The Minister is anxious that, if possible, the new Australian Representative in Ireland should have the title of 'Australian Representative' rather than that of 'High Commissioner of Australia'. He realises that it may not be easy to arrange the matter at this stage and that the point is not one which we can push too hard or too far. He would be very gratified however if the Australian authorities could be got to adopt the former title and the presence of Messrs. Chifley¹ and Evatt in London affords perhaps a suitable opportunity for raising the question.

The Minister would accordingly be glad, if you would, at the earliest possible opportunity, see Mr. Beasley,² and, having assured him how much the Government are looking forward to welcoming Mr. and Mrs. Dignam³ to Ireland, explain that Sir John Maffey has the title of 'British Representative' and Mr. Mahoney⁴ the title of 'Canadian High Commissioner' and enquire which of the two local titles the Australian authorities would wish to be given to Mr. Dignam. You could tell Mr. Beasley that the Irish Government very much prefer the former title and they think it very probable that the Australian authorities would prefer that their Representative in Dublin should have the same title as the Representative of Great Britain. You might ask him to discuss the matter with Mr. Chifley and Mr. Evatt and to let you know their choice as soon as possible.

I may add for your personal information that the Minister feels confident that if Australia as well as Britain were to adopt the title 'Representative', the Canadians would before long follow suit and we would thereby get rid altogether of the title 'High Commissioner' which, originally a title of high officials with executive functions, is nowadays an inapt and inappropriate title for what are in effect Diplomatic representatives.