Scarcely had General BONAPARTE established the military power of the French Republic in Egypt, before he was employed in organizing the Institute at Cairo. [Sidenote: 1798–1801.] Its declared object was twofold: (1) the increase and diffusion of learning in Egypt itself; (2) the examination, study, and publication, of the monuments of its history and of its natural phenomena, together with the elucidation and improvement of the natural and industrial capabilities of the country. [Sidenote: _Mémoires sur l’Egypt_, passim.] The Institute was composed of thirty-six members, and was divided into four sections. The section with which alone we are here concerned—that of Literature, Arts, and History—was headed by DENON, and amongst its other members were DUTERTRE, PARSEVAL, and RIPAULT. Its labours began in 1798, and were continued, with almost unparalleled activity, until the summer of 1801, when the defeat of BELLIARD near Cairo, and the capitulation of MENOU at Alexandria, placed that part of the collections of the Institute which had not been already sent to France at the disposal of Lord HUTCHINSON. DENON, on his return from Upper Egypt to Cairo, said, with French vivacity, that if the active movements of the Mamelukes now and then forced an antiquary to become, in self-defence, a soldier, the antiquary was enabled, by way of balance and through the good nature and docility of the French troops, to turn a good many soldiers into antiquaries. Had it not been for this general sympathy and readiness, one can hardly conceive that so much could have been accomplished, even under the eye of NAPOLEON, amidst perils so incessant. The _Description de l’Egypte_ is for France at large, no less than for NAPOLEON and the men whom he set to work, a monument which might well obliterate the momentary mortification attendant on the transfer to London of a part of the treasures of the Institute. History, ancient or modern, scarcely offers a parallel instance in which war was made to contribute results so splendid, both for the progress of science and for the eventual improvement of the invaded country. To the labours initiated by NAPOLEON, and partially carried out by the ‘Institute of Egypt,’ the ablest of the recent rulers of that land owe some of their best and latest inspirations. Nor is it a whit less true that the most successful of our English Egyptologists have followed the track in which Frenchmen led the way. Such results, indeed, can never suffice to justify an unprovoked invasion. But they illustrate, in a marvellous way, how temporary evil is wrought into enduring good.