I have criticised freely-I hope not unfairly-the obstructive methods followed by a section of the Irish members. I think that their conduct is most mischievous, and that it contravenes the first principles of representative government. I have, therefore, the strongest possible aversion to it. But in fairness we must remember that these men represent Ireland and Irish opinion, and not England and English opinion. They are supported and applauded by their constituents. The real and sad significance of it all is that they are engaged in rebellion against British rule. They know they cannot face the power of Britain on the battle-field, so they carry the spirit of rebellion into the High Court of Parliament. They are,' as the writer known as 'Verax' has well said, 'a party of belligerents, who have managed to get inside the citadel, and are resolved to blow it up if they cannot force the garrison to surrender.' They hope, perhaps, by clogging the wheels of the legislative machine, to compel Parliament to buy them off by surrendering to the cry for national independence. In this they are doubtless entirely mistaken. They may prevent useful and much-needed legislation for England. They may deprive Englishmen of dearly cherished rights and liberties; but they will never wrest from a British Parliament by menace what they cannot win from it by reason and fair argument.

Still, let us never forget that there are grave and terrible grievances in Ireland. Whole districts of that unfortunate country have really been passing through a great social revolution. The dire wretchedness of the people has driven them to desperation and to the verge of civil war. The motive power of the upheaval has been agrarian. But behind the land question there is a political problem. Mr. Parnell has more than once declared that he cares for land reform only so far as it will help forward the independence of Ireland. Whatever Parliament can do to place land tenure on a just and satisfactory basis we may hope will before long be done. But there still remains the political difficulty to be grappled with. That ought to be boldly faced, and freely and fearlessly discussed. The patriotic feeling that burns in the hearts of tens of thousands of the best and bravest of Irishmen is a grand and noble sentiment, and we should at least show that we respect that sentiment, even if we cannot give it complete satisfaction.

I do not venture to say what shape our recognition of the claims of Irishmen to some measure of self-government should assume. It need not necessarily be the system known as Home Rule. I must confess that, though I have always myself voted for Home Rule, my confidence in it has not of late been increasing. Of one thing I am quite sure, instead of having made headway among the working classes of the north of England, it is much less popular with them than it was some years ago. This is due, not to any diminished sympathy with Ireland, or to a less ardent desire to do justice to that country,

but chiefly, I think, to the fact that the system is imperfectly understood, never yet having been thoroughly shaped and formulated by its advocates.

Irishmen are often exhorted to look at Scotland, where they will see a people who have ceased to make wars of insurrection, who have cordially participated in English rule, and who have become an integral part of the British Empire. They are told to follow that excellent example. The example is most instructive, though it does not perhaps convey the lesson which the critics of Irish policy wish to inculcate. Never was the spirit of nationality stronger than in Scotland; never did the pure flame of patriotism burn more brightly than in the hearts of the people of that country. They loved their independence, and fought for it with a determination and a courage which were unconquerable. Scotland was for centuries just as hostile and irreconcilable as Ireland is to-day. Now all this is happily changed. There is real and complete union, perfect harmony of spirit and feeling, between the northern and the southern portions of the island. What has produced this happy change? Several causes may have co-operated. But it is certain that Englishmen quite as much as Irishmen have lessons to learn from Scottish history. So long as we attempted to rule Scotland by sheer force without regard to the feelings of the people, there was rebellion, open or concealed. For many years now Scotland has had a large share of self-government. Her own special laws and usages have been respected and recognised. The administration of Scottish affairs has been placed largely, if not altogether, in the hands of Scotchmen. But suppose we sent an Englishman as Lord Lieutenant to govern Scotland, appointed an Englishman as Lord Advocate, and English barristers as judges to administer justice in Scotland, and, abolishing every Scottish law and usage, enforced our systems and methods upon the inhabitants of that country; suppose we rejected, not once or twice, but systematically and without variation, every bill brought in by a Scotch Member of Parliament and supported by nearly all the representatives of that country in the House of Commons; suppose we flouted and opposed the national sentiment and ran counter, not only to the prejudices, but to the clearly expressed and reasonable wishes, of the Scotch people in every particular and on every occasion. Does any one believe that Scotchmen would for long tamely and quietly submit and remain loyal, contented, and attached subjects of the Crown? A policy similar to this, however, is what we have been pursuing, and to some extent are still pursuing with regard to Ireland. That policy must be reversed.

The outlook at present is not hopeful, but we have advanced thus far, that the great majority of Englishmen are sincerely anxious to do justice to Ireland. They want to govern Ireland, as far as can be done, according to Irish ideas. This is much; but it is not exactly the

right thing, and it is not enough. As Mr. Boyd Kinnear, in a very able and suggestive pamphlet on Ireland, has said: "The truth which we ought to grasp is that it is our duty not to govern Ireland at all, but to let Irishmen govern themselves. And if ever we must interfere, it ought not to be to indulge "Irish ideas," but rather when it may be necessary, to oppose Irish ideas, if at any time party spirit, prejudice, or misconception, should lead Irishmen to adopt a course at variance with principles of justice.'

