Memorandum by Conor Cruise O'Brien, John A. Belton and Eoin MacWhite

From 28th to 30th July Mr. Belton, Dr. Cruise O’Brien and Dr. MacWhite visited centres in the Six Counties. The object of the visit was primarily to introduce Mr. Belton and Dr. MacWhite to the contacts already established by Dr. Cruise O’Brien and, secondarily, to make certain new contacts notably Monsignor Arthur Ryan¹ (already known to Mr. Belton) and Sir Graham Larmor.² The contact with Sir Graham Larmor raises some important issues and is being made the subject of a separate memorandum.³ The persons contacted were as follows:-

The following points may be noted:

1. Views regarding the future of Sinn Féin.
   1. Immediate Prospects.

      Contacts outside Omagh were unanimous that Sinn Féin will win the Mid-Ulster by-Election with an increased majority. In Omagh itself, however, there was a division of opinion on this question, Mr. O’Neill, Senator Lynch and others taking the view that, because the convention on this occasion had been limited to Sinn Féin, many people who had voted for Mitchell⁹ when he had been the choice of a general ‘parish’ convention would not vote for him as the choice of the exclusive convention of a small political party. Senator McGill, however, who is generally regarded as the shrewdest member of the Omagh group, dissented privately from this opinion. Mr. McAteer to whom we mentioned the Omagh view that there might be a decreased majority for Sinn Féin or even loss of the seat, completely scouted this idea and spoke, as he has often done before, severely about the Omagh group, saying that it was their lethargy and inactivity which had opened the way for Sinn Féin in Mid-Ulster and conveying that their present opinion was merely wishful thinking arising from a desire to see the discomfiture of the people who had humiliated them locally. He also referred to a ‘rumour’ that members of the Omagh group had advised Nationalists in Mid-Ulster to spoil their votes rather than vote Sinn Féin. He said that if this were so it would greatly redound to their discredit, and to that of the Anti-Partition League, as it would be tantamount to what he referred to as ‘collaboration’ with the Unionists. On the whole the best opinion regarding the immediate future seems to be that Sinn Féin will win the seat again, probably with an increased majority and that their nominee will then be unseated on petition.

   2. Long term view.

      There is a general agreement that the genuine supporters of Sinn Féin in the Six Counties constitute a very small minority and that their leaders, although determined, are men of small ability. One estimate — that of Councillor O’Doherty in Derry — put the figure for real Sinn Féin supporters as low as 3 per cent. of the electorate. There is an important qualification to this estimate, however, in that it is only too clear that support for a policy of fighting Partition by any and all means — including terrorism where this can be effectively used — is very much more widespread than support for the present Sinn Féin organisation. Mr. McAteer and Councillor O’Doherty put the figure for supporters of ‘any and all means’ as high as 70 per cent and made it clear that it included Ulster and Derry Nationalists generally. How much of this is genuine and how much merely theoretical — representing a determination not to be outdone by Sinn Féin extremists — is difficult to estimate. Dr. Cruise O’Brien is of the opinion, on the basis of long standing acquaintance with Mr. McAteer, that Mr. McAteer is sincere in his opinion and that, in fact, he probably does co-operate, or has in the quite recent past co-operated, with IRA elements although not with the so-called political wing of Sinn Féin. As regards the future, Mr. McAteer’s opinion — which was also, in essence, that of our other more moderate contacts — was that Sinn Féin, if left to itself, would ‘fizzle out’ as Fianna Uladh had fizzled out. They had it was generally agreed no real political policy and it was felt that the electors, having tried them once, would not be disposed to look to them again. At the same time Mr. McAteer added that if they did look like getting results he would be the first to join them.

