and look either like beehives, sugar-houses, Que le diable empeste les Philantropes!—they or pig-styes. The country, however, is be- will overturn every thing with their absurd yond belief fertile, bearing three and four theories." The same gentleman is equally crops a year, and being always in fruit or flower. The date-trees are beautiful. Wild birds are in millions; pelicans and the graubal white dwarf crane are the most seen, and make an agreeable contrast. The climate is delicious; the air quite balmy; and every hour as I go south I more completely cheat the winter. The Nile water, when filtered, is excellent; and there are bottles here, which are made of porous earth, called gurgoulets, and that almost ice it by evaporation."

cause for offence in any of these transactions; but whether there is cause for offence or not, nations may quarrel and go to war upon questions solely of interest and claim compensation. But I never heard of a nation claiming compensation from a third party; that is to say, that France, claiming compensation from England, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, should claim it from the Porte."

When the question was approaching a set

tlement the duke said:

"I believe I know as much of the Eastern Question as any one individual not concerned in the negotiation of it. There have

respect each other, or even as two individuals. The armed peace, as it is called, is nonsense." It is to the credit of Mr. Raikes that he

saw through the character of Louis Philippe, who, he says, "slipped into his seat like a thief in the night; who then gave promises which he has since constantly eluded; who, solely intent upon increasing his own power, when his people asked for bread, has given them a stone; and who, having himself begun by singing the Marseillaise, now orders his troops to cut down those who repeat the chorus. The king," he says, in another place, desires the preservation of peace as synonymous with the preservation of his throne.

been many mistakes, and much mismanagement, on both sides, in the negotiation. The original error between England and France was to suppose that these two nations, both "He has incurred immense expenses at maritime, both commercial, both manufacThe Civil turing, both having capital, both having and Versailles, Fontainebleau, etc. still seeking colonial dependencies, could be List is at this moment sixty millions in debt, what is termed intimate allies. The intimacy Almost all his quarrels with, or separations must always have been the same as that be- from, his ministers, arise from this source. tween the cat and the mouse; each watching He has compiled above fifty projects of prievery step of the other, each complaining of vate ways and means to fill his coffers. Ap every advantage enjoyed, and most particu- lands for others belonging to the crown, panages for children; exchanges of forest larly of every one taken by the other. The truth of this Eastern Question is, that both which have a benefit in his favor; inspecnations were interested in the settlement of tions of public works, which give him a surit very much upon the plan stipulated in the plus on the grants, etc. These demands and Treaty of July, 1840. I am certain of one expenditures have driven M. Humann to his thing: the Eastern Question never could wits' end, and hence the daily reports of his have been settled till Mehemet Ali should resignation, and a break-up of the Cabinet. be turned out of Syria. But both parties, He was not a bad guardian of the public that is to say each of the nations, looked to purse. The king said of him, 'C'est un vrai the acquirement of some advantage in the he must have a bitter time of it. The royal Cerbère assis sur la Caisse ;' and, indeed, negotiation and settlement of the question. England has been the successful party. This family and court party are now so confident is the result of which France has to com- of passing the bill, that they no longer think plain; all the rest is matter of form, of which disguise at all necessary; and your grace the legislature and people of both countries will hardly believe that, the other day, when have a right, an equal right, to complain. the son of the late Baron de Talleyrand, a My opinion is, that France and England at young man of ability, who has been appointed peace, respecting each other, and each the attaché to the embassy at Vienna, called on rights of the other, are strong enough to to ask her commands, that her royal highMadame Adelaide previous to his departure preserve the general peace, and to prevent the oppression of the weak of this world by that we are enchanted to have carried the ness said to him, You will say at Vienna, the strong. But if it is endeavored to carry Fortifications. We know we have no right further the intercourse between these rivals, to the post we hold, but are determined to for every thing interesting to the prosperity, maintain it, and have taken such measures the ambition, and the vanity of a nation, as will preclude our undergoing the same they must quarrel, and their quarrel must fate as that of the exiled family."" deluge the world in blood."

