The study of the history of science has only within the last few decades attained the rank of an important field of enquiry for both scientist and historian. It was thus almost inevitable that, at first, attention should have been focused on the great and original thinkers like Boyle, Newton, Descartes, and Leibniz. But this type of approach frequently results in the presentation of a distorted picture, for few men are geniuses, and these are not truly representative of their age. The Irish scientists of the late seventeenth Century, who ranged from the very able to the pedantically dull, are far more typical examples of contemporary natural philosophers than are Newton or Boyle.

In 1680, science in Ireland was still a rare and infrequent study, and it must be admitted that the country had fallen behind the rest of Europe not only in the natural sciences but also in almost all other intellectual disciplines.

Between 1879 and 1882, large amounts of relief were dispensed in Ireland by a range of state, private, clerical and political organisations and agencies. According to Cormac Ó Gráda, £800,000 in private charity and up to £2.4 million in government aid was expended in an attempt to alleviate the extreme distress of the period. That expenditure was greater than the £1.2 million in rent reductions secured by the 275,525 tenants who entered the courts of the Land Commission in 1881, factors that are seen as central to the deflation of the Land War. In the historiography of the period, the distribution of this relief is usually only mentioned in passing: R. V. Comerford and R. F. Foster have outlined the high politics of private charities such as the Duchess of Marlborough and Mansion House Funds. The administration of relief at local level has also received limited attention, and much of this scholarship concentrates on structural causes of poverty and the effectiveness of various measures adopted.

Under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, which forms, with some slight amendments, the written constitution of Northern Ireland, power was given to the province to set up a separate record office for itself. When the transfer of services to Northern Ireland took place, no steps were at first taken to establish such an office, although circumstances would soon have necessitated the consideration of such a course. Local departments and minor courts contained an accumulation of documents which were aged over twenty years from the date of making, and therefore, according to a statutory provision, fit for transfer to the central repository. Partly from the disturbance of customary routine due to war conditions, partly from motives of prudence owing to the disturbed state of the country, which rendered transport unsafe, these documents had for some time not been transferred to Dublin. The destruction of the Four Courts in June 1922—which involved the loss of the Irish records and the specially equipped building in which they had been preserved—entailed the consequence that there was no longer in existence a repository suitable for the receipt of Northern Ireland records, even supposing that such would be sent out of the province in the altered situation. By an act of 1923, the northern government set up its own record office.

In ‘An Agenda for women's history in Ireland, 1500–1900’ (1992), Margaret MacCurtain, Mary O'Dowd and Maria Luddy noted that research on convents and women religious (nuns/sisters) in Ireland was beginning to open up in the 1980s. They also suggested areas that merited the attention of scholars, including the experience of vowed religious life by women, issues of class and power within Irish convents, and the role of nuns in Irish society. This article examines historiographical developments, with a view to seeing whether or not scholars rose to the challenges posed in 1992. Additionally, it considers areas that still demand attention.

In order better to understand the impact of political unrest in Ireland on Irish troops fighting in the First World War, it is necessary to acknowledge that the role of the 1916 Rising has been significantly overestimated, while the influence of the 1914 home rule crisis and the repercussions of the anti-conscription movement have been underestimated. The 1914 home rule crisis significantly impacted on the Germans’ view of the Irish and conditioned the treatment of Irish P.O.W.s from December 1914 onwards. In addition, the post-1916 Rising executions and the conscription crisis had a severe impact on Irish front-line units, while also sapping the morale of other British combatants. The 1916 Rising might have been dismissed as a military operation conceived by a handful of republicans, with little support from the wider population, but the conscription crisis brought about widespread defiance towards British rule throughout the whole of nationalist Ireland. In line with British public opinion, British front-line officers and men strongly resented Ireland’s refusal to support the war effort at such a crucial moment. The consequence was the widespread targeting and stigmatisation of their Irish comrades-in-arms. Some British officers and men resorted to a form of psychological pressure, aimed at the public shaming of Irish troops. This article draws on new primary sources available at The National Archives in London, Dublin City Archives and University of Leeds Library to argue that the 1916 Rising was not the only political event in Ireland to have repercussions for Irish battalions fighting in the First World War.

Almost nothing is known of trade between Ireland and the continent during the first half of the seventeenth century. It is true that the existence of direct commercial links can be deduced from isolated references in the state papers and elsewhere, but these give little or no material for constructing a detailed picture. The importance of the wine trade may be inferred from the fact that when customs duties were increased in 1632, wine, along with salt, was the only imported commodity to be affected; from this one may conclude that the administration considered that the quantity of wine imported was sufficiently great for an increased duty to be worthwhile. This is indirect evidence, however. The value of the present document is that it throws some direct light upon the state of an important branch of Irish overseas trade in a particular year. The destruction of all but a few of the Irish port books makes such direct evidence all the more valuable. Mention may here be made of copies of some of the earliest Irish port books which are to be found in the papers of Sir Arthur Ingram who was one of the original farmers for Ireland in 1613. The examination of continental economic arcives may in due course help to fill the gap still futher.

