Keeping strictly to the letter of the Minister's instructions of the 16th September,¹ I explained to Mr. Norman Robertson today our position on the question of the Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers fixed for the 11th October next.

He thought the matter had not been well handled by the British and felt that, not only his Government but the other Commonwealth Governments also, would have been glad to meet representatives of the Irish Government when the meetings took place. He was told some weeks ago by Sir Eric Machtig that the British intended during the conversations at the recent Trade Conference to sound our Ministers as to their attitude. Presumably, he said, if we had said that we would accept an invitation, one would have been sent. Apart from Mr. Attlee's mention of the matter in conversation with the Taoiseach which had not been understood by us to be even an inquiry, Norman Robertson said that Mr. Noel-Baker, speaking to one of our Ministers one evening at a quarter to six, pointing to his wrist-watch, said that at that very moment Mr. Attlee was raising the question of the meeting with Mr. Costello. Norman Robertson could not remember to which of our Ministers this remark was made.

The sequence of events from the British Representative's telephone message in Dublin on Monday, the 6th September, to that gentleman's interview with the Minister on Saturday, the 11th, I made clear to Mr. Robertson and stressed the fact that we were in no way aggrieved and it was my Minister's express desire that the matter should not be raised at the Meeting.

Mr. Norman Robertson was leaving the following day for Paris where he would meet Mr. MacKenzie King and inform him of our position in the matter.

I then spoke about the External Relations Act on the lines indicated in the Minister's instructions.

I had some time ago supplied Mr. Norman Robertson with copies of those portions of the Minister's speech on the Estimates which dealt with the External Relations Act.

He said that he did not feel happy about the situation and he thought that the Taoiseach's statement in Canada had been ill-timed. When I said that I understood that this statement had followed a friendly talk between the Taoiseach and Mr. MacKenzie King, Robertson reminded me that he was present at this meeting. He then spoke to me in great confidence about Mr. MacKenzie King - than whom no one had worked harder for good understanding between the peoples of the Commonwealth. I gathered that although Mr. MacKenzie King's mind was undoubtedly sympathetic, it was also variable; whilst, for example, he was always conscious of his descent from a rebel grandfather, he could, without any inconsistency, become emotional about the British Crown.

He thought both his Prime Minister and the Taoiseach had talked of association in terms which were too loose and vague. The Taoiseach had said that the Oath and the Privy Council had been dropped by the Irish Government and that no trouble had followed. Norman Robertson said that he thought we might run into trouble because the suggested repeal involved Commonwealth countries on a matter which they would doubtless regard as of importance.

At this point he mentioned in the strictest confidence that Mr. St. Laurent was rather uneasy in his mind about the proposed repeal. Canada would, of course, not be greatly concerned with any action by our Government which affected only the British Government, but this clearly concerned all the countries of the Commonwealth, for most of whom Mr. St. Laurent felt the Crown still retained its position of great significance and of high importance.

When I suggested that the really sensible thing to do about Ireland was to leave us alone and let our association continue unaffected, he said the last thing Canada would wish to do would be to make any difficulties. It would have been a better plan, he thought, to let the Act fall into desuetude. Other Statutes had died out in that way. No speeches having been made about them their fading out of the sphere of practical affairs had passed without comment.

Whilst I made our position as indicated in the instructions of 16th September perfectly clear, the Minister may think it advisable to speak to Mr. MacKenzie King and Mr. Robertson when he will be in Paris next week as these two gentlemen are remaining there until 6th October.