And again, on the subject of the mutual relations of France and England, the duke thus expresses himself: "We may do each other, and the world, a great deal of injury by our quarrels; and thus we shall do better to remain on terms. I do not mean as if we were lovers; but as two nations which

Innumerable were the traps laid by Louis Philippe for the peers to obtain their votes on this Fortification Bill. "Amongst other lures," says Mr. Raikes, "is that which gained the adhesion of General C. Mademoiselle Noblet, his mistress, had long been dismissed from the theatre, but a royal order, given

From The Saturday Review.
EMPERORS AND EMPIRES.

ick III. Maximilian, who was never crowned at Rome, devised the new title of Emperor Elect; Charles V. broke the local spell by an irregular coronation at Bologna; and his successors, down to Francis II. ventured to call themselves emperors by virtue of what had hitherto been held to be the merely royal consecration at Aachen. So, in the East, the emperor was he who reigned at Constantinople and was crowned in St. Sophia. Emperors, to be sure, reigned at Nicæa, Trebizond, Cyprus, and Thessalonica, but they were still in their own eyes Roman emperors-pretenders to the throne of the New Rome, and anxious to occupy it on the first opportunity. Nor has this last class of emperors ceased even now. It is hard to see on what other ground the imperial title is borne by the sovereign of All the Russias.

WHAT is an emperor? We hear so much of emperors and empires now-a-days, that one cannot help asking in what emperors and empires differ from kings and kingdoms? At the beginning of the last century, Europe contained a sovereign who was distinguished from all others as "the emperor." He was solemnly called Emperor of the Romans, and familiarly called Emperor of Germany, but neither addition was needed. There was but one emperor, and that title alone distinguished him from everybody else. In the course of the present century, Europe and America have seen emperors of Austria, Brazil, Elba, Hayti, of the French, and of All the Russias. And all of these, except the last, are creations of the present century. A man need not be very old to remember an elected Roman emperor, balanced by no rival except him of Muscovy. All the rest-France, Hayti, Austria, etc. are mere upstarts of yesterday. What do any of them mean by their new-fangled titles? "Emperor," "imperator," we need not say, simply means "commander." As the Roman State gradually changed from a republic to a monarchy, "imperator" was one of the titles which the embryo sovereign assumed as more modest and less offensive than that of king. Cæsar Augustus was imperator in his military, Princeps in his civil character; but the worst tyrants of the old Roman monarchy did not venture to assume the hated title of Rex. As the Roman State became more definitely monarchic, and as barbarian kings began to play an important part in its affairs, the title of imperator, originally that of a republican magistrate, It is perfectly plain that when Louis Nabegan to be looked on as something superior poleon Bonaparte and Francis Joseph of to Rex, and became the peculiar possession Lorraine each calls himself an emperor, they of the Lord of Rome, old or new. As the do not use the word in exactly the same empire became Christian, a sacred character sense. One is the impersonation of novelty began to be thrown over the sovereign, and and revolution. He is a whole democracy the imperial title was confined to princes rolled up into a single body, and capable of consecrated in St. Peter's or in St. Sophia being covered by a single cocked hat. The by the Western or by the Eastern Patriarch. other at least gives himself out as the emDown to the fifteenth century, no man in bodiment of every thing ancient and venerthe West called himself emperor who had able. His Imperial, Royal, Archducal, and not received the papal consecration at Rome. Apostolic Majesty is the very pink of perWithout it he might be King of Germany, fection in the way of legitimacy and divine even King of the Romans, but not "Ro- right. To carry all his crowns with any sort manorum Imperator semper Augustus." of grace, he has need of as many heads as The last duly crowned emperor was Freder- an Indian idol. France, as far as we can

Thus, down to the beginning of the last century, emperor had a definite meaning. The emperor was the prince who, at least by a legal fiction, represented the majesty of the ancient Cæsars. "Imperator" was distinctive title enough. If it must be preceded or followed by any thing, "Romanorum" was the only possible addition. The Emperor of All the Russias first broke through this rule. Then came the whole mob of Emperors of the French, Emperors of Hayti, Austria, Elba, and the rest of them-to say nothing of the barbarian potentates to whom it has always been usual to give the imperial title by a sort of analogy. It is clear that all these potentates are not emperors in the ancient sense. What we want to know is, what any one of them means by calling himself an emperor ?

