the confiscated objects or their equivalent to the relatives of the
deceased, it was solely by an act of mercy, and as an example to foreign
governments to treat Egyptians with a like clemency should they chance
to proffer a similar request.*

* All this seems to result from a letter in which the King
of Alasia demands from Amenôthes III. the restitution of the
goods of one of his subjects who had died in Egypt; the tone
of the letter is that of one asking a favour, and on the
supposition that the King of Egypt had a right to keep the
property of a foreigner dying on his territory.

It is also not improbable that the sovereigns themselves had a personal
interest in more than one commercial undertaking, and that they were
the partners, or, at any rate, interested in the enterprises, of many
of their subjects, so that any loss sustained by one of the latter
would eventually fall upon themselves. They had, in fact, reserved to
themselves the privilege of carrying on several lucrative industries,
and of disposing of the products to foreign buyers, either to those who
purchased them out and out, or else through the medium of agents, to
whom they intrusted certain quantities of the goods for warehousing.
The King of Babylon, taking advantage of the fashion which prompted
the Egyptians to acquire objects of Chaldæan goldsmiths' and
cabinet-makers' art, caused ingots of gold to be sent to him by the
Pharaoh, which he returned worked up into vases, ornaments, household
utensils, and plated chariots. He further fixed the value of all
such objects, and took a considerable commission for having acted as
intermediary in the transaction.* In Alasia, which was the land of
metals, the king appears to have held a monopoly of the bronze. Whether
he smelted it in the country, or received it from more distant regions