The Minister for External Affairs, Dr. H.V. Evatt, arrived in Canberra today, and I had a two hours' conversation with him.
He gave me the detailed story of the Chequers and Paris meetings, mentioning that he was in Dublin to receive the honorary degree of the National University of Ireland when the Taoiseach spoke in Canada regarding the proposed repeal of the External Relations Act. Later, towards the end of the Commonwealth Conference in London, Mr. Attlee asked him and Mr. Fraser and Mr. St. Laurent to stay behind after a meeting and then read them a telegram which he proposed sending to the Irish Government; the British Prime Minister saying that there was trouble from 'that wretched country Éire'. Dr. Evatt said that he was responsible for having the Chequers meeting, instead of having this telegram sent. He said that our Minister already knows the part he played. I told him of the story sent to the 'Sunday Independent' by the Canberra journalist, Alan Reid. His reaction to this was typical. He had evidently not heard of the story; and he said 'Reid is a friend of Calwell;2 perhaps Calwell put him up to it; but then, Calwell is a good friend of Ireland'. There is a constant contest between Dr. Evatt and Mr. Calwell, as both are likely successors to Mr. Chifley3 who is expected to retire, if his party is re-elected at the end of this year, mid-way between the full term of his new office.
The Minister said that Mr. Noel-Baker is anti-Irish, though he tries not to show his hand; that Machtig is very anti-Irish; and also the legal advisor of the Commonwealth Relations Office; and Lord Jowett is a weak man, of no consistency. I said I had never experienced open-minded or straightforward dealing from the Dominions Office anymore than when it had been the Colonial Office and that it would be a good thing if with our new relations we should deal as foreign office with foreign office. He said that the Foreign Office is just as bad, 'a pack of double-crossers'. He seems to have been annoyed and surprised with the malicious news stories put out by the official public relations officers of the British Government immediately after the Chequers meeting. I said I thought it annoying but consistent, as the same thing, more or less, had followed every conference while I had served in London.
As Dr. Evatt mentioned that he had drafted and cabled the statement which the Prime Minister of Australia made in Canberra, I asked him what was the meaning of the suggestion that Ireland would return to membership of the Commonwealth; a nation does not go back. He said that we need not call it going back; but there is the fact of what amounts to a common citizenship, because exchange of citizenship rights is, in fact, equivalent to common citizenship rights; not in the law but in the politics of the matter; citizenship rights being the most intimate rights given by the State to its people. He expects to see developments of what has already been agreed upon. There need be no name given to the community but it will exist as a conjoint community because of the exchanges of citizenship and trading rights not given to other nations.
He said that he had not, when I came here first and objected to the description 'Éire' in English-language texts, fully appreciated the point; but since his visit to Dublin and his conversations with our Minister, he realises that it was a trick of the British to use the name, taken from our Constitution, and he intends to take an opportunity to make a public statement on the point of the misuse of the Irish-language word. At the same time he expressed the view that we should not object to Sir Basil Brooke's wanting to use 'Ulster'. I showed him the note we had sent to the British Government4, a copy of which had already been given to the acting-secretary of the Department of External Affairs, but the Minister had not yet seen it. He agreed, after some explanations, that we must avoid using Ulster except in the sense of a partitioned Ulster. I told him that we have been generous in not putting on record any objection to the British misuse of the 1801 Statute description 'United Kingdom'; as the six counties never were a kingdom and were only a broken part of an historic unit which, if we are searching for kingdoms, could claim the title from ancient times. He said that the British would be very worried if they had to give up the title 'United Kingdom'!
Regarding the form of representation between Ireland and Australia after the Republic Act comes into operation, he said that it must surely be an exchange of ambassadors. The High Commissioners will rank now as ambassadors; and he will have Mr. Dignam accredited as ambassador if our Government wishes to have an exchange on this status.
While I was with him he decided to dictate a letter to Archbishop Mannix. In this he went into detail about the part he played in preventing the British, especially at the Paris meeting, from 'committing a great blunder'; told of the press propaganda put out as if the Chequers meeting had been called to tell the Irish Ministers where they had 'got off', and his own part in getting it corrected; and ended his letter by mentioning that the word Éire must never be used by an Australian, anymore than they would speak of Belgique or Danemark or and he told the typist to find out the Russian word for the Soviet and put it in.
[matter omitted]
This is a brief report of a long talk with the Minister, who went into the Chequers and Paris meetings in great detail, spoke warmly of his cordial reception in Dublin, how impressed he was with the city which he was seeing for the first time, and said he did not get the impression that Sir Basil Brooke was a 'difficult' man, but rather the kind of man who would be very useful in the public life of a united Ireland. He also told me the story that when he was speaking to the King about the repeal of the External Relations Act, the King said that he would not mind being described as an instrument but he disliked being described as an organ.
[matter omitted]
