The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-10 00:00:00

POLICY OF INSURANCE BILL.

LordCLANIZICAItDE moved the seeouti reading of

this bill,

The LORD CHANCELLOR considered that this bill
ought to be referred to a select committee. Since the reign
of George 11. a great deal of kgi.slation had taken place on
the subject.
Thu
shill was read a second time.
RELIGIOUS SITES BILL.

The report of the ainendmeuts to this bill was brought
bcfor the house, and the bill passed.
THE DEMONSTRATION IN HYDE PARK.

Earl COWPER, wished to inquire into the late proceed-
ings in Hyde-park, and to move that papers relative to the
orders given as to the closing of the park and the
instructions given to the police be laid on the table. He
reprobated severely the conduct of a Government k-eep-
ing in office on suffarance, and carrying out a
measure of reform without consulting the interests and
wishes of the people. It was not the'wish of any one on
his side of the house to disturb the present Government,
but he did consider it was his duty to request a furencr
amount of information on the matter, and the best course
to pursue, in his opinion, was to give a plain history of the
facts from the commencement. The noble earl then re-
ferred to the original opinion given by the law officers of
the Crown on the closing of the Park, and the
still later proceedings. He would ask were there
no other lawyers as able as the legal gentlemen
who advised the Crown ? When a vast amount
of expression of opinion on the part of the people had
taken place on the subject, still it was only on Sunday
afternoon that the meeting was permitted to take place on
Monday. The Government had filled the neighbourhood
with the military and police, and then had given
way, inflicting a great blow on the constitutional
authority and bringing it into contempt. He could not
too highly praise the conduct of the people on Monday.
(Hear, hear.)

The Earl of DERBY—Although the noble earl who has
just sat down has moved for the production of papers, I
apprehend that it is not his object to press that motion.
The first of the documents to which he refers has been
already published, and with respect to the instructions
given to the police it is not usual to produce such papers,
and their production now would establish a very inconve-
nient precedent. I apprehend that the noble earl only
meant to use the motion for those documents as a means of
enabling him to express his opinion with respect to the
course adopted by her Majesty's Government on the subject
of the late meeting, and so far am I from complaining of the
course taken by the noble earl that I am inclined to offer
him my thanks for having afforded us an opportunity of
fully discussing the matter in this house, where I am sure
your lordships will come to its consideration calmly, tem-
perately, and impartially. I desire nothing more than to
have an opportunity of laying before your lordships all the
circumstances under which the Government acted, and
thereupon, if your lordships should think fit, to invite an
expression of your opinion upon it. But before I say a word
with respect to the Government I must take the earliest
opportunity of saying something in vindication of a right
hon. friend of mine who has been subject to the greatest in-
justice and misrepresentation. I refer to Mr. 'Walpole. I
regret to state that the labour which he has had to sustain
in his office, increased as it has been by the unfortunate
absence of the efficient Under Secretary (Mr. Waddington),
in consequence of serious and protracted indisposition, that
that labour, and the mental anxiety ho has had to undergo
in the course of the last few weeks, have so considerably
impaired his health, acting as they have done on a mind
more than ordinarily sensitive, that he has felt compelled
to represent to me that it was absolutely necessary that he
should no longer continue to discharge the duties of that
office, and he has accordingly, in spite of my most earnest
remonstrances, placed in my hands his resignation, which
I have been compelled most reluctantly to submit to the
consideration of her Majesty. The Cabinet will thus lose
a very efficient member—(hear, hear)—and personally wo
shall all feel we aro parting with a man than whom one
more amiable, more honourable, more thoroughly conscien-
tious I have never had the good fortune t 3 act with
(Cheers.) But lam bound to add this is no case in which
anything that has been done ought to be visited upon my
right hon. friend.. It is no departmental question. (Rear,
hear.) It is a question which affects the Government as a
whole, and there is not one member of the Cabinet—and
least of all can I pretend to be such a member—who is not
as fully and entirely responsible for all that has been done
as We particular Minister referred to. (Rear, hear.) It has
been charred against him that he has exhibited great vacil-
lation, great weakness, great change of purpose ; but I
believe there has been no vacillation and no change of pur-
pose. The course pursued from the first has been one and
the same determined upon by the Cabinet after the most
anxious and careful deliberation, and founded upon the best
reference we could make to the opinions of the present and
former law officers of the Crown. The noble earl had spoken
as if the year 1866 was the first occasion on which the
question had arisen, but it is hardly necessary for me to re-
mind your lordships that riots took place in 1855 on seve-
ral consecutive Sundays, which were not sought to be put
down until great alarm had been created. In 1856 refe-
rence was made by the Government of the day to the law
officers of the Crown, and a case was submitted on behalf
of the Board of Works for the opinions of the law officers
upon the following points in relation to the metropolitan
parks :

