private property; hence a nation can no longer conquer for
itself. Formerly, every individual of a conquering army,
got some share of the plunder; if his officer obtained a
palace, the soldier got a cottage; if his officer obtained an
house, the soldier got a cow. Then, one nation might be
said to conquer another, although the spoil was unequally
divided. But now the expression has become inaccurate,
because there is precisely that degree of protection allowed
by conquest to private property, necessary to the interest of
the modern aristocracy of paper and patronage. As therefore, under the modern law of nations, no nation can gain
any share of the booty, or conquer another nation, it is
strange that nations should still go to war, when they can
only conquer themselves; and that this propensity apparently increases.
In the solution of this enigma lies a proof, that paper stock is a separate aristocratical interest. Titled orders fomented war, as in the case of the Roman patricians, because they obtained the best share of the spoil. The nobility in England no longer foment war, because they are not aggrandized by it. And war has been still more ardently fomented in that country than ever, because their system of paper and patronage gain spoil by it in any event. Conquest furnishes it with funds on which to bottom more stock, and the war which made the conquest, with a pretext for quartering more patronage and paper on its own nation. Is not that a separate aristocratical interest which gains more by war and conquest, than orders of titled nobility formerly did? Those got most, this gets all.
The Roman aristocracy engaged the nation in war to aggrandize itself; but it entertained the people with shows, feasts and triumphs, and allowed them some small share of the booty. The English aristocracy of paper and patronage, engages the nation in war for the same purpose; and entertains the people with heavy taxes, bard labour, penal laws and Botany Bay.
