Much more so than in modern times, sharp cultural and social differences distinguished the various peoples inhabiting the British Isles in the later middle ages. Not surprisingly these differences and the interaction between medieval forms of culture and society have attracted considerable attention by historians. By comparison with other fields of research, we know much about the impact of the Westminster government on the various regions of the English polity, about the interaction between highland and lowland Scotland and about the similarities and differences between English and Gaelic Ireland. Yet the historical coverage of these questions has been uneven, and what at first glance might appear obvious and promising lines of inquiry have been largely neglected — for example the relationship between Gaelic Ireland and Gaelic Scotland, or between Wales, the north of England and the lordship of Ireland as borderlands of the English polity. No doubt the nature and extent of the surviving evidence is an important factor in explaining this unevenness, but in fact studies of interaction between different cultures seem to reflect not so much their intrinsic importance for our understanding of different late medieval societies as their perceived significance for the future development of movements culminating in the present.

The Irish parliament which met at Drogheda in 1460 is best known for its legislative declaration of its own sovereignty Although this was subsequently abrogated by Poynings’ law, the 1460 parliament effected one lasting change, to which little attention has been given: it established a separate Irish currency for the first time and in so doing created an institution which with varying visibility and value was to last until 1826 — the Irish pound.

Before 1460 an Irish coinage existed. This was, however, merely a local minting to a common bullion standard which applied in England and Ireland since the first Irish minting under King John at the very beginning of the thirteenth century. Considerable historical attention of a numismatic bent has been paid to the coinages issued under the Normans. It has been concentrated in the main on the more or less mechanical questions of where, how many and by whom coins were issued. Wider analysis has been almost entirely political or related to the problems of the exchequer — mintings in place and in quantity being indicators of Norman influence and of the cost of such administration as existed in medieval Ireland.

One dispute in Irish history which has not been given the attention it deserves is that which involved Britain, Ireland and Portugal during the years 1780-87 Authors of outline Irish histories, Lecky, Murray, George O’Brien and McDowell only mention the dispute briefly in their respective narratives, though it is clear they understood its importance to some degree at least. Maurice O’Connell, who has produced the only specialist study for the period in question, makes no reference to the dispute at all. This dispute has indeed been more substantially treated by the British historian, John Ehrman, within the general context of an analysis of the British government’s commercial negotiations from 1783 to 1793. However, the perspective he draws relates purely to Britain and Portugal, which, in itself, narrows the true significance of an episode which was important in that it completely undermined the benefits Ireland hoped to accrue from the free-trade legislation of 1779-80, and also because it raised a number of interesting questions relative to Ireland’s constitutional status vis-à-vis of Great Britain.

In historical treatment, as was the case in life, John O’Connor Power has been overshadowed by Charles Stewart Parnell, his political nemesis who campaigned successfully to destroy Power’s influence. However during the decade 1874–84, Power was the most enigmatic, controversial and divisive figure in Irish politics. His fellow parliamentarian T P. O’Connor called him ‘one of the few [Irish M.P.s] who stood out from the ruck of Irish placehunters’, whose ‘profound knowledge, his temper ..his profound contempt for ignorance and, as he thought, at the same time the insanity of Parnell made him a source of division’ O’Connor described him as having ‘a powerful but very ugly face, the ugliness accentuated by the marks of a severe attack in childhood of smallpox’ Tim Healy remembered him as ‘reeking of the common clay’ and remarked that ‘Parnell’s aristocratic sensitiveness recoiled’ in Power’s presence.

The political leadership of the independent state that emerged after 1920 was formed in the years after the fall of Parnell in 1891. The cultural atmosphere of the period in which the new leaders had grown up was suffused with a nationalist and anti-modernist romanticism, a sense that a civilisation was perhaps dying and a scepticism about the possibility or even desirability of mass democracy As has been argued elsewhere, the young men and women who were to lead the separatist movement were children of their time. Like their contemporaries elsewhere in Europe, they sensed that the twentieth century would bring great changes; they anticipated with dread or longing the great wars that so many writers predicted; they tended to rebel against their elders, often in the name of ideals inculcated by those elders; they tended toward a romantic and messianic nationalism.' They tended also to think moralistically rather than scientifically; their social thought was derived from ethics rather than from politics or economics. The culture from which they came was dominated by a catholic world-view, and their real intellectual mentors were the priests of the catholic church.

From the autumn of 1918 until late in 1919 home rule was dead as a practical issue in British politics, and the government concerned itself with the administration in Ireland and the means by which republican violence might be stamped out. During the spring and summer of 1918 Lloyd George had attempted to follow what he called the ‘dual policy’ — home rule in return for military compulsion — and a cabinet committee, under the chairmanship of Walter Long, had drafted a home-rule bill which, in view of the deteriorating situation in Ireland, the cabinet had refused to take up. This bill had foreshadowed the basic outlines of the settlement which was to be embodied in the Government of Ireland Act more than two years later Despite the considerable historical attention given to Anglo-Irish affairs in the period 1918-22 comparatively little attention has been paid to the making of the Government of Ireland Act, though it was this piece of legislation which laid the basis for partition. The act is something of an historical aberration in that its application within nationalist Ireland was superseded within less than a year of reaching the statute book, for the treaty of 6 December 1921 effectively repealed it by granting full dominion status.