TO THE 
 
 RIGHT HONORABLE SIR ROBERT PEEL, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 I take the liberty of addressing you as one of the Repre¬ 
 sentatives of the People in Parliament, on a subject so 
 interesting to that People, that it requires a much more 
 able pen than mine to bring it properly under your con¬ 
 sideration. 
 
 I allude to the decisions of the Board of Trade on the 
 choice of proposed Railways. 
 
 It is rumoured that Her Majesty’s Ministers intend to 
 support those decisions, without giving the parties in¬ 
 terested any opportunity of being heard in Parliament. 
 
 With the greatest humility, but without any mistrust 
 
of my own judgment in the matter, I call upon you to 
 pause, before you permit the House of Commons, of 
 which you are the distinguished leader, to ratify that 
 intention. 
 
 But let us, as men of business, first state a case:— 
 here then are two existing- Companies, each of whom has 
 expended, under the sanction of Parliament, perhaps 
 millions, in prosecuting their respective lines of railway. 
 One of these Companies proposes to make a new branch 
 line, which is calculated to utterly destroy the traffic on 
 the other; that other, in self-defence, proposes a similar 
 branch line to that of its adversary. Both plans are 
 submitted in writing (perhaps hastily drawn up) to the 
 Board of Trade, who, without that public inquiry common 
 to all Courts of Justice, decide; their decision bringing 
 ruin to the one and enrichment to the other. Now, as¬ 
 suming that the jurisdiction is perfectly competent and 
 entirely disinterested, I beg to ask whether decisions thus 
 come to will be satisfactory to the public? If these two 
 same companies were to dispute about a collision of 
 
engines, or the possession of a ragged piece of way-side 
 land, what would be their course of proceeding? Why, 
 they would apply either in writing to the Chancellor, or, 
 viva voce, to the Common Law Courts at Westminster : 
 but neither of those Courts would decide the matter, with¬ 
 out giving to both parties an opportunity of being fully 
 heard by themselves or their counsel, in the presence of 
 each other. The Court of Chancery,—always presided 
 over by learned, clever, and impartial men,—not even 
 venturing to decide on matters of fact, without the inter¬ 
 vention of a jury, before whom each party may explain 
 the merits of his own case, and expose the errors of that 
 of his adversary. 
 
 I think I have already said enough to induce you to 
 reflect on the matter; but I would remind you, that 
 even the decisions of those eminent Courts, and the 
 verdicts of these juries, are liable to revision ; and 
 those high Courts do not consider their characters 
 impeached, or their decisions degraded, when Courts of 
 Appeal reverse their judgments. 
 
4 
 
 But, let us put another, and by no means impossible 
 
 Suppose only one of a Board of Trade interested ,— 
 to be possessed, though perhaps not in his own name, 
 of shares in one of the contesting Companies,—would 
 you then permit the edict of this secret tribunal to be 
 registered, as a matter of course, by the High Court 
 of Parliament—hitherto considered the grand safe-guard 
 of the people? I am convinced you would indignantly 
 say—No. But I will venture to request your attention a 
 little further in this direction:—Let it be supposed 
 that a near relation of one of the Board of Trade might 
 have speculated deeply in shares, would not a decision 
 given under such circumstances be so liable to suspicion, 
 as to be rendered utterly worthless in the just estima¬ 
 tion of the public ? If you, and from your high position 
 you may do so without offence, will ask the Judges 
 of the land whether either of them would try a cause 
 in which his brother (I mean brother by consanguinity, 
 not by the black patch) was a party, I think I can 
 
anticipate the smiling answer you would receive—and 1 
 need not tell you, who, with so much pains, introduced 
 the all-important Jury Act—that the officer, whose duty 
 it is to summon a jury, is expressly forbidden by the 
 law, to summon any person who shall be of kin to either 
 of the parties in the suit. I pray you to consider this— 
 I am not asserting, or even insinuating, that the fact 
 is so with the present Board of Trade; it is sufficient 
 for my argument that it may be so. 
 
 The difficulty of obtaining justice at the hands of 
 any but public tribunals is strongly illustrated in the 
 case of the Baron de Bode, now before the Court of 
 Queen’s Bench; which Court is, fortunately for the 
 best interests of the country, presided over by one 
 of the most constitutional, honourable, firm, and in¬ 
 dependent Judges, which that or any other court 
 ever witnessed. The Baron, it seems, very many 
 years ago considered that he was entitled, to a sum 
 amounting to nearly half a million sterling, which he 
 contends had been paid into the hands of the then 
 
Sovereign of England. After numerous applications 
 to different tribunals, all of which proved unavailing, 
 the Baron laid his case before the present Sovereign, 
 She, with that constitutional grace which lias hitherto 
 attended all Her public steps; — not first secretly 
 enquiring whether the money had been received, or, 
 if received, what had become of it; but, more anxious 
 for justice for Her subjects, than for the personal 
 fame of Her predecessors,—without troubling Herself 
 to ascertain whether the money (if received) had 
 been expended in golden side-boards, or silver cellarets, 
 the Queen of England said, “ Let right be done! ” 
 But did She say, let it be done in secret? Did She 
 say, let it be done by persons dependent on Her, 
 or on Her ministers? Did She say, let it be done by 
 the relatives of Her august family? (Although, from 
 their high station, they might, perhaps, be trusted, 
 where other persons might not.) No, She said, let 
 right be done according to the Law of England. 
 Now, mark the consequences—the Baron was heard in 
 the Court of Queen's Bench,—presided over, on account 
 
? 
 
 of the magnitude of the stake and the nature of the 
 enquiry, by four Judges, the Crown was also heard 
 by its representatives in the presence of those Judges, 
 against the claim, and a jury of the country gave their 
 verdict in favour of the Baron. I call these facts to 
 your attention to illustrate my position, that justice 
 is never so satisfactorily administered, as when parties 
 have an opportunity of being heard by themselves or 
 counsel, in the presence of each other, and before 
 public tribunals. 
 
 I make no apology for addressing you on this im¬ 
 portant subject, because, although I have not the 
 honour of being one of your Constituents, I have the 
 satisfaction of considering myself represented by you in 
 Parliament. 
 
 I have spent much of my life in Courts of Justice, 
 and have seen a great deal of mankind in various 
 circumstances, and I make bold to say, that any attempt 
 to withdraw from the public tribunals questions in which 
 
private interests are at stake, although under such a 
 cautious management as your own it may appear to 
 be, or perhaps even for a time may be, successful, it 
 will ultimately fail,—signally fail,—but the mischief 
 which must of necessity be done in the meanwhile may 
 not be easily remedied. 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 Sir, 
 
 With great respect, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, ’