of those buildings, in adorning which they were employed. The palace of Luxor had its pair, but they were of unequal size. That now in Paris is considerably less lofty than its fellow. Its height is a little more than 70 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 show 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 opportunity of showing us 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 these 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 execu

tion 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, Rhamses III.; others, that two personages are meant by them, Rhamses II. and III. Accord ing to the opinion of Champollionwho considers the cartouches to belong to different individuals-the facts connected with the elevation of these obelisks were the following:-Rhamses II. having had them cut and removed from the quarry of Syena, commenced the carving of their hieroglyphs, and had carried it to a certain extent when Rhamses III. ascended the throne. The latter prince then terminated the work. It seems settled, beyond question, that Rhamses 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 alluded. Those who consider the cartouches to belong to the same person, have, of course, no difficulty in explaining their presence on the same monolith. The discussion as to the identity, or non-identity of the two personages, arises from a single variation in the cartouches of the obelisk; those who support their identity, defend their opinion by referring to a colossal statue of Sesostris, in which the two forms of cartouche are found.

The science of hieroglyphs is not yet sufficiently advanced to enable its professors to give a complete reading of the characters of the obelisk, and it is probable that a long period will elapse before such perfection is attained. Admitting the general correctness of the principles which guide the school of Champollion in assigning the literal value to the hieroglyphic figures, the immense labour required for the interpretation of a single character will bear us out in this assertion. But if those principles be fallaciousand the powerful arguments of Klaproth point out the possibility, not to say probability of such a case-it is evident that no conjecture can be formed on the point, as the whole study must be commenced de novo. It is not our present purpose to examine the state of the question between Champollion and his opponents; we

shall not, therefore, make mere assertions in favour of either, but content ourselves with following the most ordinarily received version, in giving the meaning of part of the Luxor inscriptions. After all the labour of deciphering them, the historian has unceasing cause to lament the scantiness of historical information they supply; the period of their elevation is all we usually learn from the inscriptions, and this is comparatively nothing. Their general object is to sing the praises of the Ptolemies, and celebrate religious rites. It is only by the merest chance that they serve to determine a historical fact; the insight they give into the habits and political and religious feelings of the Egyptians, is, however, a source of interest which makes up to a certain degree for the want we lament. They afford proof that the gross style of adulation so prevalent in the East, thrived as well in ancient Egypt as elsewhere.

Let our readers take, as a specimen of the substance and spirit of the whole, part of the inscriptions on the east side of the monument. We extract from the interesting compilation of M. Nestor d'Hote on obelisks, to which we are indebted for many of the particulars contained in this notice. "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 Ihneon, 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. 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.'

Arrived in Paris, December, 1833, after an infinity of toil it was raised in the middle of the Place de la Concorde, or Louis XVI., in October, 1836. The expenses of the removal and elevation were enormous; they have been calculated so high as nine million francs, which was too much, according to a friend of ours addicted to execrable punning, to pay for a mere luxory.

The choice of a site for the obelisk has not given general satisfaction; placed where it now is, it materially injures one of the finest city views in the world, that from the central walk of the Tuilleries Gardens, towards the Arc de Triomphe, at the end of the Champs Elysées. It cuts the arc in two, which, especially when the spectator is not placed in a right line with the two monuments, has an exceedingly awkward effect. Again, it has been objected to the site chosen, that the pillar is unfit to harmonize with the structures near it, the Madeline and the Chamber of Deputies. In the justness of this objection we do not wholly acquiesce; in truth, it seems to us no extravagant idea that finds a natural connexion between a church and edifice from which the laws of one country proceed, and an emblem of the religious and legislative principles of another. Besides, if the objection be founded in its fullest extent, even the French may console themselves with the reflection, that wherever an obelisk is to be found in Europe, it is at least as ill-adapted to the genius loci. The circus of the Vatican, the seraglio gardens at Constantinople, for example, are certainly as ill-suited for an Egyptian emblem of religious and regal adoration as the Place Louis XVI. There cannot be a doubt, however, that if the fitness of things be alone considered, the French might have found, in the court of the Louvre, a more appropriate emplacement for the obelisk. Here, surrounded by specimens of Egyptian antiquity, it would be, as it were, in its natural atmosphere. in this situation it would have been lost almost completely as an architectural ornament, from the smallness of the space that contained it. This is a fault which cannot be found in its present situation; viewed from the Arc de Triomphe, it is an exceedingly graceful object.

But

The literary enthusiast might have wished it placed on the grave of Champollion. Had his claims to priority of discovery been uncontested, the honour would not have been unmerited, and it would have been a gigantic mode of testifying national gratitude and admiration.

MY LORD,

Newcastle, January 1st, 1837.

I SHALL not affect to deny that in thus addressing your Lordship, I do so with mixed motives; and that one of these is the hope that your name appended to my composition may possibly obtain for it attention from some who would not be likely to notice it, either on account of that of its author, or from any idea of its possibly containing any thing on such a subject deserving the slightest attention.

