Memorandum by Conor Cruise O'Brien regarding
recent fact-finding visits to Northern Ireland

It may be worthwhile recording the gist of a few private conversations I have had regarding the recent interesting developments in the North.²

When I last visited Belfast about three months ago Dr. Pearse O’Malley,³ whose wife Councillor Mary O’Malley⁴ is probably now the most active member of the Irish Labour Party in Belfast told me that he and his friends were convinced that the Liam Kelly⁵ arrest was dictated by motives of expediency arising from the internal stress in the Unionist Party. A similar interpretation is given in Peadar O’Donnell’s⁶ editorial in this month’s ‘Bell.’ O’Donnell is probably drawing on similar sources.

The view is corroborated by the demonstration in the Ulster Hall on Tuesday last (5th January) under the auspices of the so-called ‘Orange and Protestant Committee’ the moving spirit in which, at least ostensibly, is Mr. Norman Porter,⁷ well-known now for many years as the organiser of the extremist Orange body, the National Union of Protestants.

Mr. Douglas Gageby,⁸ the editor of the Irish News Agency, who was present at this rally, thought it an impressive political manifestation. The Ulster Hall was, he says, packed to the doors – which indicates a meeting of between 3,000 and 4,000 people – no inconsiderable audience in a non-election period. The meeting was, as reported in the press, a very angry one and although some press reports to the effect that the meeting called for Brooke’s resignation are exaggerated, it is true that the names of both Brookeborough and Maginess⁹ were greeted with abusive cries, their names being linked a little incongruously with that of the Pope. The usual anti-Popery cries, which have been suppressed for quite a long time now in Six-County politics, were heard on all sides at the meeting. Most of the audience were country members and they were, Mr. Gageby thought, about half working men and half small town white collar people. Mr. Gageby referred repeatedly to their angry temper and said that, although he is a Belfast man himself, he had never seen anything like this.

Mr. Paddy Scott,¹⁰ the INA correspondent in Belfast, who is on friendly terms with several of the official Unionist people in Glengall Street,¹¹ says that they are deeply disturbed and shaken by the reaction of the Orange lodges to Brookeborough’s remarks on Dungiven¹² and to the idea that the Unionist leadership is ‘soft on Popery.’ The Unionist leadership is in fact, of course, little better disposed to Catholics or Nationalists than are the ‘wild men’ from the rural Orange lodges but the leaders appreciate, what the rank and file do not, the necessity for refraining from any action which would antagonise British public opinion or, in particular, give the British Labour Party an excuse for changing its line on Ireland. This latter idea, that ‘these labour people will let us down’ has of course long been the nightmare of the more thoughtful Unionists. The rank and file are, however, quite indifferent to such considerations and their eyes, particularly in rural areas where Catholics predominate are turned more towards the ‘Fenian’ danger than towards Britain. Objectively, it seems they have a fairly good case. Scott believes that Brookeborough was, in fact, minimising the disturbances at Dungiven and elsewhere and that arms – Tommy guns – were in fact displayed at Dungiven. The Nationalist population in several areas have recently been much bolder about displaying the tricolour and this was referred to repeatedly and with alarm at the Orange Hall meeting, where the RUC were assailed for their remissness in dealing with such cases.

The only MP at the Orange Hall demonstration was Mr. Norman Porter but it is believed in Glengall Street that the man behind the meeting was Edmund Warnock,¹³ probably assisted by W.F. McCoy¹⁴ well-known as the proponent of the ‘dominion status for Ulster’ idea. It is not believed that so strong a turn-out of the Orange lodges could have been secured unless the word had been passed around by someone of more standing than Mr. Norman Porter. Warnock’s motives are believed to be those of personal ambition. As long as Maynard Sinclair¹⁵ lived, Warnock occupied or believed he occupied the third place in the Unionist Party and looked forward, eventually, to the leadership. After Sinclair’s death however, Brookeborough made it clear that Brian Maginess was now to be regarded as his deputy. Maginess is junior to Warnock at the Bar and in politics and Warnock is said to have taken the ‘passing over’ very hard. He is said to have remarked to friends that ‘Brooke’ got rid of Andrews¹⁶ when he was not right for the job and ‘why should not we get rid of Brooke now.’ It is asserted also that he makes an appeal to the sympathies of the ‘democratic’ elements in the party who distrust Brookeborough as an ‘aristocrat.’ These views of Warnock’s motives and actions come of course from sources hostile to him but Scott, who is dispassionate as between official and unofficial Unionists, thought the stories well founded. I have heard nothing as to McCoy’s motives but it is clear that if the extremist wing, which he is said now to favour, have their way it will strain relations with at least one of the major British parties, and therefore perhaps favour the movement for greater ‘Ulster’ independence with which McCoy’s name is associated.

My informants all discountenance the idea of a split in the party. They believe it is much more likely that Brookeborough, who has several times in the past offered his resignation to the party, will do so again before long and that this time it will be accepted. Then Warnock or perhaps some compromise candidate – but not Maginess – will succeed and the ranks will be closed. There will thereafter, for some time at least, be a greater display of toughness on the part of the authorities.