If the sinking of the price is a necessary consequence of the imposition of coinage, it will perhaps manifest itself by the following symptoms: 1mo, The profit of the English merchants upon goods exported will be the same as before. 2do, The price of the goods exported will be the same as before in foreign markets. And 3tio, Exchange will mark as many per cent. favourable for England as goods will have fallen in their price at home.

If the fall of the prices be forced, by a combination among the merchants, their profits will be greater; and very probably no variation will appear upon the exchange in favour of England.

Let, therefore, the course of exchange be attended to, and by this the minister will be able to judge, when silver and gold are to be brought to the mint. The moment exchange, and the price of bullion in the London market, shall shew that coin is near the full price of coinage above the price of bullion, then the time approaches when the mint is to be set a-going.

It is to no purpose to pretend to prognosticate the effect of this change in the policy of the English mint. Effects it will certainly produce, which every one will interpret according as their interest may dictate to them. But the principles of trade are now too well known. English ministers are too well instructed in the theory of it, and too sharp-sighted to be deceived by appearances. A trial of a few years will render the consequences of this innovation perfectly clear; and before the great reform takes place, the principles will be so well confirmed, as not to leave a shadow of doubt concerning the course which is best to be followed.

The silver coined in the interval, at 65 shillings in the pound troy, may then be rated at its just value, in proportion to the new pound sterling, and may form a denomination by itself, easily to be distinguished by the stamp. If it should happen to fall into inconvenient fractions, let it be called in, and received at the mint above the rate of other bullion: the loss will not be considerable; and it cannot be expected that any plan can be proposed which is liable to none.

Another method is, to coin, during the interval of the three years, shillings of the weight adapted to the new regulation, and to give them a value proportioned to the present currency, in the mean time.

In whatever way the experiment be made, by the imposition of the price of coinage, a great expence will be saved to the state, the expence of the mint. The national coin will be kept at home, and when exported, will be preserved from the melting pot. This is the case with the French coin. Why are louis d’ors worth as much as guineas in many foreign countries? It is evident that they are not intrinsically worth so much by 4½ per cent. but they are virtually so in the eyes of money-jobbers; because, being exported from France while coin is fallen low by a wrong balance of their trade, they still retain an advanced value, for this reason, that when sent back, upon a revolution in trade, they are better than bullion, by all the advanced price of the French coin, at a time when their balance becomes favourable; and for this reason they are sought for, and are paid for in proportion: whereas any bullion, or any coin whatsoever, is as good to send to England as her own proper specie; which occasions the guineas to be melted down without the smallest regret.

It would be a curious inquiry to examine the proportion of money coined in England and in France, and to compare the quantities coined with the quantities in existence. People commonly estimate the wealth of a nation by the quantity of its coined money. Some go farther, and imagine that the quantity of the coined money is the representation and even the measure of its wealth. I cannot be of this opinion, for reasons which I have given in another place; but I shall only observe here, that coin, like every other thing, is made in proportion to the occasions people have for it.

The more equality there is between industry and consumption in any nation, the less coin they have occasion for, in proportion to the alienations they make; the more a nation is given to penury and hoarding, their occasions for coin are proportionally greater.

An example will make this plain. Suppose two markets in a country, where paper does not circulate; that 1000 people come to the one to sell, in order to buy; that 500 resort to the other, with an intention only to sell, and 500 others only to buy. In the last example, it is evident, that there must be brought to market, in specie, the price of all the goods offered to sale, or else a part must remain unsold: but in the first case, a much smaller proportion will suffice; because no sooner has any one sold the goods he has, than he buys from another what he has occasion for; and so the same money circulates from hand to hand, so much, that if we suppose every one of the thousand persons to sell for the precise value of what he buys, every man will carry home the same sum of money he had in his pocket on coming to market. Those who begin by selling, will carry home their own coin; those who begin with buying, will replace what they had with the coin of other people.

Why is there so little coin in England, in proportion to what there is in France? Does any man imagine that this is a mark of poverty? By no means. Let the state proscribe the currency of paper money, the coin will quickly return; because then it will be demanded. But at present the paper supplies its place, and so it goes abroad in order to gain more; whereas in France it remains at home, and produces nothing. The wealth of a nation can no more be estimated by the quantity of its coin, than the wealth of private people by the weight of their purse. Were a person, from that circumstance, to calculate the wealth of the British courtiers, assembled at the Groom Porter’s, he would find himself grossly deceived in his conclusions.

