If it shall be found, that English draughts on Paris, or French remittances to England, shall at any time occasion bullion to rise in the market of Paris above the mint price, will it not be allowed that such a circumstance demonstrates that the balance of trade is then in favour of England? If at that same time it shall be found, that exchange (when reckoned upon the gold as Cantillon has done) is against England, will it not be a demonstration of the truth of what I have here suggested as a question worthy of examination? [Sidenote: When bullion is exported to England, exchange is against France.] For if the balance of trade be against France, so as to make her buy bullion to send to England, this is a proof that she owes England a balance; and if at the same time the English are paying above the intrinsic value of the metals (in their respective coins) in what they owe to France, that additional value cannot be paid by England as the price of exchange, or to pay for the transportation of their bullion, but to pay the French creditors the additional value of their coin above the price of bullion. [Sidenote: Course of exchange no rule of judging of the balance of trade, but only of the value of coin.] May we not also conclude, that in a kingdom such as England, where coinage is free, the course of exchange is no certain rule for judging of the balance of trade with France; but only of the value of French coin above French bullion. All authors who have written upon exchange, represent the advanced price given upon bills above the intrinsic value of the coins, to be the price of carriage and insurance, &c. in which case exchange, no doubt, _may_ mark the balance of trade; but if an advanced price must be given in order to put bullion into coin, or in other words, if the metals in the coin are worth 8 _per cent._ more than any bullion of the same fineness, is it not evident that a nation may be drawing a great balance of bullion from another, although she be, at the same time, paying 8 _per cent._ above the rate of bullion in the sums she repays to the nation which is her debtor upon the whole; that is to say, although she be paying above the real par of exchange, _as it is commonly calculated_. If it be here objected that this cannot be the case, because when the balance of trade is against the nation which imposes coinage, their coin falls to the price of bullion: I answer, that a balance may be against such a nation, without producing so great a fall in the coin. Coin is reduced to the par of bullion only when the balance is at the height against a nation, and when it has remained so for a long time. Who would give coin at a discount of 8 _per cent._ if there was a prospect that in a few days, weeks, or even months, it was to rise to its former value?