Sir,
With reference to your despatch Confidential (2) of the 22nd December, 1928, transmitting circular telegrams B. Nos. 135, 136 and 137, concerning the note to be addressed to foreign governments on the appointment of representatives of Members of the British Commonwealth other than Great Britain, I have the honour to make the following observations:-
| (1) |
Free co-operation being the chief operative factor and the fundamental principle determining the existence and maintenance of the British Commonwealth of Nations, it is of the utmost importance to avoid the use of forms or expressions in the proposed note which might lessen the clarity with which that principle was formulated at the Imperial Conference of 1926. It is not at all certain, for instance, that the mere fact of informing foreign governments of our inter se arrangements for maintaining community of action does not introduce an element of obscurity. The third and fourth sentences of paragraph 2 of the draft note cannot but convey to foreign governments an impression that there is some weakness in the capacity of the Members of the Commonwealth to co-operate amongst themselves which calls for the employment of some unusual remedy. Consultative co-operation in all matters of common concern is so obviously based on the common and individual interests of all that there is no need to make provision for it. Least of all should such provision be made in a document the character of which lends a certain element of external compulsion to the acceptance of a principle which requires the most complete freedom for its successful application in practice. |
| (2) |
Diplomatic unity means, in practice, consultative co-operation. Common concern can never be shared in such equal proportions that the opinions of all the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations as to the form of action to be taken will be exactly alike, but the solution of common problems is not likely to be less speedy because different methods may be used to solve them. 'To act in unison' is not a practical ideal while co-operation leading to common action in matters of vital interest to the common weal is sufficiently obvious to foreign nations as the working principle of the policy of the Commonwealth to dispense with any mention of it in the note. The expression is moreover somewhat unhappy. 'To act in unison' almost necessarily requires a conductor, and critics of the British Commonwealth of Nations would be only too ready to see in it a new proof that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain holds the baton. The representatives of the several governments of His Majesty would of necessity keep in close touch with each other for all common purposes, but the statement that the other representatives 'would be at all times in the closest touch with His Majesty's Ambassador' could have no other effect than to weaken the status of those representatives vis a vis foreign governments and to lessen their strength when united action becomes necessary. It is better for the general interests of the Commonwealth that foreign governments should realise the necessity of attaching considerable importance to the views of each one of the several governments. If the Ambassador is declared to have a preponderating and pivotal position, the other representatives will be regarded as so many automata and they will become powerless as operative factors in the general interest. |
| (3) |
With regard to the concluding sentences of the draft note concerning the precedence of the new Ministers Plenipotentiary, there is a danger that any special reference to precedence may be regarded as a form of acquiescence beforehand in some modification of the general custom. |
2. His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State are in complete agreement with the view expressed in Circular Telegram B. No. 136 that there should be the fullest interchange of information on all matters of common concern both between His Majesty's Governments and between His Majesty's representatives at foreign capitals. It seems more practical, however, to wait until actual experience of the new situation enables us to discover the best methods of consultation rather than to impose on ourselves, at this stage, a laborious system of exchanging masses of documents which for the most part would remain unread.
3. His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State consider that the note should be addressed to the foreign government by the Minister for External Affairs of the government concerned, through the diplomatic channel. The note would read as follows:-
| |
'I have the honour to inform you that His Majesty's Government in (the Irish Free State) have come to the conclusion that it is desirable that the handling of matters at (Paris) relating to the (Irish Free State) should be confided to an Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary accredited to (the French Government). |
| 2. |
Such a minister would be accredited by His Majesty the King to (the President of the French Republic) and he would be furnished with credentials which would enable him to take charge of all affairs relating to the (Irish Free State). He would be the ordinary channel of communication with (the Government of the Republic) in these matters. |
| 3. |
In proposing the establishment of an (Irish Legation) His Majesty's Government in the (Irish Free State) trust that it will promote the maintenance and development of cordial relations not only between (France) and the (Irish Free State) but also between (France) and the whole British Commonwealth of Nations'. |
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient,
humble servant,
[stamped] Patrick McGilligan
