atent
shall have been directed, to declare fit metes and bounds of the said
last-named boroughs, and the metes and bounds of the said last-named
boroughs thenceforward, for the purposes of this act, shall be the same
so declared as last aforesaid." This was objected to by several members,
as placing a dangerous power where it ought not to be placed. Sir Robert
Peel said, he would consent that the boundaries of the existing boroughs
should continue as they were until they should be otherwise settled by
parliament: and Lord Stuart Dudley, although a friend of the ministry,
moved an amendment to that effect. He was supported by Sir James Graham,
Mr. Goulburn, and other members, who argued, that the clause gave the
crown a power which the crown ought not to possess, and devolved upon
the executive, duties which clearly belonged to the legislature. Lord
John Russell said, he had no objection to add words to the effect that
his majesty having appointed a commission to settle the boundaries,
the report of that commission should be laid before parliament at its
meeting, and the boundaries therein named should be and remain the
boundaries of these boroughs, unless parliament should otherwise decide.
Lord Dudley Stuart, however, pressed his motion to a division; but it
was lost by a majority of two hundred and fifty-nine against one hundred
and ninety-two. A more important discussion took place on the clause
which affected the rights of existing freemen, and the future modes of
acquiring freedom in corporations. The bill enacted, "That after the
passing of this act no person shall be elected, admitted, or enrolled a
citizen, freeman, liveryman, or burgess, of any borough, or by any name,
a member of any body corporate in respect of any right or title other
than by occupancy and payment of rates within such borough, according to
the meaning and provisions of the act." Sir William Follett opposed
this sacrifice of freemen; and he moved an amendment to the effect
of preserving their rights without interfering with the municipal
government of corporate bodies. Government vehemently opposed this
amendment; but various members accustomed to go with ministers declared
their intention to vote for it. Sir James Graham thought it would
simplify the question if the amendments were limited to the rights of
freemen under the reform bill, because the question of inchoate rights
would arise more properly under another clause. Sir William Follett