difficult to make any comparison between a national and a private service, for payment according to results and dismissal at the will of the employer are inapplicable under the state. There was also a pension fund in the service, the present value of which it is difficult to estimate. In their own words, "It appears to us that the adequacy of the terms now obtaining may be tested by the numbers and character of those who offer, by the capacity they show on trial, and finally by their contentment." They agreed that there was no lack of suitable candidates and no complaints as to capacity, but there was widespread discontent. Finally the committee recommended the grading of the service as a whole, taking into consideration the differences in cost of living as between London and other cities and between these cities and smaller towns and