The use, therefore, of a miscellaneous chapter, after the deduction of the general principles is over, is to serve as an exercise upon them. This is done by introducing questions which may tend to illustrate or explain the matters already treated of, and which have not been introduced in the body of the work, for fear of rendering combinations too complicated, and of drawing the attention from the main object of inquiry. When a particular appearance, also, seems to contradict a known principle, that appearance may here be analized, and the particularity of the case pointed out, and ranged under the principle which influences it. Numbers of objections also occur to readers of such inquiries, and which even naturally occur to the author himself, although he be obliged to take no notice of them at the time, for fear of interrupting his subject; these may properly find a place in a subsidiary chapter. It is, however, to no purpose to attempt to exhaust any political subject. The combinations of circumstances are infinite; and therefore people must content themselves with deducing all the principles by which they may be resolved, leaving the rest to the reader’s ingenuity.

Quest. I. The first question I shall propose for illustrating this subject shall be, Whence it comes to pass that the doctrine of money is so extremely difficult and involved?

Answ. This I ascribe chiefly to the introduction of a money-jargon, employed by people who have had the management of mints, or who have been practical merchants, without knowing any thing of the theory of their business.

As long as money went by weight, and was considered as gold and silver bullion, the whole doctrine of it remained clear and intelligible: but the introduction of a numerary value, or denominations of money of accompt, sometimes attached to one quantity of the metals, sometimes to another; and the interest of Princes, which made them endeavour to persuade their subjects that the stamp of the coin was sufficient to give a value to it; has both introduced an unintelligible language, and has really involved the subject with so many extraneous circumstances, that when we consider every thing, the perplexity is not much to be wondered at.

I shall now endeavour to reduce all these perplexities under some general heads.

1mo, The first is, confounding ideas quite different in themselves. The terms gold and silver, money of accompt, coin, bullion, and price, are often understood and made use of as synonimous, although no things can be more different.

The terms gold and silver should convey to us no other idea than that of pure physical substances.

That of money of accompt represents an invariable scale for measuring value.

Coin conveys the idea of the public authority ascertaining the exact proportion of fine and alloy in a mixed metal, and the realizing, in a determinate weight of it, the invariable scale of money, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly.

Bullion carries the idea of certain determinate mixtures of the metals, commonly ascertained by some public stamp or other, and drawing their value exactly from the proportion of the fine metals they contain, the workmanship being considered as of no value.

Price, again, when considered as consisting in coin, is a more complex idea still. In it are comprehended the value of the metals; the authority of the stamp for the currency; the actual value of the coin as a manufacture, above the value of it as a metal; the common and universal equivalent of all things alienable; and the mean value of the currency of which price is supposed to contain exact aliquot parts, when perhaps it does not.

The ideas, therefore, of gold and silver, of money, of coin, of bullion, and of price, are all different; they are commonly confounded, both in speaking and in writing: from this arises the first cause of perplexity.

2do, The second is owing to the common method of estimating the value, and the proportions between gold and silver; coin and bullion; money and merchandize. The terms usually employed to express such combinations are, rising and sinking, or the like: people employ these terms, without previously agreeing upon the thing which they are to consider as fixed. The value of one of the precious metals is constantly relative to that of the other; and yet, without attending to this, we sometimes consider the gold, and sometimes the silver, as the common measure; and while one is talking of gold as a common measure, the person he talks to is considering it perhaps as the thing measured. This inaccuracy, in supposing sometimes the one as fixed, and sometimes the other, involves us in great obscurities; especially when we speak upon such matters with those who have not distinct combinations of ideas: and if three or four people are engaged in a conversation upon money, every one using the same term in a different acceptation, the confusion which it causes is inextricable.

In like manner, when we speak of coin and bullion, that of the two ought to be considered as fixed which changes its proportion of value the least with respect to all commodities.

Were prices attached to grains of silver and gold, bullion ought in that case to be considered as fixed; but as they are more attached to the denominations of the coin, coin ought to be considered as fixed.

In the next place, in speaking of coin and commodities, we say, for example, that the imposition of coinage makes the prices of commodities sink. We do not, in this case, speak correctly; because if any thing ought to be considered as fixed, it is the relative proportion of value between the different sorts of commodities. In this case, therefore, I think it would be more proper to say, that coinage raises the value of coin, than that it sinks the value of commodities.

To prevent the ambiguity of such expressions from occasioning confusion, and not to depart too far from common language, I have frequently spoken of commodities as rising and sinking in their values with respect to coin; but I have at the same time observed the influence which that rising and sinking has upon the rising and sinking of the value of the pound sterling realized in it.

