But the Old Bailey practitioners of that day, who were no doubt consulted in due course, were adepts in their trade, and it is unlikely that they entertained any serious doubt from the first as to the lines on which Kidd’s prosecution in the interests of their clients should proceed, or as to its ultimate success. They knew that he was friendless and that it was nobody’s interest in England but his own that he should be acquitted. They knew that no London jury that tried him could fail to be influenced by their knowledge that he had been denounced by the Lords Justices and the East India Company as a notorious pirate, or dismiss from their minds the innumerable wild tales which had for years been disseminated to his disadvantage.[12] They knew also, none better, the practical difficulties which confronted every poor wretch brought to trial in those days on a capital charge by unscrupulous persons, who could afford to bribe or terrify miscreants into bearing false evidence against him. Incredible as it may seem to us with our modern notions of fair play and the belief which has been instilled into some of us of the wisdom of our ancient common law, much of which was as hopelessly absurd as many of the nostrums and theories of the medical men of those days, accused persons in criminal cases were forced to conduct their own defence and were not allowed the assistance of counsel, for the purpose of examining or cross-examining witnesses or commenting on any question of fact. Counsel on their behalf were only permitted to address the Court on questions of law; the legal fiction being that there was no necessity for a prisoner to employ counsel to elucidate the facts: that the judge could be trusted to see that this was properly done: and that the jury could be trusted to give the prisoner the benefit of any reasonable doubt. Needless to say this fiction led to the frequent conviction of innocent persons, and was a great encouragement to perjured witnesses. Many a villain, who but for it would have hesitated to be suborned, was induced by it to come forward for a small consideration and swear to anything that his employers desired. Still more ready were some poor creatures to do this, if they had brought their own necks within measurable distance of the noose, and their refusal to swear away the life of the accused would entail their own death by hanging. In the present case, no trustworthy evidence of reputable witnesses being forthcoming against Kidd, the legal advisers of the Crown very naturally had recourse to the well-known last resort open to them, and set themselves to find some one or more scoundrels, who would be willing to turn King’s evidence against him. Twelve seamen, most of whom had remained faithful to their commander, were now imprisoned with him, awaiting their trial for piracy. We shall never know how many of these were approached by the prosecution. What we do know is, that not one of them was induced to become King’s evidence.