§ 1. Mr. KINGasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has information concerning a British subject who was granted a passport to proceed to France in March, 1916, who was arrested in Paris on 11th March, was informed before or during June, 1916, that the French Government had decided on his discharge, but who is still detained in custody; whether this gentleman's advocate was informed that his arrest was due to the English police and not to the French authorities; whether, for a considerable period, the Consulate in Paris and the Foreign Office in London gave no assistance to this English gentleman, who had resided many months in Paris since the outbreak of war as the agent of munition firms; whether his arrest was due to the English police; whether any reason can be given for his continued detention; and what action he proposes to take?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord Robert Cecil)In reply to inquiries from the Foreign Office His Majesty's Consul-General at Paris reported on 31st March last that a British subject was detained in Paris on a charge of espionage and was being examined by the first court-martial. His Majesty's Consul-General closely followed the case, and took such steps as he properly could to expedite the investigation, and he also eventually obtained competent legal advice for the accused. It was at one time hoped that the investigation would be concluded by the middle of June, but it was not till the 30th of that month that the Consul-General reported that a decreee of expulsion had been signed that morning by the Minister of the Interior, and that it was expected that the release of the prisoner would follow in a few days. I understand that he was sent to England yesterday. The accused has stated that he was informed by his advocate that his arrest by the French authorities was in consequence of a communication from the British police, but the Foreign Office have no information to that effect.
§ Mr. KINGDoes not a decree of expulsion carry with it a moral slur upon the character of this man, who was employed at Woolwich under the War Office and who, very shortly before he went to Paris, was given a passport?
§ Lord R. CECILI am afraid I do not know the extent to which it carries a moral slur.
§ Mr. KINGAs he was only released yesterday, was it in consequence of my question having been put down?
§ Lord R. CECILNo, Sir, I have no reason to think that.