§ 10. Sir A. MARKHAMasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he still adheres to his declaration made in his Note of the 23rd July last that we are not detaining enemy goods as such; if this implies that all enemy goods detained at sea by our cruisers are at once released without being submitted to the Prize Court as contemplated by the Order in Council of 11th March, 1915; and, if so, can he explain why greater indulgence is shown to enemy goods than is shown to neutral goods detained under that Order?
§ Lord R. CECILIf the hon. Member will refer to what I said on 23rd July in the Note which I addressed to the United States Ambassador, he will see that this question does not convey a correct impression of my statement. It was only where the fact of enemy ownership afforded no evidence that the goods were of enemy origin, or possessed an enemy destination, that I said they were not in practice being detained. Such cases are extremely rare, but with respect to them the declaration made has not been withdrawn. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative, and the third, therefore, does not arise.