It will be remembered that the Foreign Office were - from the very beginning - loathe to allow Mr. Chilton to mention the sending of a Nuncio to Dublin. Sir Hubert Montgomery¹ in particular - and he seems to have the chief say in Roman matters - was exceedingly reluctant to issue any instructions giving Chilton a free hand on that point. I could not persuade him to go further than to allow Chilton to reply in the affirmative should the Cardinal Secretary of State put him the definite question 'Are His Majesty's Government in Great Britain in favour of the Irish Free State proposal to receive a Nuncio in Dublin?' I felt at the time of my interview with Montgomery that this extraordinarily timid attitude was bound to cause delay and trouble here. Chilton did his best to get the Foreign Office to let him say definitely that His Majesty's Government in Great Britain gave their whole hearted support to the dual proposal of the Irish Free State. But they are so much afraid of having the London representation mentioned by the Vatican that they would obviously prefer to see our object only half accomplished rather than have to face an explanation which is simple in itself and would most certainly be received in good part by the Vatican.

The co-operation of the Foreign Office being half hearted, when the moment came to express Great Britain's view definitely Chilton became powerless to give any help. His positive intervention was confined to two occasions. When speaking for the Minister at the Gasparri interview at which Chilton was present, I said that the proposal to exchange representatives had been intimated to the British Government and that they had expressed their satisfaction, etc. (see end of first pro memoria² sent to Cardinal Secretary³). While saying this, I looked towards Chilton, as did also the Cardinal and the Minister. Chilton nodded in cordial approval (the Foreign Office had not forbidden him to nod). Prior to my arrival in Rome - on the 12th April, he told Cardinal Gasparri that the Irish Government wished to send a representative to Rome and that his Government were glad to instruct him to convey the information to the Holy See.

Cardinal Gasparri's request to have something in writing from the President was made - as is now apparent - merely to gain time. Both the Minister and I suggested to Chilton that no confirmation of the Minister's mission was needed. The Holy Father either wanted a personal note from the President whom he knows personally or there was some mistake as to procedure.

If the Pope thought the President was in the position of President Doumergue,⁴ for example, it should be explained to him that the King was the head of each one of the States of the British Commonwealth, and, having already established a personal channel in respect of one of these States, there was no need for a further letter from him direct to the Holy Father. He could express his wishes through the existing channel. Chilton, who is not au fait with constitutional procedure, said that something must be done to please the Holy Father. I, accordingly, wired for the blank forms with the President's signature intending to write a personal note from the President confirming the Minister's message to Gasparri, but not in any way leaving room for the interpretation that the President was usurping the King's place in the constitution. I knew that such a line of action would have been entirely opposed to the President's wishes and to the Minister's policy of using the King as the best instrument for obtaining complete independence in theory as well as in practice within the British Commonwealth. When the Foreign Office heard about the Pope's request they were, apparently, seriously disturbed and their perturbation was no doubt communicated to the Dominions Office. Otherwise, Dixon's⁵ telegrams would have had no meaning. Fortunately, I had been completely above board with Chilton on the procedure question and the Foreign Office could not have said with justification that I was trying to deceive him in his isolation. Unfortunately, on the other hand, Chilton could not give the Foreign Office the full story without showing up his own ignorance. When I saw that Chilton was seriously embarrassed and that the hope of getting a reply from the Vatican within a reasonable time was becoming more and more remote - especially as they were clearly delighted at the breathing space given them by the Foreign Office - I told him that I would go myself to the Assistant Secretary of State and explain the constitutional procedure. I did so and found that he did not attach any importance to any particular form. In fact, I rather got the impression that there was no need to ask the Holy Father about the form, and from that I concluded that Cardinal Gasparri had used the Holy Father's name, without consulting him, in the matter of the letter. During this interview, I impressed on the Assistant Secretary the need for an urgent reply to the official letter which he should receive that evening (Saturday, 27th April) from Mr. Chilton. I also made it perfectly clear that we wanted a Nuncio (the highest official sent by the Vatican) and that he should arrive, if possible, towards the end of the Emancipation Celebrations. Chilton sent in the letter that evening. He had again to avoid mentioning the exchange in the request part of his letter, but I prevailed on him to summarise the Minister's mission, including the exchange, in an opening sentence. I went with Randall, the Secretary of the Legation, to present this letter and I again told the Assistant Secretary of State how desirous my Government were to have a reply at once. The Cardinal Secretary of State had gone to Cassino on Thursday, the 25th, for the Benedictine celebrations, and the date of his return was indefinite. However, a reply came within forty-eight hours, promising an official reply when the Cardinal should return. The reply merely repeated Chilton's note without definitely stating that a Nuncio would be sent to Dublin. I now told Chilton that I should probably send the personal note from the President to the Holy Father, taking all the precautions mentioned above, as I felt that the Government were exceedingly annoyed at the series of delays. He asked me, for God's sake, not to do so. The Foreign Office would not understand, etc. As an alternative, I told him that I should take to the Assistant Secretary of State a formal draft statement to be issued to the press when the Vatican's official approval had been received setting out that the Irish Free State were sending a Representative to Rome and the Holy Father a Representative to Dublin. After a day's painful hesitation and probably anxious wires to the Foreign Office, he agreed. I, accordingly, presented the draft statement to the Assistant Secretary of State on Tuesday evening at 6.30, and he told me that he would see the Holy Father at once and let me know his reply the following day. He called me over yesterday morning and showed me a slightly altered draft to which I agreed. He had again (so he said) to show the draft to the Holy Father and he asked me to return today at 12 o'clock. During yesterday's visit he was very expansive. The Vatican had definitely made up its mind that the proposal was acceptable, and he did not conceal a certain element of enthusiasm which up to then was painfully absent. He told me that I might take it that the Holy Father would approve the present form of the draft note for publication. They had decided to establish a Nunciature or an Internunciature at Dublin. He suggested, and I agreed, that the good news would most appropriately be announced on the evening before the Holy Father's Feast (namely, the 12th May). I should have been obliged to agree to the postponement put in that form, in any case, but I had the further motive of wanting the draft statement left intact in its unmistakeable definiteness. The Assistant Secretary of State next raised the inevitable question of the Bishops. He suggested that he should have to let them know. I asked him what form his communication to the Bishops would take - consultation or information. He replied that the Bishops would be informed sub sigillo by a letter leaving here next Monday, that the Irish Government had proposed an exchange of legations to the Holy Father and that the latter had accepted. I told him that it was the President's intention - the moment the official news had been received - to have His Grace of Dublin informed. He then asked me very definitely to request the President not to tell the Bishops until Friday afternoon so that the Vatican note of Monday, 6th May, might have reached them and given them a little to reflect. As the Bishops will remain under seal of secrecy until the news appears in Saturday evening's press they cannot trouble the issue.

