horseback, and a lotus; this weapon somewhat resembles in form the small axes or tomahawks of the ancient Celts.

A sceptre of bronze, an alabaster vase, and a fine specimen of a dagger, completes the plate.

Plates 13 to 16 contain representations of sepulchral chests, and of their hieroglyphics; also of sundry articles placed near them for the repast of the departed spirit, as baskets containing cakes, apples, and pomegranates; these feasts were not with the Eyptian manes altogether vegetable, for among the objects represented are the remains of a roast duck.

This fasciculus of folio plates is very elegantly got up, and will be added, no doubt, to the shelves of those Egyptologists who possess the works of Rossellini, Belzoni, and other of the larger works illustrating by important graphic representations the antiquities of Egypt.

THE LUXOR OBELISK AT PARIS.

This obelisk originally adorned the entry of the palace of LUXOR, a small village on the site of Ancient Thebes. It was usual to place an obelisk at each side of the gateway of those buildings. The pair at Luxor were of unequal size. That now in Paris is considerably less lofty than its fellow. Its height is little more than seventy feet in French measure; its weight is estimated at 450,516 lbs.

The evident blemish in the general effect produced by the unequal dimensions of the two obelisks of Luxor, an inequality no doubt to be explained by the difficulty of executing two perfectly similar monuments in a material such as that of which they are made, was in part artificially removed. The smaller was placed on a pedestal a half higher than the difference of height of the two pillars, and besides erected a little in front of the loftier one.

By the latter ingenious plan, an apparent increase of height was produced.

The surfaces of the obelisk of Luxor shew that the proficiency of the Egyptians in practical optics was of no mean order. Instead of being plane, they present a convexity of fifteen lines. Doubtless the intention here was to prevent the surfaces from appearing concave, as they would have done had they been perfectly plane. It is impossible to consider the peculiarity to which we allude an effect of chance; the extreme nicety of the workmanship, joined to the fact that several of the obelisks now at Rome have convex surfaces, also precludes such an idea effectually.

A considerable fissure in the monolith, extending from the base to about a third of its height, gave the Egyptians an op

10

portunity of displaying their mechanical ingenuity. The further separation of the segments was prevented by double-dovetailing it at the base with sycamore. The French have substituted copper for the wood. The hieroglyphic figures of men and animals that decorate the obelisk are executed with remarkable finish and purity of design. They are arranged on each side in three vertical rows; the central of which is cut five inches deep; in the lateral the figures are superficially hollowed. The depth of the figures is greater also at the upper part of the pillar than towards the base. The distinctness of even the smallest details is much increased by these varieties of depth.

Considerable uncertainty exists as to the sovereign to whom the execution and erection of the obelisks of Luxor were due; this arises from the division among antiquaries respecting the cartouches found on them. Some conceive them to refer to one and the same individual, Rhameses III.; others, that two personages are meant by them, Rhameses II. and III. According to the opinion of Champollion, who considers the cartouches to belong to different individuals, the facts connected with the elevation of these

It

obelisks were the following:-Rhameses II. having had them cut and removed from the quarry of Syena, commenced the carving of their hieroglyphics, and had carried it to a certain extent when Rhame→ ses III. ascended the throne. The latter princes then terminated the work. seems settled, beyond question, that Rhameses III. (the celebrated Sesostris) was the elevator of them in front of the façade of the palace. This fact was established by the discovery of his cartouches on the base of the monolith, at each side of the dovetailing to which we have already alluded.

sufficiently advanced to enable its profesThe science of hieroglyphs is not yet sors to give a complete reading of the characters of the obelisk. According to M. Nestor d'Hôte, who has lately written on the subject, the banner and inscription on the right of the three vertical columns proclaim "Sesostris the powerful Arocris, friend of truth or justice, king moderator, very amiable as Imeon, a chief born of Ammon, his name the most illustrious of all." On the left column the banner has, "the Arocris, powerful son of Ammon;" and the inscription gives Sesostris the title of king director, mentions his works, and adds that he is great through his victories, the son preferred by the sun on his throne, the king that rejoices Thebes as the firmament of heaven, by great works destined to last for

ever."

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April. 4. Mr. Ewart moved for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the law of PRIMOGENITURE. The object of his measure was, that landed property, instead of passing to heirs directly, should pass into the hands of such executors and administrators as the testators might appoint to be distributed according to the conditions and declarations of their wills.-The Attorney-General opposed the motion, as calculated to produce complete confusion, and, instead of preventing litigation, to increase it fifty-fold. He wished the Hon. Member would turn his time and attention to practical reforms of the law, which would be much more acceptable to the House, and beneficial to the public, than mere theoretical propositions, like the present.-On a division, there were -for the motion, 21; against it, 54: majority against the motion, 33.

April 10. The third reading of the MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Bill having been moved, Mr. Goulburn rose to oppose it, as being inconsistent with the peace and good government of Ireland-calculated to be productive in that country of perpetual civil strife and discord and prove highly detrimental to the rights, interests, and stability of the Establishment. Mr. Tancred was satisfied that the present measure would be the most effectual means of benefiting Ireland, and instead of widening the differences of the people, he knew of nothing which, to judge from the experience of every country where corporations had been introduced, offered so probable a chance of entirely healing and removing them. Mr. Hamilton was strongly opposed to the Bill.—Mr. R. D. Browne supported the measure, thinking that all classes of his Majesty's subjects were alike entitled to share in the blessings of the British constitution.-Col. Verner opposed, and Mr. Bellew supported the Bill.—Mr. H. Bulwer contended, that, after conceding to them the right of legislating for the empire, Parliament could not refuse the Irish the privilege of legislating for a parish.-Lord Stanley said that his opinion was unchanged, and he should oppose the third reading of the Bill, since, in the present state of society in Ireland, he did not think it would be safe to establish Municipal institutions in that country in any shape whatever. Provided, howGENT. MAG. VOL. VII.

ever, he saw the revenues of the Irish Church placed in a state of perfect safety, he was not prepared to say that his opinions on the subject might not undergo some modification.- Mr. H. Grattan supported the Bill, as a matter of common justice to the people of Ireland.Mr. J. M. Gaskell thought it would be unsafe, in the present social and political state of Ireland, to intrust a larger portion of power to the Irish Roman Catholics.

