Chapter 12  

WE MUST HAVE FRIENDS

“In existing circumstances we cannot have formal alliances. Because we cannot have alliances we must have friends.”¹

JOHN A. COSTELLO, APRIL 1956

“… your chivalry is so beautiful, and I am deeply moved by it.”²

JACQUELINE KENNEDY TO JOHN A. COSTELLO, 1967

John A. Costello’s visit to the United States in 1956 was a personal milestone for him. It brought him into contact with the highest levels of the American political system, saw him honoured by a prestigious university, and gave him an opportunity to put his stamp on Irish foreign policy. It was also emblematic of his private life, and his capacity for friendship, which brought into his circle an elderly priest, an eccentric American scholar, and the widow of an assassinated president.

He had been to the United States twice before—in 1948, on his way to Canada, and in October 1953, when he attended an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Washington (at which the Irish, inevitably, tried to bring up partition).³ He liked Americans—his son John remembered him as being “charmed” by them, as he loved their “informality and their old world courtesy”.⁴ In both his terms as Taoiseach, he received a constant stream of visitors from the United States. He went out of his way to be helpful too—one visitor in 1949 mentioned that he had two elderly aunts living in Roscommon. The Taoiseach personally phoned the Garda sergeant in Ballaghadereen, asking him to drive out to let the ladies know that their nephew would be down to visit them a few days later.⁵

Costello’s American connection began with Father Joseph Leonard, a Vincentian priest with an international reputation as a scholar and author on the life of St Vincent de Paul. Costello came to know him at the start of the Second World War, when he was living in semi-retirement in All Hallows on the north side of Dublin. Leonard had been a chaplain in the First World War—possibly as a result, he was rather deaf.⁶ Their friendship was an important feature of his later life, with Costello taking him most weeks for a Saturday afternoon drive in the Dublin Mountains, where the elderly priest enjoyed the scenery. A mutual friend said after his death that the drives “meant everything to him”.⁷ Fr Leonard was, according to one of Costello’s Garda drivers, a “saintly, jovial old man with a great sense of humour”.⁸

After the priest’s death, Costello wrote warmly of “a valued and rewarding friendship with a man older and wiser than myself”. Fr Leonard had either given or recommended to him a long and varied list of books, from the theological works of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his own translation of a life of St Vincent de Paul, to D.W. Brogan’s “The American Political System”, to the novels of Henry James, to paperbacks by P.G. Wodehouse and detective stories by Rex Stout. As Costello remarked, “It is certainly not Father Leonard’s fault if I have not gained much and varied fruit in my post graduate course under his guidance!”⁹

The reference to the Jesuit Teilhard de Chardin is interesting—he was a liberal and controversial theologian whose work was banned by the Vatican. In 1960, Archbishop McQuaid proudly informed the Nuncio that he had forbidden students at Clonliffe College from reading de Chardin several years before the official ban.¹⁰ It is unlikely that Costello was greatly influenced by these works. According to his son Declan, he was “a practising Catholic, rather than an intellectual one”, and wouldn’t have read a great deal of theology.¹¹ Whatever about Teilhard de Chardin, Father Leonard was credited by some in the family for softening Costello’s approach to religion, which had been rather rigorous.¹²

Before his return to All Hallows in 1939, Fr Leonard had been Vice-Principal of St Mary’s, the Vincentian college at Strawberry Hill outside London. Strawberry Hill was built in the eighteenth century by Horace Walpole, son of Prime Minister Robert Walpole and in his own right a politician, art historian, and literary figure. It was because of this connection that Fr Leonard was introduced (by Lady Hazel Lavery)¹³ to Wilmarth Sheldon Lewis, an American expert on, and collector of, Walpole’s work. “Expert” is probably too mild a word—his autobiography reveals him as something of an obsessive. Lewis had the good sense to marry a wealthy wife, Annie Burr Auchincloss, whose fortune allowed him to amass an unrivalled collection of Walpole’s voluminous correspondence. This was brought to the couple’s home in Farmington, Connecticut; both house and collection were eventually donated to Yale. Costello had visited Farmington in 1953, when he was in Washington for a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and no doubt was given a full tour of the collection.¹⁴

Lewis was known to his friends (including Costello) as “Lefty”,¹⁵ a nickname which quite unjustifiably implied a certain raffish quality. In fact, he had been given the nickname in honour of a gangster called Lefty Louie. He was grateful to the gangster, because, as he wrote later, “the possession of a nickname is a gift beyond rubies”.¹⁶ He may have been no gangster, but he was extremely well connected. He was one of the trustees of Yale, serving alongside such luminaries as former Secretary of State Dean Acheson (who had been a classmate at the college) and leading Republican senator Robert A. Taft¹⁷ (father of the US Ambassador to Dublin).

The Lewises met Father Leonard on a visit to Strawberry Hill in 1928. Characteristically, the visit was part of their honeymoon trip to Europe—whether she liked it or not, the new Mrs Lewis was to find much of her life taken up with Horace Walpole. The couple became close friends with the priest, who introduced them after the war to his circle in Dublin, including Costello. In return, they “sent him friends they knew he would enjoy, Jackie Bouvier among them”.¹⁸ Jackie, the future Jacqueline Kennedy, was the stepdaughter of Hugh Auchincloss, Annie Burr’s brother, and spent time with the couple while at school near their home. She was reportedly “fascinated” by her step-uncle’s Walpole collection.¹⁹

In 1949, Jackie and her stepbrother Yusha Auchincloss visited Ireland, where they met Father Leonard. The three visited Costello, then Taoiseach, at his office in Government Buildings, where he presented them with seven signed books on Ireland.²⁰ He later described her as “full of youthful vivacity, charm and great delight at what she found in Ireland”.²¹ She also became very fond of Father Leonard, asking him to officiate at her marriage to Jack Kennedy in 1953, and later to christen their first child, Caroline. He was too ill to travel to the United States on either occasion.²²

