Adam Smith knew nothing of all this. He saw that capital was always
best managed by its owner, and therefore had no faith in a universal
system of agencies. He saw that the little proprietor was by far the
greatest improver, and he had no belief in the advantage of great
farmers surrounded by day-labourers. He believed in the advantage of
making twelve exchanges in a year in place of one, and he saw clearly
that the nearer the consumer could come to the producer the larger and
more profitable would be commerce. He therefore taught that the
workman should go to the place where, food being abundant, moderate
labour would command much food. His successors teach that the food
should come to the place where, men being abundant and food scarce,
much labour will command little food, and that when population has
thus been rendered superabundant, the surplus should go abroad to
raise more food for the supply of those they left behind. The one
teaches the concentration of man, and the _local_ division of labour.
The other, the dispersion of man, and the _territorial_ division of
labour. They differ thus in every thing, except that they both use the
_word_ free trade--but with reference to totally distinct ideas. With
the one, COMMERCE has that enlarged signification which embraces every
description of intercourse resulting from the exercise of "man's
natural inclination" for association, while with the other TRADE has
reference to no idea, beyond that of the mere pedler who buys in the
cheapest market and sells in the dearest one. The system of the one is
perfectly harmonious, and tends toward peace among men. The other is a
mass of discords, tending toward war among the men and the nations of
the earth.

As ordinarily used, the word Commerce has scarcely any signification
except that of trade with distant men, and yet that is the least