My dear Boland,
I shall send you a cable as soon as I hear what the Prime Minister has to say. With the cable and the enclosed memorandum, you will be in full possession of the new position that has developed since I cabled you that Mr. Spender¹ had agreed to status and title of ambassador.

I surmise that the key to this puzzle is in London. The method of dealing with the matter is, however, in keeping with the practice of the Australian Department of External Affairs in regard to the Irish Representation here.

I shall leave Sydney on the 9th May and see you on the 17th May.

Memorandum

Before seeing the Minister for External Affairs on the 23rd March, I had spoken to the Secretary of the Department,² telling him what I wished to discuss and suggesting that to save the Minister's time, he and I might have a talk first. The Secretary said that when arranging my appointment with the Minister he would explain to him what I was coming to discuss, but that he (the Secretary) would prefer that I should see the Minister right from the start as the subject was 'a matter for the boss'.

At my conversation with the Minister on the 23rd March, he left me in no doubt that he agreed in principle with an exchange of ambassadors, subject to the minor point that he could not select anybody for the part for some time as he was compelled by shortage of suitable men for overseas posts and by the extension of Australian diplomatic posts to 'spread his butter very thin'. He would appoint a Chargé d'Affaires. I took the opportunity of saying that Mr. Mulrooney,³ from all accounts I had heard, was very satisfactory. The Minister interrupted to say that he would prefer to appoint a man who could carry the position with dignity and who would be competent to express the mind of the Government, and on both these heads, Mr. Mulrooney was in his opinion unsuitable.

The only other point the Minister made was that he would like to get the approval of the Prime Minister, to whom he would speak immediately on his return from the Philippines and would then see me again. He said it would be well to defer my going on home-leave for a couple of weeks from April 26th, which was the date I had booked. I promised to make the change.

I sent to the Secretary of the Department a letter with a memorandum of my conversation with the Minister, on March 29th, and had a reply from him on March 30th. Copies are attached.⁴

At an afternoon party on April 6th in the Department of External Affairs, to farewell the Minister for Denmark, I asked the Secretary if he would expedite the formalities for the presentation of Letters as ambassador so that I could keep to my later sailing-date, May 9th. He said: 'I think our people don't want any public announcement or any overt act such as presentation of Letters to the Governor-General, or anything that would draw public attention or signify a change.' When I asked him how this would leave matters, he said that the Government 'would prefer to leave matters as they are.' I pointed out that this conflicted with what his Minister had said to me on the 23rd March. His answer was that he thought Mr. Spender was only 'stalling for time'.

He then said that legislation would be necessary because under present Australian law, Australia must be represented to all countries which were in the British Commonwealth at the time of the legislation by High Commissioners; and that the Irish Free State was specifically mentioned with other countries. He could not remember the title or even approximate date of the Act but Dr. Wynes,⁵ the Assistant Secretary would find out and let me know.

I got the impression that the Secretary was preparing a case against embassy status. He said 'We have not consulted the British'. Dr. Wynes later informed O'Riordan⁶ on the telephone that he knew of no such legislation and could not suggest any basis for Dr. Burton's statement. On the same day, the Department telephoned an enquiry as to the date when Ireland had become a Republic.

The Minister returned to Canberra on the 19th April; and on the following day I met him at a small luncheon party which he gave in Parliament House to farewell the New Zealand High Commissioner⁷ who is retiring from service. He asked me when I intended to leave for home and said he would see me early in the following week as he was just then very busy with Cabinet work.

I saw the Minister in his room in Parliament House on the afternoon of April 26th. I asked him if he was now in a position to give his formal agreement to the embassy status. He said 'I am afraid the position is that we do not want the change. We want to leave things as they are'. I reminded him of the points I had mentioned at our earlier conversation. He said he understood all the points but he could give no other decision. He was very ill at ease and shifty and said 'I do not know what the British attitude is'. I went quietly over the issues and he had no answers and did not attempt a case, but just repeated that 'we prefer to leave things as they are'. I asked him what was behind this change of attitude. He said that it is not a matter of the logical position or the international position (I had mentioned that 'representative' was not a status of any recognised kind and that leaving things as they are meant giving an unwanted High Commissioner status as if our legislation had meant nothing). He said that he was thinking of it as a political matter and that there are many Australians with Irish blood who still had an attachment to Ireland but would be annoyed at any change of status in Australia that suggested being foreign. He was not even attempting to make a case. I reminded him of the continuing citizenship and trade preference arrangements. Then he said that it was a matter for a Cabinet decision and he would have to put it in written form before the Cabinet. I said that if what he had been repeating was now both his and the Prime Minister's view, there did not seem to be much point in a submission to Cabinet. He then said that he did not know the Prime Minister's view as he had not yet spoken to him. This became mystifying and I asked him if he himself had completely changed his approach since our last conversation. He said very sheepishly that he thought I had misunderstood him and that he was sure he had not said that he agreed in principle subject to the approval of the Prime Minister.

I said that from my Australian experience I was sure that the Australian newspapers would not give more than a few lines to an announcement of an Irish Embassy and that no Australian would bother his head; but that American papers would be more likely to give a friendly notice of the change; and then added that while no Australian would be interested, there would be considerable interest in Ireland if it were known that despite our Parliament's legislation our country could not be recognised by Australia as an internationally independent entity but only under a formula applicable only to British Commonwealth countries. He said as he had kept on saying as a conclusion to all my remarks: 'We want to leave things as they are'.

He ended this amazing conversation by saying that he 'would try to short circuit Cabinet' by having a half-hour with the Prime Minister, and would let me know the result. Then, as if I had not enough of contradictory statements, he volunteered the information that he ran his Department without consulting anybody and that all his decisions were made by himself alone and he never bothered about the Cabinet.