Letter from Frederick H. Boland to Seán Nunan (Dublin)
(Confidential)

One particular 'angle' of our Anti-Partition policy occasions reactions here which - although they are not strong or very important in themselves - I feel I should bring to your notice. As I have already mentioned to the Minister, our argument that Partition makes it impossible for us to join the Atlantic Pact is not sympathetically regarded by the sections of political opinion here who are most favourable to us on the Partition issue, viz., the 'doctrinaire', pacifist and idealistic elements in the Labour Party. These elements are critical of the Atlantic Pact itself, regarding it as conducing to war and as marking the subordination of Britain to the United States in matters of foreign policy. This argument then - although of obvious value in the United States - has to some extent a negative effect from our point of view in this country. People like R.H.S. Crossman and Michael Foot have told me this quite definitely. Distinct from this point of view about the Atlantic Pact, but indicative of the same state of mind in Labour Party circles here, is a tendency to criticise and even resent efforts on our part to get the United States to intervene directly with Britain with a view to forcing a settlement of the Partition problem. Several people otherwise friendly to us - including Geoffrey Bing - have spoken to me from time to time about this, all suggesting that to bring the United States into the picture would by no means help matters. In confirmation of the impression I had gained myself from these casual conversations, Mr. Feehan¹ of the Anti-Partition League told me that when he was invited a week or two ago to address a meeting organised by the Cities of London and Westminster Branch of the Labour Party, he was subjected to vigorous questioning and criticism on this point. The fact is that there is a strong strain of anti-Americanism in the rank and file of the British Labour Party - particularly among those of Leftish tendencies - and any apparent effort on our part to secure American intervention on the Partition issue runs up against this prejudice. I have no reason for thinking that the criticisms which Mr. Feehan encountered were in any way inspired by, or the result of anything issued from, Transport House, but I hope to be able to check up on this possibility within the next few days.

It is not the purpose of this minute to suggest that our present line of Anti-Partition policy should be altered; but I think that, so far as this country is concerned, the reaction referred to above is of some interest and worth, perhaps, bearing in mind.²