The Sun.
London, England, 1867-06-29 00:00:00

THE LUXEMBURG MEATY.

BEBLIN, June 25.
The semi-official North German Gazette publishes
the subjoined article upon the explanations given
by Lords Derby and Stanley of England's guarantee
to the Luxemburg Treaty :
" The declarations made by Lord Stanley in the
House of Commons, and by Lord Derby in the
House of Lords, as to the bearing of the neutrality
guarantee with regard to Luxemburg and some
other countries could not fail to arouse a certain
amount of attention. From the fact that several
Powers have taken part in the guarantee (collec-
tive) Lord Stanley deduces a weakening of its
efficiency. This is undoubtedly a peculiar view, as
people have hitherto been of opinion that the ea'
tainty of neutrality was increased by the number of
the guaranteeing Powers. To come to a clear un-
derstanding upon the question raised, however, We
must first ascertain what does the guarantee of the
neutrality of a country i❑ general mean ? Now, it
cannot be doubted, in the first place, the neutrality
cintains a limitation of the sovereignty concerned

with respect to the right of war, but that the gua-
rantee of this neutrality is nothing else than a de-
fensive alliance against all possible attacks. As in
all these alliances, therefore, the question whether
the cases fxderis exists or not is decisive as to the
action developing itself out of the guarantee of
neutrality. Setting aside here the international
question at issue, whether the cases frderis exists,
supposing the neutralised State to have provoked
war by unjust attacks upon its part, it is yet
quite
indubitable that, except in this case, the guarantee
can be appealed to upon any violation. Jf, there-
fore, for instance, England alone had guaranteed
the neutrality she would unquestionably be bound
to afford military assistance as an ally in any ease
attack, come it whence it might, from one State or
from several. Thus iu this case the support of at
least one Power would be secured to the neutralised
State. Now, when Lord Stanley says by ' collec-
tive guarantee,' is to be understood that, in case of
neutrality being violated all the treaty Powers 04
be called upon to take collective action without any
one of them alone being bound to intervene, be
thereby asserts nothing less than that the guarantee
of one great Power is of greater weight than that
of all the great Powers. But the impossibility of
Lord Stanley's theory is clear from the impossibility
of this conclusion being logical. The statement
by Lord Derby upon the same question on the 20th
inst. in the House of Lords is still more extraordi-
nary. According to the noble lord's opinion, if the
neutrality of Luxemburg should ever be assailed by
one of the treaty Powers, none of them would ha
bound to step forward in its defence. Lord Gran-
ville justly asked, in reply to this opinion, Why
Prussia had then made so utterly worthless a gun"
rantee a sine qua non condition of her participation
in the Conference,. and why Lord Stanley bad °O
long hesitated to undertake an obligation which WI
parently contained no meaning whatever. -Ear
Russell also considered that in case of a breach o.f
.
the treaty the other European Powers were bonne.
to intervene. Or. are wt to understand that it bas
only been intended to guarantee the neutrality (311
Luxemburg against such States as Lichtenstein,
Greece, or Mexico. The more impossible the con:
sequences to be deduced, the rather do we fin at
ourselves justified in putting the question—Wt
can have induced the noble lord to lay down this
hitherto unheard of theory, in the correctness °f
which he himself can hardly believe ? IJ°rol.
Stanley seems-to us in this respect to have, ab°ve
all, exerted himself to represent the breach with the
non-intervention principle followed for so Mel
years as being as unimportant as possible in ordet
to reconcile Parliament, so greatly attached to dine
principle, to the new treaty. It is only vibe°
look at the matter in this light that we are able lvt°
understand how the Alinister of the Crown 011,13
utter such a sentence as that, after all, the ultica,7o
decision whether war should be entered into for
Luxemburg guarantee rested in the hands of ra.t,_
liament (through the right of granting or withhotiboe
ing supplies). Why, all the world knows that ,
English Crown alone has the privilege of declarliurb..
war, and that it is not customary first to ask r the
liament whether war shall be carried on. On
contrary, the existence of war is notified to Farl`,,
meat, which then, as history teaches,
as regards its right of granting supplies, main`de
guided by patriotism and the sense of what d the
to England. From this point of view we fin
bat
statements of the English Minister intelligible,
we cannot possibly regard them as seriously intencetuo
limitations of an obligation undertaken accordieg
node
stood." in the sense hitherto universally
stood." finds itsey

WEST INDIAN INC UMBERED ESTATES COLTia•-;
By Orders made by the Queen in the Council held on tbct
ire
26th inst., the jurisdiction of the West Indian bleuM
Estates Court was extended to the islands of Donlds in
and Nevis. By prior Orders in Council the islan
and
Jamaica, St. Vincent, Grenada, Tobago, Antigua, the
lionseriat, and the Virgin Islands, were placed under
jurisdiction of the same court.
The sentence of death pronounced on the Youl33gi
man Notte for an attempted murder at the ecclosiasticto
college of Courtrai, in Belgium, has been commuted
penal servitude fot life.