actions of this kind, we ought to take into consideration not only all the relative circumstances of the opposing parties in the individual case, but the degree of justification furnished by the existing state of the moral and political principles and practices of the people or nation among whom the transaction takes place. Judged by this test, and keeping in view the previous history of Mahometan sovereigns and peoples, can it justly be said that the viceroy of Egypt is entitled to less vindication than the sultan (at a subsequent period) for the wholesale destruction of the Janissaries at Constantinople? And yet those who are most forward to condemn Mehemet, would fain pass over in silence the deed of Mahmoud, or mention it only for the purpose of implied commendation. To us they appear as parallel cases. In both, the executing parties were moved only by considerations of policy, in which self-defence formed the prominent, probably the sole actuating element; still in the case of Mehemet we admit that the principle of high honour and safe conduct to which the Mamelukes trusted was yet more foully injured.

It is not necessary to look upon the viceroy of Egypt as an apostle either of morality or civilization; we may regard him as a man of genius, who, having learnt nothing from the society in the midst of which he was brought up, and receiving no impulse from the people about him, has acted with immense ability in the interest of his own elevation first, and then in that of its conservation. To maintain his power, an army was necessary; not an army à la Turque, a turbulent militia, dangerous for those who pay it, and whom it is supposed to protect, but an army subjected to the rigour of discipline, that would submit to the tactics of military science, and ensure success in the field. The first object of Mehemet Ali was to acquire power, the second, to consolidate it, and his great merit is that of choosing and procuring the best means of attaining those ends, those means being the organization of regular troops. Following close upon the constitution of the army and the fleet, have come the establishments of public instruction, schools and hospitals, &c. It is the army and the numerous appendages attached thereto which have given to Egypt that ameliorating impulse which is now urging it onward.

But let us not misunderstand the civilizing process; the instinctive love of true glory, and the well-directed ambition of one great man have provoked it. The Egyptian people took no part whatever in the plans of Mehemet Ali, and still less, if possible, in the choice of the means combined to execute them. On the contrary, they threw in the way all possible difficulties, and in order to mould them to the new order of things, it was necessary to surmount many of their most obstinate prejudices, But we

may ask, did the Russians second Peter the Great in his great work of improvement? Among barbarous nations does the humanizing movement ever proceed from the masses? Do they not, on the contrary, oppose to it obstacles of every kind? The people never originate great reformations; the grand and noble individualities of the world impose them almost ever through much struggling and violence. The mass never care but to satisfy the wants they feel, or seek after those advantages only of whose importance they are sensible. Now barbarous nations do not perceive the wants, do not know the benefits of civilization; in order to bring them to it they must be got under the direction of one man, who has sufficient ambition to be obliged to call into existence from his own resources, or to borrow from others the means of satisfying the wants it has created, and sufficient capacity to appreciate the importance of those means. Such a man has Mehemet Ali been for Egypt. His example has been followed in other parts of the Ottoman empire, by the late Sultan Mahmoud in particular, and thus reforms have been undertaken in Turkey in consequence, and in rivalry of those of the viceroy; which latter, first rendered practicable by the results of the French expedition, were instituted upon the model, and in accordance with the counsels, of Europeans, and the traditions of the empire.

While there are undoubtedly many points of resemblance especially observable between the general character and spirit of Mehemet Ali, as exhibited in his passion for practical and organic reforms, and the conduct of the great Russian reformer, ClotBey manifests throughout the work we are reviewing a peculiar anxiety to gain for the former the glory and honour of a second Napoleon, rather than that of a second Peter. Moreover, between the political, moral, and physical circumstances of France under Buonaparte, and those of Egypt under Mehemet, the least experienced reader will not fail to perceive a wide difference in very many respects; whereas between the latter class of circumstances and the state of Russia under Peter the Great there is a considerable, nay, may we not say, a striking analogy. That prince was the founder of Russian civilization, as Mehemet is of the modern Egyptian. Russia, though of great antiquity, had no extent of power, of political influence, or of general commerce in Europe, until the time of Peter. Now may not the very same be asserted of modern Egypt in relation with its present Pasha? The inclination of the Czar for military exercises discovered itself in his earliest years; he formed a small company, which he had commanded by foreign officers, and clothed and exercised after the German manner. By his own example he taught his

nobility that merit and not birth formed the only solid title to. military employments; whence issued in course of time the organization of a considerable body of regular troops. He opened his dominions, which till then had been closed, and sent his principal nobility into foreign countries to improve themselves in knowledge and in learning. He invited to Russia all the foreigners he could find, who were capable of instructing his subjects in any respect, and offered them great encouragement to settle in his dominions. This is the exact course pursued by Mehemet Ali. Again; this conduct of Peter raised many discontents among his subjects, and the authority which he exerted on all such occasions was scarcely sufficient to repress them. And is not this the precise counterpart of what has happened from the very same cause in the dominions of the viceroy of Egypt? Lastly, while we quote the words of another to speak of the creator of Russian greatness, the reader who has reflected at all on the history and condition of modern Egypt, under its reforming viceroy, will see the exactness of the parallel, and with what truth what is predicated of the one may be predicated of the other:

"It would be endless to enumerate all the various establishments for which the Russians are indebted to him. He formed an army according to the tactics of the most experienced nations; he fitted out fleets in all the four seas which border upon Russia; he caused many strong fortresses to be raised according to the best plans, and made convenient barbours; he introduced arts and sciences into his dominions, and freed religion from many superstitious abuses; he made laws, built cities, cut canals, and executed many other works; he was generous in rewarding, and impartial in punishing; faithful, laborious, and humble, yet not free from a certain roughness of temper natural to his countrymen."