make out, is called an empire because its The British Empire is something which ingovernment is new, revolutionary, grounded, cludes the Kingdom of Great Britain and

as we are told, on the popular will. Aus- Ireland, and a vast deal more besides. The tria, as far as we can make out, is called an Imperial Parliament is something distinempire because its government professes to guished both from the existing colonial parbe ancient and legitimate-grounded on liaments and assemblies and from the parrights so venerable that nobody can trace ticular parliaments of England, Scotland, their beginning. France is called an empire and Ireland which existed before the union rather than a kingdom because all local di- of the kingdoms. Again, at the other end visions have been obliterated; because its of Europe, we sometimes, but not often, people are supposed to be more strictly one speak of the sultan as emperor of the Turks, than any other in Europe; because its terri- but we always speak of the "Ottoman Emtory is, in fact, simply a province attached pire," and, when an adjective is wanted, we to one overweening city. Austria is called always call any thing pertaining to the sulan empire because local differences are tan "imperial," never "royal." This may stronger there than anywhere else, because be partly in the vague way in which we freely the empire is a bundle of various peoples, apply the title to barbaric potentates in Monations, and languages-a collection of king-rocco, China, and elsewhere-partly, because doms, duchies, counties, which its sovereign the Ottoman Empire, like the Austrian, is can only hope to govern either by sheer an assemblage of various and discordant force or else after something of a Federal fashion. Louis Napoleon is emperor, so he tells us, because the French people willed to make him so. Francis Joseph is emperor, so he tells us, because nobody ever made him, but because his forefathers came of themselves. As for the rest, the emperor of Russia, we imagine, calls himself so as being, in some way or other, the representative of the old Eastern emperors-perhaps as having at least succeeded to their place as the chief potentate in communion with the Eastern Church. The empire of Elba existed for a few months that the First Napoleon might not lose his title along with his power. The empire of Hayti, we imagine, arose because the empire of France arose; and it is therefore only fair that the empire of France should fall out of sympathy with the empire of Hayti. The empire of Brazil is, as far as its title goes, the most puzzling of any; but we believe that its present sovereign is by far the most respectable of the imperial class.

nations-partly, because the Grand Turk, as de facto master of the New Rome, comes nearer to an emperor in the old sense than any other prince in Europe till the Old Rome once more welcomes an Italian sovereign. In the East, the Ottoman sultans have always been looked on as the successors of the Byzantine emperors. Even before the fall of Constantinople, Timour made war upon Bajazet under the strange title of "Cæsar of Rome;" and, unless they have changed their language very lately, the Persians to this day, know the Ottomans of Byzantium by no other name than that of Romans. Sultan Abd-al-Aziz is certainly de facto emperor of the East; and if he could only be persuaded to be baptized and crowned in St. Sophia, probably his Orthodox subjects would accept him as such de jure with more willingness than they would any importation from Bavaria or Saxe-Coburg. Now this title of "emperor " and "empire" in most cases is a mere title. We know very well what Louis Napoleon BuonaThen, again, we commonly use the adjec- parte is, by whatever name he may choose to tive "imperial" in one or two cases where call himself. The utmost he can do is to we do not use the substantive "emperor." cause us to make an addition or two to our Our own sovereign is, indeed, happily not Greek Lexicon. The Greek translation of called empress of Great Britain and Ireland," emperor " in the old sense was ẞaniheçbut we speak of the British Empire and of in the new sense it is rúpavvos; but the disthe Imperial Parliament. So we often use tinction which Aristotle drew long ago bethe word "imperial" as distinguished from tween Baoiλtus and rúpavvoç remains just as "colonial" or "provincial." This is the true as when he drew it. But the asvery opposite to the French sense of the sumption of the title of " emperor" by the word, and rather approaches to the Austrian. | Archdukes of Austria is a practical evil. It