The Reluctant Taoiseach

by David McCullagh

  Costello denied making the comments attributed to him—the Irish Independent incorrectly reported that he had made the comments during the radio broadcast rather than after,100 so he was able to point to his script, which of course didn’t mention the promise of aid. The Taoiseach told Bill Norton that “some of the Canadian papers are really beyond everything. It was impossible to read into anything I said what they said I said.”101 But MacBride evidently agreed with the Taoiseach’s reported comments, rather bizarrely telling the American Minister, George Garrett, “If any country is attacked by Communists, we’re in it.”102 The report of Costello’s promise of aid was also accepted as accurate by the Canadians (who were not overly impressed by it). Fianna Fáil would make great play of his comments, with Seán Lemass even claiming his press conference announcement was an attempt to distract attention from them.

  But while conspiracy theories about Roaring Meg or threats of war are entertaining, they are entirely irrelevant. For as Costello told Norton in his letter, “it was really the article in the Sunday Independent that decided me … to state publicly that we intended to repeal the External Relations Act”.103

  On 5 September, the Sunday Independent splashed on its front page the news that the Government had decided to repeal the Act, quoting various statements by Cabinet members and declaring that “it must be taken for granted that the change that honour demands will be made”. In particular, it pointed to Costello’s “very important” speech to the Canadian Bar Association; Norton’s statement in the Adjournment Debate in the Dáil; MacBride’s speech on the External Affairs estimate; and Dillon’s statements in opposition. It also quoted an article by Nicholas Mansergh predicting the demise of the Act. The paper’s editor, Hector Legge, wrote the story, and always denied claims that it was based on a leak from a Cabinet Minister. It is certainly believable that the repeal of the External Relations Act could be predicted on the basis of “journalistic intuition” as he claimed. However, he went further, pointing out that both Costello and MacBride had said Ireland was no longer in the Commonwealth. The story continued, “honesty of purpose may soon find the present Government declaring that we are a Republic”.104 Legge’s certainty suggests that he had been given a clear steer on the story—the question is by whom. Legge was friendly with both Dillon and MacBride, either of whom might have had a motive for wanting this particular kite given a test flight.

  Two decades later, Costello told Michael McInerney of the Irish Times that the story “worried and surprised me. It seemed to me to be quite obvious that the story was not just ‘intelligent anticipation’ but was the result of a ‘leak’ from some person with inside knowledge.” He refused to tell McInerney which minister he believed was responsible “although he seemed to have a shrewd idea who it was”.105 In fact, he indicated to Nicholas Mansergh that he believed MacBride to be responsible for a deliberate leak.106

  However, on the day after the story appeared, MacBride sent a telegram urging the Taoiseach not to comment on the Sunday Independent story.107 As MacBride’s biographer points out, this was “a strange response if Seán had been the leak”.108 But what is on the written record may not have been the only advice offered by MacBride. Louie O’Brien, his personal secretary (who also believed he was responsible for the leak), claimed that he phoned Costello and said the easiest thing to do was to confirm the story, even offering to consult other members of the Cabinet to secure their approval.109

  The only other supporting evidence for this story comes from Patrick Lynch, who along with John Hearne was trying to persuade Costello to avoid commenting. The Taoiseach said he was expecting a telephone call from Dublin. “I have no record of that call, but I do remember his referring later to a telephone conversation he had with Seán MacBride before his press conference.”110 It may also be significant that on the morning of the news conference, MacBride met Rugby and “stated specifically that the Éire government intended to do away with the External Relations Act”.111 It is possible that he may have done so because he was anticipating that Costello would confirm the Sunday Independent story later in the day. The evidence is far from conclusive, but if there was a telephone conversation between the two men, it might explain why Costello suspected MacBride of leaking the story in the first place.

  The question became more urgent on the Sunday evening, with a phone call from a Canadian journalist looking for a comment from the Taoiseach on the Sunday Independent story. Costello’s reply, delivered by Hearne, was a simple “no comment”. However, he had already agreed to a request from the press gallery of the Canadian parliament to hold a news conference on the Tuesday morning.112 Clearly he would be asked about the External Relations Act. Costello felt he had four options—decline to make any comment (which would have been “at least a qualified admission of the truth of the report”); deny the story; confirm it; or say that the matter would be dealt with on the return of the Dáil (which would also be seen as “an implied admission”). Costello concluded that as the report was in fact true, “there was nothing in honesty and decency open to me but to admit the truth”.113

  A “no comment” might have been seen as an implicit admission that the story was true, as Costello surmised; but it would have saved him a lot of criticism, then and later. The slights he believed he had received at the hands of Lord Alexander didn’t lead to the decision to repeal the External Relations Act; but they may well have influenced Costello’s choice to confirm this decision to the media. He decided to do so despite the strong urgings of Hearne and Lynch. “He said that if I’m asked the question I’m not going to prevaricate … if I’m asked a direct question I’ll say yes.” This he did, confirming that it was his government’s intention to repeal the External Relations Act. But he also answered in the affirmative when asked if this meant Ireland was leaving the Commonwealth. Lynch was surprised at this, asking the Taoiseach later if it was wise to have done so. Characteristically, Costello replied, “No qualification.”114

