It is true that this philosopher admits a kind of property; but as he leaves us to imagine what property would become in presence of equality, we may boldly class him with the opponents of the right of increase.
I must here declare freely--in order that I may not be suspected of secret connivance, which is foreign to my nature--that M.Leroux has my full sympathy.

Not that I am a believer in his quasi-Pythagorean philosophy (upon this subject I should have more than one observation to submit to him, provided a veteran covered with stripes would not despise the remarks of a conscript); not that I feel bound to this author by any special consideration for his opposition to property.

In my opinion, M.
Leroux could, and even ought to, state his position more explicitly and logically.

But I like, I admire, in M.Leroux, the antagonist of our philosophical demigods, the demolisher of usurped reputations, the pitiless critic of every thing that is respected because of its antiquity.

Such is the reason for my high esteem of M.Leroux; such would be the principle of the only literary association which, in this century of coteries, I should care to form.