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

I have no doubt whatever that the statement about Partition issued by a spokesman of the British Embassy in Washington on 18th January was made on the express authority of Mr. Churchill and represents the deliberate attitude of the present British Government on the issue. The statement as reported by the Associated Press corresponds exactly – and in some sentences almost textually – to what Mr. Eden said to me in the course of a brief conversation some weeks ago. I mentioned this conversation to the Minister when he was here.

2. In substance, of course, the attitude of the present British Government is the same as that of their predecessors. They persist in the attitude that Partition is a problem which must be solved by agreement between the two parts of Ireland, and that the British Government cannot, and will not, do anything to bring about an early solution of the problem. The Conservative and the Labour Government’s attitude are, therefore, just the same in substance and from our point of view, it is only the substance that really counts. As regards presentation, however, there is a shade of difference between Mr. Churchill’s attitude and Mr. Morrison’s attitude which is worth noting. By his repeated statement that if the North and South came together, there would be a new situation which Britain would have to consider, Mr. Morrison succeeded in implying that the ending of Partition was not something which Britain wanted to see achieved and that even if the North and South agreed to unite, Britain would still be entitled to a say in the matter and would be entitled, if she were not satisfied, to withhold her consent. Mr. Churchill does not go as far as this. He has said on more than one occasion that he would like to see Ireland united but union could only come about by agreement between the North and South – under no circumstances could Britain coerce the North into that union. He actually used the phrase that we ‘must woo the North’ when talking to me last summer and Mr. Eden used the same phrase in the conversation referred to above. Neither in last Friday’s statement, however, nor in any of the public statements which Mr. Churchill has made, has there been any express suggestion that if the North and South agreed to unite, Britain would have any further say in the matter.
3. In the conversation referred to above, Mr. Eden stressed how anxious he was that Ireland should be elected a member of UNO. He said that UNO was suffering from the lack of people like the Taoiseach and he was personally very sorry that the Russian veto had deprived the United Nations Assembly of his presence.
4. As I told the Minister, Mr. Eden mentioned that he has an engagement to visit the Six Counties in the spring. He hoped the Taoiseach wouldn’t misinterpret his visit as an unfriendly initiative on the Partition question. Actually he had accepted the engagement before the election in October and before he became Foreign Secretary. The Taoiseach could be sure that, while he was in the North, he would do his best to avoid saying anything which would exacerbate our feeling about Partition and worsen relations between the two countries which he was very anxious to improve.
5. . I raised with the Minister, when he was here, the question whether I would suggest to Mr. Eden (whom I expect to see in the near future) the possibility of a visit to Dublin while he is on our side of the Irish Sea. The Minister said he would like to think this over and, of course, I have not done anything further about it.