Memorandum from Frederick H. Boland to Seán MacBride (Dublin)
'Report to Minister for External Affairs on talks between officials in London, 6/7th January, 1949'

Minister
Most of our time in London was taken up in discussions about the most-favoured-nation clause with a Committee headed by Sir Eric Beckett, Legal Adviser, British Foreign Office. This Committee met in the mornings and afternoons of the two days we were in London - four times in all - so that there was not much time for other conversations. An official record has been prepared of our talks with Sir Eric Beckett's Committee and this record is attached hereto.¹ I should like to deal in this report with more informal conversations I had with:-

• Sir Percivale Liesching (the new Permanent Under Secretary of State of the Commonwealth Relations Office) and Sir Norman Brooke (Permanent Secretary of the British Cabinet);
• Mr. Norman Robertson; and
• Mr. Norman Archer.

On the afternoon of the January, I went to see Sir Percivale Liesching and Sir Norman Brooke, at their invitation. Mr. Norman Archer and Mr. Neil Pritchard were also present. Sir Percivale Liesching explained at the opening of the conversation that the purpose of this interview was to discuss, very informally and quite unofficially, the changes which would fall to be made in consequence of the enactment of the Republic of Ireland Bill, other than the matters which had been discussed by Sir Eric Beckett's Committee.

Provisions of new British legislation.
We spoke first about the provisions of the new legislation to be enacted in Britain. Sir Norman Brooke said that the British legislation had not yet been drafted. In fact, no instructions had been even sent to the Draftsman. They were merely in the stage of framing suggestions to put before their Cabinet, which proposed to give the morning of next Wednesday, 12th January, to the consideration of policy as regards Ireland and was expected to reach decisions as regards the nature and date of the new legislation then. They expected to be able to let us know their Government's decisions on these points on Wednesday evening.

I raised first the question of nomenclature, saying that Ministers here expected that the term adopted - and given legislative sanction - in the new British Bill would be that used in our own Act, namely, the 'Republic of Ireland'. Sir Percivale Liesching and Sir Norman Brooke said that, of course, none of these matters had yet been given any careful consideration, but that, personally, they saw no reason why the term 'Republic of Ireland' should not be used.

I then said that, if - as was obviously necessary - the new British Act were to contain provisions negativing the conclusion of 'foreignnesss' and providing for the continuance in our regard of arrangements traditionally associated with membership of the Commonwealth, it was desirable that the Bill should also contain a provision - somewhat on the lines of Section 1 of the Burma Independence Act - giving unequivocal legislative recognition to our position as an independent State outside the Commonwealth. Such a provision would not go beyond what Mr. Attlee had already said in the House of Commons, and its inclusion would serve to prevent the irritating and mutually embarrassing controversies which a Bill not containing such a provision would be apt to provoke. Sir Norman Brooke said the difficulty about such a provision was that it tended to emphasise the anomaly of the other provisions of the Bill. I said the difficulty was that a bill without such a provision would be out of line with what had been agreed on the Ministerial level. The agreed position was that we were now a sovereign independent country outside the British Commonwealth - a development which really made Britain and Ireland foreign countries vis-à-vis one another - but that, in order to continue our factual relationships and protect them against claims by foreign countries, we did not propose to treat one another as foreign countries. A Bill setting out the latter aspect of this position, while ignoring the former, would give a one-sided and misleading impression. Sir Norman Brooke said he saw the point. He did not at all exclude the possibility of such a provision as we wanted being included. He would make a special note of it.

In connection with the new legislation, Sir Norman Brooke said that a point had cropped up which he had better mention. The provision (Section 3(2)) of the British Nationality Act under which Irish citizens in Great Britain enjoyed the rights of British subjects only applied to rights existing at the time the Act came into force, viz., the 1st January, 1949. They proposed to extend this until the 1st January, 1950. Their reason was that there was a considerable mass of legislation, Statutory Orders, Colonial Orders in Council, etc., in course of enactment which referred to British subjects only and which could not, at this stage, be conveniently amended to extend to Irish citizens. For example, the Wireless Telegraphy Bill, 1949, which had been introduced but not yet read a second time, enacted that only a British subject could hold an experimental wireless licence. They did not want a position in which Ministers would have to get up in the House of Commons on every such provision and propose that the words 'or Irish citizen' should be added. As regards the legislation after the 1st January, 1950, the question whether or not Irish citizens would be included would be dealt with on the drafting stage.

