Blindly following the old-fashioned notion of merely punishing for offences committed, the Egyptian Government had never thought of preventing crime by educating the youth of the poor, and checking the supply of future criminals by thwarting vice in embryo; they did, however, attempt it in some degree by preventing idleness, and requiring each to account for his mode of life; and they could scarcely be expected in those early days to have arrived at a system we have only just adopted; and which has been so ably carried out in Scotland. Our next problem, on the return of criminals to society, when transportation shall have ceased, has yet to be solved; and we shall be fortunate if we excel the Egyptians as far in this, as in the case of juvenile offenders.

The Egyptians had a singular custom respecting theft and burglary. Those who followed the profession of thief gave in their names to the chief of the robbers; and agreed that he should be informed of every thing they might thenceforward steal, the moment it was in their possession. In consequence of this the owner of the lost goods always applied by letter to the chief for their recovery: and having stated their quality and quantity, the day and hour when they were stolen, and other requisite particulars, the goods were identified, and, on payment of one quarter of their value, they were restored to the applicant, in the same state as when taken from his house.

For being fully persuaded of the impracticability of putting an entire check to robbery, either by the dread of punishment, or by any method that could be adopted by the most vigilant police, they considered it more for the advantage of the community, that a certain sacrifice should be made in order to secure the restitution of the remainder, than that the law, by taking on itself to protect the citizen, and discover the offender, should be the indirect cause of greater loss. And that the Egyptians, like the Indians, and I may say the modern inhabitants of the Nile, were very expert in the art of stealing, we have abundant testimony from ancient authors.

It may be asked, what redress could be obtained, if goods were stolen by thieves who failed to enter their names on the books of the chief; but, it is evident that there could be few of those private speculators, since by their interfering with the interests of all the profession, the detection of such egotistical persons would have been certain; and thus all others were effectually prevented from robbing, save those of the privileged class. The salary of the chief was not merely derived from his own demands upon the goods stolen, or from any voluntary contribution of the robbers themselves, but was probably a fixed remuneration granted by the government, as one of the chiefs of the police; nor is it to be supposed that he was any other than a respectable citizen, and a man of integrity and honour. The same may be said of the modern "shekh of the thieves" at Cairo, where this very ancient office is still retained.

The great confidence reposed in the public weighers rendered it necessary to enact suitable laws in order to bind them to their duty; and considering how much public property was at their mercy, and how easily bribes might be taken from a dishonest tradesman, the Egyptians inflicted a severe punishment as well on the weighers as on the shopkeepers, who were found to have false weights and measures, or to have defrauded the purchaser in any other way; and these, as well as the scribes who kept false accounts, were punished (as before stated) with the loss of both their hands; on the principle, says Diodorus, that the offending member should suffer; while the culprit was severely punished, that others might be deterred from the commission of a similar offence.

As in other countries, their laws respecting debt and usury inderwent some changes, according as society advanced, and as pecuniary transactions became more complicated.

Bocchoris (who reigned in Egypt about the year 800 B. C., and who, from his learning, obtained the surname of Wise), finding that in cases of debt many causes of dispute had arisen, and instances of great oppression were of frequent occurrence, enacted, that no agreement should be binding unless it was acknowledged by a written contract; and if any one took oath that the money had not been lent him, that no debt should be recognised, and the claims of the suing party should immediately cease. This was done, that great regard might always be had for the name and nature of an oath, at the same time that, by substituting the unquestionable proof of a written document, the necessity of having frequent recourse to an oath was avoided, and its sanctity was not diminished by constant repetition.

Usury was in all cases condemned by the Egyptian legislature; and when money was borrowed, even with a written agreement, it was forbidden to allow the interest to increase to more than double the original sum. Nor could the creditors seize the debtor's person: their claims and right were confined to the goods in his possession, and such as were really his own; which were comprehended under the produce of his labour, or what he had received from another individual to whom they lawfully

belonged. For the person of every citizen was looked upon as the property of the state, and might be required for some public service, connected either with war or peace; and, independent of the injustice of subjecting any one to the momentary caprice of his creditor, the safety of the country might be endangered through the avarice of a few interested individuals.

This law, which was borrowed by Solon from the Egyptian code, existed also at Athens; and was, as Diodorus observes, much more consistent with justice and common sense than that which allowed the creditor to seize the person, while it forbade him to take the ploughs and other implements of husbandry. For if, continues the historian, it is unjust thus to deprive men of the means of obtaining subsistence, and of providing for their families, how much more unreasonable must it be to imprison those by whom the implements were used!

To prevent the accumulation of debt, and to protect the interests of the creditor, another remarkable law was enacted by Asychis, which, while it shows how greatly they endeavoured to check the increasing evil, proves the high respect paid by the Egyptians to the memory of their parents, and to the sanctity of their religious ceremonies. By this it was pronounced illegal for any one to borrow money without giving in pledge the body of his father, or the tomb of his ancestors; and, if he failed to redeem so sacred a deposit, he was considered infamous; and, at his death, the celebration of the accustomed funeral obsequies was denied him, and he could not enjoy the right of burial either in that tomb or in any other place of sepulture; nor could he inter his children, or any of his family, as long as the debt was unpaid, the creditor being put in actual possession of the family tomb.

In the large cities of Egypt, a fondness for display, and the usual allurements of luxury, were rapidly introduced; and considerable sums were expended in furnishing houses, and in many artificial caprices. Rich jewels and costly works of art were in great request, as well among the inhabitants of the provincial capitals, as at Thebes and Memphis: they delighted in splendid equipages, elegant and commodious boats, numerous attendants, horses, dogs, and other requisites for the chase; and, besides,

their houses, their villas, and their gardens, were laid out with no ordinary expense. But while the funds arising from extensive farms, and the abundant produce of a fertile soil, enabled the rich to indulge extravagant habits, many of the less wealthy envied the enjoyment of those luxuries which fortune had denied to them; and, prompted by vanity, and a silly desire of imitation, so common in civilised communities, they pursued a career which speedily led to an accumulation of debt, and demanded the interference of the legislature; and it is probable that a law, so severe as this must have appeared to the Egyptians, was only adopted as a measure of absolute necessity, in order to put a check to the increasing evil.

The necessary expenses of the Egyptians were remarkably small, less, indeed, than of any people; and the food of the poorer classes was of the cheapest and most simple kind. Owing to the warmth of the climate, they required few clothes, and young children were in the habit of going without shoes, and with little or no covering to their bodies; and so trifling was the expense of bringing up a child, that, as Diodorus affirms, it never need cost a parent more than 20 drachms (13 shillings English), until arrived at man's estate. It was, therefore, luxury, and the increasing wants of an artificial kind, which corrupted the manners of the Egyptians, and rendered such a law necessary for their restraint; and we may conclude, that it was mainly directed against those who contracted debts for the gratification of pleasure, or with the premeditated intent of defrauding an unsuspecting creditor.

In the mode of executing deeds, conveyances, and other civil contracts, the Egyptians were peculiarly circumstantial and minute; and the great number of witnesses is a singular feature in those documents. In the time of the Ptolemies, sales of property commenced with a preamble, containing the date of the king in whose reign they were executed; the name of the president of the court, and of the clerk by whom they were written, being also specified. The body of the contract then followed.

It stated the name of the individual who sold the land, the