After a long war, the long slow march to the door of No 10 Downing Street. Gerry Adams said in advance that the location was of less importance than the engagement he sought with the British Prime Minister. But we can discount that.

As the Sinn Fein president led his delegation inside the famed security gates, and at an almost funereal pace to the Prime Minister's official residence, it was clear they savoured the full historic significance of their arrival at the seat of British political power.

And why wouldn't they? If inviting the Sinn Fein leader to his home demonstrated Mr Blair's willingness to "take risks for peace", the thought occurred that - in some republican minds at least - Mr Adams might be thought to have taken one risk too many. But the strains of "Rule Britannia" from outraged loyalists and British nationalists on the other side of Whitehall, and the cheers from Mr Adams's tricolourwaving supporters, were a reminder that - for this day - Mr Blair's was the greater risk.

Mr Adams had truly travelled a remarkable distance. But how much further in the search for an alternative to death and destruction in Northern Ireland might he be prepared to journey?

That was the inevitable, operative question following a build-up to yesterday's historic meeting which heard Mr Adams repeat insistently that he was about no less than concluding the "unfinished business" of Irish unification.

When he emerged after 55 minutes of talks with Mr Blair, the Sinn Fein president made it clear he had not gone inside to abandon that enduring republican goal. He had told Mr Blair that "all the hurt and grief and division which has come from British involvement in our affairs has to end". And that would "obviously mean facing up to the future with some resilience and with a determination to make a new history".

The meeting with Mr Blair he saw as "a strategic engagement", building upon their first encounter in Belfast. The multi-party talks themselves, Mr Adams reiterated, were "a phase" in a process in which Sinn Fein remained "committed to bringing about the goal of an Ireland free and united, where all of the people on the island can live together in peace and harmony, and where people in both islands can have a new relationship based upon ties of friendship, not of domination, and based also upon our mutual independence".

Nothing new or surprising in any of that. But Mr Adams also said all sides had to learn "how to move from conflict, to move from an old failed agenda to a new agenda". And he declared: "Today's meeting could be seen as a significant step in that direction. We shouldn't underestimate the difficulties. At the same time this was a good moment in history..."

Mr Adams made no claims about the disposition of the British Premier. And if the British account is to be believed, Mr Adams's cautiously optimistic noises did not derive from any shared understanding about the short or longer-term future of Ireland.

As one source put it, there was a clear recognition that each side had established positions they were not going to abandon: "The key question is whether a compromise can be found as an alternative to attempts to resolve problems by conflict and killing".

Facing Mr Blair across the cabinet table, Mr Adams asked directly where the British government stood and whether the Prime Minister himself favoured a united Ireland. Mr Blair is understood to have replied equally directly that he believed in the principle of consent, and that he would not be "a persuader" for Irish unity.

Asked again if he favoured Irish unity or all-Ireland bodies, Mr Blair reportedly said his interest was in securing an agreement all sides could live with.

Mr Blair sought assurance that Sinn Fein remained committed to the Mitchell Principles of peace and democracy. Mr Adams asserted his party's commitment to the peace process, its determination to show that it could work and that there was a political way forward. He told Mr Blair much rested on whether his government was equally determined.

Mr Blair replied he was committed to proceed by way of sufficient consensus, and that there would in reality be no process unless the Ulster Unionists remained a part of it. He also emphasised the modernising nature of his government, and stressed its commitment to the core values of equality and fairness, "come what may". Later Mr Blair's official spokesman was asked if it remained the Prime Minister's view that a settlement would leave the Union undiminished. The reply was that Mr Blair's basic position remained as set out in his Belfast speech of May 16th. But the anxiety was to stress that, the symbolism of the Downing Street meeting apart, they had built on their first meeting; they had engaged with the issues and not simply exchanged slogans. And on Channel 4 last night Mr Adams said that, contrary to the media image, he found Mr Blair did engage, did listen, and he had had "a real sense of exploring each other's analysis".

In short, then, yesterday's meeting achieved as much as might have been hoped for. There were no surprises for either side, and while Lloyd George, Balfour and Cromwell all won a mention, inside Number 10 at least it appears Michael Collins did not.

MR ADAMS said they "engaged" and British sources agreed, albeit that they described the engagement in its present phase as "still a modest one".

However, for London the key questions remain to be answered in the assuredly difficult months from January to May. Can Sinn Fein live with a settlement which falls far short of its goal? And can the Sinn Fein leadership carry the republican movement with it?

Yesterday's rhetoric was strong on the goal of Irish unity. But as one key player put it bluntly last night: "That's not part of the deal that is emerging." The real hard choices, he confirmed, were still to be made. And while yesterday was risky for Mr Blair, he had no doubt that "the settlement risks" would be greater for Mr Adams and Sinn Fein.