Jackie had met the then Congressman Kennedy in 1951, and after a “spasmodic courtship” they married two years later in what was described as “the social event of the year”.²³ They visited Ireland at the end of September 1955.²⁴ The Taoiseach was out of the country (in Rome), but in his absence the couple were entertained by Declan and his wife, Joan. Over dinner in the fashionable Jammet’s restaurant, the Senator asked the TD to explain Irish politics to him. Declan found him “very agreeable, highly intelligent and anxious to learn”.²⁵ In turn, Jackie Kennedy remembered the young couple, telling Jack Costello in 1966 that she had “never forgotten you, Declan and Joan’s kindness to us”.²⁶

Jack and Declan were both in the Dáil chamber on 28 June 1963, when John F. Kennedy addressed the House. Later, at a reception in Áras an Uachtaráin, the President asked Declan how he could get in touch with Father Leonard, as he didn’t want to leave Ireland without contacting him. A phone call to All Hallows ensued, which gave the priest “great joy”.²⁷ After the priest died, Costello wrote to Jackie Kennedy, by then a widow, seeking permission to quote from one of her letters to Father Leonard in an appreciation he was writing. He later sent her copies of her other letters to Leonard. She was effusive in her thanks for the confidence with which her correspondence with Leonard had been treated by Costello. “In the strange world I live in now, where privacy barely exists, and where I spend all winter in New York holding my breath and wondering which old letter of mine will come up for auction next!—your chivalry is so beautiful, and I am deeply moved by it.”²⁸

It was this American connection, through Father Leonard and Lefty Lewis, which led to Costello’s trip to the United States in 1956. In November 1955 the President of Yale, Whitney Griswold, wrote to the Taoiseach inviting him to deliver a lecture to the School of Law, and to take part in informal conferences with faculty and students as a Chubb Fellow—for all of which he would receive an honorarium of $1,000.²⁹ Lewis, who was responsible for the invitation, urged his friend to accept. “You would have an interesting experience, I think—one that, so far as I know, no other Prime Minister has ever had, certainly no other Taoiseach! We would do everything we can to protect you from ambitious politicians and allow you full opportunity to meet and talk with students and faculty.”³⁰

Costello jumped at the opportunity. He told Griswold it would be “refreshing intellectually to pass a few days in the legal and University atmosphere and away from the political atmosphere”, although he admitted to “some misgivings in view of the world-wide reputation of the Yale Law Faculty”. He added that he wouldn’t expect an honorarium, suggesting the payment could be described as a contribution towards expenses, as “I would not like it to be thought that I wished for reward for what I regard as an honour and a pleasure.”³¹ He told Lewis that he felt the invitation to be “of high significance”, adding that Father Leonard was delighted and had “sent me a book to prepare my education. He thinks, evidently, that I must do a lot of ‘home-work’ in preparation for the Yale Law Faculty.”³²

The Taoiseach’s visit was to coincide with Saint Patrick’s Day, which sent the major Irish-American organisations into a frenzy of excitement. The Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick in Philadelphia had been inviting him since 1950; New York organisations were anxious that he should attend their parade.³³ But he had also been invited to attend functions by the authorities of New Haven, where Yale was situated. This invitation, he told John Hearne, the Irish Ambassador in Washington, “came as a surprise to me but in view of the fact that the Yale invitation is such an unprecedented and invaluable one I could not refuse to agree to their wishes”.³⁴

Hearne, however, had other ideas. He cabled the Department of External Affairs urging them to “advise Taoiseach of absolute necessity of keeping his Saint Patrick’s Day engagements open. Consensus of opinion here is he must not attend proposed banquet New Haven under the auspices of Yale University. Yale regarded as heart of American Protestantism and Yankeeism … it would be impossible to explain to Catholics all over United States.”³⁵ Despite this strong advice, Costello assured Lewis that he would attend the New Haven dinner, after his friend advised him that extensive arrangements had been made. Hearne told Seán Murphy, the Secretary of the Department of External Affairs, that this “would obviously cause great disappointment”, adding that Archbishop O’Boyle of Washington had warned him that if the Taoiseach went to New Haven “they might as well close down the Irish Embassy in Washington so far as the American Hierarchy was concerned”.³⁶ Further pressure was applied by Norton, then on a visit to Washington, who sent a telegram warning Costello of the “grave perturbation” that would be caused if he went to New Haven on St Patrick’s Day. The Tánaiste said he would “strongly advise” him to change his plans, saying it had been mentioned to him “by religious and lay friends”.³⁷

The situation was further complicated by an invitation from the American Government to pay an official visit to Washington. Costello had told Ambassador Taft, who first suggested a visit to Washington, that “I would go where I was invited and to no place where I was not invited.”³⁸ Within a fortnight, Taft had secured an official invitation to Washington, to arrive on 14 March and depart on the morning of St Patrick’s Day. Taft told Costello that the State Department had specifically mentioned the morning of 17 March “because of a possible farewell call which it is hoped can be arranged”.³⁹ This was clearly meant, and understood, to involve President Eisenhower, and therefore could not be ignored. But it added to Costello’s difficulties—he wrote to John Hearne that he had been “in great distress over all this matter and I rely upon you to do what is possible and best”.⁴⁰

On the same day he informed his friend Lefty Lewis that he was “in a sea of trouble and difficulties and I want to appeal to your friendship to rescue me”. The engagements in Washington meant he couldn’t go to Farmington as planned. Even worse were “the clamant demands of Irish Societies for my presence on the night of St Patrick’s Day”. Apart from New Haven, Philadelphia and New York, these now included Chicago, Boston and Buffalo among others. “[S]o strong was the feeling that I should be in one of the bigger centres and not in a comparatively small one like New Haven that the suggestion was made that if I did not adhere to this advice the Irish Embassy in Washington would have to close down.”⁴¹ As we have seen, it wasn’t the size of the New Haven gathering that led to the objection. In any event, the Mayor of New Haven agreed to change the date of the event there to 18 March. Lewis wrote to Costello saying he was glad everything was sorted out, but regretting “that what began as a quiet academic excursion should have turned into a Donnybrook Fair”.⁴²

