Did all the circulation of a country consist in coin, this _grand balance_, as we have called it, would be paid out of the coin, to the diminution of it. We have said that the acquisition of coin, or of the precious metals, adds to the intrinsic value of a country, as much as if a portion of territory were added to it. The truth of this proposition will now soon appear evident. We have also said, that the creation of symbolical money, adds no additional wealth to a country, but only provides a fund of circulation out of solid property; which enables the proprietors to consume and to pay proportionally for their consumption: and we have shewn how by this contrivance trade and industry are made to flourish. May we not conclude, from these principles, that as nations who have coin, pay their _grand balance_ out of their coin, to the diminution of that species of their property, so nations who have melted down their solid property into symbolical money, must pay their _grand balance_ out of the symbolical money; that is to say, out of the solid property of which it is the symbol? But this solid property cannot be sent abroad; and it is alleged that nothing but coin can be employed in paying this _grand balance_. To this I answer, that in such a case the credit of a bank may step in, without which a nation which runs short of coin, and which comes to owe a _grand balance_ must quickly be undone. We have said that while exchangers transact the balance, the whole load of providing coin lies upon banks. Now the whole solid property melted down, in their paper, is in their hands; because I consider the securities given them for their paper, to be the same as the property itself. Upon this property, there is a yearly interest paid to the bank: this interest, then, must be engaged by them to foreigners, in lieu of what is owing to them by the nation; and when once a fund is borrowed upon it abroad, the rest is easy to the bank. This shall be further explained as we go along.