text:  Suppose Lord Abinger had been alive and had concurred with the Chancellor and Lord Brougham would not another class of ardent partisans as naturally have remarked bitterly upon the coincidence of opinion between the peers whose three voices concurred in supporting the judgment of the court below? While we thus entirely exonerate Lords Denman Cottenham and Campbell from all imputation of intentionally giving effect to party and political bias it is difficult to suppose them or any other peer entirely free from _unconscious_ political bias; but in the nature of things is it not next to impossible that it should be otherwise in the case of men who combine in their own persons the legislative and judicial character and in the former capacity are unavoidably and habitually subject to party influences? When a Judicial question is under consideration of such extreme doubtfulness as almost to justify a vote either way (we must deal with men and things as we find them ) can it excite great surprise if even in the most honourable minds a political bias should _unconsciously_ evince its presence and just turn the scale? But here the case has turned upon one single point of the purest technicality which the House of Lords has deemed sufficient to cause a reversal of the judgment of the court below; and the question is have they done rightly? Are they right or wrong in point of strict law? In the language of Mr Justice Williams--the objection raised in behalf of the traversers "is purely of a technical nature and to be examined in the same spirit of minute and exact criticism in which it was conceived