The battle over St Patrick’s Day having been settled, the rest of the programme was quickly filled in. Costello, accompanied by Charlie Murray, his private secretary, and by Alexis FitzGerald (whose airfare was paid by his father-in-law),⁴³ was to arrive in Washington on 14 March. He would go to New York at noon on St Patrick’s Day and review the parade, before travelling on to Philadelphia for the annual dinner of the Friendly Sons of St Patrick. On the following day he would go to Yale, where he would stay until 21 March, followed by a couple of days with Lefty and Annie Burr Lewis in Farmington. The trip would end with engagements in New York.⁴⁴ He stayed on in the United States for a few days after his official visit ended, but at the request of the State Department he kept a low profile to avoid protocol difficulties,⁴⁵ telling journalists that he wanted some time to himself for “looking around”.⁴⁶

Costello arrived in Washington to be greeted by “a Dublin-like mist” and Vice-President Richard M. Nixon.⁴⁷ This was not a snub by Eisenhower—protocol dictated that the President only personally greeted heads of state, and that rarely.⁴⁸ Costello made a joke of the weather, telling reporters that “even the great American nation, which has achieved so much, can as yet not control the weather”.⁴⁹ His first engagement was a private lunch in the White House with the President. Eisenhower’s welcome was described as “significantly cordial”; he introduced his visitor to his wife and her mother, and showed him over the private part of the White House. There were 22 guests at the lunch itself, all men, including the Secretaries of the Treasury, Commerce and Labour, as well as a number of senators and congressmen.⁵⁰ The lavish menu featured clear turtle soup, fillet of flounder and T-bone steak.⁵¹

Unusually for such a private lunch, Eisenhower made an impromptu speech “which was marked by particular friendliness in tone and content”.⁵² In total, the President spent one hour and 40 minutes with his Irish guest, which seems like quite a substantial chunk of time—although it should perhaps be noted that he later found time to spend an hour on the South Lawn hitting golf balls.⁵³ As we shall see, Costello was to make much of the friendly reception he received. Eisenhower was reported to be pleased by his visitor too—particularly Costello’s comment that one of the things he liked about the President was that he was “a good and not a great golfer”. It was, according to one of his aides, most unusual for tributes to be paid to the President’s golf. An Irish journalist based in Washington reported that the two men played a similar game⁵⁴—which was not much of a tribute to either, by all accounts.

The journalist, Muriel Bowen, had formerly worked with the Irish Independent, but was at the time working her way round the world in an effort to improve her chances of getting elected to the British House of Commons for the Conservative Party. She told Costello her editor was eager for her to get an interview with him, particularly to get his impressions of the United States. As Bowen commented condescendingly, “I find the Americans love praise in any shape or form. Despite their cocksureness they think most things in Europe are just that little bit better.”⁵⁵ As well as explaining Americans to Costello, she told her readers something about the Taoiseach. “Being Prime Minister has meant trying to overcome one of the basic difficulties of his personality: a loathing for the limelight. In private he is just as quick as is Sir Anthony Eden to tell one how much he hates cocktail parties.”⁵⁶ This may have given some insight into the Taoiseach’s personality; it also gave Ms Bowen’s readers to understand that she was on intimate terms with not one but two prime ministers.

Costello’s visit was also attracting attention from other newspapers, notably the New York Times, which devoted an editorial to his arrival. We are now used to Taoisigh using St Patrick’s Day to promote Ireland in the United States; then it was a novelty, as theNew York Times recognised: “St Patrick’s Day this year will be special”, it said, because of Costello’s presence. The editorial praised Costello’s “integrity, courage [and] high principles”, before wrongly claiming that “as a young lawyer he gained fame in defending the leaders of the 1916 Easter Rebellion against the British”.⁵⁷ The widespread publicity was clearly a boost for Ireland’s image. Costello’s presence was even noted by some enterprising cadets at West Point, who invited him to visit the military academy—largely because they had been confined to barracks for two months for a misdemeanour, and prime ministers were entitled to grant amnesty to cadets. After discussing their letter with Hearne, Costello wisely decided to ignore it.⁵⁸

The first official speech of the trip, at the National Press Club in Washington, turned into a comedy of errors. Shortly after he began reading his script, his private secretary, Charlie Murray, realised to his horror that he had given him the wrong speech—Costello was reading the script he was supposed to deliver to the Senate a couple of hours later. Murray passed a note up to Hearne, who was sitting beside Costello; the Ambassador, however, had forgotten his glasses, and had to get the note read for him by one of the journalists, who had difficulty making himself understood as Hearne was rather deaf. By this time, however, Costello had discovered the error himself. One of those present wrote, “Few of us have ever seen a world figure so discomfited. But he made no attempt to cover up. He confessed what had happened and begged our pardon … he couldn’t have done anything calculated to appeal more to our sense of humour. He completely won our hearts, and we practically knocked ourselves out giving him an ovation. We even cheered when he started his speechmaking all over again.”⁵⁹ Another witness told Costello he had turned a mistake “into a personal triumph. Some of our members even suspect the whole thing was arranged that way.”⁶⁰ As at his Canadian news conference eight years before, Costello had decided the best policy to follow with journalists was to tell the truth—though this time with less spectacular results.

