monetary tide rises and falls. Spring and neap, in
the oscillations of the ocean, are mere ripples
beside the earthquake waves by which the
Bourse has alternately been flooded and left
dry. If the mutual attractions of the sun,
moon, and earth, be the main cause of
disturbance in our seas, the repulsions of Rothschild,
Pereire, and Mirès, shake the domains of
Plutus to their centre.

The Rothschilds may be admitted to have
their dwelling in a safe and solid banking house.
It is sound and massive, of the Tuscan order of
architecture. The Rothschilds are too
unshakeable in their position to trouble
themselves about quarrelling with their neighbours.
Mirès, shall we say, has inhabited an establishment
in the clouds, a castle in the air, a château
in Spain, an exchange built on the top of a
beanstalk? The Pereires are middlemen, or a
mean by no means happy, between the two,
with a preference for the composite order (richly
furnished and well stocked with wines), putting
their trust in a foundation, partly aërial partly
terrestrial, with one foot on the sea and one on
shore. Surely, Blondin is safe on his rope, so long
as he neither trip nor lose his balance. Surely
Leotard is as secure as a bird in the air, if the.
trapeze he wants to grasp, be within his reach.
The Pereires have had a pretty quarrel with
Mirès, in which the latter received not a few
hard hits. But he has more lives than a cat,
and will neither hang, nor drown, nor make
away with himself, to suit their convenience.
Mirès, in fact, is just now swimming on the
surface, in spite of the stones that have been
tied round his neck. He may even one day
make, his landing good, to illustrate the wisdom
of never saying die.

During the palmy days of Crédit Mobilier,
also while Mirès was blazing in his zenith, there
flourished an individual who called himself
Eugène de Mirecourt—a nom de plume. He
really had no "de" belonging to him, but, was
plain Eugène Jacquot, born in 1812 at
Mirecourt. This person, once a schoolmaster,
obtained notoriety and a livelihood, by writing
small biographies, sold for half a franc, with
portrait, autograph, and anecdotes (whether
scandalous or not, it little mattered) of no matter
whom—artistical, political, theatrical, literary,
male or female, Jew or Gentile—provided their
lives were likely to interest public curiosity. It
is obvious that this form of contemporary history
is of all others open to abuses—that it affords
opportunities of gratifying envy, hatred, malice,
and all uncharitableness—not to mention extortion
of money by threats. But even without
the guilt of premeditated calumny, it is no
very delicate task to worm out the details of
private life, in order to sell them for half-franc
pieces. Nor are Jacquot's biographies at all
forbearing in their tone. It is possible that, had
they been so, they would not have sold so largely.

Jacquot, consequently, was often in hot
water; however, so long as the pot boiled, he
did not mind a few scalds. In an evil hour, some
demon tempted him to stick Mirès the Jew in
his collection. But Mirès was not a butterfly
to be pinned down quietly in an entomologist's
drawer; he proved a hornet who savagely
turned tail and stung the enterprising
naturalist's fingers. Whether Jacquot undertook
the capture of the Mirès specimen, through
the suggestion of his own unassisted folly,
or whether he was set on to do it by others,
is best known to Jacquot himself. Certain
is it that his description and criticism of the
Mirèsian system of finance did not at all please
the party criticised. Law proceedings were
initiated; the innocent Jacquot was given to
understand that he might not slash right and
left, with his pen; that libel is not yet legalised
in France, where truth cannot even be pleaded
in its justification. Mirès was triumphant. He
not only closed Jacquot's mouth, but shut up
his body in prison, and, what was more, put a
stop to his career as contemporary biographer.

On leaving prison, Eugène Jacquot, alias De
Mirecourt, dived, as Carlyle says, beyond
soundings. When he did at length turn up,
it was somewhere in Russia; but Mirès had
extinguished him for ever. When we last
heard of him, it was as humble assistant in
some extra-pious publication.

Still, if revenge be sweet, Jacquot's mouth
has since been filled with sugar-candy. Mirès
put Jacquot in prison; Mirès has been put in
prison. The offended Jew persecuted the
offending Christian; the offending Jew has
been persecuted and ruined—not by a Christian,
but by men of his own faith, the Brothers
Pereire. If Jacquot ever regarded Mirès with
bitter feelings, Jacquot may rest satisfied that
his deadly enemy had also had to pass through
his retributive ordeal.

And now the parts are reversed again. It is
the turn of Mirès to scourge his scourgers;
and scourge them he does with hearty good will.
The case, simply stated, is this. Some two
years ago, the Crédit Mobilier doubled its capital
by the emission of shares, which shares have
received no dividend. The new shareholders
consequently brought an action against the
administrators who issued the new shares, the result
of which is, that they (the issuers) have been
sentenced to pay back the money received. The
special instance tried and decided, settles the
validity of other claims. On the 4th of May
last, the Tribunal of Commerce of the Seine (that
is, of Paris), for reasons then given, but too
lengthy to reproduce here, "Declared null and
void the extraordinary general meetings of the
12th of February and the 1st of March, 1866;
consequently declared of no effect the resolutions
voted by those two meetings;
consequently pronounced the defendants to be
responsible for the emission of the hundred and
twenty thousand new shares; consequently
condemns E. Pereire, I. Pereire, Michel Chevalier,
Salvador, Renouard de Bussière, Galliera, Biesta,
Greininger, and Sellière, to pay to the plaintiff
five thousand one hundred and sixty-six francs
fifty centimes, with interest according to law, on
presentation of the ten shares in question;
condemns, moreover, the defendants to all the law
expenses;"