Sir,
In reply to your letters of the 15
th November … forwarding papers in the case of Robert Le Rossignol am
directed by Secretary Sir George Cave to suggest for the
consideration of Mr. Secretary Balfour
66 that as the
reply proposed by the Ministry of Munitions is based
upon the assumption that Mr. Rossignol’s work is connected with munitions of war, a point on which there is
no precise information, the answer should rather be
that as the H.M. Government do not know the precise
nature of Mr. Le Rossignol’s occupation, they are
unable to express an opinion on the point, but that they
would disapprove of him engaging in any occupation
connected with the operations of war.
I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,
However, by 12 February 1917 the Foreign Office replied to Robert’s inquiry
via the Netherlands Minister at Berlin in terms favoured by the Ministry of
Munitions rather than the rather ‘softer’ approaches of Lord Newton and the
Home Office. Their reply was ‘to the point’ and somewhat intimidating;
Memorandum for communication to the Netherlands
Minister at Berlin
His Majesty’s Government have received a note from the
United States Ambassador, transmitting a copy of a note
from the United States Embassy at Berlin, dated the 9
th
January, regarding the case of Robert le Rossignol who
has been released from Ruhleben for the purpose of
resuming his former occupation.
As it is understood that Mr. Le Rossignol’s former
occupation is one connected with the operations of war,
his Majesty’s Government would view with strong disapproval his resumption of that occupation, and in such an
event he would have to be prepared to face all the consequences of such disapproval in the event of his return
to this country.
FOREIGN OFFICE, February 12
th 1917.
298
D. Sheppard
In reply to your letters of the 15
th November … forwarding papers in the case of Robert Le Rossignol am
directed by Secretary Sir George Cave to suggest for the
consideration of Mr. Secretary Balfour
66 that as the
reply proposed by the Ministry of Munitions is based
upon the assumption that Mr. Rossignol’s work is connected with munitions of war, a point on which there is
no precise information, the answer should rather be
that as the H.M. Government do not know the precise
nature of Mr. Le Rossignol’s occupation, they are
unable to express an opinion on the point, but that they
would disapprove of him engaging in any occupation
connected with the operations of war.
I am, Sir, Your obedient servant,
However, by 12 February 1917 the Foreign Office replied to Robert’s inquiry
via the Netherlands Minister at Berlin in terms favoured by the Ministry of
Munitions rather than the rather ‘softer’ approaches of Lord Newton and the
Home Office. Their reply was ‘to the point’ and somewhat intimidating;
Memorandum for communication to the Netherlands
Minister at Berlin
His Majesty’s Government have received a note from the
United States Ambassador, transmitting a copy of a note
from the United States Embassy at Berlin, dated the 9
th
January, regarding the case of Robert le Rossignol who
has been released from Ruhleben for the purpose of
resuming his former occupation.
As it is understood that Mr. Le Rossignol’s former
occupation is one connected with the operations of war,
his Majesty’s Government would view with strong disapproval his resumption of that occupation, and in such an
event he would have to be prepared to face all the consequences of such disapproval in the event of his return
to this country.
FOREIGN OFFICE, February 12
th 1917.
298
D. Sheppard