There was some slight discussion as to what the British Bill would include in addition to the clause recognising our new position. It was mentioned that there would probably have to be clauses providing

• that the phrase 'foreign country', where it occurred in British legislation, should be deemed not to include the Republic of Ireland; and
• that laws which had hitherto applied to Ireland would continue to apply to the Republic of Ireland in the same manner as heretofore.

I mentioned that the terms in which provisions of this kind were couched would be of importance from our point of view, but it was generally agreed that there was not much purpose in discussing the matter further at that stage.

Titles and accredition of diplomatic representatives.
Sir Norman Brooke said that the matter that the British Government were very anxious about was that our chances of maintaining vis-à-vis foreign countries the agreed position as regards our mutual 'non-foreignness' should not be prejudiced by any action as regards changing the titles or methods of appointment of the Irish representative in London or the British representative in Dublin. They hoped that the British representative in Dublin could continue to have the title of 'Representative'. I said that, over the period during which the new position was being formally established vis-à-vis foreign countries, I thought it might be possible, as a matter of tactics, to arrange something about this, always on the understanding that there was no difference between us about the principle and that we would eventually revert to the normal position once it were safe to do so. Both Sir Norman Brooke and Sir Percivale Liesching reacted unfavourably to this statement. They said that the maintenance of the 'non-foreignness' position vis-à-vis foreign countries was going to be extremely difficult at the best; that many of their people still doubted very much whether it would be possible at all, but that any chances we had would be gone if, having said we did not propose to treat one another as foreign countries, we proceeded to do so. I said that these objections seemed to me to throw us back on what I had said - that the question was one of timing and tactics and that there need be no question between us as to the principle. I felt that our Ministers, having assumed the responsibility of a considerable constitutional change, would be very careful about anything which suggested to the minds of our people that the change was something less than it really was. I saw no reason which required the point to be regarded as other than one of tactics and timing, and on the timing we were more optimistic than they seemed to be. We felt the time when it was possible to put matters on their proper basis would come relatively soon.

Continuing to raise concerns and objections to these arguments, Sir Norman Brooke said the question would probably arise at once in connection with the appointment of Lord Rugby's successor. He asked whether it was likely to arise anywhere else in the near future, and I mentioned Ottawa. He said he sincerely hoped that, if our Act were in operation when Lord Rugby's successor was appointed (which he indicated would be about the end of March), the successor could be appointed in the same way as Lord Rugby and allowed to have the title of 'Representative'. I said the reference to the method of appointment raised a new point. Were they suggesting that Lord Rugby's successor should not be accredited to the President? Were their remarks addressed to the title or the mode of accredition, or both? There was some exchange of remarks between Sir Norman Brooke and Sir Percivale Liesching at this point, at the conclusion of which they said that it was the title that was really important - more important than the method of accredition.

I suggested to Liesching and Brooke that they were attaching a rather exaggerated importance to this matter. Before the Republic of Ireland Bill was even mooted, our policy had been to assimilate Commonwealth representatives to those of foreign countries. We had never drawn the distinctions made in London and other Commonwealth capitals, and, in fact, our representative in Australia - the only representative to a Commonwealth country appointed in recent years - was a Minister Plenipotentiary and was ordinarily given that title. Our idea on the matter was well known to foreign countries, so that, if the new British representative to Dublin were to have the title of Ambassador, I did not think it would have any such significance in the eyes of foreign countries as they suggested. Neither Sir Norman Brooke nor Sir Percivale Liesching would admit this argument. They said that such a change when we were still regarded by them as a member of the Commonwealth might have had no serious significance, but it would have now. They did not mind what we did vis-à-vis other Commonwealth countries. That was a matter for us to arrange with them. But they thought it did matter what happened between ourselves and Great Britain, and they thought that, if we were to treat them as a foreign country in connection with the accredition and title of their representative here, it would be most unfortunate.

