text:  When we find so high an authority as Mr Baron Parke--as far as politics are concerned a strong Conservative--declaring that he cannot possibly bring himself to concur in opinion with his brethren; that another judge--Mr Justice Coltman--after anxious deliberation also dissents from his brethren; and when we give each of these judges credit for being able to appreciate the immense importance of _unanimity_ upon such a case as the present had it been practicable--can it seem really unreasonable or surprising that a corresponding difference of opinion should exist among the peers whose judicial duty it was to decide finally between the judges? It _is_ certainly a matter calculated to attract a _moment's_ attention that the judgment should have been reversed by the votes of three peers who concur in political opinion and opposition to the government who instituted the prosecution