First, Is there any authority to close the gates of the en-
closure and exclude the public altogether during the day ?
Secondly, The gates of the inclosures being open, is there
any authority to prevent the ingress of persons to the in-
closures, those persons conducting themselves properly
and orderly iu their attempt to obtain ingress? 'Thirdly,
Supposing persons to have entered, and to preach, or play
upon musical instruments, or to sing, does any authorityexist to turn out persons so preaching, or praying, or sing-
ing, out of the parks, supposing they do not obstruct a
thoroughfare, or cause a disturbance ? And if so, you are
particularly requested to state what is the nature of the
authority, and how it is derived.
OPINION.

Ist. We think that there is a right in point of law to
close the gates and exclude the public from the parks. 2d.
Vie think that the gates being open there is a right on the
part of the Crown to exclude persons attempting to gain
adndssion ; but we do not think this right should be exer-
cised against particular individuals unless in case of pre-
vious misconduct. 3d. If persons who have entered com-
mence to preach or play they cannot be turned out with-
out proper notice to them that the permission or license
of the Crown to the public to enjoy the parks is condi-
tional only, and does not apply to persons who so conduct
themselves and the best way of giving such notice is by
posting it up at the entrance of the parks. The authority
to close and exclude the public from the parks is that
which every landowner has to prevent the public front
trespassing on his lands ; fur we are of opinion that the
public have not acquired any legal right to use the parks
by reason of any continued user under the license and by
favour of the Crown. •

Temple, Nov. 18, 1856.

A. E. COCKBURN.
RICHD. BETRELL.
W. A. WILLES.

_ . .
I In July, 18.56, a copy of that opinion was forwarded to the
thenlaw officers, Sir Hugh Cairns and Sir William Bovill,
with a request that they would favour Mr. Secretary Wal-
pole with their opinion with reference to the third ques-
tian and answer, and inform him " Whether, supposing a
numb_T of persons who have already entered Hyde-park to
form themselves into a meeting for the discussion of poli-
tical subjects, there is any legal authority to disperse such
meeting by force, even though a general notice may have
,e, n that
The
opinionmeetings
obtained
beena
llowge idv.will not not be
In
al.i.n
iloVge
ianretboof betfainthedat
a the manage-
license of the Crown, or of those actingt I
any
time to
ment of the park ; that it is competent int
was as followsdescription v:i
dition that those
re-
voke this license, or to annex to it a co
ee age in, or at-
poaprikn opinion
must inat ebviaVrY bep person
nn
e.
tuoteLl entering
rind
the
license
avail themselves of it must not form,t 8
h pgark, and that
tend meetings of a political charaeteF.
the person breaking it becomes aoitoee 10.)r
warning,
be
he refuse try leave the park on n i
on this condition being broken theil.u..sienasseseisr,antnadt emnda,ya,nidf
be removed that a condi-
tion knowledge of the persono
rhis might be done to a
re-
moved. It would, of course, beo necessary to bring home to
noticesp;
great and about the park, though
great extent by public
ihat notwithstaudiu,, the publiea-
triaolnlisouecnhseastoaboonvteersiunpopos diel.itas, been annexed to the gene-
it is possible to suppose .
.. individual
I or utherwi • . actual-
here,trout. inability to tt.,,i, . b,,
occur w howeve.i.,extelistv.e.., cases might
publica-
tion of notices,
''tofs:lettel°b";iiitiej°clie:aort3z•ltdonsiolot ab.ealumepxupterdes, sawnadrnia-
ing to leave. . But we are bound to state that though the
Ist, nloohw casesl e dg 1
legal right of,:ediiiiopt:rasl,id.,; sbie.lfioarseW,einhatth: dsees,c,:jibohdi, lwvehiielho
nut een.iler that in the case of any large assembly the
right c.,iiid be exercised with Safet,y,ur that such an aysein-
tbbi.)artetoeurilidi ibseorigi,ially understood. The right of removal
id is a right to remove each separate individual.i...9tridseartlyresiirasser,
ivpuoecureladt
fi
by putting him out of the park, using just so lunch r ~ -
1.,
t(
It
..i. nacidpol
Ipeenerg‘ca:eril
appears
tit,
colu)
staai stnshai:a
tbtniohtedeilrev.es:s,flia3:tiyinnufootoetrrrbsitegolihytt.ttti
disorderly
Lit. )0.
3tut
el
disperse
bios: e7.trot;
er
remove
nt.'s. :91;
separate right against each individual. The
va
(assuming it to be orderly) are not united in doing
each individual or any considerable number of persons. -
and to prevent them returning ; and it is highlyconfusedby
t h a t the effort
might
yi
gstthoatn removedseoros,soon
which
t eai
cenhorm particularo
sons with the degree of force- that would
aprorbesaihs:
pberesojunstoirfiapt:lre-,
rouniraelements of would introduce into the
On the whole, wshouldgreat difficulty l
e answer and embarrassment.
us by saying, that, in our the question proposed to
tical opinion, there isnot fur any prac •
purtax;e a legal auth
meet-
ing of the kind ority to disperse by force a supposed,meet-
consisting
persons, and that wheth
beforehan - er notice has or has not been given
d.
ii. M. o.4laNs.
. W. BOVILI..
Earl RUSSELL Wh •
... .. . - at is the date of that opiuio ,n .
The Earl of Din 3
I, X—lt is dated Jul.); 28, 1866, aud the

