Minute from Frederick H. Boland to Seán MacBride (Dublin)

Minister
I had lunch yesterday with Mr. Pritchard of the British Office.

The conversation during lunch was quite inconsequential but after lunch Mr. Pritchard broached the subject which he had obviously asked me to lunch for the purpose of discussing.

Having asked when the Taoiseach was due to return and having made a semi-jocular reference to the Taoiseach's public statements in Canada, Mr. Pritchard said that Ministers in London were at a loss 'what to make of it all'. He said that it seemed to them (i.e. the British Ministers) that up to about two months ago relations between Ireland and Britain were progressing quite satisfactorily and that all of a sudden, for some reason they were at a loss to understand, there was a reversal of policy on our side - a series of public statements by Ministers here which all seemed to point in an opposite direction.

I expressed surprise at this and asked Mr. Pritchard what statements he was thinking of. He said: 'Well, first and foremost, Mr. Costello's statement that Ireland was not a member of the Commonwealth'. I asked Mr. Pritchard whether he was not rather taking that statement out of its context; it was to be read in the light of what had been said by Ministers about the same time as regards the character of our association with the Commonwealth. Mr. Pritchard said that, even so, the statement represented a distinctly new departure. I said it did not - that, for example, if any member of the previous Government had been asked whether or not Ireland was a member of the Commonwealth the reply would have been an emphatic negative. I thought that had been made clear in official statements here made prior to the statement last July by the Taoiseach. Mr. Pritchard said he would be very glad if I could refer him to any previous statements of the kind; they might be 'very important'. I said I would look up references but that on the substance of the matter, if anyone in London thought that prior to the Taoiseach's statement last July Ireland was regarded here as a member of the Commonwealth, they must have been running in blinkers. The term 'external association' used so frequently by the previous Government excluded the notion of membership of the Commonwealth. I went into considerable detail in an effort to explain to Mr. Pritchard the historical reasons for the distinction between the two things and the importance it had from the Irish point of view.

Mr. Pritchard said that the Taoiseach's statement had been followed by the adjournment debate and other public statements culminating in the Taoiseach's statement in Canada last week about the repeal of the External Relations' Act. The tendency of all these statements seemed to them to point away from any relationship with the Commonwealth and Ministers in London, who had previously had the impression that Anglo-Irish relations were progressing very satisfactorily, were so mystified that Rugby had been asked to go over to London next week for a two day discussion on the whole business. I understood Mr. Pritchard to say that the discussions were to take place on Wednesday and Thursday. I evinced mild surprise at all this and said that - leaving out of account the circumstances in which it was made - surely the Taoiseach's statement about the repeal of the External Relations' Act was no surprise either to the British Office here or the authorities in London. I remembered having told both himself and, when I was in London, Mr. Archer that it was perfectly obvious that the days of the Act were numbered. Mr. Pritchard admitted that this was so. He agreed that the British authorities knew that the External Relations' Act was bound to go; but he said that, taken in conjunction with the Taoiseach's statement that Ireland was not a member of the Commonwealth and the general trend of public statements here over the last two months, the statement about the repeal of the Act had a special significance.

As Mr. Pritchard seemed to be laying more stress on the Taoiseach's statement in the Dáil last July than on his recent statement about the repeal of the External Relations' Act I asked Mr. Pritchard why - if his people had had all these doubts and forebodings about developments here - Lord Rugby had not come in and had a frank discussion with you about them. I thought, for example, that you would have had no difficulty in disabusing Lord Rugby of any idea that Mr. Costello's statement that Ireland was not a member of the Commonwealth marked an entirely new development. Mr. Pritchard seemed interested in this and I got the impression from him that Lord Rugby may have considered doing something of the kind but had decided against it.

When Mr. Pritchard referred to the developments last week I told him that we were convinced that the decision about our representation at the forthcoming London meeting was undoubtedly the best possible arrangement. I asked him did he not think so too. He replied: 'Well - perhaps'.

Towards the end of the conversation Mr. Pritchard told me that Rugby wanted to drop in to see me before he went to London and had asked him to fix a time with me. I asked Mr. Pritchard was Lord Rugby coming in to discuss what we had been talking about. Mr. Pritchard said no; he thought that Lord Rugby had one or two rather minor matters which he wanted to talk about before he went to London. I fixed an appointment for 10.30 on Monday morning.