Dear High Commissioner,
I enclose as arranged a copy of John Hearne's report of the conversation between the Taoiseach and Mackenzie King.¹ The Taoiseach's presentation of our point of view seems to have been extremely effective and to have made a considerable impression on the Canadian Premier. The Taoiseach's argument as set out in John Hearne's report accords on all points with our Minister's views.

The Minister was very interested in your reports of the conversations you have had with Noel-Baker and Casey.² There is a possibility that he may meet the former in Paris so he thinks you might postpone for the moment taking advantage of Baker's invitation referred to in the last paragraph of your report of the conversation with him.

Just one point about the Casey report. His doubt that the British would have proceeded with their Nationality Act if they had thought that the External Relations Act would be repealed is hardly very well founded. Apart from anything that passed prior to the change of Government he must have known that at least two parties in the Government were strongly opposed to the retention of the Act and had publicly advocated its repeal. Moreover, the Minister's speech in the Dáil on the 20th July - which obviously pointed to the repeal of the Act - was made before the British Nationality Act became law. It would be more true to say that the willingness to face facts which guided the British in framing the provisions of their Nationality Act affecting this country makes it quite illogical for them to have any sense of grievance at the repeal of the External Relations Act. Once they have accepted the position that Irish citizens are not British subjects and owe no allegiance to the British Crown how can they logically feel aggrieved if the Irish Government decides to get rid of a constitutional symbol which, as the British themselves have admitted, can be for us no more than a fiction - an irritating one at that?

[matter omitted]