More formal speeches followed later in the afternoon, to the Senate and the House of Representatives. He was the first Irish head of government since W.T. Cosgrave to make such an address (though Cosgrave had addressed only one House). Some of his successors as Taoiseach (Liam Cosgrave, Garret FitzGerald, John Bruton and Bertie Ahern) were to address a more formal joint session of Congress, but the invitation was still a significant honour. He told the House of Representatives that the world’s future would be in good hands as long as the United States continued to use her power “in an honest and forthright manner”. In the Senate he expressed the hope that ties between the countries would be nourished and would continue to see “full community of sympathy and interest”.⁶¹ He received a standing ovation from senators on arrival and again after his speech.⁶² As a gift, he brought five letters written by Richard Fitzpatrick, a captain in the British Army during the American War of Independence, which had been held in the National Library.⁶³

Naturally, a visit to the Capitol was marked by partisan politics—particularly as this was an election year. Costello had confessed to Hearne before the trip began that he was “oppressed with the notion that because it is Presidential year there may be strange forces at work and I don’t want to put a foot wrong”.⁶⁴ The “strange forces” turned out to include a green china donkey (the donkey, of course, being the symbol of the Democrats) presented to him by Democratic congressmen. Appearing slightly embarrassed, Costello protested as he was photographed with the donkey, “You’ll have me ruined here!” The (very) Republican Ambassador to Ireland, William H. Taft III, laughed along with the joke, but declined to join the group for a photograph.⁶⁵

The official memorandum of the trip noted that “it was very evident that it was not desired [presumably by the Eisenhower Administration] that the Taoiseach should appear to be closely identifying himself with figures prominent in the Democratic Party. Equally it was obviously incumbent on him not to seem to neglect such people in view of the traditional support of the Irish-Americans for the Democratic Party. The tight rope was, it is believed, successfully negotiated.”⁶⁶ It wasn’t just good manners that made the tightrope walk necessary. Costello believed Irish prestige in America had grown because the Irish there had moved up the social scale—in the process losing their automatic loyalty to the Democrats. Many of them had voted for Eisenhower in 1952: “… both parties are now fighting for the Irish vote and are, therefore, more conscious of the importance of Ireland”.⁶⁷

This added to the potential political significance of Costello’s visit during a presidential election year. The Irish vote may or may not have been swayed by pictures of the Taoiseach with Eisenhower. But the fact that the possibility existed meant the administration felt it was worth making an effort to extract the maximum potential advantage. There were advantages for Ireland too, of course. The very fact of access to the White House was important. And Costello’s visit included a new departure that was to be significant in future years, the presentation of a bowl of shamrock to the President. This ceremony has now become a regular feature of St Patrick’s Day in Washington, giving Ireland unparalleled access to the Oval Office once a year, access that is the envy of other countries.

Boxes of shamrock had been presented to members of the US Cabinet and Congress for a number of years, but in 1952, External Affairs came up with the idea of presenting some to the President.⁶⁸ Ambassador John Hearne left a bunch at the White House for Truman. The President was on holiday in Key West in Florida at the time,⁶⁹ but every tradition has to start somewhere. The following year, Eisenhower was in the White House on St Patrick’s Day. This time the presentation was more elaborate, with the shamrock in a cut-glass bowl (which had been supplied free of charge by Waterford Glass, then trying to break into the American market).⁷⁰ The President was clearly taken with the idea, writing that the bowl “graced my desk all day, and each visitor to my office took away with him a small bit of the emblem of your country”.⁷¹ This was good publicity for Ireland (and for Waterford Glass).

The presentation became a tradition, which was highly valued by Irish diplomats in Washington because of it gave them “the unique privilege … in being admitted to a private audience with the President … on our national feast day”.⁷² An audience for an ambassador was obviously of benefit—but far more important was the potential for a political engagement. John A. Costello was the first to take advantage of this potential (although, despite Taft’s insistence that he should remain in Washington until the morning of St Patrick’s Day, the presentation actually took place on the sixteenth).

Rather than Waterford Glass, Costello chose an antique Irish silver bowl for the presentation. The newspapers reported that he “took a sprig of shamrock from the bowl and put it in the President’s lapel”.⁷³ Eisenhower, according to the Irish memorandum of the visit, “was obviously touched by, and grateful for, the gift”. The Irish record of the visit said the President and the Taoiseach had a half hour’s discussion. However, the detailed White House record of Eisenhower’s day shows that Costello’s visit lasted just 10 minutes, from 9:02 to 9:12 a.m.⁷⁴ No matter how long the visit lasted, at the end the President “bade a cordial farewell to the Taoiseach and his party”. The memorandum noted that Eisenhower later sent a personal letter to the Taoiseach: “The terms of that letter and, indeed, the fact that such a letter was sent are significant.”⁷⁵ The President thanked Costello for his “kindly gesture” in bringing the shamrock and the bowl, which was “a fine example of the work of Irish silversmiths of the eighteenth century. I am taking the bowl with me up to our farm so that Mrs Eisenhower can see it at once.”⁷⁶

Costello was much taken by the friendly reception he received, particularly from Eisenhower and Nixon. “In private relations … they spoke in terms which might almost suggest they were concerned to flatter me … As these were … private occasions they cannot be explained simply by reference to the fact that this was a Presidential election year.” Apart from the fact that the Republic of Ireland Act had made it easier for the Americans to treat him as the representative of the Irish people, he identified three reasons for his warm reception. The first was his belief that the Americans were impressed by his invitation to speak at Yale. “I believe that Washington became extremely interested in an Irish Catholic Statesman who was chosen to be honoured by one of their two most important non-Catholic Universities.” This seems rather doubtful—Costello greatly overestimated the importance of the Chubb Fellowship. His other reasons seem more likely explanations—his own efforts in his speeches to stress Irish understanding of American difficulties, and the Republic’s new membership of the United Nations (Irish membership had been vetoed by the Soviets, but she was admitted after a 10-year wait at the end of 1955 as part of a “package deal” which saw 16 countries from both sides of the Iron Curtain admitted).⁷⁷ In any case, Costello was prone to mistake courtesy and friendliness from foreign leaders for signs of deep affection—his reaction to Mackenzie King in Canada in 1948 being a prime example.