At today's interview the form of the press statement was finally confirmed, and the Assistant Secretary of State told me that the Holy Father would send a Chargé d'Affaires towards the end of June if, by that time, a Minister Plenipotentiary had been sent here. The Chargé d'Affaires would be a high papal dignitary. In the course of a few months he would become a Nuncio or Internuncio. Although the Chargé d'Affaires would not take precedence before all other representatives as the Nuncio or Internuncio normally would, he should, nevertheless, be treated as having the fullest possible representative capacity, and his initial reception need not differ from that of a Nuncio. The modification introduced by the Holy Father simply means that the Vatican will have more time to consider the final form of the representation.

The Assistant Secretary of State asked me, with a smile, whether I had told the news to the Rector of the Irish College. He said, rather maliciously, that he was afraid poor Dr. Hagan would find it difficult to analyse his feelings when he saw the Osservatore Romano on the evening of the 11th. At an earlier conversation, the Assistant Secretary of State expressed his belief that the Irish Government would not consider sending the Marquis MacSwiney.⁶ I had no difficulty in reassuring him on that point on the Minister's behalf. The foregoing is a brief sketch of what has happened in the course of these discussions.

A few generalisations based on my observations here may help to put the facts in their proper perspective.

One very striking impression received after a very few days contact with the Vatican is that the Holy See regards the peaceful maintenance of the British Commonwealth of Nations as the most important factor in the development and well-being of the Church. Great Britain's opinion becomes, therefore, of paramount interest and the weeks of hesitation in our case were due to the absence of a clearly expressed British opinion towards the Dublin Nunciature. The quick decision at the end was due, I believe, to the conviction that a foothold in some part of the British Commonwealth of Nations was useful, particularly in that part where positive service by the Church to the British Commonwealth of Nations and to its peaceful maintenance could most easily be rendered, and, furthermore, to the fact that three weeks had passed without any sign of non-acquiescence from Great Britain. It is relevant to note here that a Nuncio or Internuncio, though primarily and mainly accredited to the Government, is also regarded as an envoy to the Clergy of the Church in the State concerned. He becomes, therefore, the mouth piece of the Holy Father to the Bishops, and one of his ordinary duties is to see that the Bishops conform their teaching to the general church teaching on matters of government and obedience to the Law. I feel that the Vatican knows perfectly well the non-Roman tendencies of the Irish Episcopacy, and its attitude in the latter stages of this matter and the very short notice to be given by the Assistant Secretary of State to the Bishops indicates a certain pleasurable satisfaction in entering upon a process of Romanisation.

With regard to the type of person to be sent to Rome it is of extreme importance that he should speak French fluently and at least read Italian. All the better if he speaks Italian. He will, in any case, have to learn it in a few months. Cardinal Gasparri knows no English. His principal assistants play with English - but their minds are closed to the person who knows neither French nor Italian.

I very much fear that some temporary arrangement will have to be made by which somebody from the Department will be appointed Minister Plenipotentiary here for six or eight months spending most of that time in Dublin. The Vatican is adopting an expedient in sending a Chargé d'Affaires towards the end of June. We can very well appoint a temporary Minister Plenipotentiary for the purpose of securing the Dublin appointment and of being in a position to intervene here if necessary in the early stages after the establishment of diplomatic relations.

With regard to the possibilities of work here other than that of helping to secure the proper support of the Church for the greater good of the Irish people, I shall make a full report when I arrive home.

Though all the difficulties seem now to be at an end, I am going to remain on in Rome until the announcement has appeared in the Press on the 11th. The mere possibility, however remote, of Foreign Office or Episcopal or other interference at the last moment forces me to this decision.

I shall be very glad to have the approval of the President, in the Minister's absence, for staying on.

It is very likely that every step taken in the course of the past few weeks would not have been considered the best possible by the Minister if there had been time to give me instructions at each stage, but in the difficult circumstances I had to act according to what seemed most expedient at the moment.