  After the news conference, he rang his son Declan, asking him to tell both MacBride and Mulcahy what had transpired. MacBride, who didn’t seem surprised, said, “That’s very good news.” Mulcahy also thanked Declan for informing him.115 This appeared to be the first either had heard about it, which undermines Freddie Boland’s claim that MacBride was “knocked out” by the news when he told him about it while he was having dinner with Rugby.116 Rugby’s impression was that MacBride was “not a little surprised—indeed perturbed—by this sudden unconventional development”.117 When this account appeared, MacBride claimed he was only surprised because anyone was surprised at what Costello had said, “in view of the speeches made for some months and of the banner headlines which had appeared in one of our leading newspapers only four days before. I certainly was not ‘perturbed’ in any sense that could be construed as indicating disapproval …”118

  However, two days after the press conference, Rugby reported to London that MacBride had told him “as a personal confidence that neither he nor any member of the Cabinet here had any idea that Mr Costello was likely to make any statement in Canada on the subject of the External Relations Act … I am sure that Mr MacBride is sincere in this.”119 Boland, meanwhile, was telling anyone who rang him up to inquire about the news that “our Prime Minister has simply made an awful gaffe”.120 It seems clear from all these accounts that nobody disputed the accuracy of Costello’s statement that the Government intended to repeal the External Relations Act. The surprise was caused by the fact that he actually admitted this when asked. Clearly, it was felt that the more diplomatic approach would have been to evade the question.

  Costello’s announcement also came as a surprise to Mackenzie King. “I had known that this question was coming up at the meeting of Prime Ministers but had not anticipated anything of the kind would be announced in Ottawa, and certainly not on the day of the government giving the Prime Minister a dinner.” At that dinner—in the Ottawa Country Club—Costello explained what he had said at the press c
onference, and regretted that the newspapers “always make heavy headlines”. Mackenzie King, meanwhile, was more concerned about the printed menu cards, which contained two toasts—to the King, and to the President of Ireland. Mackenzie King was appalled, as he realized that this “was equivalent to regarding Ireland as an entirely separate country with a President as head of state. A state as much independent of the British Crown as the USA.” He held Measures, the head of protocol in the (Canadian) Department of External Affairs, responsible.

  With a certain amount of hyperbole, the Prime Minister claimed in his diary that this situation was “filled with dynamite which might have occasioned an explosion which would have been far reaching indeed”. However, when he raised his problem with Costello, the Taoiseach said he didn’t want to embarrass him in any way. The compromise was that while Costello would propose the toast to the King, the Canadian would respond by toasting the President of Éire, as opposed to Ireland. The change of name avoided upsetting those at the function with links to Northern Ireland, including Lady Alexander. But Costello would have been well pleased, as the toast to the President, however he was described, confirmed independent Irish status. Mackenzie King was happy too, noting that in his “very pleasing and helpful” speech, Costello “spoke of the Commonwealth of Nations as if he was still a member of it” and “did not go into any controversy”.121

  On 9 September Costello and Hearne went for lunch to Mackenzie King’s home at Kingsmere outside Ottawa. During the three hours he was there, Costello outlined (at what was obviously considerable length) his position on the repeal of the External Relations Act. John Hearne recorded the conversation, although he pointed out that “no summary could adequately record the Taoiseach’s objective and masterly presentation of the historic Irish case against the Crown. He was superb.”122

  In his diary, Mackenzie King was less fulsome: “It seemed to me that Costello was quite sincere in his whole argument and that his statement was logical enough.” King recorded Costello as saying that Ireland would like to continue as a nation associated with the Commonwealth, but not on the basis of allegiance to the Crown. He also said Costello “wanted to bring about a situation where Irishmen wherever they were, would be prepared to fight to maintain a Christian civilization”.123 This latter statement didn’t appear in other records of the conversation.

  Costello believed he had persuaded Mackenzie King of the validity of the Irish position, which would lead to Canadian support in the future. Specifically, he told Norton that the Prime Minister was “a very good friend … who will advocate us when he is in London next month”.124 In fact, Mackenzie King had already discussed the matter with his Cabinet, where a number of Ministers including St Laurent were “pretty strong on the idea of no severance, with allegiance part of the Crown”. But after discussion they came round to his view that “it might perhaps be better for peace loving nations of the world to hold together on some kind of basis that would not, for the present, be too clearly defined”.125

  Given the invaluable support the Irish received from St Laurent during the Paris and Chequers talks, Costello’s discussions with Mackenzie King were not without value. The Taoiseach was also clearly impressed to be presented with a copy of the Prime Minister’s book, Industry and Humanity, noting that Mackenzie King inscribed a message on it “in his own writing”.126 Luckily, he didn’t appear to notice that, as the Canadian Prime Minister recorded in his diary, “it was not the latest edition”.127

  On Friday the tenth, Mackenzie King attended a lunch at the Canadian Club, where Costello made a speech praising him. While the Prime Minister affected to find the compliments a bit over the top, he made sure to record them all in his diary anyway.128 That afternoon, the Irish party left for Quebec, later travelling to Toronto (where a side trip took them to Niagara Falls), before visiting Boston and New York. They sailed home on the Britannic, which flew the Tricolour in honour of the Taoiseach, the Captain having explained that “his grandfather was a Fenian”. According to Costello, the party were so tired after their busy schedule that they slept through a hurricane.129 A storm of a different kind was waiting for them at home.