Still basking in the warm glow of his meeting with the President, Costello then had an equally congenial visit to the Supreme Court, where the Chief Justice and Associate Justices had come in specially to meet him. They had “an interesting and informal talk on various matters mostly of legal concern or reminiscence”.⁷⁸ This was followed by a lunch given by Vice-President Nixon at the Capitol, the conferring of an honorary degree by Catholic University, a reception hosted by Hearne in the Mayflower Hotel, and finally a speech at Georgetown University. Costello later told Government colleagues that “as a matter of deliberate policy, I adopted in my speeches throughout a conciliatory attitude and tried to make the American people aware of our appreciation of their difficulties”.⁷⁹He certainly fulfilled this aim at Georgetown, telling his audience that Irish neutrality did not “spring from indifference to the outcome” of a war. “In the battle of ideas we are firmly committed … And we hope to work with you in your Atlantic partnership and in the wider framework of UNO towards maintaining the peace.”⁸⁰

Costello’s forthright anti-communism and expressions of support for the United States were welcome to Washington, but not surprising. Background information on the Taoiseach from the State Department said he had “always shown a friendly and cooperative attitude towards the United States and the United Kingdom” (although it was noted that he believed that partition prevented Irish membership of NATO).⁸¹ Former US Ambassador George A. Garrett told Eisenhower that Costello was “a brilliant man, a first class administrator and a great friend of the United States”.⁸²

On St Patrick’s Day, after Mass in Washington, Costello travelled to New York to review the parade. Heavy snow had fallen the night before, although the sun made an appearance during the parade itself. It remained bitterly cold, however, which reduced the estimated size of the crowd to below one million. Even still, 110,000 people took part in the parade, described as “heartwarming if not foot-warming” by the New York Times. Costello told the newspaper that St Patrick’s Day at home was more of a religious occasion, with small and quiet parades, and “not such a big day in Ireland as it is here”.⁸³ But he was suitably impressed by the event (the first to be viewed by a Taoiseach). “To stand as I did on the Reviewing Stand at the New York parade and to watch contingent after contingent of Irish groups pass the Stand in the most bitterly cold New York weather is to receive an immense fillip to National self confidence.”⁸⁴ As historian Joseph Morrison Skelly has pointed out, Costello’s impression of Irish-American support for the old country was overblown, the result of being in New York on St Patrick’s Day. “Costello erred in assuming that Irish Americans sustained this high level of interest in Ireland all year long. They did not.”⁸⁵

Even before the parade had ended, Costello was on his way again, to Philadelphia for the dinner of the Friendly Sons of St Patrick. The following day, Sunday 18 March, he finally arrived at New Haven for his visit to Yale. College President Whitney Griswold met him at the station. As they were escorted through the traffic by police motorcycles with sirens screaming, Costello dryly observed, “We’d only have to try this once at home and we’d be out of office the next morning!”⁸⁶ That evening he addressed the annual dinner of the Knights of St Patrick, which was held, for the first time, in the University. It was, according to Costello’s memorandum on his trip, a “friendly gesture by an important and predominantly Protestant University to a Catholic Irish-American Society” and “evidence of the goodwill towards Ireland created by the visit”.⁸⁷ The Irish had entered the heart of “American Protestantism and Yankeeism” described by Hearne. Costello told the Knights that while Ireland did not have the “big divisions” spoken of by Stalin, the Irish “have created somewhat of a stir not to say noise in the world … It is true that the nation is small in size and lacks material wealth but we have abundant recompense.”⁸⁸ It was a theme he mentioned frequently during this trip, particularly in the context of Ireland’s new membership of the United Nations—“while we cannot muster big battalions our moral influence is, or at least could be, considerable”.⁸⁹

On Monday he got down to the reason for his visit, the Chubb Fellowship. This was designed to bring “distinguished men in public life to the campus for three or four days to talk informally with groups of undergraduates, graduate students, and members of the faculty”. There were up to six fellows a year. Costello’s predecessors included Connecticut Governor Abe Ribicoff, ACLU co-founder Roger Baldwin, writer Arthur Koestler, and former Secretary of State Dean Acheson.⁹⁰ Later fellows included Presidents Harry Truman, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush; Israeli Prime Ministers Shimon Peres and Moshe Dayan; authors Toni Morrison and Norman Mailer; and actor Robert Redford.⁹¹

Acheson advised that Costello’s Chubb lecture should be “very informal” and that it should concentrate on life at the Irish Bar. “He said that he could not imagine a more fascinating story for American law students … The theme would be the contribution of the legal profession in Ireland to building modern Irish national institutions.”⁹² The students had other ideas, though—Costello later reported that on every occasion he was expected to speak on Irish foreign policy. “In Yale University the students and faculty did not desire to hear anything of an academic character but insisted on … matters relating to Ireland.” Even his Sherrill Lecture to the Law Faculty, which he was prepared to devote to “natural law and social justice with particular reference to the provisions of our own Constitution and the decisions of our courts on those topics”, was changed to a discussion on foreign policy.⁹³ The tone of his memorandum suggests he was rather disappointed.

Costello’s stay coincided with the heaviest snowfall of the year, disrupting some of the planned events, but Yale’s Alumni Magazine reported that the visit was a success. It said Costello had been “an attentive listener as well as a vigorous talker, and his full and candid expositions of Irish foreign and domestic policy held the enthralled attention of all who heard him”.⁹⁴ This was, no doubt, something of an overstatement—although Costello was never short of vigour in his conversation, and could usually be relied upon for a “full exposition” of issues. In keeping with the informality of the fellowship, he stayed for a couple of nights in one of the student residential houses, having dinner with the undergraduates, after which he had a question-and-answer session with 20 students in the sitting room. Postgraduate student Robert Quinlan, who was appointed as a guide for the Taoiseach during his stay, told the Evening Press that he had made “a real impression on the student body, not only because of his academic background, but also because he succeeded in selling Ireland to the students without apparently trying to do so”. He added that Costello “had maintained a very definite point of view on subjects of Irish policy, while being, at the same time, objective in his explanations of that policy”.⁹⁵

As we saw above, Costello believed the American Government had been impressed that he had been awarded the Chubb Fellowship, and attributed Eisenhower’s friendly reception partly to this factor. His record of the trip for his Cabinet went on to claim that “it would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the effect of the visit to Yale … Apart from the personal honour bestowed on the Taoiseach, the visit had the effect of evoking in Yale a lively interest in Ireland.”⁹⁶ This was undoubtedly hyperbole. The Fellowship may have been something of a personal honour, but it was mainly due to Lefty Lewis, with whom Costello spent two days after his time at Yale, most of it no doubt devoted to discussion of Horace Walpole.

