and his virtue, soon called him into distinction. These were his advancement; and by these he attained the highest place, which, under the sovereignty, is known to our Constitution. Who among that opulent and honorable body, the merchants of England, holds a rank more elevated than SIR ROBERT PEEL? Possessing a seat in the legislature, a title, and immense wealth, extending the commerce of his country, and ministering to the employment, the happiness, and the prosperity of many hundreds of her people; he beholds his son advanced to the councils of his sovereign, and knows that all these blessings are, under a good Providence, owing to himself alone, and to that Constitution which enabled him to sow in virtue, and to reap in honor. It is not possible to speak of this truly great man, without associating the recollection of SIR RICHARD ARKWRIGHT. He was one of thirteen children, born in the very humblest station of life. Without connections, or money, he acquired in the short space of twenty-two years, a fortune of nearly half a million by the simple and single exertion of unaided talent, unfriended industry, and unreproached integrity. The immense works which he established, give bread to nearly twelve hundred persons, all of whom have better opportunities of equalling him than he had of setting them the example. The late ALDERMAN BOYDELL was originally in the obscure station of a land-surveyor in Shropshire. Directed by his own genius to the science of engraving, he apprenticed himself to an artist in London, and devoted all his energy to its pursuit; until it enabled him to expend on one undertaking-the Shakspeare gallery-three hundred and fifty thousand pounds. Before his death, at the venerable age of eighty-one, he rose to the highest civic honors of his country; and bequeathed to his family an irreproachable name and a splendid fortune. Examples might easily be multiplied but their perusal would occupy too much of that time which would better be given to their imitation. The church, the state, the law of our country, present an abundant proof, that while the Constitution was unsettled, the poor and humbly-born had small hope of honest elevation. To this defect, the turbulent scenes which disgraced the earlier annals of England, and so long retarded her prosperity, are to be ascribed. But happily this defect no longer exists; and the EQUALITY of the Constitution has not only shown, that every Englishman was eligible to her honors, but capable of acquiring them. It was shown also, that when the peaceable road to prosperity was once opened, our countrymen preferred it to the shorter, but less certain path of violence. We have said-but so important a truth will bear repetition-that Pam. M the dignities of England, and her opulence, are open to all; that high birth is no indispensible passport, and low birth no insurmountable barrier, to their attainment. The Englishman, who resolves to be diligent and honest, may attain them; and if he fails he has only to infer that his competitors were more diligent and more honest than himself.-But, as we have also said, the qualities and the habits, are in themselves a reward for his exertion: they will assuredly make him better, and most probably richer, than sloth and dishonesty could have rendered him. There is, however, another necessary qualification. He must respect the Constitution, which opens to him advantages, closed against the subject of almost every other state. For his own sake, he must love it; and loving it, he must become-within the sphere of his instruction and example-its protector. While he listens to the crafty demagogue or the visionary reformer, he will grow, not only to hate the Constitution, but to disbelieve the EQUALITY which it holds out to him. Discontent will lead to idleness; and idleness -so says the unerring proverb-to mischief. The general confusion may elevate, as it once did in a neighbouring country-one low man into a tyrant; but as his unhappy countrymen soon found, it only made his equals his slaves. If, when no longer industrious or honest, the poor man finds himself continuing poor, and suffers his Jacobin advisers to persuade him into the shortest means of redressing his poverty, he will meet the same result, or one to him not less injurious. The end of the struggle must be, in his being put down by the law, in his shame, and in his punishment; in the defeat of his hopes, and the ruin of his family; or in that Jacobin triumph, whereof the English poor man would find himself the victim, after he had helped to destroy THE EQUALITY OF THE CONSTITUTION. ON THE PRESENCE OF PLUTO IN ELYSIUM. This letter appeared during a two months' discussion of the Portland Vase in the Morning Chronicle and New Times. It made great sensation, produced a call for a second edition of the Chronicle, and the subject was immediately taken up in seve→ ral contemporary publications, New Monthly Magazine, Literary Journal, &c. &c. The correspondence consisted of 1 Letter of the author of the Philosophy of Nature. 2 Letter of C. 3 Letter of Flosculus, objecting to the last. 4 Letter of T. L. 5 Reply of C. to Flosculus. 6 Reply of a Hutchinsonian in the New Times to T. L. 7 Reply of C. to T. L. after which the latter was silent.-Dec. 23, 1818. 8 Letter of C. on the presence of Pluto in Elysium, in answer of Flosculus.-Dec. 30, 1818. 9 Letter of Academicus, calling for its publication, and stating the deep sensation it caused. 10 Second Letter of Flosculus. 11 Letter of Spectator vindicating C. 12 Third Letter of Flosculus. 13 Final and decisive letter of C. which left him master of the field. But Flosculus refuses faith till I can establish Pluto in the Elysian fields by demonstrative evidence. This is perhaps a task something like attacking the Chimæra, and only fit for a Bellerophon. But I will do my best to satisfy the gentleman, though I may be unhorsed like that hero: On the Aleian plain I fall, Still premising that success or failure leaves my inference respecting the Portland Urn unvitiated. It is a new branch of inquiry very slightly connected with one of the figures: but as it embraces the subject of Elysium by no means alien from the whole. There are, I believe, as Flosculus supposes, no medals, coins or gems, representing Pluto, such as the Greeks or Romans pourtrayed him, in Elysium. But in default of these there is plenty of analogy, tradition, and pictorial symbols to establish the point: and my antagonist must at least admit that the non-existence of any gems or coins representing it is no proof that he had no place there. Such a sweeping assumption would make terrible havoc in mythology, history, and even religion. The question occurs, who was Pluto? He was the Serapis, or funereal Osiris of the Egyptians, represented by a dragon and threeheaded dog, having a corn-bushel on his head, and in one hand the sign Libra, in the other the measure of the Nile. Agriculturally, he represented the central fire which cherishes and reproduces the seed in the ground (1). He was the original god of gardens, and source of the fatness and fertility of the earth. He was the husband of Persephone, meaning hidden fruit. In Phoenicia he was the same as Muth (2) and Moloch, both signifying the creative womb of nature, and the latter implying agriculture by the bull's head upon his shoulders. He was also the same as the Adonisiris of Syria, the funereal Lord of Elysium, and thence the Adonidis horti. A Greek account represented him as Lord of similar gardens (Aidonei horti) at Molossus, having golden fruit, and guarded by a three-headed dog. He was, thus, proprietor of Elysium. It was this fruit which Pirithous attempted to ravish, and was slain by the guardian dog. It was in this orchard that Persephone ́ate of the forbidden fruit, and was condemned for that offence to the embrace of Pluto, that is, Muth, or Death. But Hercules carried off the fruit, bound the dog, and wounded Pluto himself: E'en hell's grim king Alcides' power confest, Let me add, that he is identified with the Baal Peor of Syria, and the Priapus (3) of the Greeks. In this sense he was the god of |