English statesmen must endeavour to take in hand and substantially settle this Irish question. And it is surely not too much to ask Irishmen of influence not to increase the hardness of a task that is already bristling with difficulties. Chronic disquiet and dissatisfaction cannot go on for ever. Amid much that is doubtful and confusing, one thing is to my mind clear and certain. The time is fast coming, if it has not already arrived, when public opinion in this country will not allow Ireland to be ruled contrary to the deliberately expressed sense of justice of the great bulk of its people. If the Union between this country and Ireland must be maintained, we shall have to give, as we perhaps can give, stronger and better reasons for it than the supposed necessities, the fears or the interests of England.

THOMAS BURT.

PERSIA AND ITS PASSION-DRAMA.

The eminence, the nobleness of a people depends on its capability of being stirred by memories, and striving for what we call spiritual ends, ends which consist not in immediate material possession, but in the satisfaction of a great feeling that animates the collective body as with one soul. (GEORGE ELIOT, Impressions of Theophrastus Such.)

Or the great dramatic literatures of the world-the Indian, the Greek, and the modern European-we may say that the two last were essentially popular in origin, while the first did not display unmistakable popular characteristics till somewhat late in its history. The requisites for a national drama are (setting aside the individual genius of authorship) a national history, a national progression or expansion, and a refining influence: a national history supplies material with which the audience is familiar; a national expansion creates a unanimity and interest which bestow encouragement on those connected with the representation; a refining influence-the result, of course, of many and varied circumstances-endows the literature with an ennobling and lasting truth.

The first beginnings of the Indian and the Greek theatre are shrouded in obscurity. The modern European drama owes so much. to the influence of the Renascence that, though probably in no country did a truly national drama come into being, unless the elements of dramatic, and original dramatic, representation had previously existed in that country, yet it was the revival of ancient letters that gave to the modern drama its form, its literary value, and its popularity. Such being the case, an inquiry into the originating causes of the theatre of to-day in a great measure resolves itself into a due appreciation of the influence first exercised upon its rude beginnings by the Renascence, and to what extent each branch of it ultimately emancipated itself. Such a simplification may be said to deprive in some degree the inquiry of its interest.

It is with eagerness, then, that students of such matters should turn to Persia, where there exists at the present time a Passion-drama on a scale hitherto unknown, and which seems to give promise of a

1 I express my grateful acknowledgments to Monsieur Chodzko and Mr. Wollaston for their supervision of the proofs of this article.

standard drama which may fulfil the conditions of the best national literature. To what extent it does so now I purpose to investigate. Before proceeding, however, I would disclaim all hope and desire of casting any new light on subjects which have already been sifted by Orientalists, or of in any way appearing in competition with those to whom any pretension of mine to Eastern learning must seem arrogant and unwarrantable. The Persian Play has been treated of, in its contemporaneous aspects, by M. Chodzko, the Comte de Gobineau, and Sir Lewis Pelly (each of whose works contain selections from the plays themselves), and Professor Dozy, in an essay which also deals with the whole history of Mahomedanism.2 I may claim, however, to have pushed my inquiries somewhat further than these authors, with a view to ascertaining, from works of travel and history, how far the existing phenomena can be accounted for by pre-existing and coexisting circumstances.

In respect to its Passion-drama, Persia stands alone amongst Mahomedan nations. The Sheeah doctrine has been called a protest of Aryan thought against Semitic ideas '—a protest which has gradually created for itself a dramatic form. There is no instance of a drama, properly so-called, in any Semitic language.' The contrast between Aryan and Semitic civilisation is of the utmost importance in the appreciation of Mahomedan history. In it lies the key to the long succession of Mahomedan dissensions, had it not been for which, Charles Martel might have succumbed on the plain of Tours, and Eastern Europe, too, have failed to stem the tide of infidel invasion. The Semitic mind is not in the highest sense imaginative. This higher imagination contracting, as it does, a belief in immortality is at the bottom of all drama. The Semitic peoples had no such belief; it was unknown to the early Arabians, to whom it at length found its way through Persia and colonists from the East.

Sheeism may be said to be, in one of its aspects, a want of appreciation of the individuality of Mahomed, resulting from the antiAryan restriction of thought which such a belief imposed.

The domination of Mahomed was the principal cause of the rapid propagation of Mahomedanism, and entailed the simplicity which rendered that religion easy of adoption: but in this, its essence, lies the secret of its non-pliability. It is a religious despotism: a monarch elected by acclamation is often the most despotic of kings. Thus it will be readily understood that while Persia resented the freedom of institutions introduced by their nomad invaders, they were none the less opposed to the exclusive tyranny of the Caliphs. After the domination of the Greeks and Parthians, the Sassanid dynasty came to the Persian throne as part and parcel of the national life and re

2 I may also mention Mr. Vereschagin's work on the Caucasus, which though written in an unfamiliar language, contains illustrations of the Passion Play by his excellent pencil.