London, 27 March 1961
**‘Britain’ or ‘U.K.’
(C.(61)46)2 **
In this paper the Commonwealth Secretary proposes that, in our relations with other Commonwealth countries, we should in future describe this country as ‘Britain’ instead of ‘United Kingdom’.3
2. The Commonwealth Secretary says, in paragraph 6 of his paper, that this proposal has been approved by yourself, the Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade. It has been placed on the agenda for tomorrow, as he is pressing that it should be taken at once. He evidently wishes to have it treated as a minor matter of nomenclature. But, with respect, I doubt whether it is quite as straightforward as he suggests. There are difficulties which the Cabinet should not overlook. Thus:–
(i) Are we sure that we shall not give offence to Australia and New Zealand, and perhaps to Canada, if we arrogate the term ‘British’ to ourselves alone? In the last war, certainly, we had terrible trouble with Australians when our Ministry of Information described our troops as ‘British forces’. In the older Commonwealth countries there are still very many people who like to think of themselves as ‘British’.4
(ii) For the opposite reason, this change might give some offence in countries like India—where it might be construed as an attempt to reintroduce the old concept of the ‘British’ Empire.
(iii) It will be awkward to use these new terms for some purposes and in relation to some countries, while continuing to use ‘the United Kingdom’ in other contexts.
(iv) The term ‘United Kingdom’ must in any event be retained for the purposes of legal documents and for the definition of citizenship.
(v) ‘Britain’ is an inaccurate description of ‘the United Kingdom’ since it does not include Northern lreland.5
3. I doubt whether the Cabinet should authorise this innovation without some thought. In any event this is the sort of point which might be of interest to the Prime Minister. I have no idea what view he would take of it. I suggest, with respect, that it ought not to be finally settled in his absence.
I would have preferred that this paper should not be taken while the Prime Minister is away. But, if the Cabinet wish to discuss it tomorrow, I suggest that you should offer to report their views to the Prime Minister on his return.6
1 R.A. (Rab) Butler, British Home Secretary, 1957–62.
2 The reference is to Cabinet Paper No. 46 of 1961.
3 Duncan Sandys, the Commonwealth Secretary, discussed with Macmillan whether ‘Britain’ and ‘British’ should be used instead of ‘United Kingdom’ in January 1961. He argued this was the practice in relation to foreign countries and he wanted it adopted in the Commonwealth. He had written to British High Commissioners. Macmillan thought the Cabinet should be informed. Sandys had already spoken to Butler about the implications for Northern Ireland; the Home Secretary had not raised objections. At the UN Sandys believed ‘United Kingdom’ should still be used, ‘so that we should continue to sit next to Russia and America’. Macmillan’s recollection was that on the last occasion ‘he had had to sit next to President Nasser’. The Prime Minister believed it would still be necessary to use the title ‘United Kingdom’ at, for instance, Passport Offices. Sandys undertook to circulate a paper (UKNA: PREM 11/3652, note by T.J. Bligh, 20 January 1961).
4 When Brook raised this particular concern in separate conversation with Sandys, the Commonwealth Secretary ‘doubted whether there was anything in this point’, but agreed that the governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand should be consulted and given an opportunity for comment before the change was made.
5 Britain, or Great Britain, refers to the combination of England, Scotland and Wales and a number of constituent outlying islands. An Act of Union of 1801 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. This became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1922 following the independence of the Irish Free State.
6 Cabinet discussed and approved the change on 28 March 1961. Brook then objected to the manner in which Sandys proposed to introduce the change. The Commonwealth Secretary first thought of sending a personal note to the prime ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand but then decided it would be better to mention it to them in personal conversation during his forthcoming Commonwealth tour. Sandys also instructed the Commonwealth Relations Office to draft a letter to British High Commissioners. Brook raised two objections. First, he believed the letter gave the impression that the change was being made as a result of a formal Cabinet decision. This was ‘scarcely justified’ by the Cabinet’s brief discussion on 28 March, which simply authorised the Cabinet Secretary to make the change in relation to matters that were largely his own departmental business. To go further would require more formal steps, for instance consulting the Queen. Brook secondly believed that the prime ministers to be consulted should be given more time for consideration. The Cabinet Secretary proposed amendments to the Commonwealth Relations Office’s circular letter, and suggested it should be sent in the first instance, only to the prime ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, with a covering note from Sandys. Believing it unlikely that Sandys would accept this procedure unless Macmillan agreed, Brook minuted the Prime Minister: ‘I am sorry to have to trouble you with so long a submission on what may seem a relatively small point. But the change, as the Commonwealth Secretary wishes to present it, might be regarded in some quarters as a change of real significance and I believe that, unless we handle this carefully, it may land us into difficulties’ (UKNA: PREM 11/3652, minute, 16 June 1961). Macmillan agreed and wrote personally to Sandys, telling him that the draft letter ‘brings in matters, such as treaties and international conferences, which are more the concern of the Foreign Office than your Department’, and suggesting the changes proposed by Brook ( ibid. , minute, Macmillan to Sandys, 20 June 1961). By 4 August 1961, Sandys was able to tell Macmillan that the matter had been cleared with the prime ministers of Canada, Australia and New Zealand ‘in the way you proposed’. See also NAA: A1838, 67/1/3 part 3.
[UKNA: PREM 11/3652]