§ Sir E. Knatchbull
spoke in support of the 327 Bill; and said, that the hon gent. who had just spoken, seemed, by the arguments he had used, to know nothing at all about it; and the hon. bart. opposite (sir Walter Stirling) and his friends ought of all others to wish most that the House should go into a Committee upon this Bill, which went to repeal the former one of last session.
§ Mr. Calcraft
stated several circumstances relative to the individuals who had promoted and opposed this Bill; and thought the best way to investigate the real facts of the case would be to go into a Committee; where they could be minutely urged.
§ Sir Walter Stirling
vindicated himself from some insinuations thrown out against his conduct in regard to this Bill; and said, that he had been at first requested to bring it forward in parliament, but had declined doing so, merely on account of his being unacquainted with such business.
§ Mr. James Graham
defended the conduct of the hon. bart. and was not inclined to vote for the repeal of the former Bill.
§ Mr. John Smith
said he should oppose the committal of this Bill, as it went to repeal a former one, which had been found to be a great and serious convenience.
§ Mr. Calcraft
added, that all the gentlemen in the county of Kent, both landholders and occupiers, thought that the road in question was unnecessary.
§ Mr. Peter Moore
spoke in favour of the conduct of the hon. bart. in regard to the former Bill, which he thought was a good one, and, without further grounds, ought not to be repealed.
Sir F. Burdelt
thought that the question had not been put upon its proper ground, for that justice demanded they should go into a Committee upon this Bill, in order to ascertain, as had been alleged, whether the former one had been obtained surreptitiously or not.
§ A division then took place, when there appeared,
|For the Bill||90|
|Majority in favour of it||—49|
§ The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed.