Commissioners were appointed from about this year to secure the services of railways on the most equitable terms, and to arbitrate for that purpose between the Post-Office and the railway companies. The Committee, on the conveyance of mails by railways, suggested this course. On the debate which followed the report of the Committee to which we have before alluded, Sir Robert Peel frankly acknowledged "the enormous error" into which he, and the House generally "had fallen when the railroad bills were under discussion. They ought to have foreseen," said he, "when these bills were before them, that they were in fact establishing a monopoly, a monopoly in respect to which there could be no future condition. They ought to have foreseen that, if the railroads were successful, other modes of internal communication would almost necessarily fall into disuse, and they ought, therefore, to have stipulated--_as it would have been perfectly just and easy for them to have done_--that certain public services should be performed at a reasonable rate." However, as this had not been done, Parliament could only fall back upon its inherent right to say on what terms such services should be provided from time to time; for which purpose they could not do better than employ arbitration, as it was the same course pursued when the companies disputed with the owners of property the value of land compulsorily taken for railway works. Sir James Graham[130] moved a declaratory clause on the occasion, that arbitrators should take into consideration the cost of the construction of the particular lines in awarding the sums for different services. Mr. Labouchere, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, speaking for the Government, wished the arbitrators to be wholly free, but he gave a pledge on behalf of the Post-Office that no attempt would be made to exclude the cost of construction from the consideration of the arbitrators. With this assurance, the Opposition expressed themselves satisfied.