Another outcome of Costello’s Yale excursion was the creation of a fellowship for an Irish postgraduate student to spend a year at the University. The funds for this were donated by the Lewises (or, to be more accurate, by Mrs Lewis) and the recipient was to be chosen by Costello. The fellowship was worth $2,500, from which the tuition fee of $600 had to be deducted. In May, Costello wrote to UCD, UCC, UCG and Trinity seeking nominations, stating that the fellowship “should be awarded for a course in Economics with, possibly, Public Finance and Public Administration included”. After an interview with the Taoiseach, the first fellowship was awarded to Noel J. Farley of UCD. The relationship which began in the warm glow following Costello’s visit to Yale (President Griswold told him he wished “that in your case the Chubb Fellowship were a permanent appointment”) did not endure. By 1965, Costello found that Yale was “tending to disregard” his role in choosing the recipient, and he had to write reminding them of the terms of the original arrangement.⁹⁷

The official part of the visit resumed on Friday 23 March in New York, where the Taoiseach toured the nuclear research centre at Brookhaven National Laboratory and had lunch with officials of the Atomic Energy Commission. The Americans had offered co-operation on the use of atomic energy the year before, and the Irish had indicated that they considered nuclear energy as “a likely and feasible electric power source”. While Costello was in Washington, an Atoms for Peace Agreement was signed, under which the United States was to supply enough enriched uranium to fuel a research reactor. Back in Ireland, an Atomic Energy Committee was set up “as the first step in introducing Ireland to the atomic age”. After describing his visit to Brookhaven, the Taoiseach told the first meeting of the committee that atomic power presented a challenge and an opportunity. As native energy resources in water and turf became fully developed, and demand increased, “it appears nuclear energy must come into consideration and may offer many advantages … [but] the technology of nuclear energy is complicated and difficult, and … will require a substantial programme of education and training”.⁹⁸

In New York City, Costello again stayed in the Waldorf-Astoria. On the night of his arrival, a dinner in his honour was given by Horace Flanigan, the President of Manufacturers Trust bank. According to Hearne, he was a friend of Eisenhower and outgoing Secretary of State Dulles, as well as being “of our own Faith, of Irish descent (Limerick) … his wife is a convert”.⁹⁹ He was entertained to lunch by Cardinal Spellman, and received an Honorary Doctorate of Law from St John’s University of New York. Just before his departure, the Taoiseach also met General Douglas MacArthur. According to the Irish record of their informal conversation, the general “commented favourably on Ireland’s neutrality in the last World War”, and foresaw a “gradual rapprochement between theUSA and Russia—the one becoming more Socialistic, the other more Capitalistic—and thought that neutral countries like Ireland might help to bridge the gap”.¹⁰⁰ But his most important business in New York related to the United Nations.

On Saturday 24 March he toured the UN headquarters, where the General Secretary, Dag Hammarskjold, entertained him to lunch. That evening, the United States representative to the un, Henry Cabot Lodge, gave a dinner for him. Costello also addressed the United Nations Correspondents’ Association. He told the journalists that Ireland was not neutral in the war of ideas, despite military neutrality. She would take a “militantly anti-Communist” line at the un. And while the Irish would raise partition if a favourable opportunity presented itself, Soviet support on this question would be rejected. The Taoiseach added that “we are not going to be a sore thumb. We are not going to raise it at every opportunity.”¹⁰¹ This may have come as a relief to the correspondents, who presumably were all too familiar with member states using the United Nations to air their pet grievances.

Costello’s comments were later criticised in the Dáil by Independent Jack McQuillan, who claimed they were at variance with an earlier statement in the Dáil in 1948, when Costello said that if Ireland became a member of the un, the Government would “miss no opportunity of seeking to undo the unnatural division of our country”. The Taoiseach denied that there was any conflict between his two statements. While no opportunity to undo partition would be missed, “this does not mean that our purpose would be advanced by raising the issue at inopportune times or on inappropriate occasions or by giving the impression that we are blind to all issues of international policy save that of Partition alone”. He added that Ireland’s influence at the UN “may be far from negligible”, and that the best way of enhancing national prestige and serving the cause of national reunion was to make as useful a contribution as possible to the work of the United Nations.¹⁰²

Costello had made plain his pro-American sentiments—as well as stressing that partition still trumped anti-communism when it came to NATO. He believed the United Nations provided Ireland “with a new stage upon which to exert our influence and impress ourselves as a force for good … In existing circumstances we cannot have formal alliances. Because we cannot have alliances we must have friends.”¹⁰³

The same thought had occurred to the Americans, who were anxious to test the limits of Costello’s friendship. Scattered through the papers relating to his trip are intriguing references to an approach from Ambassador Taft on a highly confidential matter. Frustratingly, the subject of the approach was never committed to writing—on the Irish side. But the Americans were less cautious, and a letter from the State Department to the White House spells out exactly what was involved. According to this document, the Americans were anxious to get wartime transit rights at Shannon for military transport. Taft, therefore, had “made a very secret and informal approach to the Irish Prime Minister with a view to obtaining permission for a United States civil air carrier to expand certain facilities at Shannon and to handle the transit of transport aircraft under military control in the event of the United States being involved in hostilities”. The Americans noted that Costello had agreed to “think it over”, but urged the strictest secrecy about the matter because “publicity of any kind would damage whatever slight chance we may have of obtaining the desired rights”. The State Department didn’t expect Costello to mention the matter when he met Eisenhower, and advised the President not to raise it himself.¹⁰⁴

Here, then, was a test of Costello’s sincerity, on an issue which had been politically sensitive for more than a decade. In 1944, while still a neutral in a world at war, Ireland had been invited to join the International Civil Aviation Organisation by the Americans, who were looking for alternatives to Britain as points of entry to Europe for postwar aviation.¹⁰⁵ The British were annoyed they hadn’t been consulted, and even more annoyed that the Americans approached the Irish delegation at a conference in Chicago seeking unlimited landing rights at Shannon. They were aware of the approach because they were intercepting and decoding Irish diplomatic telegrams—this one was seen by Churchill.¹⁰⁶ Early in 1945, the British Prime Minister found out that the Americans were asking Dublin to sign a bilateral Civil Aviation Agreement. Churchill sent a petulant complaint to Roosevelt, pointing out that the Irish had been excluded from Commonwealth aviation talks “because of their behaviour in the war”, and that he had already complained to Roosevelt in person about the previous approaches. “The War Cabinet have very strong feelings on this episode and we all earnestly hope as good friends that you will consider the matter personally yourself.”¹⁰⁷