I have not, however, concluded with equal certainty that the rising and sinking in the value of bullion, with respect to coin, ought to imply any change upon the value of the money-unit; because I have not been able to determine whether prices ought to be considered as most attached to the denominations of the coin, or to the grains of the metals: except indeed in one case, to wit, when the quantity of the metals comes to be augmented or diminished in the coin. In that case, I have not hesitated to decide that, sooner or later, the influence of trade must operate a rise or a fall in the current value of the specie, which will be marked by an apparent rise or fall in the price of all commodities.

3tio, Our comparing the value of silver sometimes with the pure metal, sometimes with that compounded with alloy, involves us frequently in a language which is hardly to be understood.

Says one, a pound of silver, troy, is worth 67 shillings. He means a pound of fine silver. We in England, says another, coin our pound troy of silver into 62 shillings. He means the pound of standard silver, which contains 18 penny weights of copper. Says a third, our pound of silver, which we coin into 62 shillings, is not worth 57s. 6d. He understands the shillings of fine silver of the same weight with those of standard silver. Another affirms, that an ounce of standard silver, which, at the mint, and in the coin, is worth no more than 5s. 2d. is worth in the market 5s. 6d. He means, that one must pay at that rate for silver bullion, when they purchase it with over-rated gold. At last comes Mr. Cantillon, who, as a proof of the decline of the English commerce, affirms to us, in his Analysis of trade, p. 133. that both silver and gold bullion are dearer in the London market than in the coin: at the same time, he might have discovered the cause of it, from the lightness of the gold and silver currency at the time he wrote; since the phænomenon could proceed from nothing else: the new guineas must then have been sent abroad. Says a Frenchman, one of our crowns of 3 livres, which passes for 60 sols, is intrinsically worth no more than 56½ sols. He means, that the fine silver it contains is worth no more than 56½ sols, according to the mint price of the fine metals.

4to, Another cause of perplexity in the money-jargon, is the prodigious abuse of the terms which express the denominations of the coin, or the numerary unit.

French historians write familiarly of sums of money in livres and crowns, through all the stages of the monarchy. English writers (for the most part) do the same, in speaking of pounds sterling. Nothing however is more different than the ideas expressed by the same term.

Were any person, talking of lengths and distances, to use the word foot, sometimes to signify yard, sometimes perch; or to use the word mile, to signify sometimes league, sometimes inch, and sometimes fathom; who could comprehend one word of his discourse concerning the matter? Would we not even laugh at such a person, for pretending to inform us of any thing concerning lengths or distances.

If any change be made upon the value of the money-unit of a country, which is called a pound; in propriety of language, it can no more be called a pound, after the change, than it can be called a rhinoceros.

5to, Another reason for the obscurity of money-jargon, is the manner in which writers express themselves, when they speak of variations in the value of money. Upon this occasion, says one, the King raised the money 5 per cent. What does this mean? No man living can understand the expression; because it may signify, that he raised either the denomination of the coin, or the value of the unit. If he raised the coin, he debased the unit: if he sunk the coin, he raised the unit. A crown of 6 livres is a coin: a livre is the unit. If it is said, the 6 livre piece is raised; that is as much as to say, it is made to be more than 6 units; consequently, as the silver in the piece does not change its weight, it follows, that the unit, or money of accompt, is diminished. On the other hand, if it is said that the livre is raised, it implies that the crown, which contained 6 livres, is made to contain less than 6 units; therefore, the value of the unit is raised; that is, it is made to contain more silver than before.

Writers, therefore, to be distinct, ought never to mention these matters, without removing the ambiguity, in favour of readers of all denominations. As for example: The King raised his coin, and debased his money of accompt. For this reason the French expression is good, and easily understood; augmenter la valeur numeraire des especes, is liable to no obscurity.

There are also two terms used by French writers, which appear synonimous, and yet are directly opposite; AFFOIBLISSEMENT, et DIMINUTION de la monnoïe. Such terms are perplexing, and ought either to be avoided, or constantly explained. The first signifies the coining the specie of the same denomination lighter in the metals than before: the last signifies the lowering the denominations of the coin already made. The first therefore diminishes, the second increases the value of the unit, which is the livre.

Quest. II. What is the difference between the effects produced by raising the value of the coin by the imposition of coinage, and raising the denomination of it? This question is proposed as a further means of rendering the money-jargon intelligible.

