B. But you will not go so far as to dispute that cash is the measure of values?

F. Yes, certainly, I do go as far as that, for that is precisely where the illusion lies.  It has become customary to refer the value of everything to that of cash.  It is said, this is worth five, ten, or twenty francs, as we say this weighs five, ten, or twenty grains; this measures five, ten, or twenty yards; this ground contains five, ten, or twenty acres; and hence it has been concluded, that cash is the measure of values.

B. Well, it appears as if it was so.

F. Yes, it appears so, and it is this I complain of, and not of the reality.  A measure of length, size, surface, is a quantity agreed upon, and unchangeable.  It is not so with the value of gold and silver.  This varies as much as that of corn, wine, cloth, or labour, and from the same causes, for it has the same source and obeys the same laws.  Gold is brought within our reach, just like iron, by the labour of miners, the advances of capitalists, and the combination of merchants and seamen.  It costs more or less, according to the expense of its production, according to whether there is much or little in the market, and whether it is much or little in request; in a word, it undergoes the fluctuations of all other human productions.  But one circumstance is singular, and gives rise to many mistakes.  When the value of cash varies, the variation is attributed by language to the other productions for which it is exchanged.  Thus, let us suppose that all the circumstances relative to gold remain the same, and that the corn harvest has failed.  The price of corn will rise.  It will be said, “The quarter of corn, which was worth twenty francs, is now worth thirty;” and this will be correct, for it is the value of the corn which has varied, and language agrees with the fact.  But let us reverse the supposition:  let us suppose that all the circumstances relative to corn remain the same, and that half of all the gold in existence is swallowed up; this time it is the price of gold which will rise.  It would seem that we ought to say,—­“This Napoleon, which was worth twenty francs, is now worth forty.”  Now, do you know how this is expressed?  Just as if it was the other objects of comparison which had fallen in price, it is said,—­“Corn, which was worth twenty francs, is now only worth ten.”

B. It all comes to the same thing in the end.

F. No doubt; but only think what disturbances, what cheatings are produced in exchanges, when the value of the medium varies, without our becoming aware of it by a change in the name.  Old pieces are issued, or notes bearing the name of twenty francs, and which will bear that name through every subsequent depreciation.  The value will be reduced a quarter, a half, but they will still be called pieces or notes of twenty francs.  Clever persons