In this book Douglas Kanter charts the emergence of a unionist consensus in Britain between 1740 and 1848, and in so doing challenges the common assumption that this had already been achieved (at least on the mainland) by 1800. In following this line Kanter makes a major contribution, as coverage of British, as opposed to Irish, political and public opinion on the union has been limited. Consequently, perhaps, this is not a book that makes historiographical waves. Overly theorised approaches are avoided, and Kanter's tactic is to make subtle corrections when appropriate. Daniel O’Connell's ‘biographer’ is an occasional target, and although Oliver MacDonagh is probably famous enough not to need his name mentioned, this reads rather peculiarly given Patrick Geoghegan's two recent books. The first of these, published in 2008, must have arrived too late to make an impact on Kanter's writing. One also wonders whether Kanter underplays the significance of the late David Wilkinson's findings on the application of secret-service money in the passing of the union, which provided hard evidence to go with the hoary old tales of corruption. The admirable breadth of the study occasionally reveals weaknesses in particular areas. The author is a little too willing to go to general texts for background information. Thus, citing Roy Foster, Kanter notes that the penal laws had ‘only a superficial impact upon Catholic economic and religious activity’. He would do well to look at Ian McBride's new—albeit another survey—book for a nuanced view on this area. Foster is also cited on Free Trade and patriotism, and, given that this is a key section of the book, it is surprising that the author has not paid more attention to recent work by James Kelly, Jacqueline Hill and Vincent Morley, exploring the variegated nature of Irish patriotic activity. The same could be said for Defenderism; in this case it is Jim Smyth's work that is omitted. Stylistically the book is a curate's egg. At times one feels as though the reader's task is far too effortful, and, in common with so many Ph.D.s published as monographs (my own included), the need for scholarly solidity often requires aesthetic sacrifices—the result being in this case that the dense narrative and the excessive footnoting make it a little difficult to discern broad themes.