meeting was, I believe, held on the 23d. The opinion was
sought, not to ascertain the right of the Crown, but I should
rather say the right of the people of London to enjoy quiet
and peaceful recreation in the parks, which are kept in such
beautiful order for the purpose. (Hear, hear.) The noble
earl then inquired why, after we had obtained that opinion,
we did not forthwith proceed to strengthen the power of
the Crown.
Earl COWPER explained—What he meant to have asked
was, why was not such a proceeding taken if it were in-
tended to adopt it ?
The Earl of DERBY—Let me remind the noble earl of
the circumstances of the case. This opinion was given only
a few days before the end of the session, at a period when
there was still considerable excitement prevailing, when
the leaders of the Reform League had announced their in-
tention to try the right for which they contended by action
at law, and when the Government had told them they would
be afforded every facility for so doing. That was therefore
not a time—looking forward as we were to the adoption of
those proceedings—for vindicating or strengthening the
powers of the Crown by introducing ameasure which could
not have been passed that session. (lear, hear.) But I am

asked why was not the measure introduced early tnis ses-
sion. Well, what had occurred ? Large demonstrations—
exhibitions I will not say of physical force, but exhibi-
tions of numbers—had taken place, for the purpose
of influencing the mind of the Legislature. The first
of these, attended by about 25,000 people, took place in
November. But they did not claim the right to meet in
the park, on the contrary it was admitted that they had no
right to do so. They asked the permission of the Gcvern-
meat to hold their meeting in the park, not as a right, but
as a favour. The Government assented to the meeting
being held on Primrose-hill, and eventually it was held in
the grounds of a private nobleman, who was not a very
strong Reformer. (A laugh.) There was a subsequent
meeting, and did the promoters of it say they would hold
it in Hyde-park ? No, they determined to have a proces-
sion through the streets, which took place, and the leaders
delivered their harangues in the Agricultural Hall. Those
processions were extremely inconvenient. They interfered
with the traffic and business of the metropolis ; but we
were advised that neither in the processions nor in the
meetings was there anything to warrant our interference,
and I must say that the inhabitants of London were singu-
larly apathetic on the occasion, for when some danger and
risk was apprehended they did notirespond in the slightest
degree, nor was there any offer on their part of special
constables for the protection of property. We had no

