which both wayes is to bee taken in nature of commutation.
Now if wee doe not giue more quantitie of gold and siluer for commodities than in times past; how can we receiue lesse commodi∣ties for the gold and siluer, and thereby receiue a losse, as in the se∣cond Paradox is alleaged?
Againe, if we doe receiue lesse quantitie of commodities for gold and siluer than in times past, according to the second Paradox, where∣by we sustaine a losse; how can the first Paradox bee true, That no∣thing is growne deere, for that wee giue no more quantitie of gold and siluer than in times past, commodities and moneys lying by this comparison in an equall ballance?
But let vs admit, that Monsieur Malestroit had an intention, which hee might haue expressed in few words, if hee had the true ground, and vnderstood the matter hee went about, by proouing onely that when moneys doe alter in weight, or in finenesse, or in valua∣tion, or in all three, the price of things doth alter onely by deno∣mination, if the valuation bee made accordingly: yet Monsieur Bodine had not made a good interpretation of the said Paradoxes, and mistooke the true ground of the matter in question touching the prices of commodities, which hee compared within themselues in the Realme of France, whereas the comparison ought to bee of the inhauncing of the price of the commodities of one countrey, with the price of the commodities of other countreys, and thereby find out, whether things are growne deere with vs or with them in effect. So that they both mistaking their grounds, we haue shewed in the said Treatise, That they (hauing lost Ariadne her line, wherewith they entred into the laborinth of moneys and their properties before declared) are like vnto a man who hauing lost his way amongst the woods, the further hee goeth, the more hee erreth from the right way.
To intreate therefore of commodities and money, in the course of trafficke betweene Kingdomes and Common-weales is not suffi∣cient: but the exchange of moneys, being the publike measure be∣tweene them must bee regarded, as the principall and ouerruling part thereof.
For if a man should frame a silogisme in manner following, he shall find the same full of fallacies and misprision, nay a verie Dilemma.
Nothing causeth Merchants to export more money out of the Realme than they bring in, but onely the bringing in of more com∣modities into the Realme than they carried out;
The vnderualuation of our moneys, causeth no more commodities to be brought into the Realme than is carried out;
Ergo, The vnderualuation of our moneys, causeth not more money to be carried out of the Realme than is brought in, as is declared in our last Treatise to hinder the inhauncing of our moneys, which by the Treatise of free Trade (lately published) was insisted vpon.
We do also find, that in the yeare 1577, Monsieur Garrault one of