At Claridge's Hotel today, I went to an Inaugural Luncheon for a Vegetable and Flower Exhibition at Olympia which was attended by Mr. Noel-Baker; the British Minister of Education; the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture; together with Diplomatists from various foreign Governments. As I was leaving the Hotel, Mr. Noel-Baker and Lord Walkden¹ (a Labour Peer) joined me. When he explained to Lord Walkden that he wished to talk to me for a few minutes, that gentleman left us.

Mr. Noel-Baker began by mentioning the question of our attendance at the forthcoming Meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers next month. The history of that matter, he said, was that during the Trade Conference in London, the Prime Minister had asked the Taoiseach what our attitude would be about it. Naturally they didn't want to send an invitation which would be embarrassing to us and therefore before doing anything, they had made this inquiry.

'Not having heard', said Mr. Noel-Baker, 'we asked Rugby to find out what the position was. Subsequently to the Prime Minister's conversation in London, the Taoiseach had made his announcement about the intended repeal of the External Relations Act. Then the Minister for External Affairs told us that the Irish Government could only take part in the meeting on the clear understanding that Ireland was not a member of the Commonwealth and further that if they did come, they would raise the question of partition. The meeting, after all, is to be exclusively one of Commonwealth Prime Ministers and I don't see how in these circumstances we could possibly have issued an invitation to your Prime Minister'. I replied by saying that we had not been invited but that we were asked on the 7th September what our attitude would be if invited and that we had replied to that inquiry on the 10th September,² stating that we would attend and indicating the conditions of our attendance. I mentioned also that I understood that the wording of the British invitation to certain of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had implied that we had been invited. Mr. Noel-Baker said that at the moment he could not remember the terms of the cable.

On the point of our relation with the Commonwealth, I pointed out that months before any question of the Meeting had arisen, the Irish Government had made it clear that Ireland was not a member of the Commonwealth. Further, for the Head of any Irish Government to attend a meeting such as that under discussion, where national and international interests on so wide and comprehensive a scale would be considered, without raising the question of partition, would be little short of treason to his people's trust.

Mr. Noel-Baker made no rejoinder but said that the position was beset with difficulties because with a war possibly not far off, it would be inevitable for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to consider questions of Commonwealth defence. He then passed to the statement by the Taoiseach about the External Relations Act and repeated that he thought it was a pity it had been made just now. Colleagues of his in the Government had expressed uneasiness about the position arising from that declaration. 'Very much off the record' he said that some of them doubted whether Mr. John Strachey who was about to visit Belfast on a programme arranged some time ago, should now visit Dublin. 'My reply', Mr. Noel-Baker said, 'was to hell with all that. Whatever may be the outcome of the repeal of the External Relations Act, I am all for maintaining the status quo. I ought, however, to tell you in confidence, that my Office have begun to draw up a White Paper which will show clearly the legal consequences of a repeal of the Act and even among our own people, there are some who think that modification of the trade preferences will be unavoidable.' I said I was surprised at this reaction over the External Relations Act, because it had been known for some time past that its early repeal was our settled policy. If he would allow me to say so, a not inconsiderable factor in British political evolution had been their consistent refusal to erect into principles, matters which were not of that standard. This was clearly an occasion for their traditional method.

As he had to hurry away to a meeting, he closed the conversation by repeating his statement that he would do all he could to avoid modification of any of our present working arrangements and added that he and I must meet again for a further talk.