Roosevelt sent a soothing reply, saying Washington’s attitude to Ireland hadn’t been changed by the agreement, any more than a similar agreement with Spain had indicated a change in attitude towards Franco.¹⁰⁸ But the Americans pressed ahead with the agreement—so anxious were they, in fact, that they agreed to the inclusion of the Shannon stop-over, which required aircraft to land there rather than flying straight to Dublin. Within a couple of years, by the time of Costello’s first term as Taoiseach, the USairlines were lobbying for the removal of the stop-over, and protracted negotiations ensued over direct flights to Dublin. At the same time, there were informal indications that Shannon might be available for use by the American military in the event of war with Russia. TheUS Consul in Limerick reported to Washington that “high Irish airport officials as well as local political leaders have said … that if the United States wishes to use the airport or any other facilities for military purposes they may as well feel free to do so”. The Consul, William Moreland, admitted that these comments “border on the extravagant and are not entirely authoritative”, but felt they were worth reporting.¹⁰⁹

There was a less co-operative attitude evident at the talks on the stop-over, but the tension between the Irish and the Americans was nothing to that between the staff of the US legation in Dublin and the Washington-based officials who made up the delegation to the talks. The two groups quickly fell out, with George Garrett complaining of the “high pressure tactics” being used by the negotiators, including press leaks.¹¹⁰ Garrett reported to Washington, with some evident satisfaction, that the talks over the Shannon stop-over had descended into farce when the head of the American delegation, J. Paul Barringer, “unfortunately got tight [drunk] at a dinner given by MacBride”. In the course of a speech “his gratuitous remarks were insulting to the Irish and embarrassing to us … Barringer continued at table to pay his respects in similar vein, mostly to John Leydon [the Secretary of the Department of Industry and Commerce] … the following morning … Leydon terminated this conference after a one-hour session.”¹¹¹

One of the press leaks Garrett complained of appeared in the New York Times in September 1949. It suggested that Marshall Aid funds were to be used to extend the runway at Dublin to allow for the landing of the largest transport planes—as well as bombers. The story suggested that Ireland would not be able to remain even formally neutral in another world war, so Dublin Airport could be used by the US military. When the story was reprinted in the Irish Press a fortnight later, it was immediately denied by MacBride,¹¹²but it was significant in that it linked the questions of civil and military aviation—precisely the question to be presented to Costello in 1956.

Given the political sensitivities involved, Costello’s response to Taft was cautious, telling the American he would think it over. When the Taoiseach discussed the approach with John Hearne and Alexis FitzGerald in New York, his son-in-law advised against taking on any commitments, and Hearne agreed. The Ambassador told Costello he could “easily put the matter on the long finger” rather than turning Taft down abruptly. The Irish were getting “splendid official co-operation” with their investment programme, and “we should avoid any risk of word being sent down the line to go slow on investment in Irish industry”. Hearne thought there was a prospect later on of agreeing “a clear-cut arrangement between the two Governments to be ratified after approval by Dáil Éireann. That would be the safest course, should you then decide that such an arrangement should be made.”¹¹³

Characteristically, Costello continued to put the approach on “the long finger”. Taft apparently pursued the matter in writing later in 1956. His letter does not survive, but Costello replied that he would be happy to have a further discussion about its (unspecified) subject. “I have mentioned the matter very confidentially to Mr Norton and I would like that the three of us should have a further talk.”¹¹⁴ There the initiative seems to have run into the sand, as there was a change of government shortly afterwards. The Americans can’t have been too surprised—despite Costello’s pro-American leanings, the State Department had accepted that there was only a “slight chance” of agreement. However, it could be argued that Costello missed an opportunity. After all, his first government had sought bilateral defence arrangements with the Americans, outside the NATO framework, but had been rebuffed. And an agreement with Washington on the use of Shannon by the US military in 1956 would hardly have led to the type of controversy seen in recent years. On the other hand, such an agreement would surely have led to Ireland rising on the list of Soviet nuclear targets.

Despite his reluctance to offer the Americans facilities for military use, Costello was enthused after his visit, and anxious to build on the good relationship he felt he had developed with Eisenhower. He sent a telegram to the President just before he left New York, thanking him for the “gracious and warm hearted welcome” he had received, and stressing that the Irish people “appreciate the efforts and sacrifices which the American nation is making in the cause of world peace”.¹¹⁵ Eisenhower’s reply said Costello’s visit had “certainly increased the depth of affection held by my countrymen for the Irish”.¹¹⁶

How to build on this apparent diplomatic triumph? In a memorandum to Government, he proposed the appointment of a separate full ambassador to the United Nations, as well as the promotion of Irish consuls in Boston, Chicago and San Francisco to the status of consul general. The Minister for Finance was, predictably, not impressed, and responded to Costello’s suggestions in terms that were little short of insulting. Sweetman began by casting doubt on the Taoiseach’s belief about future Irish influence, saying his warm official reception “was due to the fact that this is election year” (he was almost certainly right). He then dissected the failure of the Government, and more particularly Fine Gael, to develop a proper foreign policy since 1948, having another cut at Costello on the way. “The public were not sufficiently prepared for the announcement of the repeal of the External Relations Act; there was no prior build up … the establishment of the Republic of Ireland was, without question, of inestimable value … but without a clear and positive external policy it appears to lack logical effect. The action of India accentuated this apparent void.”