There is yet another point of view in which we may survey the character of the Pasha, and which, we apprehend, redounds not a little to his credit. In a Mahometan country, where the religious and political associations of the people have been used for ages to centre exclusively round the glory of arms and of conquest, where any innovations upon these are viewed for the most part in the light of a desecration of the injunctions of the prophet, and an unpardonable inroad upon the prescriptive habits and require ments of all good Mussulmans, a chief of the authority of Mehemet would rather be supposed to avail himself of the existing prejudices of his subjects to consolidate his power, than in so many instances to have sought his object by flying in the face of their deeply-rooted prepossessions. In the choice he has made of the modes of action which lay before him, consists, we think, one of his noblest claims to the gratitude and homage of mankind

and of posterity. In that election, and the spirit and manner of following it up, he is entitled to the praise and the name of a Sesostris, under whose reign did ancient Egypt arrive at the highest pitch of internal prosperity and grandeur, as well as of external power. And here, for the purpose of illustration, we may allude to the lines addressed by Voltaire to Louis XVI., immediately after that unfortunate monarch's accession to the throne. In a kind of tale, he imaginatively represents the Egyptian king, Sesostris, when young, as wandering on the banks of the Nile accompanied only by his good genius. He inquired of the latter what he must do to fulfil the grand destiny to which he felt that he was appointed on becoming sovereign of Egypt. His genius replied, let us proceed to that great labyrinth of which Osiris laid the extensive foundation, and you will learn it. Arrived, the king's attention was directed to two different goddesses, one the image of Voluptuousness with her attendants, the other that of Wisdom. On beholding the former, the king asked his guide who that sweet beautiful nymph was, and what were those three ugly fellows yonder? His companion answered, "Do you not know, my prince, who that beauty is? She is worshipped at your court, in the city, and the provinces; her name is Voluptu ousness; and these hideous spectres, her attendants, are Disgust, Weariness, and Repentance." On viewing the latter, he perceived on the frontispiece of the noble portico leading to the magnificent temple that opened at her call, these words, " To immortality." May I enter the temple?" asked the monarch. "The enter prise is difficult," replied the genius; "many have attempted to reach it, but have grown disheartened. This beauty is the Daughter of Heaven, the Mother of the Arts, particularly of the art of governing, and of being a hero either in peace or in war; her name is Wisdom, and the noble building which has just been opened is the temple of glory, where our good actions are recorded. Your illustrious name may be registered there at some future time; choose which of the two goddesses you prefer; you cannot serve them both at once. The young monarch replied, and who will say that the reply, as well as the above description, is not as applicable in the case of the modern governor of Egypt as in that of the ancient monarch?

Mehemet Ali, having known how to consolidate his power and to insure its stability, is the first Osmanlee who has had just ideas of administrative government. He is the first that has applied them. Although his power may be termed absolute, he has had sufficient prudence to desire to guard himself against its too arbitrary or irresponsible exercise. He has attached to his person a privy council, composed of several members, with whom he advises on all affairs of moment. For every branch of the administration he has provided special councillors; such as the council of war, that of the marine, of agriculture, of public instruction, of health, &c.; and over all is the council of state, which embraces all the divisions of the government; and when any important measures are to be taken with regard to agriculture or other important works, he convokes the provincial governors. Knowing that in order to secure an able administration it is necessary carefully to divide the various branches of the government, he has, after having constituted them, placed special ministers over each; thus, he has established a separate official department for the interior, war, the marine, public instruction, finance, foreign affairs, and commerce. It is, indeed, true that these arrangements cannot boast of perfection; but the viceroy is entitled to a due share of credit for the efforts he has made; for the spirit of order and system he has established in the management of affairs; for the readiness with which he has introduced into his country an administrative regularity the importance of which he has had the merit of appreciating.

The financial resources of the viceroy are, first, the constitution of property in Egypt; second, the monopoly of the fruits of the soil; and third, the taxes. Property is here constituted upon bases very different from what it is in Europe, and the mode of its establishment allows the Pasha to combine the resources upon which his power is built up. In the oriental form of civilization, so different from ours, and where liberty is unknown, without which the rights of private property, deprived of its surest guarantee, has but a precarious existence; the nature of property has never been so clearly defined as in the west. In Egypt, from the time of the Pharaohs, the soil has belonged to the sovereign. Our limits will not allow of our tracing with the author of the work under review, the state of property in that country from the conquest of Amrou to that of Selim, nor its condition under the Mamelukes. We come, therefore, down to the year 1808, when Mehemet wrought the grand territorial revolution by which he himself has become the proprietary of nearly all Egypt. He abolished the titles to certain portions of land let to the fellahs, but held by a kind of feudal proprietors, or mid