On July 20th, 1916, during the hearing of a case in the London Prize Court relating to the S.S. _Maracus_, the Solicitor-General (Sir George Cave) read an affidavit by Mr. John Hargreaves, provision merchant, Liverpool, stating that in 1915 the price of lard in Germany was 100s. per cwt., as against 50s. in Liverpool. At that price there was an inducement to American shippers to risk shipment to Germany, and to German buyers to open credits in New York. Should the American shipper succeed in getting two shipments through, he might well make a large profit which would amply compensate him for the loss of one shipment, apart from his chance of recovering compensation from the British Government. An affidavit by Mr. R. M. Greenwood, Assistant Treasury Solicitor, showed the imports of foodstuffs into Copenhagen during the first six months of 1915 as compared with the similar period of 1913. The figures were: 1913. 1915. PORK 948,400 lbs. 15,062,060 lbs. LARD 3,999,700 " 23,458,720 " OLEO 2,509,900 " 8,775,750 " The evidence in the case proved that the ship was bound for Germany and her captain had been promised a bonus of £200 if the goods reached their destination. On June 28th, 1916, Lord Robert Cecil in reply to a question in the House of Commons, said: "As the result of the Paris Conference His Majesty would be advised to issue an Order in Council withdrawing the successive Orders which had been issued adopting with modifications the Declaration of London, and a general statement should also be issued explaining the reason for this step." Amidst the loud cheering which followed a voice was heard to exclaim, "After twenty-three months!" How Potsdam must have hugged itself with delight in 1909, 1910, and 1911 at the absurdly childish simplicity exhibited by the English Liberal Government in nullifying all its geographical advantages by accepting such a one-sided code of sea-law which gave Germany the right to stop food _en route_ to British ports, while forbidding Great Britain to stop food _en route_ to Germany, and whilst in force rendered any effective blockade of Germany impossible. But what powerful mysterious motives prompted its re-adoption after it had been rejected by the House of Lords? Again on August 20th, 1914, why did the Cabinet illegally put it into force with modifications--though Article 65 thereof states that the code is indivisible? What was held in the unseen hand and to whom was it extended? On August 2nd, 1916, M. Clemenceau published an article in _L'Homme Enchainé_, headed, "A Fresh Assassination," in which, after commenting upon the brutal murders of Nurse Cavell and the innocent Captain Fryatt, he wrote: