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

THE LUXEMBURG 2 REATY.

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 cer-
tainty of neutrality was increased by the number of

the guaranteeing Powers. To come to a clear un-
derstanding upon the question raised, however, No
must first ascertain what does the guarantee of the
it
contains
oaennutitiaroianti
sibt
eya
do a
of
limitationub t
cd,country in
in
o thef
thefirfirst general
mean
stopvlearceei
g, nt
ye?
neutrality
Now,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 fiederis 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 faderis 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. If, there-
fore, for instance, England alone had guaranteed
the neutrality she would unquestionably be bound
to afford military assistance as an ally in any cast of
attack, come it whence it might, from one State or
from several. Thus in 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 roaY
be called upon to take collective action without any
one of them alone being bound to intervene, he
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 be
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 gua-
rantee a sine qua non condition of her participation
in the Conference, and why Lord Stanley had 00
long hesitated to undertake an obligation which ap-
parently contained no meaning whatever. Ear,
Russell also considered that in case of a breach ,
the treaty the other European Powers were bound
to intervene. Or are we to understand that it ha°,
only been intended to guarantee the neutrality of
Luxemburg against such States as Lichtenstein,
Greece, or Mexico. The more impossible the col-
sequences to be deduced, the rather do we find
ourselves justified in putting the question--W".
can have induced the noble lord to lay down thlo
f
hitherto unheard of theory, in the correctness cici
which he himself can hardly believe? Lo
r
Stanley seems to us in this respect to have, 11h°;43
all, exerted himself to represent the breach with the
nou-intervention principle followed for so 1313111
years as being as unimportant as possible in order,
to reconcile Parliament, so greatly attached to thatv
principle, to the new treaty. It is only when
look at the matter in this light that we are able w
understand how the Minister of the Crown could .
utter such a sentence as that, after all, the ultimo";
decision whether war should be entered intoor Or,
Luxemburg guarantee rested in the hands r3,
liament (through the right of granting or withholu
ing supplies). Why, all the world knows that t.
English Crown alone has the privilege of declarn?,
war, and that it is not customary first to ask li'tthe
liament whether war shall be carried on. On
contrary, the existence of war is notified to
finds Para
itse",,
?
ment, which then, as history teaches, inlY
as regards its right of granting supplies, 1133
guided by patriotism and the sense of what is donee
to England. From this point of view we find
i_ot
statements of the English Minister intelligible, "' ,
we cannot possibly regard them as seriously intendeu
limitations of an obligation undertaken according
treaty, in the sense hitherto universally uder-
stood."

WEST INDIAN INC UMBERED ESTATES COURT'rio
By Orders made by the Queen in the Council held °II
26th inst., the jurisdiction of the West Indian Incumbe%
Estates Court was extended to the islands of Pcunipled
and Nevis. By prior Orders in Council the island "ci
Jamaica, St. Vincent, Grenada, Tobago, Antigua, 10,
Monserrat, and the Virgin Islands, were placed under

jurisdiction of the same court.
The sentence .of death pronounced on the Yol.lll
man :Notts for an attempted murder at the ecolesiastxt3o
college of Courtrai, in Balgium, has been commuted
penal servitude fol life.