For any further apology to your Lordship, I do not know that I am fairly your debtor. Your Lordship is a public man, and to that public you have declared your readiness to "champion to the utterance" the most extreme doctrines of that system now known as that of " Malthus." You have thrown down your gage to defend the Malthusian doctrines of population against all opponents, and therefore cannot complain of an attack, from what quarter soever it may

come.

If, then, humble as I am, I venture forth against your Lordship" with a sling and with a stone," the attempt may be ridiculous, but cannot be impertinent.

Be it so, my Lord. I happen to be one who would think more meanly of himself if he feared to stand by his opinions against any odds, than if he were defeated in the encounter after a manner the most obnoxious to that self-love which he possesses in common with the rest of mankind.

In this attempt to impugn the doctrine of Malthus, permit me first, my Lord, to say that it is any thing but my intention to mince or mystify the mat

ter.

I shall at all events meet the question boldly, fairly, and openly. I shall give a distinct and unhesitating denial to the system. I shall assert that his pretended law of population does not exist; and that his asseverations regarding it are contrary to evidence, and as false as falsehood can possibly be-in short, altogether false. I shall next show that these assertions are totally at variance with truth, and founded in a total ignorance on the part of Mr Malthus of what the nature of the law which regulates the amount

of population really is. At the same time I shall endeavour to point out, and to illustrate that law as clearly as I can, and to prove that it applies generally not only to all mankind of all nations, but to the animal creation, and also, with certain modifications, to the vegetable world. I shall strive to show the great probability of its pervading all animated and vegetable nature, universally; and that it affords one of the most beautiful illustrations of the deep wisdom and all-pervading beneficence of the Creator that has yet been discovered. Lastly, I shall deduce that, being what I have described it, it is in the most complete opposi tion possible to the astounding and cruel practical conclusions drawn from the opinions of Malthus, and now attempted to be brought into active operation in this country, to the deep shame and everlasting disgrace of its rulers. This I am now to attempt to do: and this your Lordship will, at least, acknowledge is no bush-fighting.

The doctrine of Malthus rests then, my Lord, upon two sweeping and emphatic assertions. If these two assertions are true, and can be proved to be so, the rest of his theory, being plain deductions from them, follows of course. What are the two grand assertions of Malthus? They are these. I. That the natural tendency of population, if unchecked by other causes, is to increase, in a geometrical ratio, of 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, &c. &c. II. That food can only at most be made to increase in an arithmetical ratio of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, &c. From these two assertions, if granted, he deduces a third; viz. that population must always tend to be in advance of its own resources; and that the people of every country must always press too heavily upon the means of subsistence, unless this tendency to increase be checked. The natural checks he declares to be misery and vice-the artificial checks, moral and prudential restraint, and fear of too much offspring. Building upon these general assertions a superstructure of asserted facts, he goes on to state, that if it were possible to afford an unlimited supply of efficient food

to mankind, they would double their numbers in each twenty-five or thirty years, and that it is the impossibility alone of obtaining sustenance that prevents this:-and these assertions he attempts to prove by a reference to the different states of population in different countries-the general view attempted to be given being, that there is some constant increase of people in all countries, but the greatest in new countries where food is supposed to be more plentiful-the increase, in all cases, arising out of an extension of the means of obtaining food. This, my lord, I take to be a fair statement of the general theory of the celebrated -I had almost said too-celebrated, Malthus. If it be not so, I can only say that I have not designedly misrepresented it; and that I am quite willing to amend any error that shall be pointed out.

Now I would first observe, my Lord, of this theory, that with the exception of the assertion of the geometrical ratio of increase in one case, and the arithmetical ratio of increase in the other-it was not originated by Malthus, but was broached many years before. In fact, the whole of the doctrine of the tendency of a people to increase more rapidly than their food can be made to increase, unless moral or natural checks interpose, is to be found in the work of "Wallace on the Prospects of Mankind." That it should be suffered to sleep unheeded in the book of Wallace, as a mere fantastical speculation under the guise of philosophy, to be so eagerly adopted when resuscitated by Malthus, may, perhaps, scem unaccountable to your Lordship. To me, I must confess, it does not seem so; but with my way of accounting for it, it would be irrelevant to the immediate matter in hand to trouble your Lordship at present.

I now address myself immediately to the point at issue. Unless I have much misrepresented him, the theory of Malthus rests entirely upon the truth or falsehood of the two ratios of increase of numbers and of food, respectively and I meet your Lordship upon the first. The second may, for aught I know to the contrary, be true, but the first is false. I deny its truth, and assert, in direct opposition to Malthus, that there is not any such constant tendency to increase amongst mankind. I affirm that this tendency only exists under certain definable

circumstances, and never pervades the entire of any people. I affirm, further, that under certain known circumstances, the opposite tendencies exist; that is to say, the tendency to decrease, and the tendency to remain stationary, in numbers. And I lastly affirm that all these different tendencies may and do exist in society at one and the same time-increase going on amidst one portion of a people, decrease amongst another, and another portion neither increasing nor decreasing; and that it is upon the proper balance of these that the welfare of society depends. I can here readily imagine your Lordship to recoil from these assertions, if you should deign to look at this paper at all, as being amongst the most strange, and apparently most at variance with truth and common sense that ever met your notice. I can easily imagine this. But, at the same time, I must respectfully beg of your Lordship not to suffer an apparent improbability at the outset. to divert your attention altogether from any new view of a matter so deeply important, little recommended as that view may seem to be either by the manner or the matter of its author.