reason to believe that the right of (the (Crown would be
disputed by an attempt to hold a meeting in the park; we
had every reason to believe that the leaders of the move-
ment would proceed to have the right they claimed tried
by action at law, and it was not until a period very closely
approaching the time of holding the late meeting that we
found there was an absolute determination on their part
to hold the meeting in Hyde-park in defiance of the Go-
vernment. Upon receiving that intimation we were not
without hope that the intention might, after all, bo aban-
doned. In a few hours we received petitions signed by
more than 16,000 persons, praying that we would take
steps to prevent the processions passing through the streets,
and otherwise to protect property in the city of London.
That course we were unable to take, because, as I ex-
plained to some of the memorialists, the law did not enable
us to interfere with any peaceable and orderly. pro-
cession ; but if there was any apprehension of violence
either from those who formed the procession, or from that
mixed rabble which would be very likely to accompany it,
we should be happy to avail ourselves of the services of
the peaceable inhabitants sworn in as special constables to
protect their own property and the peace of the town.
When it became apparent that there was a very strong dis-
position on the part of the leaders of this movement to hold
this meeting, whatever might happen, we had to consider
very carefully what course we should pursue ; and then it
was that by the advice of the Cabinet, and after consulting
the law officers, it was determined that my right hon. friend
should issue the notice to which so much reference has
been made, warning all persons—not exactly in the lan-
guage used by the noble earl—" that the use of the park
for the purpose of holding such a meeting is not in confor-
mity with the object for which her Majesty has been pleased
to open the park for the general enjoyment of her people.
Now, all persons are hereby warned and admonished to ab-
stain from attending, aiding, or taking part in any such
meeting, or entering the park with the view of aiding or
taking part in such meeting." The noble earl said some-
thing about their being warned not to attend the meeting
at their peril, and inferred from that notice that it was in-
tended, whatever happened, to stop the meeting by force.
The object of the notice, however, is very obvious. It
was to warn the parties attending, more especially the
leaders, that they would subject themselves to legal con-
sequences, and that they would be committing an illegal act,
a trespass, if after they received that notice they persevered
in holding the meeting. In order that there might be no
question about it, that notice was served upon sixteen of
the principal persons who were expected to take part in
the proceedings ; and they were thus personally warned
that they rendered themselves liable to be proceeded against
as trespassers if they proceeded to hold the meeting. It
was intended, and it is intended, to take legal steps
for vindicating and establishing before the public the
rights of the Crown. (Hear.) It is intended to adopt
such proceedings as the law officers may recommend
against ono or more of those individuals, in order that no
question and no cavil may arise as to the right of the
Crown, and as to theirhaving committed a trespass. (Hear.)
Then arose the very difficult question as to how we should
act in case the meeting was held, and I certainly did not
think it necessary or expedient that, on the Friday even-
ing when my right hon. friend was questioned in another
place as to what course the Government would adopt, he
should then publicly and openly declare to all parties who
might be concerned that the Government had no power to
do anything except after notice to proceed against them as
trespassers. I did not think it expedient to say to those
gentlemen, " You may hold the meeting with perfect im-
punity," and thereby give them encouragement to hold it.
I preferred, and the Cabinet preferred, to leave the question
to the Government as a matter of discretion to be dealt
with according to the circumstances which might arise,
and not to give public notice that whatever might happen,
it was not our intention to take any step whatever. But
the notices which were given to to the police, for which
the noble earl has moved, but which ho does not wish me
to produce, were in substance that they should take every
