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. In proportion, therefore, to the trucks of commodities for commodities, money is the less necessary; and in proportion as people sell, in order to realize, coin is the more necessary. When hoarding was in fashion, and when lending upon interest was little known, had alienation been as frequent as at present, the total of coin must have been much greater. At present no body hoards, where lending at interest is lawful, except in nations where credit is precarious. This was the case in England about 1695, and is perhaps the case at present in France[2]. Hoarding from this motive is more hurtful than from any other: because, at the same time that it deprives the public of a circulating value, by preventing the lending of the coin of the nation, it also prevents bullion from being lent by neighbouring states, and from being carried to the mint by those who have it at home. Whereas hoarding from avarice has none of these inconveniences; and when credit is good, there will always be found coin sufficient; because a demand for it will always procure it. [Sidenote: Just as we can estimate a man’s estate by the weight of his purse.] 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. Footnote 2: In 1760. ------------------------------------------------------------------------