      Almost all our contacts agreed that the political future of Sinn Féin was very much limited by the requirement, in the case of Stormont elections, that candidates must take an oath before being allowed to go forward, that they will take their seat in Stormont. This oath has, of course, in the past been taken and broken — on the plea of duress — by abstentionists or Fianna Uladh candidates like Mr. McGleenan and Senator Liam Kelly. It was generally felt, however, that Sinn Féin in view of its past history and general attitude of no compromise would be unlikely to allow its members to take such an oath although it might attempt to favour abstentionist (but not Sinn Féin) candidates as against other Nationalists. It was felt, however, that as most of the Stormont Anti-Partition seats were held by very large majorities, there was not the same need for ‘united action’ as in the case of the Westminster constituencies and that therefore the official Anti-Partition League candidate should have little difficulty in getting himself adopted by the local convention and in disposing, if necessary, both of his Unionist opponent and of an Abstentionist splinter candidate backed by Sinn Féin. In Omagh Mr. Michael O’Neill and others referred to a possible split in Sinn Féin between those who favoured contesting Stormont elections and those who took the view that this was impossible on account of the preliminary oath. Those who referred to this alleged impending split, however, seemed to be doing so only on rather vague hearsay and, like other comments on Sinn Féin among the Omagh Nationalists, this may be due to wishful thinking. Mr. Michael O’Neill stated, referring to some names in support of his claim, that Sinn Féin were now devoting much more attention to ‘military recruiting’ in Tyrone than they were to political organisation.

   3. The Government and the Sinn Féin IRA movement.

      Two views, contradictory in their implications, were expressed about what it would be desirable for the Government to do in relation to the present extremist movement. Monsignor Arthur Ryan, Sir Graham Larmor, Mrs. Calvert and Mr. McWhitty all indicated in different ways that the present extremist wave was doing very great harm to the prospects of the co-operative project, as outlined by the Minister,¹⁰ which this group all agreed offered the best hope of an eventual settlement of the problem. Monsignor Ryan stated that in his view the most useful single action which the Government could take to promote better relations with the Six Counties would be ‘to lock up the people who are doing the recruiting for the IRA’. Dr. Cruise O’Brien from his previous talks with Mr. McWhitty and Mrs. Calvert believes that this would be their view also and that of the whole moderate Protestant group represented in the Irish Association. It would also he believes (though for rather different reasons) be the view, though not likely to be openly stated as such, of the so-called Ulster Herald or Omagh group in the Anti-Partition League and probably also of Mr. James McSparran the, at present rather negative, ‘President’ (and former Chairman) of the League. Mr. McAteer, however, when Mr. Belton mentioned to him some of the anti-Sinn Féin arguments which we had heard from other sources, took up a rather reserved position and indicated that, while he had a low opinion of the present Sinn Féin, and would have been glad to see them opposed by an Anti-Partition League candidate in Mid-Ulster and Tyrone-Fermanagh, yet he would be strongly opposed to any attempt now ‘to use the League against Sinn Féin.’ He believed that the main thing was to concentrate on the struggle against the common enemy, i.e. the Unionists.

      The question of whether action should or should not be taken against the Sinn Féin IRA movement in the Twenty-Six Counties was, of course, not raised by any member of our group and Mr. McAteer did not discuss it on this occasion. In the past, however, he has given Dr. Cruise O’Brien to understand that he would be very much opposed to any such action as long as that movement confined its ‘military’ activities to the Twenty-Six Counties.

2. Views on ‘Co-operation’.

   The attitude of our various contacts towards the policy of ‘co-operation’ in economic, social and cultural matters advocated by the Minister in, for example, his recent estimates speech and other public statements, may be analysed as follows:

   1. The ‘Irish Association’ group consisting mainly of moderate Protestants like Sir Graham Larmor, Mrs. Calvert, and Mr. McWhitty are of course very strong advocates of this policy and Sir Graham Larmor had some very interesting practical suggestions to make in this regard which are considered in a separate memorandum.
   2. Monsignor Arthur Ryan, who enjoys considerable influence among educated Catholic opinion in the Belfast area, also favours such a policy and strongly deprecates — as of course the Minister has done on several occasions — exaggerated propaganda against the Six County régime. As indicated above he feels that the full fruits of the co-operation policy can hardly be expected as long as the IRA continues to operate in the Six Counties from a safe base in the Twenty-Six.
   3. It is known from Dr. Cruise O’Brien’s previous visits that most of the Irish labour people in Belfast — and indeed Belfast Nationalists generally — are inclined to favour such a policy. There are some not very important exceptions — Mr. Diamond and his friends — who are inclined to flirt with the IRA. The Irish Labour Party in Belfast is, however, very weak at present and much torn by dissensions, some personal scandal and probably some Communist infiltration. The opinions of its members are therefore probably of less importance than the opinions of, for example, the Anti-Partition League and especially of that current of opinion in the League which is represented by Mr. McAteer.
   4. The so-called ‘Omagh’ group in the Anti-Partition League — which also controls present official nationalism in Enniskillen through the Ulster Herald newspaper generally — cannot be said to have any very strong opinions on the co-operation issue or indeed on any general issues beyond the electoral situation in Mid-Ulster and Tyrone-Fermanagh. However, Mr. Michael O’Neill, probably the most sincere though not the most astute personality associated with this group, is a supporter of the co-operation policy and would like to see it extended.
   5. Mr. McAteer and his friends in Derry who represent the most extreme section of official Nationalism and enjoy considerable prestige and influence in their area — their prestige, unlike that of the ‘Omagh’ group, is quite unshaken by recent events — are not enthusiastic about the co-operation idea but neither do they oppose it as a line to be taken by the Government in Dublin. The qualification is important because Mr. McAteer and his friends — and indeed almost all Six County Nationalists outside Belfast — are still not disposed to co-operate in any way with the Stormont authorities — calling such co-operation ‘collaboration’ — but intend as far as possible to defy them on every occasion. This attitude is of course highly comprehensible given, for example, the local situation in Derry. It is quite clear that it is of no use to address to the Six County Nationalists such exhortations as those which Mr. Ernest Blythe¹¹ has recently been issuing — e.g. that they should attend official banquets, stand up for ‘God Save the Queen’, drink the loyal toast, etc. These suggestions, however logical they may be, are quite out of touch with the real situation in the Nationalist areas of the Six Counties.

   To sum up there is no real opposition in the ‘friendly’ sectors of the Six Counties to the co-operation policy as between Six and Twenty-Six County authorities, although there is some scepticism among the more extreme elements as to what can be accomplished by such means. There is no reason to believe that any extension of this policy would be disapproved by any considerable section of the Nationalists in the North unless, of course, such co-operation were to take the form of condemning or deprecating the activities of the Northern Nationalists themselves or of in any way condoning (or even ignoring) the discrimination of which they are victims. In a word no difficulties are likely to be raised on the Nationalist side to further progress in the direction of co-operation along the lines laid down by the Minister (since the Minister’s utterances on this matter have always taken full account of the plight of the Northern Nationalists). Indeed the fact that the Minister has laid emphasis on discrimination and that we continue to expose in our bulletin such instances of it as the Mater Hospital affair,¹² has enabled us to retain the confidence of the Northern Nationalists and has probably been instrumental in preventing them from taking a hostile or suspicious attitude towards the principle of co-operation.