Sir Norman Brooke said that there was a practical point bearing on this which he wanted to mention. Our High Commissioner in London and his staff enjoyed, of course, the usual exemption from taxation. They did so by virtue of a Section in a British Act which specifically referred to 'High Commissioners'. The representatives of foreign countries in Great Britain enjoyed exemption under an old Statute of Queen Anne which referred specifically to 'foreign countries'. If we were not to be a 'foreign country' and our representative in London were to cease to be a High Commissioner, our staffs in London would cease to enjoy their present exemption from taxation under British law. In order to cover this point, he thought it would be necessary to insert a specific provision in the new British legislation. The framing of this provision might be delicate; it would be difficult to know how to refer to our man in London in view of what had just been said. They would have to try to get over the difficulty by getting a neutral phrase which would not prejudice the question of the title of our envoy. We passed away from this matter to the question of the accredition and title of our representatives - with my repeating that, whatever else was done about it, the principle must not be prejudiced, and that, if the question of principle were raised, my Government would be placed in a difficulty. No one referred during the discussion to the question of our transfer from the Commonwealth Relations Office to the Foreign Office, and, having regard to the way the discussion on the titles of our representatives had gone, I thought it better not to bring it up.

Partition.
The conversation then turned to Partition, a subject which the other British officials present seemed to leave to Sir Norman Brooke. I said it was unthinkable to us that, at this stage, the British Government should take any action to buttress up Partition, but that the terms of the communiqué issued after the talks with the Six County Ministers had occasioned our Government serious concern which had been expressed on the Ministerial level.² Sir Norman Brooke said that the British Government had not reached any conclusions at all; they had heard what the Six County Ministers had to say, but the Cabinet had not yet even considered their views.

I said that, of course, any action suggesting even the slightest disposition on the part of the British Government to perpetuate Partition would be simply disastrous. It was not sufficient to say, as Mr. Attlee had said, that, if Partition was to end, its ending must be effected with the free agreement of the people in the Six Counties. That policy would be interpreted in Ireland as a 'carte blanche' given by Britain to the Six County people to lie back and do nothing unless the British Government themselves did something to show that they were sincerely anxious to end Partition and to promote the agreement which they regarded as the necessary condition for that purpose. Sir Norman Brooke said that that was all very well, but that our repeal of the External Relations Act and our anti-Partition campaign did not make an agreement any easier. I said, as regards the first, that, with great courage and at great personal sacrifice, Irish Ministers had for twenty-six years carried the heavy onus of unpopular constitutional policies in the vain hope that their continuance would contribute to the ending of Partition. Any step by the British Government towards ending Partition during that period might have made the burden easier to bear, but the opportunity was allowed to pass. As regards the second point, it would be a fatal illusion to regard the anti-Partition campaign which existed wherever Irish people were to be found as a demand artificially stimulated by Irish Government policy. It was simply to ignore the facts of Irish history to think that the Irish people, at home or abroad, would forget about Partition if only the Irish Government ceased talking about it. On the contrary, the certainty was that, if any Irish Government ever showed lack of vigour or persistence in pursuing the solution of Partition, or if people lost faith in the possibility of a solution being found by peaceable diplomatic means, minds would start to turn to other methods of dealing with the problem with deplorable consequences, not only for our mutual relations, but for the whole structure of the Commonwealth. The imperative need was for some action on the part of the British Government that would convince people here that such action is not necessary and that Partition could be solved without it. Looking at the matter in its broadest aspects, the urgency of some action of this kind could not be over-emphasised.

Sir Norman Brooke said that, if the solution was to be found by agreement, it was obvious that agreement would have to come by degrees and could only begin with relatively minor matters - tourism, public health, transport and the like. They had been glad to see what had been done between ourselves and the Six County people in the matter of the Erne development scheme. There were, perhaps, possibilities of progress being made by widening the area of agreement on matters of that kind. I said there was possibly something in this. Our Ministers had emphasised again and again their willingness to meet the Six County Government and discuss with them proposals for the benefit of Ireland as a whole. The essential thing was to provide, without delay, some kind of action which held out to the people of Ireland a substantial and convincing hope of leading to the ending of Partition.

The foregoing exchanges took place about the middle of the conversation. When we were leaving, Sir Norman Brooke asked me to stay behind a moment because he wanted to say a word to me. When I did so, he told me, in a few hasty phrases, that it was 'very likely' that we would be receiving, in the near future, an approach from Stormont proposing the conclusion between the two Governments of a number of arrangements of an administrative character. The matters involved were rather minor, but he hoped the approaches would be well received on our side. He said that he did not know whether any of our Ministers knew Sir Basil Brooke, but personally he was a reasonable, moderate man. He thought I should mention this over here, if it were not already generally known.