  The Britannic arrived in Cobh at 6 a.m. on Friday 1 October,130 and a number of ministers went out by ferry to greet the Taoiseach and have breakfast with him, after his eventful month away. Mulcahy commented to Patrick Lynch that “the Taoiseach has been drinking some very heady wine in Canada”. But if this was an indication of irritation at Costello’s performance abroad, no such irritation was displayed by MacBride. Lynch drove back to Dublin with him, stopping off at Abbeyleix for lunch, where they discussed events thoroughly. According to Lynch, the Minister for External Affairs “queried nothing, he just began commenting on the favourable impression that Costello had given in Canada”.131

  On his return to Dublin, the Taoiseach addressed an enthusiastic crowd of several thousand, who gathered in the rain outside the Mansion House to hear him. He told them that the repeal of the External Relations Act would lead to the end of bitterness and the removal of “all causes of strife between every section of the people”. His ministers were reported to have greeted him warmly132—but was this merely a public show of affection masking irritation at his Canadian adventure? The acting Canadian High Commissioner, Priestman, noted the absence of Dillon from the Mansion House, and drew the conclusion that “all is not well in the pro-Commonwealth wing of the Government … I have seen Mr Dillon in town recently and there would not therefore appear to be any substantial reason for his absence … particularly as he is known to be fond of the public platform …”133

  This, however, showed a misunderstanding of the position of the Minister for Agriculture, who had been one of those pushing for repeal, believing the External Relations Act amounted to “living a lie”.134 If any minister had qualms about Costello’s comments, they evidently decided that jettisoning the Commonwealth was preferable to jettisoning the Taoiseach, which it quickly became obvious were the only alternatives on offer.

  Here we come to yet another controversy—this time over a claim by Noël Browne that at a caucus meeting of ministers held shortly after Costello’s return, the Taoiseach offered to resign because “he deeply regretted his unconstitutional action” in announcing a decision which the Cabinet had not yet authorised.135 Browne claimed the meeting was held in Costello’s house. All surviving members of the Cabinet (Costello was dead by the time the claim was made) denied that any such meeting took place and that any such resignation offer was made. Declan Costello and Patrick Lynch also denied all knowledge of such a meeting. Given Browne’s tendency to exaggerate, and his sometimes casual approach to the facts (particularly evident in his autobiography), his account was treated with some scepticism.

  However, Government records contain conclusive proof that a meeting was in fact held in Costello’s house at around the time Browne claimed it was, and that the Taoiseach’s actions in Canada were discussed. A note by the Assistant Secretary in the Department of the Taoiseach, Nicholas Nolan, on Thursday 7 October said that a meeting was to be held in the Taoiseach’s house that evening,136 as does an entry in Costello’s appointments diary.137 A further note by Nolan on a Cabinet decision, approving Costello’s actions while in Canada and the United States, asked if it is to be dated 7 October (the day of the meeting in Herbert Park) or the eleventh (the date of the next formal Cabinet meeting).138

  So Browne was right about the meeting. Was he also right about the offer of resignation? In an interview for an RTÉ Radio documentary, Browne said that Costello “blurted out this thing, if you want I’ll resign”. He said Seán MacEoin dismissed the idea out of hand, saying there was no need for Costello to resign, a position backed by Browne himself.139 This suggests the idea of resignation had not been fully thought through—and a slightly defensive, emotional and ill-considered remark like this would not have been out of character for Jack Costello, particularly given the fact that he had just hours before received a rather disturbing com
munication from the British Government (a factor which was not highlighted by Browne, but which would explain why Costello might have thought it proper to at least offer his colleagues a way out of a potentially sticky situation).

  The message from London (undated, unsigned, and on un-headed notepaper) was handed to him by Lord Rugby in Government Buildings on Thursday 7 October at ten past one. It warned that if the repeal of the Act meant that Éire became a foreign country, there would be “important consequences, particularly in the field of preferences and nationality”. The UK had treaty obligations to offer Most Favoured Nation treatment to a number of foreign countries “which would preclude us from according to Éire that special treatment which on other grounds we would wish to accord her”. The note suggested talks on these issues before Dublin took further action. Rugby reported to London that Costello “was rather on the defensive in regard to his recent pronouncement and repeatedly stressed the firm intention to strengthen the friendship underlying the steps he was about to take. I said that we had been and still were rather in the dark about it all …”140

  This British approach may well have brought home to Costello the potential difficulties he had created for himself, and if he did in fact talk about resignation this was probably the reason, rather than a guilty conscience over acting without Cabinet sanction. But the meeting of ministers in Herbert Park backed him, and the formal Cabinet minutes record that “the action taken by the Taoiseach during his visit to Canada and the United States was approved”.141