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

MORRO VELIIO MARRIAGE BILL.

This bill was read a seccnd time.
LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
This bill was 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.
TIIE BLAOKWALL 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 amended 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 stated the
other day, he thought, that by this guarantee all
the signataries to that treaty agreed and provided that
if anything of a tyrannous nature was done to-
wards Luxembourg that the signataries should declare
that all the conditions of the treaty were at once
null and void. It was not Greecs or Belgium or Sweden,
or any of those Powers that these signataries guarded
against, but Prussia or France, who wish to take Luxem-
burg from Holland. If the aggressor to the con-
ditions of this treaty was a signatary, he had the greater
responsibility to answer for. There were political
agitations 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 ho had already given, and
which did not seem to satisfy the noble lord, but
whatever construction he might put, or the Government
and house might put, upon the words, he was sure that all
viewed them with the utmost fairness. Ho was not
much of a diplomatist, but ho would impress upon
them that the guarantee was collective, and there-
fore nothing could be done by one power with-
out the consent of the whole. He would call their
lordships' attention to the terms of the guarantee. Prussia
laid down they should have a full and free guarantee. Hi,
noble relative in the other house, in drawing up the treaty.
had not inserted the word guarantee, but had declared only
the neutrality of the Powers, 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 Powell
were bound to enforce the conditions of the guarantee,
if this had been the case they could hardly have expectec:
Prussia to have asked for such a guarantee. In 1831
there was a separate guarantee given in the case of
Belgium.
_ _ .

Earl RUSSELL Much regretted tho raising of the dis-
cussion, the previous debate upon the question having oc-
casioned great uneasiness in Prussia, and an unfavourable
inference of what the conduct of England might be in the
event of any future emergency. His opinion was that, if
either France or Prussia violated the neutrality of Luxem-
bourg, and the rest of the Powers were called upon to en-
force it, there would be a moral obligation upon them to
do so. He did not believe, however, that either France of
Prussia had the slightest desire to violate the neutrality of
Luxembourg, and he trusted it would never be thought h.
Europe that this country had only entered into diplomatic
engagements with the view of retracting them whenever
the necessity for fulfilling them might arise.
After some debate, in which Lord Lyveden, Lord Strat-
ford de Redcliffe, and the Duke of Argyll took part, tilt
subject dropped.
The Earl of DERBY, in reply to Earl Russell, said that,
in consequence of the reported execution of the ex-E.npe-
ror Maximilian, the review appointed to be held this day-
would be postponed, but he hoped Lot abandoned.
Their lordships adjourned at 25 minutes to 7 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING.
INDIA PRIZE MONEY.
Mr. T. CHAMBERS asked the Secretary of State for Wai
when the Central India prize-money would be distributed,
and what had been the cause of the long delay of nine
years ?

Sir J. PAKINGTON said the delay in paying the
money had arisen through litigation, but that was now
fortunately at an end, and therefore the prize-money
would be paid without any further delay.
At the request of Colonel FRENCH,
Sir J. PAKINGTON stated the nature of the arrange-
ments for the accommodation of members of both houses
on the occasion of the naval review at Spithead. Four
hundred tickets and a special train would, he mid, be pro-
vided for the members of each house, who are to have a
luncheon at the cost of the Admiralty, but who will have
to pay their own railway fares.
The house having gone into committee on the Reform
Bill,

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made a
formal motion for reporting progress, iu order to enable
him to make a suggestion that after Mr. Hibbert's clause
to make charges for conveying voters to the poll at borough
elections illegal, the committee should proceed to the con-
sideration of the schedules. Should the house accede to this
suggestion, the remaining clauses of which private mem-
bers had given notice could bo discussed on the bringing
up of the report, and the bill might go to the House of
Lords in -time to receive the deliberate consideration of that
which discussions
Manchester, might
assembly. He feared, however, if this course were not
adopted, it would be difficult to set limits to the length to
hon. gentleman added that he proposed to get a third mem-
ber
for their
Liverpool,
Birmingham, and
The right
mt,
and Leeds by
giving up the scheme of enfranchisement originally pro-
posed for St. Helens, Keighly, Luton, and Barnsley.
The suggestion of the Chancellor led to a somewhat dis-
cursive debate, in the course of which Mr. Bright expressed
his opinion that there was a great deal of reason in it, and
recommended the house to agree to it. The hon. gentle-
man also read a letter addressed to him by Mr. W. H.
Reece, of Dartmouth, imploring him to use his influence to
get that borough disfranchised on the ground of its exten-
sive and irredeemable corruption. Mr. John Hardy (mem-
ber for Dartmouth) admitted that the borough was not im-
maculate, but contended that it was no worse than many
others, and that it would be unreasonable for any Whig to
insist upon the disfranchisement of a place so close to the
historic spot at which the great reformer, William of
Orange, had landed. Mr. Lowe expressed himself dissatis-
fied with any mode of manipulating the bill which could
deprive him of the privilege of taking the sense of the
house on the principle of cumulative voting. Mr. Bouverie
and Mr. White approved of the plan as calculated to facili-
tate the progress of the bill, and eventually the subject
dropped ; and the committee resumed the consideration of
the clause proposed by Mr. Hibbert, making the payment of
expenses of conveying voters to the poll illegal. Mr. Hub-
bert stating ho was willing to exclude counties from the
operation of the clause, and also to make an exception in
favour of the boroughs of Retford, Shoreham, Aylesbury,
and Crickdale, a division was taken on the motion that
the clause be road a second time, which was agreed to by
166 to 101. A proposition to include Wenlock among the
excepted boroughs was subsequently negatived, and the
clause was ordered to stand part of the bill.
A clause proposed by Sir T. D. LLOYD to declare illegal
the employment by committees for election purpcses of
rooms in houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating
liquors underwent considerable discussion. Much time
was wasted and many impractieable amendments were
inrroduced, until at length the house gladly availed itself
of a motion to negative the clause in globo, which was
done on a division by 197 to 98.
Mr. LOWE next proceeded to move his clause iu favour
of cumulative voting. It provided that at any contested
election for a county or borough represented by more than
two members, and having more than .ono„Elm'i,, vacant,
every voter should be entitled to a uumbe r of votes
equal to the number of vacant seats, 'and might give all
such votes to one candidate, or might distribute them
among the candidates, as ho thought fit. This proposal,
he observed, was the last of the expedients which could
ba suggested for giving some variety to the franchise,
and if this failed to receive the approval of the committee ,
ho feared they must content themselves with having a
uniform franchise placed in the hands of the lowest classes
of the community.
Mr. LIDDELL moved that the Chairman report pro-
gress, urging ' that the subject was of too much importance
to bo discussed at midnight.
Mr. T. HUGHES spoke in support of the clause, after
which the house divided, and the motion to report pro-
vess was negatived by 213 to 88.
Sir C. RUSSELL then moved that tho Chairman leave ,
the chair ; and, after a short discussion, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer assenting, progress WAS reported, and the
Chairman obtained leave to sit again this day.
Several bills were advanced a stago, and the house ad- i
journed at 20 minutes past one until two o'clock this day. '