The first is, where the demand for the use of either metal in trade remaining the same, a large increase in the supply of one metal, A, takes place, the supply of the other, B, remaining unchanged. In this case, without the bimetallic system, the value of A would tend to fall rapidly through a considerable space, while the value of B would stand fast. With the bimetallic system, the joint supply of the two metals would be applicable to meet the joint demand for the two. Now, as the joint supply has been increased without any change in the joint demand, there must be a fall in value; but the fall will be in the two indistinguishably, except for a slight degree of delay and friction in exchange. Both will fall, but the depth of the fall will be diminished as the surface over which it is to take place has been enlarged. The second is where, the demands of trade for both metals remaining the same, a diminution occurs in the supply of A, while the supply of B remains unchanged. Here, by the operation of the same principle, a rise in the value of money will take place, since the joint supply has been reduced without any corresponding change in the joint demand. The rise will be a rise of the two metals indistinguishably, the height of the rise being diminished as the surface over which it is to take place has been enlarged. The third case is where, demand remaining the same, the supply of both metals undergoes a change in the same direction, either of increase or of diminution, at the same time. In this event, the fall or rise will again be of the two indistinguishably, the point reached being a mean between the points which would have been reached by the two severally. The fourth case is where, demand remaining the same, the supply of the two metals undergoes a change at the same time, but in opposite directions, A through diminution, B through increase. In this case, the opposite tendencies will counteract each other. If of equal force, the value of money will be stable; if of unequal force, there will be movement in the direction of the stronger to the extent of the difference between the two. Instead of one falling and the other rising in value, the change will be wrought in the two indistinguishably. It will appear from the foregoing statements that, under the bimetallic system, the value of money will be liable to vary more frequently than under the monometallic system. That is, a change in respect to either constituent of the money mass will produce a change of value; and it is apparent that the chances of change are greater with two constituents than with one. On the other hand, the variations under the bimetallic system are likely to be less extensive. Indeed, it is a matter of practical certainty that they will be far less extensive than they would be under the monometallic system, whichever metal were adopted as the standard of deferred payments.