3. Views regarding the future of the Anti-Partition League.

   The Omagh group take the line — indeed it was the main burden of their discourse — that it would be highly desirable, and indeed essential, to transform the entire structure of the Anti-Partition League between this and the next Westminster elections. They indicated that they wished to turn the League into a political party — which of course it is not at present — with its own local organisations which would form the basis of Anti-Partition League conventions for future elections. At present of course, there are no Anti-Partition League conventions. There are only, in the case of the Westminster constituencies, conventions of Catholics on a basis of two from each parish chosen by members of the congregation at after-Mass meetings. In the case of the Stormont constituencies there are numerous variations of this formula, somewhat differently applied in each constituency. In one constituency, for example, the Ancient Order of Hibernians provide all the convention and electoral machinery and the Member is, in fact, a Hibernian nominee; in another constituency each parish priest has the power of nominating two representatives to the convention. In another all the Catholic organisations of the area including St. Vincent de Paul and the AOH send their nominees to the convention. A factor, of course, which all these systems have in common is that they are on a purely sectarian basis and assume that the terms ‘Nationalist’ and Catholic are interchangeable. The Omagh group would like to see substituted for these rather ramshackle and anachronistic methods, a party organisation on normal lines functioning throughout the entire Six Counties. They intend to make proposals to this effect at a forthcoming meeting of the Executive. They indicated that if their plan were adopted it would be necessary, to put into effect, for the League to have a paid organiser to get branches going and to see that the register was kept up to date. They laid great emphasis on their belief that if matters were left to Sinn Féin (or apparently to the Anti-Partition League without a paid organiser) the registration work would lapse with the result that Catholics would begin to lose ground on the register at a rate of something like 2,000 per annum which would, of course, rapidly result in Unionist majorities in the two Westminster constituencies. They indicated that if the Executive approved of their plans they would ‘be coming down to Dublin’ an expression which on the lips of Senator McGill and his friends inevitably connotes a demand for a subsidy. At the same time Mr. O’Neill, probably rather indiscreetly, revealed that the League has at present a sum of about £1,300 to its credit representing the fruits of a collection made by himself and Senator O’Hare¹³ in Dublin some time ago. It was suggested by one of us that this sum should be sufficient to retain the services of an organiser for an initial period in which he could, assuming that he was worth his salt, raise sufficient funds by new membership etc. to render his continued employment possible. We indicated, in polite terms, that unless the League showed some signs of attempting to put itself on its own feet, it was not likely that any approach for help from Dublin would be well received. The Omagh group asked us to raise this matter with Mr. McAteer in Derry, with whom they apparently had not previously discussed it. We accordingly informed Mr. McAteer of our discussions with Omagh and found him, as usual, very scornful of the incompetence of the Omagh group and their tendency to try to solve all their troubles by looking for outside help. He scouted the idea of a Six County Nationalist organisation on party lines and said that the present loose system, odd as it looked to outside observers, answered local needs quite well. It was clear that the difference of opinion arose from the fact that Mr. McAteer, unlike the Omagh group, is confident of his own ability to command a majority in any ‘open’ convention of the Catholics of the area. Judging by previous experience it seems unlikely that any scheme opposed by Mr. McAteer will ever be accepted by the Six County Nationalists generally, although it might be endorsed at a meeting of the League Executive to which of course the Omagh group, forming a rather strong caucus, would travel up in force. It is therefore possible that the Government will shortly be approached with a request for financial aid to enable such a re-organisation to take place. Unless it is then quite clear that such a scheme commands the unanimous support of all the principal areas and personalities in the League and unless the scheme can be supported by arguments more powerful than were produced at Omagh, it does not appear that any useful result is likely to be obtained by further subventions.

4. The Irish Association.

   From conversations with Sir Graham Larmor, Mrs. Calvert, Mr. McWhitty and Mr. Patrick Scott, it became clear that this association, which aims at strengthening cultural, social and, where possible, economic links between the two parts of the country (but which takes up no position on political matters) was a good deal more active and in healthier condition than it has been for some years previously. This is probably due to the increased interest which Sir Graham Larmor is taking in the Association and to the weight which his name commands in business circles in Belfast. The membership of the Association is small — about 150 members — but it is to some extent ‘hand picked’ in that all the members belong roughly to the upper middle class and have a corresponding degree of social, although not necessarily political, influence. They would, we were informed, considerably increase their membership but they were cautious about any drive for members as they wished to retain the essential non-partisan and moderate character of their association. They therefore preferred to allow membership to expand more or less on a ‘club’ basis by the accession of friends and members. Mr. McWhitty, who had at an earlier stage been sceptical about the possibilities of the Association, is now one of its most enthusiastic supporters and says that it is already having a distinct effect on the tone, in relation to ‘the South’ of the upper social layers in Belfast. The Minister’s remarks about the Association in his estimates speech had, we understood, been greatly appreciated by the members. No gesture of official approval had, however, been forthcoming from any member of the Northern Government although we understood that there might be some prospect of such from someone like Mr. Brian Magennis.¹⁴