ANECDOTE OF M. D'ARUSMONT. DURING this winter, Dr. Follen received a very interesting visit from M. D'Arusmont, the husband of Miss Frances Wright. This gentleman was his fellow-passenger in the Cadmus, under the name of Phiquepal. Dr. Follen was at that time much impressed with his philanthropy, and with his admirable views upon the subject of education, and his signal success in the actual management of some boys under his care. When M. D'Arusmont came to New York, hearing that Dr. Follen was in the city, he passed a long evening with him, striving to engage his interest and aid in a plan he had much at heart, for establishing a community upon the principle of an exact justice, where each one should have an equal opportunity for efficient action, such as was best suited to his nature, and should receive an adequate compensation for his labour; and where the surplus wealth should be employed for the mutual benefit of all; so that the best education and the highest civilisation should be secured for each and all. Such a project could not fail to interest such a mind as Dr. Follen's. But he thought such a state of things must be the result of a genuine philanthropy, of an enlarged Christian policy; and that if it depended upon arbitrary laws, or involved the infringement of the rights of any one, the evil would be greater than the good. He thought such a state of things would require the revival of that spirit which was in the disciples, when all that believed were together, and had all things in common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.' For such a state he ever prayed, and in its practicability he loved to believe. But one foundation of this faith was wanting in M. D'Arusmont. Religion was to have no part in his community; 'for,' said he, 'wherever religion has had any power, there have been persecution and cruelty.' Dr. Follen acknowledged this fact, but laboured to convince him that it was not true but false religion, and its ambitious, selfish ministers, and ignorant bigots, that had persecuted; but he could not succeed in his purpose. Here was the radical difference between the two philanthropists: D'Arusmont believed in the immortality of the race the other in that of each and every individual. One would tolerate everything that was honest, except religion, in his communitythe other would assign no limits but those of justice to his toleration. One urged that wherever religion had existed the rights of man had been set aside the other, that true religion is the law of natural rights, as well as the bond of perfectness. M. D'Arusmont tried to convince Dr. Follen that they did not disagree except in words; and that it was impossible he could believe in any Deity separate from nature, or in any other state of existence than the present for any individual. I was present at the conversation, and saw the flush that suffused Dr. Follen's face as he heard this; and I heard his fervent declaration of his faith in immortality. The benevolent old man left us in a depressed state of mind, very different from the eager enthusiasm with which he had commenced the conversation. He had with him a most beautiful little girl, of about eight years of age. There,' said Dr. Follen, as he left us, is that noble old man, spending his thoughts, his time, and his money for what he considers the highest good of his fellow men, with a youthful devotedness and enthusiasm of benevolence; carrying in his heart the evidences of his immortality, and yet tenacious of the belief that he, his beautiful child, and all that he loves best in the world, and all his generous and exalted purposes and hopes, are but a part of the dust he treads on. What a lesson does his magnanimous love for his fellow beings teach to the multitudes of cold, calculating men and women we see, who take the name of him who was the first and greatest of all philanthropists, and who call him an infidel, and are eager to condemn him.'-Life of Charles Follen, by E. L. Follen, p. 311. DEMOCRATIC AND SOCIAL PROGRAMME. [WE make the following extract of the preamble to a Democratic and Social Programme, by M. Jules Lechevalier; which, we are informed, served as the basis for discussion, at a Conference which-between the 6th March and 18th June, 1848-took the name of the Club of the Organisation of Labour. The Programme was offered to the Socialist democrats as the expression of the personal views of the author; and put forward merely as simple indications of opinion always subordinate to the spirit of conciliation and unity-which, said the author, is now the first condition of strength, and the development of our party.-TRANS] The revolution of 1848 is not only a political revolution; it is eminently a SOCIAL REVOLUTION. In the work of revolution and reconstitution of Republican France, the Socialist democrats ought, in preference, to attend to social questionsbecause they present the greatest difficulties-because the veritable political conditions of liberty, equality, and fraternity in the family, the commune, the city, and the state, are nearly known and appreciated by all; while the social conditions of liberty, cquality, and fraternity are neither known nor appreciated in the same degree. What is political liberty, if it be not a means of assuring to all citizens -to all fathers of families, the free development of their intelligence and moral life their well-being, and the free employment of their tools and instruments of labour? a vain word which conceals severe realities: despotism and superstition. What is political equality, if it lead not to the obliteration, in human society, of this division in two classes-this legal scission-the mother of all oppressions, vices, miseries? the rich and poor, capitalists and labourers, the independent and the resourceless, voluntary idlers who have no need to work for a good living, and idlers, in spite of themselves, who cannot secure a bad living, even in demanding to work hardlywhat is political equality in the midst of all these social and civil inequalities? An illusion. Fraternity, itself, is but a deception, if it maintain between brother republicans in the city and the state-between fellow religionists, who call themselves brothers before God, be it in the church, the chapel, or the synagogue-this state of permanent collision-this anarchical conflict of all interests and efforts-this fratricidal antagonism, falsely called the free competition of trades. As long as this veritable and unique notion of that which is right, as long as these essential principles of human society are not legally proclaimed and decreed, we may comprehend some philosophical schools who elaborate and endeavour to formulate them; some political or religious sects who, by isolating themselves from the world, make the pratice of them imperative; some private societies, be they public or secret, who labour to propagate them. But when Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity shall have reached their most complete expression, and have penetrated to the bases of social order become a part of, and identified with, the political constitution-the time of sects, schools, and private combinations will be passed. There ought to exist none but citizens, united under the same national flag, for the maintenance and accomplishment