Memorandum from Frederick H. Boland to Éamon de Valera (Dublin)

Mr. Archer came to see me on the afternoon of the 23rd January about the proposed Nationality Conference in London.¹ I told him that, since our last conversation, you had been considering the whole matter and had decided to set down in a formal communication the considerations in connection with it which were fundamental from our point of view. I then gave Mr. Archer the Aide-Mémoire.

Having read the document, Mr. Archer's first remark was 'Well, it is pretty strong meat for the uneducated'. He said it was all right for people, like Maffey and himself, who understood the position here, but he would, of course, have to send the document to London and he was apprehensive what its effect would be on people who did not know our position so well. I said that the people he was referring to were simply people who had never bothered themselves to find out what our position was. The Aide-Mémoire simply set out what had frequently been stated in public by the Taoiseach and, in fact, what had been law here for the last twelve years.

Mr. Archer then asked was it intended that the Aide-Mémoire was to be circulated as a Conference document. That would be 'dreadful'. We did not know what battles had had to be fought with the kind of people who said: 'Either they are British subjects or they are not. If they are British subjects, they are in. If they are not, they are out.' I said that the question whether the Aide-Mémoire was to be a Conference document had not been discussed. I did not think that that was your intention. It was really for the British Government, and, in fact, as was stated in the Aide-Mémoire itself, the matters to which it related did not arise between Britain and the other members of the Commonwealth. It was well to be clear on one point, however. Though there was no idea, I thought, that the Aide-Mémoire should be a Conference document, it would have to be clearly understood that, if any point arose at the Conference touching on the matters dealt with in the Aide-Mémoire, our attitude would be as stated in the Aide-Mémoire and we would express it in pretty much the same terms.

Having looked through the Aide-Mémoire again, Mr. Archer asked what was intended by the last paragraph - what were the implications of the words 'clear recognition'. I said that what was meant was this: the position stated in the Aide-Mémoire was absolutely fundamental from our point of view, so that, if we were to participate in the Conference at all, we could only take part on the basis of that position. The Government felt bound, in frankness, to make that clear beforehand. To put the matter bluntly, there was no room for negotiation, so far as we were concerned, on the principles stated in the Aide-Mémoire, and we would be unable to agree to any arrangement which involved a departure from that.

Mr. Archer said that he could not help feeling that our attitude involved a good deal of 'looking the gift horse in the mouth'. I said that, quite frankly, no one here would look at the dropping of the 'British subject' pretension as a 'gift horse'. From our point of view, it was simply the removal of something which should never have been there at all. But I was sure that you would be sorry if the British Government thought that you did not appreciate their willingness to make the change. You sincerely welcomed the change and felt that nothing but good would result. I told Mr. Archer that I thought that his view was a bit unrealistic. We were now doing what had been done between Commonwealth Prime Ministers in London last May - clarifying the general political background of which the work of the Conference would have to take account. The dropping of the 'British subject' pretension was a welcome and constructive step as far as it went. But there was no good pretending that it was a final and complete solution of all the problems of nationality arising between the two countries. It simply was not, and the Government here had thought it only fair to make their position on that matter clear at this stage.

Mr. Archer next asked what part of the Aide-Mémoire related to the 'retention' issue. I said I thought I could best answer that by saying that the whole Aide-Mémoire related to it. The position was that, in connection with the proposed 'retention' clause, we were unable to accept anything inconsistent with the principles stated in the Aide-Mémoire. The Government were anxious that that should be recognized beforehand.

Mr. Archer asked whether a written reply was expected to the Aide-Mémoire. I said I had no instructions to ask for a written reply. The purpose of the Aide-Mémoire was to put our position clearly before the British Government and that would be achieved when he transmitted the text.

Mr. Archer asked whether we intended to publish the Aide-Mémoire. I said there was no immediate intention of publication, but the idea was that we would be free to publish the Aide-Mémoire if questions arose later as to the position we had adopted in connection with these discussions.

Mr. Archer, who seemed depressed and disappointed, said he would transmit the text to London at once. He could not prophecy what the reaction would be. Personally, he would do his best, but he was a bit apprehensive as to what the effect of the document would be on people who were not familiar with the position here. He said 'I feel it is all rather a pity. You know, with this Labour Government in power, we have a chance which may not occur again'.