precaution in their power against any violation of the pub-
lic peace, but as long as the meeting was conducted in a
peaceable and orderly manner, they should not do anything
which should risk a collision with the people. (Hear.) We
knew the extent of the power that wo had, and when the
meeting took place the question was, "Shall we send two
or throe policemen to each of the ten leaders of this meet-
ing, and let a policeman place his hand upon the
shoulder of each of them, and desire them individually
and severally to leave the park ?" My noble and learned
friend when he gave his opinion foresaw the danger
which would arise in the event of any attempt to arrest
individuals. It. was probable that if such a course had
been pursued a rescue would have been attempted, the
police, brought into collision with 10,000 or 20 000 people,
would very likely have been overpowered,
and' it would
have been necessary to call upon the military force, of
which there was enough at hand to put down any riot, but
which, thank God, it was not necessary to call out in
con-
sequence in the first place of the forbearance of the Go-
vernment, and in the next of that to which 1 am anxious
to do the fullest credit and justice, the orderly, peaceable,
and admirable behaviour of the vast crowd in the park.
But had we any right to calculate upon that orderly be-
haviour? With the recollection of the year before should
we not have been abandoning the most sacred duty we had
to perform if we had not had at hand an ample force of
police and military ; kept standing out of sight with a
view to avoid any excitement, but at the same time ready
to prevent any such disgraceful scenes as characterised the
meeting of last year? Happily it was not required; but
over and over again I say that I consider as nothing the
temporary violation of the undisputed rights of the Crown
in comparison with the risk which might have been in-
curred if in the exercise of that which was strictly within
the limits of our power, we had brought about a collision
between an infuriated mob and a large force of military and
police. (Hear.) I have given your lordships, tothe best of
my power, the details of the course which we pursued, and
the motives upon which the Government have acted ; the
certainty on the one hand of the rights of the Crown, and
the certainty on the other of the extreme difficulty of en-
forcing those rights. It is not for the purpose of establishing
those rights that we have introduced a bill into the other
bouse,but only to provide effectual means of enforcing them.
I think no noble earl will contend that it would have been
advisable for us, as soon as the notice of this meeting was
issued, a short time before the period at which it was to be
held, to have said that we did not possess sufficient power,
and would therefore bring in a bill to remedy that defect,
and to put down this special meeting. In my opinion, the
course pursued by the Government has not been vacillat-
ing—has not been uncertain. It was decided upon from
the beginning, after anxious consideration, and after taking
the best opinions that we could get. Although the course
which they have pursued may have subjected them to some
slight humiliation in the public eye, as apparently having
sanctioned or allowed a violation of the law, I rest entirely
satisfied in my own conscience that that course was the
one most conducive to the real interests of the country, to
the preservation of order, and to a full and due considera-
tion alike of the rights of the Crown and those of the
people. (Cheers.)
Earl RUSSELL maintained that the conduct of Ministers
nad exposed the dignity of the Crown to unparalleled con-
tem. pt. Of Mr. Walpole's abilities he entertained a very high
opinion, but, under all the circumstances, and notwith-
standing the course adopted with respect to the late meet-
ing, he was glad that the right hon. gentleman had re-
signed. What the Government ought to have done was to
have dealt frankly with the people, and to
have informed
them what was the real state of the law. In his opinion
the meeting in the parks might safely be . n
left to
the discre-
tion of the people themselves, and he hoped
the Govern-
ment would not proceed with their bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR contended that as the law
stood no other course was open to the Government than
that which they had taken ; and Earl GREY censured the
Executive as haying acted throughout the whole affair

