held their offices for life, which rendered them independent of the
prince. These judges took a solemn oath at their installation;
that they would disobey the king, in case he should order them
to pronounce an unjust sentence. Beside this college of thirty,
which resided at Thebes, particular magistrates in the towns decided
in certain causes. The monarch did not even tax his subjects
without their consent. The provinces sent, from time to
time, deputies, who met in the labyrinths, to determine all affairs
of state. Their manner of administering justice had something in
it august and sacred, and gives us the idea of a grave but a just
people. No advocate appeared at the tribunal. Eloquence was
not permitted to dazzle and deceive. The whole process was committed
to writing. The president wore about his neck a figure
without eyes, representing truth; he touched with this emblem
the head of the party in whose favour the determination was
made,
‘ In consequence of the limited monarchy that was established
in Egypt, we find a greater regard paid to the rights of the subject,
than was known or imagined in the; oriental empires. The
two great objects of government, security, to the property and the
lives of the citizens, were maintained by the-laws. W e have
already described the administration of justice. The person of the
subject also was protected, A reverence was shown to the natural
rights of man. Human blood was respected. Pecuniary compensations
for murder, which mark a certain stage of society between
barbarity and refinement, were unknown in Egypt. The
lives of all the subjects were equally secured. Murder was punished.
with death, without respect to person or dignity; but a
fair trial always preceded the sentence. The summary decisions
of despotic government were unknown. The pannel was acquitted
or condemned according to the laws.
‘ The sacred records, which, in every particular that regards
®gypb correspond with the best information from classical antiquity,
confirm these accounts. Joseph, a hebrew slave, is accused
of having offered the most outrageous and provoking affront
to his master, one of the greatest lords in the court of the pharaoh.
His lord did not doom him to instant death, as an eastern despot
would have done: he sent him to the common prison, that he
might be tried according to the laws.’
Such was the government of Egypt during it’s most flourishing
state. I t has since varied with the different revolutions the
country has undergone, though always more or less despotic, till
at length it has sunk into a condition, than which a worse is not
easy to be conceived; and the country, as well as it’s inhabitants,
has participated it’s decline.
When Selim I conquered Egypt in 151/ , he sent a bashaw
to govern it as his lieutenant. At the same time fearing this vice*
roy would soon assume indépendance, if he left him in possession
of uncontrolled authority, he appointed twenty-four beys from
among such of the mamalukes as he had not exterminated. These
were to govern the provinces independently of th e bashaw, to
command the troops, and to form a divan or council of state. One
of their number was to conduct the caravan to Mecca; one to com
vey the.trihute to Constantinople, and one was to be elected sheik