Having skilfully denigrated Costello’s proudest diplomatic achievement, Sweetman then rubbished his latest grand plan. “I do not believe we can play such an important role [in the UN] as that which seems to emerge from the Taoiseach’s memorandum, but I do feel we can play a dignified role which will add to the nation’s prestige.” That dignified role, however, would have to be done on the cheap. The country could not “possibly hope to afford” widespread diplomatic and consular representation, and could hardly achieve Civil Service economies at home if the reach of External Affairs was to be greatly expanded.¹¹⁷ The fact that Sweetman was by and large right can’t have made his words easier for Costello to read. It is little wonder relations between the two men were frosty by this stage.

However, when the matter came before Government, Costello got much of what he wanted. The Cabinet agreed that Ireland should “play a prominent role in the United Nations Organisation and that everything must be done to ensure that our contribution is effective and likely to bring credit and distinction to the country”. Specifically, there was to be an ambassador accredited solely to the UN, with “appropriate staff (including a Press Officer) and a suitable residence”. Cosgrave was to formulate “the principles and, so far as possible, the details” of Irish foreign policy. The question of upgrading consuls to consuls general was referred to the Cabinet Estimates Committee, while Cosgrave was to consult with Sweetman over increasing the allowances of diplomats in the United States. Cosgrave was to consider further Costello’s proposals on strengthening links with Irish-Americans and increasing public interest in foreign affairs. And Norton was to prepare a plan for attracting more American investment in Irish industry. Finally, in an indication that the Taoiseach had been impressed by the pomp surrounding his official reception, Seán MacEoin, the Minister for Defence, was to look into “the question of Army ceremonial and of an improved and more extended use of the National Flag and the National Anthem”.¹¹⁸

It was a comprehensive and fairly well thought out plan for capitalising on the good feeling evident towards Ireland in the United States. Perhaps the most important part of his report to Government dealt with future policy at the United Nations. In a draft of his memorandum, Costello suggested Irish influence should be “wielded so as to strengthen the Christian civilization of which Ireland is a part … it is an important duty of Ireland not to take any action which by subtracting from the power of America and Britain would relatively strengthen the power of Russia”. As a concrete example, he suggested that rather than instinctively supporting the Cypriot claim to independence, Ireland should act “in a responsible manner based on and informed by the fullest details available so that we should not take or recommend any action merely because it was politically easy for us to do so”. For a small and practically undefended nation world peace was “of ultimate and vital importance. In the absence of world peace the defeat or containment of Russia is paramount. I am personally completely convinced that the United States has no aggressive aims and is sincerely anxious for peace.”¹¹⁹

Costello’s son-in-law Alexis FitzGerald pointed out that a public interest in foreign policy “won’t come about by breaking a wishbone but by action”. He suggested that if the Taoiseach himself wouldn’t make a series of speeches to educate public opinion, he should get Cosgrave to do so. “Not merely would this be useful for its own purpose but be politically good, showing the people he was doing his job.”¹²⁰ This Cosgrave did in a speech to the Dáil in June 1956, in which he outlined the three principles of his foreign policy. The first was adherence to the principles of the UN Charter, the second independence and non-alignment with any of the main power blocs. In case anyone could misinterpret the second point, the third made it clear once again where Ireland stood in the Cold War: “to do whatever we can as a member of the UN to preserve the Christian civilisation of which we are a part and with that end in view to support whenever possible those powers principally responsible for the defence of the free world in their resistance to the spread of communist power and influence”.¹²¹ The third guideline was “the foundation upon which the inter-party government built its United Nations posture”, and it mirrored Costello’s memorandum.¹²² Just as Ireland had been neutral in favour of the Allies during the Second World War, she was now “non-aligned” in favour of the Americans.

During the Dáil debate on the External Affairs Estimate, Costello spoke at length on the threat of “atheistic Communism”, a speech which drew favourable comment from Archbishop McQuaid. This was welcome to the Taoiseach, as there had been criticism of Irish entry into the UN from what he described as “ultra-Catholic sources”.¹²³ He was able to tell one such critic, who referred to his “lame apologia” for Ireland’s entry to the United Nations, that the Papal Nuncio had called on him “to convey to me the gratification of the Holy See” with his speech on the External Affairs Estimate.¹²⁴

Costello, then, had set the ground rules for Irish foreign policy, being the real author of the three principles outlined by Cosgrave. But in matters of detail, as was his practice, he left the Minister to get on with running his own Department. “Mr Costello never interfered in any way … He left the decisions to me but I kept him and the Government fully informed of all major matters.”¹²⁵ This was obviously sensible when the Minister attended his and Ireland’s first UN General Assembly in November 1956. The Taoiseach assured the American Ambassador that the Cabinet received regular updates from the delegation in New York, although he appeared “a bit vague from a lack of knowledge on several points”. Taft would have been more reassured by Costello’s statement that “he had urged Mr Cosgrave to ascertain closely the US view on all difficult points”.¹²⁶ When Cosgrave was asked by the Americans to support them on refusing to debate the admission of communist China, he readily agreed.¹²⁷

The indications from New York were that Cosgrave had made a success of his first outing on the world stage. Freddie Boland reported to Iveagh House that no other speech had received such a positive response. “The volume of applause at its conclusion was really remarkable and delegates crowded round the Minister from all sides to congratulate him and express approval of his speech.”¹²⁸

The Cosgrave/Costello approach was in stark contrast to that pursued in later years by Fianna Fáil’s Frank Aiken, who aroused considerable controversy by supporting calls for a debate on the admission of communist China to the UN (he stressed he wasn’t supporting the admission, only a debate about it, but was lambasted by anti-communists for his trouble). Declan Costello put down a Dáil motion condemning Aiken’s actions; his father said the Minister had contravened “one of the fundamental principles that we laid down” to direct policy in the United Nations. “We object to the policy advocated and to the action taken because it gave comfort to our enemies, the enemies of peace, and disturbed our friends who are the bulwarks of peace and the bulwarks against war.”¹²⁹

Costello clearly enjoyed his visit to the United States, and was greatly impressed by the courtesy shown him by Eisenhower and Nixon—and by his experiences at Yale University. But on his return to Ireland, he was to be engulfed by a sea of troubles—economic, political, but most importantly, personal.