The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-04 00:00:00

DEPERIAL PARLIAIYIENT

HOUSE OF LORDS.—Tuts EVENING.
The LORD CILANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack a
five o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The East Gloucestershire Railway, the London North-
iVestern Railway New Works Bills were read a third time
and passed.

PETITION.
The Earl of DEVON presented a petition from the city
of Leitrim against the Sunday Trading Bill.
FATE OF MAXIMILIAN.
In answer to a question from Lord ZIarBERLEY, relative
to any official intelligence as to the fate of Maximilian,
The Earl of MALMESBURY stated that, as far as her
Majesty's Government were concerned, no official informa-
tion on the subject had yet been received, and the only
confirmation had been by the telegrams in the second edi-
tion of the Times.
MORRO VELHO MARRIAGE BILL.
This bill was road a second time.
LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
This bill Ives committed.
THE GALWAY HARBOUR (COMPENSATION OF
DEBTS) BILL.
The Earl of DEVON moved that the order of the 3d
May last, with respect to this bill, be dispensed with.
The order was then dispensed with.
THE 13rACKWALL BRIDGE BILL.
The Earl of DEVON moved that the order of the 3d
May, as to this bill, be dispensed with.
This bill was then read a second time.
SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND) ACT AMEND-
, MENT BILL.
The report as to this bill was received, and the bill, as
amended, was read a third time and passed.
BRITISH WHITE HERRING FISHERY BILL.
This as emended by the Commons was passed.
THE LUXEMBOURG QUESTION.
Lord HOUGHTON asked the noble lord at the head of
her Majesty's Government as to the construction
which they placed on the words " collective guarantee',
in the Luxembourg treaty. He wished to know what
practical effect that guarantee had. It was statede
the
e
other day, he thought, that by this guarante ti
the signatories to that treaty agreed and provided that
if anything of a tyrannous nature was done to-
wards Luxembourg that the signatories should declare
that all the conditions of the treaty were at
null and void. It was not Greece or Belgium or Sweden,
or any of those Powers that these signatories guarded
against, but Prussia or France, who wish to take Luxem-
burg from Ilolland. If the aggressor to the conhad-
ditions of this treaty was a signatory, h
the greater to answer for. There were political
agitation going on in the countries of France and Prussia,
and this point was one of vital importance.
The Earl of DERBY said that he was prepared to give
the explanation again that he had already given, and
which did not seem to satisfy tho noble lord, but
whatever construction.ho might put, or th, Government
and house might put, upon the words, he was sure that all
viewed them with the utmost fairness. He was not
much of a diplomatist, but he would impress upon
them that the guaranteo was collective, and there-
fore notking could be done by ono power with-
out the consent of the whole. would call their
losdships' attention to the terms of the guarantee. Prussia
laid down they should have a full and free guarantee. His
noble relative in the other house, in drawiug up the treaty,
had not inserted the word guarantee, but had declared only
the neutrality of the rowers, but to this Prussia demurred,
and asked for a collective guarantee, which was accord-
ingly complied with. He would wish the noble lord to
declare his view of what a collective guarantee was. He
thought that if the noble lord thought that all the Powers
were bound to enforce the conditions of the guarantee.
If this had been the case they could hardly have expected
Prussia to have asked for such a guarantee. In 1831
Oleic.) was a separate guarantee given in the case of
Belgium.