The Express.
London, England, 1867-07-05 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLI.

HOUSE OF LORD& -Tlll, /VOA Y, JULY 4.

IN the Ibit Ne of b.itl'A yesterday, the Land
Tax Communion's' Names Bill pained through
committee.

The Galway Harbour (Composition of Debt) Bill
and the Blackwater Bridge B►ll wore read a second
time.

The report of the Salmon Fishery (Ireland) Act
Amendment Bill was brought up, and several
amendments having been introduced was agreed to.
The Court of Chancery (Ireland) Bill was read a
third time and passed.
Lo•d Hoch wroN asked what was the construction
which the government put on the words " collec-
tive guarantee '• in the Luxemburg treaty. If it
were correct that the default of any one of the
parties relieved the other powers from their obli-
gations, the treaty was of very little '.se, but he
could not reconcile this interpretation with the
statement of Lord Stanley that he had entered into
the guarantee with the greatest reluctance.
The Earl of Daman said he was always unwilling
to underrate or deprecate any obligation which this
country had entered into. He was speaking of the
technical and not the moral obligation. The dif-
ference between a collective and an individual gua-
rantee was well known. By the former, if there
was a difference of opinion between the parties to
the guarantee, no one was called upon to under-
take the duty of enforcing it. It depended on the
union of all parties. The explanation of the re-
luctance of Lord Stanley to enter into the gua-
rantee was that he might be naturally, and was,
justified in feeling a good deal of anxiety as to the
interpretation which might be placed on this gua-
rantee, and of the extent to which ho might have
d the country. The collective guarantee
temud all the powers to respect the neutrality of
Luxemburg, which depended on the honour of
all the powers, and not on the force of arms, and if
unfortunately an occasion shonld arise, it would
then be for the rest of the powers to dezide what
course they might collectively deem it advisable to
take.

Earl Reasstt regretted that a discussion of this
kind should have been raised, for it had occasioned
Teat uneasiness in Prussia, and an unfavourable
impression of what the conduct of this country
might be. If one of the powers—either France or
Prussia—violated the neutrality of Luxemburg,
and the other of them called on the rest of the
powers to enform it, there would be a moral,
though it might not be a technical, obligation on
them to do so. Europe would never believe that a
stipulation, insisted upon with so much tenacity
by one power and acceded to so reluctantly by
another, was a mere piece of waste paper.
After some remarks from Lord Lyveden, Lord
Stratford de Radcliffe, and the Duke of Argyll, the
subject dropped.
In reply to Earl Roseau.,
. . . .

The Earl of DERBY said though government had
received no official confirmation of the report of the
execution of the Emperor Maximilian, yet, from
what they heard from all quarters, there was reason
to believe it was true, and under these circumstances
her Majesty felt it would not be consistent with
her own feelings, or oven deoent, for her to preside
at the review this day, which would be postponed,
but, he trusted, would not be abandoned.

The house then adjourned at thirty-five minutes
past six o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. —TH I:RSDAT, JULY 4.
7 N the HOUSE of COMMONS, Lord STAN LILY stated,
in reply to a question from Mr. Sandford, that be
bad received no of confirmation of the report
of the execution of the Emperor Maximilian, but
be found that the report was accepted as true both
at Paris and Vienna, and he feared it was true. If
it were true it was a deplorable and impolitic act,
but he did not see what special notice the house
could take of it.

Sir L. PALK observed that no act Bo disgraceful
bad ever been committed as that they were now
called upon to consider. Maximilian did not go
to Mexico as a tyrant, but to establish order and
tranquillity. He hoped the house would express
its abhorrence of this crime, and he gave notice
that when the official intelligence came he would
move a resolution on the subject. He moved the
adjournment of the house.
No one rose to speak to the motion, and it was
negatived and the subject dropped.
Captain Viv lAN inquired whether in consequence
of this intelligence it was still intended to hold the
review in Hyde-park this day.
Sir J. Psxmovolv replied that no official intel-
ligence having been received the review had not
been countermanded.

The CHANCELLOR of the Ext.:Human, in reply to
a question, stated that in consequence of the
review he should not ask the house to sit this