Membership of Commonwealth bodies.
Mr. Archer raised the question of our continued membership of the various Commonwealth bodies of which we are at present members. Sir Norman Brooke said, of course, we would cease to be members of all those once our Act came into force. I asked whether this observation applied to the Sterling Area Statistical Committee, which, as I understood it, was not essentially a Commonwealth body. Sir Norman Brooke said it did; the Sterling Area Statistical Committee was, in fact, a Commonwealth body; the word 'Commonwealth' had been left out of its title merely out of consideration for us.

I said that I presumed that our ceasing to be a member of these bodies would not affect the close co-operation which existed between us in the matters to which the Committees related. I recalled that my Minister and the Taoiseach had emphasised that, so far as our factual relations were concerned, they regarded the Republic of Ireland Act, not as involving a drawing apart, but as facilitating closer and smoother co-operation. Liesching and Brooke said that the policy of the British Government was precisely the same. Our going outside the Commonwealth involved the termination of our membership of the Commonwealth bodies, but it need involve no interruption of existing close relations, and, in fact, they rather hoped that, after an interval, it would be possible for us to resume contact with the work of such bodies as the Sterling Area Statistical Committee and the Commonwealth E.R.P. Committee in the capacity of 'observers'.

Operation of Republic of Ireland Act.
I indicated that the date of operation of the Republic of Ireland Act had not been finally determined, but that it was more likely to be Easter than the 21st January. The British officials showed some concern at this. They said that they had put pressure on their Departments, and had had them 'sweating over the Statute Book all during the Christmas holidays' in an effort to have everything ready on their side for the 21st January. They hoped to be able to let us know on the evening of the 13th January that, so far as they were concerned, that date would suit. It would be an embarrassment to them if it were postponed. They appreciated that it might be desired to have Lord Rugby's successor appointed before the Act operated, but, if so, they felt it should be possible to arrange something about that.

I said that the trouble on our side was that, although we had no further legislative changes to make, there was a great deal of administrative work to be done in Dublin to prepare for the change, and we were not certain we could have all this completed by the 21st January. I would report their observations on this point to my Minister.

____________________________________________________

Mr. Dulanty and I had dinner with the Canadian High Commissioner, Mr. Norman Robertson, on the evening of the 7th January.

In the course of conversation, Mr. Robertson said there was a rumour current that Lord Rugby would be succeeded by the present Secretary of State, Mr. Philip Noel-Baker. Though the rumour was a strong one, he could not vouch for its accuracy. Sir Eric Machtig (who, he said, had been 'shamefully treated') had asked for the Dublin post but had been told that the Government had someone else in mind for it. Mr. Robertson said he thought that, from our point of view, Sir E. Machtig would have been better than Mr. Noel-Baker.

Mr. Robertson said he heard from Ottawa that we were to receive an informal approach in connection with the Atlantic Pact. He realised that the approach would present us with a difficult problem. In his view, however, if we said 'No', the people in Stormont would be delighted and the consequences, from our own point of view, would be bad. When I asked him to explain what he meant by this, he said that, if we stayed outside the Pact, it would give to the other Powers a vested interest in the continuance of Partition and it would deprive us of all possibility of getting a hearing for our case about Partition as long as the Pact lasted.

Mr. Robertson expressed regret that Mr. St. Laurent's references to the Republic of Ireland Bill and the relationship between Ireland and Canada in the new circumstances had not been stronger and more cordial.

In the course of a number of conversations with Mr. Norman Archer, he told me that Sir Frank Newsome, the new permanent head of the Home Office, is not so sympathetic to our point of view about Partition as his predecessor, Sir Alexander Maxwell. He mentioned that the British authorities do not propose, for the moment at least, to make any change in the existing position about the conscription of Irish citizens in Britain. Actually, the number of Irishmen in the forces in consequence of the National Service (Armed Forces) Act was surprisingly small - about 115 - and most of them seemed to be volunteers rather than conscripts. A change in the law at this stage would be difficult for the Government to sponsor in the House of Commons.