I have affirmed that these different tendencies of increase and decrease, and the mean betwixt these two, may and do exist at one and the same time amongst a people. I have asserted that these tendencies exist because of the different circumstances in which different portions of a population are placed. I am now to show, first, what are these circumstances; and then how and why these circumstances produce such opposite tendencies. I shall proceed to do this, and in doing it I shall have to crave your Lordship's attention, whilst I point out what is the real law which regulates the population of all countriesa very different law from that of Malthus. The law to which I allude is one which is more or less admitted by all physiologists, naturalists, and medical persons, to be a law of nature, and of the existence of which the proofs are innumerable and undoubted; and it is only because this law generally pervades nature, animate and inanimate, that we have this general admission from scientific men, totally differing in the objects of their pursuits and studies, and have it corroborated by men not scientific but prae

tical-engaged practically in the same pursuits.

This law is, that when a species, whether animal or vegetable, is put in danger, nature invariably provides an extraordinary effort for its perpetuation; and that when, on the contrary, the means of perpetuation are profuse, the powers of perpetuation are diminished. In short, that what I may call the "Plethoric State," is unfavourable to increase; the "Deplethoric State" (or opposite state), favourable, in the same ratio, and according to the intensity of the different states, the mean being, of course, between the two.

In attempting to bring before your Lordship some of the most striking proofs of the existence of this GENERAL LAW, I shall begin with the vegetable creation, and go up to human nature through the world of inferior animals. I shall cite as evidence the experience of the gardener and farmer, as well as of the botanist and natural historian ; and confirm the experience of the phy sician by the details of statistics and the actual history of the world as it now is.

First then, as to the vegetable world; the existence of this general law of increase or decrease is admitted by all men, scientific or practical, engaged in horticultural pursuits. All gardeners as well as botanists know, that if a tree, plant, or flower, be placed in mould too rich for it, the " plethoric state" is immediately produced, and it ceases to be fruitful. If a tree, it runs to superfluous wood, blossoms irregularly, and is destitute of fruit. If a flowering shrub, or flowering plant, it becomes double, and loses its power of producing seed-and next ceases, or nearly ceases, even to flower. In order to remedy this, gardeners and florists are accustomed to produce the opposite, or "deplethoric state," by artificial means. This they denominate "giving a check." In short, they put the species" in danger, in order to produce a correspondingly determined effort of nature to ensure perpetuation, and their end is attained. Thus, to make trees bear, gardeners delay and impede the flow of the sap, by cutting rings in the bark round the tree. This to the tree is a process of" depletion," and the abundance of fruit is the effort of nature to counteract the danger. The fig,

when grown in this climate, is peculiarly liable to drop its fruit when about half mature. This, gardeners. now find, can be prevented by pruning the tree so severely as to "give it a check;" or if it be grown in a pot, by cutting a few inches from its roots all round, so as to produce the same effect. The invariable result is, that the tree retains and matures its fruit. In like manner, when a gardener wishes to save seed from a cucumber, he does not give the plant an extra quantity of manure or warmth, but the contrary. He takes the fruit least fine looking, and subjects it to some hardship, foreknowing that it will turn out to be filled with seed, whilst finer grown fruit are nearly destitute. Upon the same principle the florist, to insure the luxuriant flowering of a plant, exposes it for a time to the cold. The danger caused by a temperature lower than that natural to it, is followed by nature's usual effort to ensure the continuation of the species, and it vegetates and flowers profusely and luxuriantly; and, if a seed-bearing plant, seeds accordingly. After the same great law of nature, vines and other fruiting trees and shrubs are observed to bear most abundantly after severe winters, and many trees, especially apples and pears, always fruit abundantly as soon as they touch the blue clay or any soil injurious to them; such profusion of fruit being preparatory to the death of the tree, and the effect of the state of " depletion," through which it passes to death.

Such is the most wise and beneficent dispensation of the Deity throughout the vegetable world, by which fruitfulness incrcases in the ratio of danger, and vice versa; the effort to perpetuate being according to the risk of non-perpetuation, and an absurd superfluity, or profusion of nourishment, on the other hand, being invariably productive of sterility, irregular vegetation, and disease. Such being the law apparently regulating the comparative degrees of fruitfulness throughout the vegetable kingdom, we now come to animal life, and here the direct evidence of practical men, the experience of the farmer, the breeder, and the horse-dealer, abundantly bear out the analogy, in this particular, between vegetable and animal productiveness. What does the farmer, the grazier, or the breeder, if