Lord Stanley intimated on Thursday night that the Conference question
was settled,—that England had given her guarantee with the other great Powers of Europe for the neutrality of the Duchy of Luxemburg, and that he was prepared to take the responsibility of that act on himself and his colleagues. He ventured, however, to assert that "in doing this we have not incurred any fresh responsibility ; we have rather limited and defined it ; indeed, I should think we have narrowed the respon- sibility which fonverly rested on this country in connection with Luxemburg, whatlhver the amount of that responsibility may have been." We confess we read this statement with the greatest amaze- ment. Does Lord Stanley mean that if Prussia now refused to with- draw her garrison, or in future wished to put it back in Luxemburg,
-• or if France in future wished to occupy Luxemburg, we should not be bound to interfere ? If so, what is our guarantee worth ? Or can he mean that if war had broken out a fortnight ago, before we gave this guarantee, we were equally bound to interfere ? Did he not himself tell everybody that if war broke out on that ques- tion we should be "strictly neutral ?" Could we be strictly neutral on it in future ? In fact the Treaty of 1839, to which he refers, while it undoubtedly guaranteed the special division of territory between Belgium and Holland, gave no guarantee at all about the neutrality of Luxemburg. Indeed Luxemburg was not then neutral, was to be garrisoned and lookel.after by Germany in the German interest. It is not on the territorial right of Holland to Luxemburg that war has ever been even threatened. No one questioned or cared about that. It was on the question of military occupation that war was threatened, and we have now given an entirely fresh guarantee never to permit this territory in future to be otherwise than neutral. What does Lord Stanley mean ?