Answ. The imposition of coinage, when it gives an advanced value to coin above the metals it contains, is very different from that advanced value which the coin appears to receive when the Sovereign arbitrarily raises the denomination of it; or as the French call it, when he augments its numerary value.

When the imposition of coinage gives an advanced value to the coin above the bullion it contains, that value becomes real, and extends itself to foreign nations; that is to say, the coin, so augmented as a manufacture, must be bought with more foreign coin than formerly. But when the denomination, or numerary value, is augmented, the same piece (though augmented in denomination) is bought by strangers with the same quantity of their coin as before. An example will make this plain.

Let us suppose the coin in France, in war time, reduced to the value of bullion, and that the value of a crown of three livres, by the course of exchange, should be then worth 29½ pence heavy silver sterling money; if the balance of the French trade should become favourable in general, and that coin should become 8 per cent. dearer than bullion in the Paris market, then the price of the crown of three livres will rise 8 per cent. upon the London exchange above 29½ pence heavy silver sterling money, although there be respectively no balance to be paid in bullion either by England or France. But let the King of France ordain, that the crown of three livres shall be raised in its denomination to six livres, and let the coin at that time be supposed to be at par with bullion in the Paris market, the crown of three livres will then be paid as formerly with 29½ pence. That is to say, the augmentation of the denomination will have no effect upon the value of the coin in other countries; whereas the augmentation affected by the operations of trade, in consequence of the imposition of coinage, is a real augmentation, since it extends to foreign nations.

Now it is certain and evident, that the augmentation of the numerary value has the undoubted effect of sinking the value of the numerary unit realized in the coin, and that upon such occasions we ought to say, that the King has diminished the value of the livre, and not that he has raised the value of the coin. But the abuse of language has made people consider the livre as the thing fixed, and therefore the coin is considered as the thing which rises and sinks. The consequence of this is, to introduce another abuse of language. People say, that the prices of commodities rise: I ask, With respect to what? Not with respect to the pieces of coin, but with respect to the denominations they carry: that is to say, with respect to livres; although the livre be considered as the thing fixed. There is, however, a reason why people express themselves in this improper manner, which proceeds from the perplexity and confusion of their ideas concerning money.

When the King of France arbitrarily changes the numerary value of his coin, commodities are found, by universal experience, to stick so closely to the denominations of it, that people are apt to think that it is the King’s will and pleasure, and not the metal of which the coin is made, which gives it a value. But commodities depart from these denominations by degrees, and fix themselves a-new at a determinate value of the fine metals, proportioned to what they bear in foreign nations. This is brought about by the operations of commerce; and consequently, the rise of prices not taking place till some time after the numerary value of the coin has been augmented, people accustom themselves to say, that the augmenting the denomination of the coin raises prices, and that diminishing the denomination sinks them. But did all prices strictly adhere to the grains of bullion contained in the coin, and not to the denominations of the numerary value, then language would change, and no body would speak about the rising and sinking of prices, but of the rising and sinking of livres, sols, and deniers.

I hope, from what has been said, that the difference between raising the value of the coin by imposing coinage, and the raising the nominal value of it by augmenting the denomination or numerary value of it, is perfectly understood. The first raises the value of the numerary unit, by giving a real additional value to the coin as a manufacture: the last raises, for a while, the value of the numerary unit; only because the price of commodities, being attached to the denominations of money of accompt, stick to them, until the operations of trade reduce them to their true principle.

Whenever, therefore, the terms rising and sinking are applied to value, the thing which is said to rise, is supposed to be the moveable; and the thing it is compared with, or with respect to which it is said to rise or sink, is supposed to be the term fixed. Every one, therefore, who reads books upon this subject, ought, upon all occasions where there is mention made of rising and sinking of the price of the gold, silver, bullion, coin, exchange, or commodities, constantly to cast his eye upon the thing which is supposed to be fixed, and retaining that in his mind, he will preserve his ideas distinct.

Quest. III. Let us suppose that the imposition of coinage, when properly laid on, will not raise the value of the pound sterling; and consequently that it will not affect the domestic interests of Great Britain: it may be asked, What influence that imposition will have upon the interest of her foreign creditors, since it must affect exchange?

Answ. The foreign creditors of the nation will thereby be gainers, provided their interest continues to be paid in denominations of pounds sterling, and not in a determinate number of grains of the fine metals, as was proposed to be done in the fourteenth chapter of the first part. The reason is plain: upon all occasions, when coin carries an advanced price above bullion, those who have funds in England will gain upon exchange. This gain will nowise, I think, be at the expence of the nation, but at the expence of those foreigners who have occasion for paper draughts upon London.