with utter want of judgment. He admitted, however, that
the parka ought not to be perverted from their proper uses
into an arena for political or religious discussion.
Lord CAIRNS could not agree with Earl Russell, that
in order to vindicate the law they should abandon the
rights of the Crown, and leave the whole thing to the
discretion of the people. In the event of a collision, who
was to settle the question ? As to the proclamation issued
by the Home-office, the Government were bound to make
known their approval or disapproval of the meeting.
The discussion was continued by Lords Dudley, Gran-
ville, Cardigan, and RomillY, and the Duke of Rutland,
and eventually the motion was withdrawn.
Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
The SPEAKER took took the chair at four o'clock.
THE SALTERS' COMPANY.

Mr. MAGITIRE asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if
his attention had been called to the proceedings of the
Salters' Company of London in connection with the
management of their property in Magherafelt, county

Derry.
Lord NAAS said he bad no official information, but he
had been informed that there had been no very great in-
craase of the rents on the Salters' Estate in Ireland,
neither had there been any violation of tenant right.
GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
In answer to Mr. Smint,
Mr. CORRY said he could not give any definite an-
swer with respect to the re-establishing a girls' school at
Greenwich Hospital.
THE ARMY OF RESERVE.

Col. GILPIN asked the Secretary of State for War
whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government
to proceed with the plan for raising an army of reserve
proposed by the right hon. member for Huntingdon on
moving the army estimates this session ; and if so, when
it was likely to be proceeded with ?
Sir T. PAKINGTON slid it was the intention of the
Government to proceed with the plan. He would give to-
morrow for taking the necessary vote, and he hoped to
bring it on without delay.
COLONIAL BISHOPS.
Mr. CARDWELL asked the Under Secretary of State
for the Colonies whether it was the intention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to introduce in the present session
any measure on the subject of colonial bishops, or of
clergymen ordained by colonial bishops ?
Mr. ADDERLEY said it was the intention of the Go-
vernment to bring in a bill for that purpose.
THE DUCHY OF L UXEMBURG.

Mr. LABOUCHERE asked the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether, in the event of her Majesty's
Government considering it advisable to join in any
European guarantee with regard to the neutrality or the
future political position of the Grand Duchy of Luxem-
burg, before the country was committed to any such
guarantee the nature of the obligations in which it may
involve us would be explained, and this house be given an
opportunity to express an opinion upon the expediency of
undertaking them.
Lord STANLEY said the best answer he could give
was to state that the Conference held its second sitting
that morning, and although it was not the usage to make
known the proceedings of such meetings, yet he might
say substantially that an arrangement had been come to
that left little but formalities to be transacted; and he
hoped that the opinion he expressed about 10 days ago,
that the Luxemburg question was in a fair way of settle-
ment, would prove correct. In that hope he was very
sanguine, and he felt he might say practically that
at that moment matters had been satisfactorily settled
He had to congratulate the house and the country on the
result of the Conference, and he had to state that it was to
the moderation which animated all parties that the calamity,
of an European war, which a fortnight ago seemed immi-
nent, had been averted. (Loud cheers.) With regard to
the question of guarantee England was one of the parties
to the treaty of 1839, which guaranteed the Duchy to
the King of Holland, and all that was to be
done in conference was not to narrow the arrangements
then made, but to adapt them to the altered state of the
Duchy in consequence of the dissolution of the Germanic
Confederation. In a few days, if all went on as he anti-
cipated, he should be able to produce the whole of the
papers connected with the subject. (Cheers.)
THE REFORM BILL.

Mr. GLADSTONE asked the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, under the law as it will stand, if the present propo-
sals of the Government should bo adopted, would the
compound householder at and above £lO be enabled to

come and continuo upon the register without ceasing to
_ _

be a compound householder? In the event of his
paying, in pursuance of his claim, any " rate duo in
respect of the premises," would he be entitled to deduct the
sum so paid from the rent payable by him to his landlord ?
What was the meaning of the words (in No. 4 of the pro-
posed amendment to clause 31) "rate due in respect of the
premises ;" and, in a case where the owner had already
paid the composition rate, with the occupier claiming
to bo enfranchised be liable to pay the diffefence
between the composition rate and the full rate ? And
whether by the terms of the third clause, requiring that
the person to be registered shall have been an inhabitant
occupier for twelve months, it was intended to require
that he should have resided during that period ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was some absurdity about the first question, but he would
say that there was no intention to deprive compound house-
holders of any of the privileges they at that moment

possessed under the act 11 and 15 of the Queen,
as the moment they became rated they ceased to
ha compound householders. With respect to the
second question, the person would certainly be so
entitled. With respect to the meaning of the words men-
tioned, it meant the rate due to the landlord at the time
the claim was made. The occupier would not be called
upon to pay the difference alluded to; and with respect to
the "inhabitant occupier" and " resident," ho looked upon
the terms as identical.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER asked the Chancellor of the Ex--
chequer whether it was the intention of the Government,
by omitting all the words after " rated' in the first lice of
clause 31 of the Representation of the People Bill,
to prevent the application of clause 1 of the Compound
Householders Act (11 and 15 Vic. c. 14) to compound
householders under £lO ; and, if so, whether it was
intended to deprive compound householders under £lO of
the right which the above-mentioned clause gives to
compound householders at and above £lO of being regis-
tered and entitled to vote upon claiming to be rated,
instead of being obliged, by clause 30 of the Reform Act
(2 Will. IV., c. 45) to be rated for a year before becom-
ing a voter ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
clause would apply to both cases, therefore it was not
necessary for him to say more, as the other portion of the
question was founded on contingencies that might never
occur. .

Mr. FORSTER asked for a more explicit answer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, by a
general clause in the bill all the existing rights of those
affected by the bill were strictly preserved.