In the course of his visit this morning, Sir John Maffey told me that one of the matters which had been mentioned during his recent visit to London was the question of Commonwealth nationality. They had been giving some thought in London to the possibility of finding some new common basis which would meet the case of this country.

I told Sir John Maffey that we had seen a reference in the Duke of Gloucester's¹ speech at the opening of the Australian Parliament to a conference to be held in London early in January. We had gathered from Parliamentary Questions in the House of Commons, however, that the conference would be concerned mainly with the nationality of married women.

Sir John Maffey said he was not sure that the common status question was to be the subject of a conference, though he had heard that there was some question of having a conference about it early in the New Year.

We went on to discuss the question of our position in relation to the matter. I said that we did not put forward our particular view as a basis for the settlement of the question of a Commonwealth nationality. Britain and the other members of the Commonwealth were in an entirely different position to ourselves. They might, and probably would, want to keep the 'British subject' status. That was entirely a matter for themselves and we did not wish to be taken as suggesting any change so far as the use of the 'British subject' status as between Britain and the other members of the Commonwealth was concerned. For reasons which he understood, however, the British subject status was not only impossible in our case, but was expressly excluded here by an Act passed eleven years ago. While we did not want to interfere with any existing arrangements as between Britain and the other Members of the Commonwealth inter se, we would welcome an arrangement whereby our citizens in Commonwealth countries would enjoy the same rights as Commonwealth citizens enjoyed here without our citizens having thereby to accept the status of 'British subjects' under the local law.

Sir John Maffey said that he saw the point very clearly. He realised that we were in an entirely different position from Britain, Canada, Australia, and so on, and he was inclined to agree with the idea that they should keep or revise the present phrases, according as they saw fit between themselves, and that there should be some entirely separate arrangement to meet the circumstances of our case.

I said that we would not object to that. We had our own point of view, and, as the Taoiseach had made clear, the continued application of the term 'British subject' to Irish citizens was a source of friction between the two countries, if not something worse, but we did not want to be in the position of suggesting that our ideas should be accepted as between Britain and the other Members of the Commonwealth if they wanted some different arrangement between themselves.

Sir John Maffey said that, of course, the acceptance of our idea as between ourselves and the individual Members of the Commonwealth would require new legislation in each of them. The difficulty was to see what form the new legislation in England would take. It would probably have to provide alternatives to the status of 'British subject', to meet the case of Canada, Australia, and so on, and the grant of reciprocal rights to meet the case of this country.

I said that something on those lines would probably do the trick.

Sir John Maffey asked whether we could suggest a formula to him on these lines which he could use as the basis for an official suggestion to London.

I said we would think the matter over and let him know.