A creditor of England (in Holland I shall suppose) draws for a thousand pounds sterling, (the interest of his English funds) a Dutchman who owes a thousand pounds sterling in London, buys his bill; must he not pay the creditor of England, not only the intrinsic value of the bullion contained in the thousand pounds sterling, but also the difference between the thousand pounds sterling in coin, and the bullion it contains, according to the price of it in the London market? This difference then, received by the proprietor of the English funds, is clear gain to him, and is no loss to the nation; it is a loss to the Dutchman.

Farther, every Dutchman who pays his debts to people residing in England, must suffer the same loss; that is, he must pay the coinage, which at present the state makes him a present of.

From this I think it is plain, that while the balance of trade is favourable to England, or at par, all remittances made by foreigners, to pay their English debts, must pay the coinage.

The operation of this principle has not a little contributed to facilitate the establishment of the French credit.

When France borrows, especially in war time, foreigners can remit to Paris the money they lend nearly at par with bullion. Then they pay little or no coinage; and when peace is restored, the coin rising in its value, they gain annually several per cent. upon their draughts for their interest, to wit, all the advanced value of the coin, at no loss to France.

Quest. IV. Is the preserving the pound sterling at the mean value of a determinate weight of fine gold, and fine silver, a sure method of realizing the unit of money of accompt, so as to preserve it at all times invariable?

Answ. I apprehend it is not; although it seems to be the best that can be devised, upon supposition that the metals are to be made use of, as the most proper substance for realizing the scale.

I have said, in the beginning of this book, that the use of the scale was to measure the relative value of things alienable. Now the metals themselves being of the number of things alienable, and their proportion of value being nowise determined, but liable to augmentations and diminutions, as well as that of grain or any other commodity, no scale which is attached to them can measure any thing but their weight and fineness, and consequently can be no permanent measure for any thing else.

Did the value of commodities rise and fall with respect to grains of the fine metals, in the same proportion that they rise and fall with regard to one another, the scale would be exact: but if the grains of metal can acquire an increment, and a diminution of value, from circumstances entirely peculiar to themselves, such circumstances must render the scale they compose inaccurate in proportion.

Now we have seen how the imposition of coinage enhances the value of coin. The rising and sinking of the interest of money has the same effect. The vicissitudes to which credit is liable has a prodigious influence upon the value of the metals. The manners even of a people, which can be determined by no principle, operate the same effect. When people, for example, are given to hoarding, the metals come to be demanded with more eagerness, that is, the competition to acquire them is greater; consequently the value of them with respect to all commodities, is greater than when they are purely considered as money of accompt.

That scale, therefore, is the only just one, which measuring the value of the metals, like that of every thing else, renders every individual of a state equally rich, who is proprietor of the same number of denominations of specie; whether his wealth be in gold, silver, or any other property or commodity.

Now I agree that, at any given time, this is the case when the scale is properly attached to the metals; but it is not permanently so. A determinate property in land bears sometimes a greater, sometimes a less proportion to a determinate property in money. When the scale is attached to the metals, he who is proprietor, for instance, of a thousand denominations in coin, becomes richer or poorer, according to the fluctuation of the value of that commodity, the metals. Whereas when the scale is not attached to any species of commodity, nothing can change his proportion of wealth, except the augmentation or diminution of the value of the whole state. This idea is not so distinct as I could wish: let me illustrate it by an example.

Suppose then three partners (A), (B), (C). They form a common stock by equal shares; (A) contributes a thousand pounds sterling in current specie, (B) the same value in corn, (C) a like value in broad cloth. Let me suppose the measures of these commodities to be expressed by their proper denominations; the metals by grains, the corn by bushels, the broad cloth by yards. I suppose that at the end of the year 20 per cent. is gained upon each article of stock; that is, 20 per cent. increase upon the grains of metal, 20 per cent. on the bushels of grain, 20 per cent. on the yards of broad cloth. This supposition may be allowed. I ask, if it would not be a much more equal way of dividing this profit, to reduce the whole value of the grains, bushels, and yards, to the then actual value in pounds sterling, and so to divide; than if every man were to take his 20 per cent. out of that commodity he had furnished to the co-partnership? This method of reducing all to a common measure, is what I understand by an ideal scale of money of accompt.

