We would say that if this implement is in paper, or represented by accountancy unities, its excess would do no harm, nor have any effect on the value of things, when in the contrary case as we have just seen, this value would fall. But if it is in gold or silver and instead of being stored up in the iron safes of the banks it circulates amongst those who transact business, these last will seek to get rid of it, not because as in the preceding case it is a mere implement of transaction, but as a valuable metal, and in consequence of withdrawal of this kind the value of things will be raised. When we say that the value of things in general would rise in a case of monetary dilatation occurring in the way we have put it, and that it would fall in the case of monetary contraction pure and simple, it is because we are allowing that the supposed want or excess of money would make itself generally felt amongst those engaged in transacting business. If it only affected a special class of such persons, if gold or silver were only wanting or only circulated amongst them, it is needless to say that the rise or fall in prices would only affect the commodities in which their special property exactly consisted. We believe it right to attempt to give as logically deduced from the preceding formulas this note of precision in a rather complex question, which, as we think, has not always been rightly looked at, and that, in consequence of the fact that in money, a marketable article of variable value, is associated with a unity which ought to be invariable.