of Dec. 11 from the Ministry of Munitions. Le
Rossignol’s statement as to his present occupation is
supported by the description of Le Rossignol in 1914 by
his brother Major H. S. Le Rossignol, as ‘an analytical
chemist employed by the Osram lamp factory’. Le
Rossignol was certainly in Berlin at the time of his
internment and when released from Ruhleben was
released, not to Karlsruhe, where he lived formerly and
where he presumably worked with Haber in connection
with synthetic ammonia, but to Berlin where he now is. He
was not interned in a pro-German barrack.
It seems pretty clear that Le Rossignol’s association
with Haber was in peace times and it would, I think, be
unjust to condemn a British subject for having worked at
the study of explosives in peace time in a country where
much important work was being formed.
The decision should, I think, turn on any investigations which the Home Office may be able to make in Jersey
concerning Le Rossignol, whose family is well known in
the Island.
Send a copy of Le Rossignol’s application to the H.O. …
and ask that enquiries be made in Jersey and we may be
furnished with their opinion as to the issue of a passport which is presumably required only for purposes of
identification.
(If Le Rossignol is really loyal in his sentiments it
would be a pity to alienate the services of a man who may
have considerable knowledge of German processes.)
These sentiments were finally distilled into a letter from Lord Newton on 08
November 1917 to the Home Office, the War Office and the Ministry of
Munitions—although no record remains in FO 383-312 regarding the outcome of the investigations in Jersey. One can only assume that they were no
barrier to Robert’s application and that his passport was duly issued.
However, because of his work on synthetic ammonia and its central role in
the ‘Chemist’s war’, Robert was still associated with ‘explosives’ in the eyes of
some within HMG, even though in reality he would have had no knowledge
of the ‘German processes’ they referred to. But one question remains, especially so when Robert’s approach to establishing the ‘appropriateness’ of his
302
D. Sheppard
Rossignol’s statement as to his present occupation is
supported by the description of Le Rossignol in 1914 by
his brother Major H. S. Le Rossignol, as ‘an analytical
chemist employed by the Osram lamp factory’. Le
Rossignol was certainly in Berlin at the time of his
internment and when released from Ruhleben was
released, not to Karlsruhe, where he lived formerly and
where he presumably worked with Haber in connection
with synthetic ammonia, but to Berlin where he now is. He
was not interned in a pro-German barrack.
It seems pretty clear that Le Rossignol’s association
with Haber was in peace times and it would, I think, be
unjust to condemn a British subject for having worked at
the study of explosives in peace time in a country where
much important work was being formed.
The decision should, I think, turn on any investigations which the Home Office may be able to make in Jersey
concerning Le Rossignol, whose family is well known in
the Island.
Send a copy of Le Rossignol’s application to the H.O. …
and ask that enquiries be made in Jersey and we may be
furnished with their opinion as to the issue of a passport which is presumably required only for purposes of
identification.
(If Le Rossignol is really loyal in his sentiments it
would be a pity to alienate the services of a man who may
have considerable knowledge of German processes.)
These sentiments were finally distilled into a letter from Lord Newton on 08
November 1917 to the Home Office, the War Office and the Ministry of
Munitions—although no record remains in FO 383-312 regarding the outcome of the investigations in Jersey. One can only assume that they were no
barrier to Robert’s application and that his passport was duly issued.
However, because of his work on synthetic ammonia and its central role in
the ‘Chemist’s war’, Robert was still associated with ‘explosives’ in the eyes of
some within HMG, even though in reality he would have had no knowledge
of the ‘German processes’ they referred to. But one question remains, especially so when Robert’s approach to establishing the ‘appropriateness’ of his
302
D. Sheppard