Lord Denman's reasons for recommending an acquittal were unanswerable; and by special direction of the House of Lords, though not in conformity with precedent,[60] were published, to enable the country to judge of the grounds on which the House had proceeded. The result, however, so contrary to that which had been expected, excited no little indignation; and the _bonâ fides_, even of those who conducted the prosecution, was very sternly questioned. It was insinuated by some of the most powerful organs of public opinion, that the prosecution had been taken up unwillingly, and with not even ordinary precautions to secure the ends of justice. "We ask," said the _Times_, "whether the law officers of the Crown had no foresight to anticipate, or no disposition to provide against, a conclusion so unsatisfactory? Is any man capable of believing that if some tailor, or linendraper, had been indicted at the Old Bailey for the crime of stealing--or that he, having an honour to vindicate equally with noble lords, pistolled and wounded one of his companions--does any man believe that, in such a case, we should have heard of any miscarriage, or of any name that could not be proved? Oh no! there would then have been precautions in abundance--there would have been no loophole left--there would have been no lack of friends and relatives carefully subpoenaed to prove all the Christian names of the necessary party." We ourselves have reflected frequently on the result of this trial; and the points which have occurred to us are two. _First_, Why was not Captain Tuckett summoned to the bar of the House of Lords--if merely to be asked his name[61]--or even only to be pointed out to the witnesses to see if they could identify him? The miller could have been required to look at him, and been then asked--"Is that the person whom you saw lying wounded on the common?"--and Mr Codd could then have been also required to look at Captain Tuckett, and say--"Is that the gentleman to whom you used to pay half-pay as Captain Tuckett of the 11th Light Dragoons, and whose name you knew to be Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett?" On both these witnesses answering these questions in the affirmative, it would have required a thousand times even Sir William Follett's ingenuity to suggest a further doubt on the point of identity. This was the course which the Lord High Steward plainly pointed at, in his address to his brother peers, as that which might have been adopted. _Secondly_, Why was not the name of Captain Tuckett varied in various counts of the indictment, so as to meet not every probable, but every possible doubt and difficulty? If in one count he had been called "Harvey Tuckett," it would have sufficed to meet the evidence actually adduced; and the other counts might have, respectively described him as "Harvey Garnett Phipps Tuckett"--"Harvey Garnett Tuckett"--"Harvey Phipps Tuckett"--"Garnett Tuckett"--"Phipps Tuckett"--even adding to