This reply, so far from appeasing the opposition, seems to have added fuel to the flame of their indignation. Why could not the King assent at once to their address? Why had the _Rochester_ gone out of her course to the Isle of Lundy, unless it were to defer the bringing home of Kidd until Parliament had risen? Accordingly, a few days afterwards, a further resolution was moved that “An humble address be presented to His Majesty to remove John, Lord Somers, Lord Chancellor of England, from his presence and counsels for ever.” The motion was defeated by a majority of one hundred and sixty-seven to one hundred and six. But the fact that one hundred and six members voted for it, shows the bitterness of the party feeling against Somers, and the widespread suspicions of his honesty that prevailed amongst his political opponents. It need hardly be said that these suspicions were not allayed by the well-timed arrival of Kidd and his fellow-prisoners in London on board the King’s yacht, on the very day after Parliament had risen. The result of this second curious close coincidence of date which has occurred in the course of this narrative, was that Kidd had arrived too late to be examined by the members of the House. He was therefore privately examined by the Admiralty officials, sent to Newgate, and ordered to be kept a close prisoner. The desire of the House of Commons that Kidd should not be tried, discharged, or pardoned until the next session of Parliament was most unfortunate for him, because it necessitated his being kept in confinement with his fellow-prisoners at Newgate for more than a year. But it cannot be regarded as unreasonable, seeing that the necessary documents relating to him had not yet been laid before the House; that time was required for the collection of evidence against him from abroad; and that such of the facts relating to him and his employers as had already been disclosed, afforded some ground for suspecting that the four inculpated ministers were far from blameless. It is the one satisfactory feature in this very unpleasant case, that no discredit attaches to the action of the House of Commons in respect of its treatment of Kidd, either in this session or the next.