of the republican dogma. The republican dogma is thus summed up :- Universal suffrage and direct voting. Individual liberty-the liberty of thought, of speech, and the liberty of the press-liberty of labour--religious liberty-and liberty of association. Each liberty organised and guaranteed by positive institutions, placed within the reach of all by social law. One deliberative and legislative power-the National Assembly. One executive and administrative power-the President of the Republic and the Executive Council, assisted by a Council of State, partly chosen by the Executive, partly the National Assembly. This combination is propounded as a means of transition to true political liberty, which excludes the government of man by man, as true industrial liberty excludes the exploitation of man by man. One judicial power-the Jury; with a magistrature under special conditions of competence and capacity. Extension and application of this double principle of the jury and an elective magistracy for the regulation of all the differences in moral, intellectual, and industrial order. A grand Council of Consultation the permanent commission of national labour, composed of the elected representatives of all the branches of intellectual and industrial labour. Humanitarian Propaganda for the cmancipation of peoples and races, for the universal application of democratic and social principles, of which France ought to be the apostle and the soldier. The social democrats are not, then, sectaries under any denomination whatever. The social democrats are citizens of the French Republic, one by association, indivisible by solidarity, free by universal suffrage, equal by just division of the fruits of labour, and public burdens-fraternal by the devotion of all for each and each for all. ** In the original these verbs are in the past time-as if the events spoken of were accomplished. But it is unfortunately not true; and France is still without political liberty, equality, and fraternity.--TRANS. MR. DUFFY'S NATION'-NEW POLICY OF THE LIBERALS. ALL our friends will be glad to hear that Mr. Duffy is again enabled to resume his editorial labours. From the first number we take the following wise-and the late circumstances of the writer considered-brave, as well as frank, words. After having stated that the struggle for Ireland's independence is to be renewed, he says- For what object is it to be renewed, and by what means?' I answer If the struggle is to be renewed, for what object is it to be renewed, and by what ways and means? I answer without hesitation, that the struggle of '48 to win independence by arms cannot be taken up now. All bluster and bravado are more repulsive to me than a death-bell. They sound more falsely, more offensively, than even the glosses of simulated loyalty. It is true that no man can presume to fix limits to the endurance of a nation, or to bar its rights of resistance-and God forbid that I should try to do so-but to me, who am not ignorant of any part of what has been done or attempted since February, 1843, nothing is more certain than that Ireland is not prepared to walk in that path; and that it is a mischievous and misleading falsehood to pretend that she is. For nations have generally an alternative, and it is only by choosing neither course that they perish.' Mr. Duffy goes on to say 'Assuming these premises, what then? This then, we cannot win our rights at a blow, but we must win them in detail. This is my faith. We must win them in detail, beginning with the most urgent, and advancing from point to point towards the great goal. Ireland is a sick and disabled man, whom we must strengthen and invigorate with many preliminary successes before he is able to win his last and most precious right. Independence is no longer the first achievement, and sole springhead of all that will enrich and ennoble our country, but the end and result of many previous victories. There, and no other where, does it lie.' In another part of the article he says 'Our first practical effort ought to be to bring back Ireland to health and strength, by stopping the system of extermination-by giving security of tenure to the people by plucking down the sectarian ascendancy that separate the Irish people into two hostile camps-by purifying the popular representation, and occupying with wise men and for wise and generous purposes the institutions which the country still possesses; and for such a contest circumstances, I repeat, are singularly propitious.' REMARKABLE THEOREMS IN COMPOUND INTEREST. * In the work we lately reviewed, published by Mr. Scratchley, M.A., Actuary of the Western Life Office, we find the following curious pro * Reasoner No. 2, New Series. perties deduced by him respecting the doubling of money at compound interest, which we give for its use to our friends of Building Societies. When a sum of money increases to double its value by the accumulation of compound interest, the analytical investigations assume a peculiar form, from which the following theorems have been deduced as bearing on the system of many Building Societies: 1.-For all rates of interest not exceeding 10 per cent.: The number of years, in which a single sum will become double in amount by the accumulation of compound interest, may be found in round numbers by dividing 70 by the rate of interest per cent., and taking that whole number which is nearest to the quotient obtained. The accuracy of this theorem may be judged of by Table 7, but the property is valuable as furnishing a simple rule, and one easily remembered. Thus : If the rate of interest then the number 17 years. 31 70 20 14 10 7 which agree with the whole numbers given by the table. 2.-If a sum of money be borrowed for such a time, that if unpaid it would become doubled by the accumulation of compound interest, then the debtor can liquidate his debt with interest in that time, by an annuity equal to twice one year's interest on the sum borrowed: If the time be a certain number of years and days, the last payment of the debtor will be a fractional portion of the year's annuity, proportionate to the fractional number of days. Thus, if £60 be borrowed for 14 years (which is the time in which money will double at 5 per cent.) then the debt can be repaid (including principal and interest at 5 per cent.) by an annuity at the rate of £6 a year, or 10s. a month-since £3 is the interest on £60 at 5 per cent.this explains the principle of Building Societies established for fourteen years. The extension of the above theorems to the use of money increasing to several times its original value is even more remarkable. It is found that-If a sum of money be borrowed for such a time, that (if unpaid it would amount to f-fold its original value) then the annuity which would pay it off, principal and interest at that time, is equal to ƒ divided by f less one times one year's interest on the debt. The accuracy of the theorem requires that the intervals, at which the instalments of the annuity are paid, should be aliquot parts of the whole period over which it extends. When the interval is small, as in the case of monthly payments, the formula may be applied without reservation, and differs by an inappreciable quantity from the truth; and even for yearly payments the error is practically of no importance. |