Political life in Ireland in the third quarter of the eighteenth century was disturbed by three major opposition campaigns. From 1753 to 1756 there was the so-called money bill dispute in which Henry Boyle (later first earl of Shannon) mounted a formidable and largely successful opposition to the designs of the Dublin Castle administration for replacing him as chief undertaker. The years 1769-71 saw a noisy but ineffective opposition to Viscount Townshend’s plans for re-modelling the way Ireland was governed. And from 1778 to 1783 there was the famous patriot opposition led by Henry Grattan and Henry Flood which won for Ireland ‘a free trade’ and the ‘constitution of ’82’ The first and last ofthese opposition campaigns have been studied in detail; but the opposition to Townshend has been comparatively neglected, perhaps because the result was so unequivocally a victory for the Castle and hence less ‘heroic’ in its outcome than the other two campaigns. This paper sets out in the first instance to correct this imbalance by examining the reasons for the failure of the Irish opposition to Townshend.

It is ironic that in Ireland, a country which has witnessed some of the most successful catholic-inspired crusades against alcohol consumption, the catholic church cannot be said to have been particularly favourably inclined towards the temperance movement. The Irish protestant churches and the catholic church in countries like the United States of America, England and Australia (where its membership was largely Irish) were far more forthright and consistent in their support for temperance than was the catholic church in Ireland itself. The Irish church’s ambivalent attitude to the anti-drink movement sprang from a variety of sources, some related to the nature of Irish society, others to the nature of the Irish temperance movement. To elucidate the church’s attitude and the reasons for its hostility to the anti-drink movement, I shall in this paper examine the development of the catholic temperance movement in Ireland from Father Mathew’s crusade in the 1840s to the rise of the Pioneer Total Abstinence League of the Sacred Heart in the 1890s.

The year 1842 was one of preparation for the revival of the movement for repeal of the act of union. O'Connell had been elected lord mayor of Dublin in November 1841, and he allowed the Repeal Association to mark time during his tenure of office. The year was not regarded as wasted, however, as his conduct as mayor tended to increase his popularity, and ensured that he would be able to commence his campaign in the following year with a more solid backing of public opinion. It was during this year also that Davis, Duffy and Dillon first came together and made their plans for launching a new nationalist newspaper. They were all members of the Repeal Association, but only one of them (Duffy) had any extensive experience of journalism. The Nation newspaper first began to appear in October 1842.

The name ‘Peep of Day Boys’, or the less common variant ‘Break of Day Men’, has become most closely linked with the Armagh disturbances beginning in the 1780s. In particular, the Peep of Day Boys are known as the group that metamorphosed into the Orange Order after the ‘battle of the Diamond’ in north Armagh in 1795. In recent years David Miller has done much to provide a more subtle interpretation of the link between the Peep of Day Boys and the Orange Order, and more light has been shed on the nature of popular violence in Armagh by Miller, Jim Smyth and Louis Cullen. However, the origins of the term ‘Peep of Day Boys’ are still rather unclear. Many contemporaries believed that it was linked to Protestant searches for weapons in Catholic homes at daybreak.

James Eadie Todd was appointed to the chair of modern history in Queen’s University, Belfast in 1919, aged thirty-four, having previously held academic posts in Edinburgh, Montreal and Halifax, Nova Scotia. Todd published almost nothing but spent his career as a teacher, and his carefully prepared formal lectures guided generations of Queen’s students to a pass degree. But he also had the ability to inspire a minority of students to the further study of history and several of his pupils went on to occupy chairs of history in Ireland and Great Britain. During the 1930s, with his former pupil T. W. Moody, he created an honours and graduate school with a strong emphasis on Irish history. Todd stressed the importance of the objective study of the sources. Behind the scenes he was instrumental, with others, in founding the Ulster Society for Irish Historical Studies and establishing Irish Historical Studies. His later years were plagued by ill health and personal bereavement. He retired in 1945 and died four years later. The article concludes with an assessment of Todd’s importance to the professionalisation of Irish historical scholarship.

The Irish question, in one form or another, became a feature of American public life from the period of the great Irish migration to the United States in the 1840s to the twentieth century. Seemingly each generation saw a version of the Irish struggle for self-government played out in both Ireland and America. By 1920 this struggle, in the shape of the War of Independence or the Anglo-Irish War, had assumed dramatic proportions.

Many Irish-Americans, anxious to assist and support the nationalist movement in Ireland, resumed their traditional role of raising money for Ireland and attempting to influence the American government to intercede in some way on Ireland’s behalf. In 1919 Eamon de Valera, president of Dáil Íireann, went to the United States to further these objectives. However, serious rifts developed within the leadership of the Irish nationalist movement in the United States which caused Irish-Americans to divide into several hostile groups. The result was that during the summer and autumn of 1920, when crown forces in Ireland were escalating their military campaign, the Irish-American nationalist movement was largely ineffectual.

The point of origin of the ‘Irish historiographical revolution’ initiated by T. W. Moody and R. D. Edwards in the 1930s, which issued, among other things, in the foundation of Irish Historical Studies, is customarily located in their experiences together as research students in London University’s Institute of Historical Research. Hitherto, we have known little or nothing of those experiences beyond the recollections of the two principals themselves. This article uses the Institute’s own archive, and other contemporary documentary evidence, including surviving letters from Moody to Edwards, to elucidate the precise influence of the Institute and its staff in moulding their outlook. Rather than asserting some form of ideological indoctrination – for example in propagating an ethos of ‘value-free’ history writing – it argues that what was important was the example of the Institute’s institutional structures (including its Bulletin), which Moody and Edwards determined to replicate in Ireland; and that these structures, emphasising collaboration between historical researchers in pursuit of a common purpose, were themselves of the first importance in influencing the aspiration to create an Irish history free from confessional bias and overt expressions of political prejudice.