Mr. Woulfe thought the interests of the Establishment would be best promoted by giving political power to the great bulk of the population, since to establish a distinction odious to the national feelings, by withholding Municipal institutions on the ground that the bulk of the population were Roman Catholics, would exasperate all those feelings which constituted the real danger of the Church of Ireland.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer earnestly supported the Bill. He said that its rejection would be viewed by Ireland as an insult, as it would avowedly proceed on the ground that the people were incapable of managing their own affairs. He declared that, be the result now what it might, he viewed the question merely as one of time, which, sooner or later, must pass.-Mr. Shaw spoke earnestly against the principle and tendencies of the Bill. The further discussion of the subject was then adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS, April 11.

The Earl of Radnor moved the second reading of a bill calculated to correct the abuses prevalent in the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge, with regard to the administration of the funds entrusted to their care, and the habitual violation of oaths that took place. After animadverting on the abuses which exist at the Universities, his Lordship proceeded to remark that many of those public establishments had been erected for the maintenance and education of those whose worldly situation placed the blessings of education otherwise beyond their reach, but that, as things were at present situated, few but those who possessed ample means were enabled to enter themselves as students. His Lordship also complained of the present system of non-residence among the Fellows as a matter requiring alteration. In proof of the correctness of 3 Y

his views on this subject, the Noble Earl stated, that in some of the Colleges not more that one-sixth of the Fellows were resident. With regard to all Souls' College, Oxford, there was no doubt of the fact that originally the founder had built the college for forty Fellows, and had built forty rooms for them; but the Fellows of that college were not now content with that plan, the result of which was, that there were now but 13 or 14 residing at a time in the College, thus making about two-thirds of them non-residents. No less than one-third of the Fellows of that College were sons of Members of that House. In Trinity College, there were sixty Fellows, who were required by the statute to reside in the College; but the fact was, that not more than onefourth of them were at any one time to be found residing there, and many of them could not reside in it, in consequence of having taken situations totally at variance with the provisions of the statute. One of them was head-master of a school in Wakefield, and another was master in some other school, while another was Professor of Natural Philosophy at the East India College, Haileybury, Hertfordshire. There could be no question that by the will of the founders they were bound to reside in their respective Colleges. The present senior Fellow of Merton College, Oxford, was a Lieutenant-General in his Majesty's service. The senior fellow in Brasenose College held a stall in Hereford Cathedral, and two livings besides in the diocese of Hereford, from which latter he derived a revenue of upwards of 11007. a year; and although he had a cure of 3000 souls, he was himselfresident in Paris.-The Bishop of Llandaff moved that the Bill be read that day six months. His Lordship then proceeded to answer the various allegagations of the noble Earl, With respect to the alleged misappropriation_of_the funds, he thought that the noble Earl had evinced a misconception of the intentions of the founders. Though the collegiate funds were technically called "eleemosynary," they were totally distinguished from the funds of almshouses and other similar institutions. The common object of all the university statutes was to provide for the careful education and moral superintendence of young men for the service of God in the Church. With regard to the question of residence, it was well known to be better for the world generally, and more conformable to the intentions of the founders, that a literal adhesion to the statute in this respect should not be required.-Lord Holland said that he should support the Bill of

his Noble Friend, from a conviction that the law ought to interpose in order to prevent that moral violation, and to destroy that handle to scandal and misrepresentation, to which the present practices gave rise.-The Archbishop of Canterbury opposed the Bill. He denied that the estates and funds of the various Colleges had been given for the support of indigent persons, since they were also intended to train up persons to serve God in Church and State. Where changes were absolutely called for, the present Visitors possessed the requisite power, so that the proposed Bill was wholly unnecessary. Lord Melbourne supported the original motion. He considered that there was much in both Universities that required remedy, and that since the competition which had arisen in consequence of the establishment of the great chartered institutions in London and Durham, the course of instruction at Oxford and Cambridge ought to be much extended, in order to place the latter on a level with the new establishments, in which the system of education was very superior.The Duke of Wellington opposed the measure. He conceived it to be one of pains and penalties against the Universities, and as forming part of a plan, the object of which was wholly to overturn the system on which they were at present conducted, founded, as that system was, on the religion of the Church of England -a system which was at once the envy and admiration of the world. Lord Brougham supported the Bill, and Lord Abinger opposed it. After some remarks from the Earl of Radnor and the Duke of Wellington, the amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months, was agreed to without a division.

In the HOUSE of COMMONS the same day, the debate on the IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS' Bill was resumed by Mr. Hume. In supporting the measure, he contended that its opponents, although they affirmed that it would place the Irish Church in danger, were in reality fearful that the rich sinecures and incomes of that Establishment might be thereby endangered. Religion was made the stalking-horse, but danger to the revenues of the Church was the real ground of opposition. Mr. O'Connell warmly supported the bill. He stood there to make one more appeal for justice to Ireland, and the ground of his appeal was, that justice had already been granted to England and Scotland. It was time that religious bigotry should cease, and that the intolerable wrongs under which Ireland had suffered so long should be wholly re