Letter from Frederick H. Boland to John J. Hearne (Ottawa)
(Personal and Confidential)

My dear John,
I am almost ashamed to write you a personal letter, it is so long since I last did so. I have had a firm intention of repairing the omission about fifty times, but I never got round to doing it. In the feverish official atmosphere in which we have lived now for over a year, we can only get through the things which, willy-nilly, have to be done, by sacrificing the things we want to do ourselves!

My first purpose in writing now is to ask you whether the Taoiseach's visit imposed on you financial burdens which you feel yourself should be borne out of Public Funds. If so, please do not hesitate to let us have an official case. The financial provision made for our Heads of Missions is not sufficiently generous to leave a margin for exceptional expenditures. In many cases, it is not enough to cover normal representational obligations. It is important, therefore, that, when exceptional expenditure has to be met, exceptional provision should be made for it, lest anyone get the idea that our allowances are so ample that a few hundred pounds one way or the other makes no difference to those who enjoy them! That is the first point. If you feel there is a justifiable claim, don't hesitate to put it up and we will do what we can about it.

I would be glad to have a note from you, at your convenience, as to how the visit went. I gather that it had its rough patches. Norman Robertson, of whom we have seen a good deal in recent weeks, did not seem to be enthusiastic about it. Rather the contrary. I should be glad to have your own personal impressions when you write.

We are now through the Dáil with the Republic Bill and we face the Senate on Thursday. The debate began well in the Dáil, but steadily declined in tone and ended very badly. The Taoiseach was excellent introducing the Bill and winding up on the Fifth Stage. Our Minister's speeches also made an excellent impression. De Valera's speech on the Second Stage also earned wide and favourable comment. Much of the remainder of the debates was simply national humiliation, until, finally, the discussion on the Fifth Stage became very bitter indeed.

In the developments which preceded the introduction of the Bill, there were mistakes made on both sides, beginning with the Taoiseach's rather unexpected announcement of the Government's intentions during his visit to Canada. In the later stages, practically all the mistakes were on the British side. They made an error, from their own point of view, in withdrawing (or not extending) the invitation to the Commonwealth talks in London, and the CRO's Press hand-outs about the probable consequences of the repeal of the External Relations Act were extremely ill-judged and short-sighted and are apt yet to prove a serious source of embarrassment to the British Government. What decided the issue in the final stages was, of course, the attitude of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. At the discussions in Paris, their attitude was decisive. Mike Pearson was excellent. Dr. Evatt described the result of the talks, in conversation with me, as a 'complete defeat' for the British, but, for obvious reasons, we would not claim to regard them in that light, and probably the other Commonwealth Governments would be more than embarrassed if we seemed to do so.

It is an interesting and chastening reflection to contrast the attitude of the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand representatives at Paris with what we know by bitter experience in this Department to be the normal attitude of third countries when confronted with a conflict of view between Ireland and Great Britain. We know only too well what third countries normally do in such a case - if they cannot in conscience side openly with Britain, they take refuge in a 'dérobade'. The last thing in the world they are prepared to do is to side with us against Britain! But that is what Canada, Australia and New Zealand did quite openly and definitely at Paris. What other countries in the world would have done the same? The point is not irrelevant to the question of the value of the factual relationship which we continue to maintain with the Commonwealth!

We have hardly begun to think yet of all the things that will have to be readjusted and cleared up once the Act is through. The present intention is to bring the Act into operation on the 21st January, if that is possible. The British know that that is our desire and, we understand, are doing their best to have things ready on their side by that date. In virtue of its constitutional powers, the Government will order that the reaccredition of existing diplomatic representatives here, and of our own representatives aboard, will not be required. The next Irish representative in Canada however will be accredited by the President to the British King.

How are you feeling about Paris? We have seen a lot of it in recent months. In fact, we have almost come to regard ourselves as domiciled in Paris and making occasional short visits to Dublin! Paris is more beautiful than ever, and none of the labour and other troubles of which we have read so much in the papers show themselves on the surface of life in the city, which, what with the UNO Assembly, the Motor Show and the OEEC and Western Union meetings, has been particularly brilliant in recent months. The Minister's idea is to make the Ottawa-Paris change as soon as possible after the Act comes into operation, i.e., some time in February; but that would not prevent you spending some time here in Dublin between one post and the other, if you wished. If you have any particular ideas or desires on this matter, perhaps you would let me know.

As I said, life in the Department is anything but a holiday. Somehow we have gone on getting busier and busier ever since the end of the war. The European Recovery Programme has proved an appalling addition to our burdens. What makes things so difficult is the shortage of staff. It was a terrible pity we did not get more people into the Department in the period 1929-1939. We are feeling the effects of the omission badly now, and its consequences will, I believe, prove more serious still within the next five or six years. We have to set up a new Legation at The Hague within the next few months, and where the staff is to come from is more than I can think.

Many of the people abroad were home during the Summer, including Frank Cremins, Michael MacWhite, Mattie Murphy and Johnnie Belton. Frank Cremins is much stronger and more like his old self. He has become quite bald but has not lost the habit of running his hand over the top of his head to smooth out the few remaining hairs! Michael Rynne and Sheila Murphy, who, with myself, are now the only veterans of the old days left at home, are both well and send their kindest regards. Joe Walshe, I believe, is getting much better health, but, since I have not written to him for nearly nine months, I must be almost in as bad odour with him as, for the same reason, I expect I am with you.

That is all my news for the present. We look forward to seeing you here in a couple of months or so. In the meantime, all the compliments of the season to you, Mona and all the family, and kindest remembrances to you and them from everyone here.

P.S.: Mike Pearson gave us a very pleasant cocktail party while we were in Paris, at which we met many old friends, including Jean Désy,¹ Pierce, the Ambassador in Moscow,² and Vanier, the Ambassador in Paris.³