Confidential report from Frederick H. Boland to Seán Nunan (Dublin)
'Lord Brookeborough and Partition'
(Secret)

In the course of a conversation I had with him on the 12th October, I gave the Canadian High Commissioner an account of recent developments in the Six Counties and of the Minister’s views in regard to them.

2. Mr. Robertson told me that in fact he had met Lord Brookeborough during his recent visit to London and had had some talk with him about Partition. It wasn’t the first time he had discussed Partition with Lord Brookeborough, and he couldn’t say that Lord Brookeborough had anything particularly new to say on the subject on this occasion. He did get the same impression on this occasion, however, as he had got before which was that, although he was absolutely firm in his present attitude of inflexible resistance to all outside pressure, Lord Brookeborough did not exclude in his own mind the possibility of an ultimate solution of the Partition problem by agreement. Mr. Robertson said that Lord Brookeborough’s attitude, as he had gathered it, was that, while the only possible solution was by agreement and there was no prospect of reaching a final agreement in the present state of feeling, he definitely did not regard Partition as being there for ever and he did not exclude the possibility of circumstances coming about in which agreement would be possible. On this latter point, Mr. Robertson told me that Lord Brookeborough had told him quite definitely that there were two occasions during the recent war when he (Lord Brookeborough) had felt that, in view of the wider interests involved, the Six Counties would have to make some move towards the unity of Ireland. Lord Brookeborough thought that on those two occasions, Irish unity might have been within reach of attainment. One of the occasions was immediately after the fall of France. In spite of hard thinking, Mr. Robertson was unable to be sure what was the other occasion. So far as he could remember, Lord Brookeborough didn’t say why, in his view, nothing came of the two alleged opportunities.
3. peaking in strict confidence, Mr. Robertson said that once or twice Mr. Pearson had toyed with the idea of saying something in public designed to ease a solution of the Partition problem, but each time the idea had appeared to him too ticklish and he had laid it aside. The only basis on which Mr. Pearson could approach the matter, from his own point of view, was an appeal for Irish unity as an aid towards a wider unity – the unity of the Commonwealth and of Western defence; but, of course, the issues this raised were very controversial from our point of view and Mr. Pearson had felt, he thought, that to raise them at a time when they would only lead to controversy and achieve nothing practical, would probably do more harm than good. I said that, as long as there was no concrete prospect of an early ending of Partition, this was probably right; if there were, things would probably be different. I hoped, however, that the Canadian government would not lose sight of the idea of making some contribution to the solution of the Partition problem. There were people in Dublin, including particularly the present Taoiseach, who had always felt that Canada was in a specially favourable position to play a constructive role in the settlement of the problem, and the time might well come when an intervention by the Canadian government at the proper moment might be of the very greatest importance.
4. With regard to Mr. Robertson’s account of the attitude of Lord Brookeborough, allowance must, of course, be made for the fact that Lord Brookeborough is probably concerned to win the sympathy of the Canadian government and therefore, in talking to Mr. Robertson, would probably be at pains to sound more moderate and reasonable than he really is in fact.