The bank of Amsterdam pays none in either gold or silver coin, or bullion; consequently it cannot be said, that the florin banco is attached to the metals. What is it then which determines its value? I answer, That which it can bring; and what it can bring when turned into gold or silver, shews the proportion of the metals to every other commodity whatsoever at that time: such and such only is the nature of an invariable scale.

I confess I am not capable of analyzing all the complicated operations of trade in such a distinct manner as to demonstrate how the universal circulation of value, over the commercial world, should operate this effect; and how the burying, as it were, a quantity of gold and silver in a vault, should give a more invariable worth to a florin, whose value depends upon it, than if the metal itself was to circulate in coin.

Thus far, however, I think I understand, that the impossibility of profiting of the rising value of one of the metals (which is buried) ought to find a compensation at all times in avoiding the loss upon the other, which sinks in its value.

Farther, the burying the coin both in gold and silver is in a manner forming these two metals into one mass; this takes away the variation in the proportion of their value, which principally disturbs the uniformity of their operation as a scale. They cannot either be considered as commodities, because they are taken out of commerce entirely; yet the permanent value of them remains. Upon that the bank money is secured; but it is not realized in it. In banks which pay in coin the case is different; because the denominations in their paper are liable to all the fluctuations incident to the coin in which they pay. The bank money, therefore, of Amsterdam is pure money of accompt, and has nothing of merchandize in it from the metals in the vaults. The paper of all banks which pay, rises and falls in value, according to the currencies in which their notes are acquitted.

I leave the farther delucidation of this mysterious affair to people of better capacity, and of more extensive knowledge in those matters than I can pretend to.

To conclude, no material money, let it be contrived as it will, is exempted from vicissitudes in its value as a metal. This is proved by the universal risings and sinkings in the price of commodities, in consequence of circumstances peculiar to the coin. These risings and sinkings of prices, I say, are properly risings and sinkings of the value of the coin, and that again is a lengthening and contracting of the equal parts of the scale of value which is attached to it. Now there is no such thing as any vicissitudes in the prices of all commodities with respect to bank money, although nothing is more common than fluctuations in agio, with respect to current money; consequently, bank money has a property and a stability in it, which no material money is capable of acquiring, and for that reason it is preferable to it, and is properly considered as the thing fixed.

Quest. V. Will not the imposition of coinage in England prevent, upon many occasions, the carrying bullion to be coined at the mint, when it would be carried were the coinage free?

Answ. Without all doubt. When coinage is free, every man who imports bullion runs with it to the mint; there it is proved, cut, and stamped to his hand, and at no cost. Now to what purpose all this expence; why carry bullion to be coined, while the balance of trade is against a nation, since such bullion must be re-exported, together with a part of the national stock of the metals? Besides, the coining of it gratis, adds not the smallest value to the metals considered as a manufacture; consequently, upon the exportation, the whole price of coinage is entirely lost, and the national stock of coin is not thereby augmented; nor would it be augmented while trade is unfavourable, were five hundred mints kept constantly at work.

The imposition of coinage, therefore, has these good effects. First, it prevents bullion from being coined, except when such coined bullion can remain in the country and augment the national stock of coin. Secondly, as has been said, it gives an additional value to the coin, even in foreign countries, and thereby prevents it from being melted down abroad, in order to be re-coined in other mints, and thus augment the stock of coin in rival nations.

I believe no body ever imports louis d’ors to be coined in the English mint (notwithstanding of the benefit there is in importing gold into England from France, where the proportion of the metals is lower) yet nothing is more common than to carry guineas to every foreign mint, at the bare price of bullion. This is the reason why so little English coin, and so much French coin is found in circulation, in countries foreign to both these nations.

Louis d’ors, in consequence of the high imposition of coinage in the French mint, pass current, almost every where, for more than their intrinsic value, even when compared with the coin of the very nation where they circulate without the sanction of public authority; and when that authority regulates their currency, according to their intrinsic value, such regulation has the same effect as forbidding them altogether; because the moment a money-jobber lays his hand upon them at the statute value, he circulates them no more; but sends them either back to France, or to some country where they pass, by a conventional value, above their intrinsic worth. Thus louis d’ors, as well as all French coin, are effectually prevented from being melted down, and so soon as the balance of the French trade becomes favourable, they return home.

Quest. VI. Is not this return of louis d’ors to France, upon the balance of their trade becoming favourable, a loss to France; since, in that case, the balance of their trade is paid with a less weight of bullion than it would be paid with, were their coin worth no more than bullion; and secondly, because when the coin is exported to pay the balance, it is exported upon the footing of bullion, and when it returns it is paid back at an advanced price?