Their moral code was suitable to their situation.  To rob, plunder, and destroy an enemy was a merit; to betray a trust, or to defraud a fellow citizen, was a crime of the greatest magnitude.  With the Romans, oaths were inviolable; and attachment to the public was the greatest virtue.

As they had neither arts nor commerce, and but very little territory, plunder was their means of subsistence; it was to them a regular source of wealth, and it was distributed with perfect impartiality; they were in fact an association; the wealth of the public, and of the individual, were, to a certain degree, the same; they were as an incorporated company, in which private interest conspired with the love of their country to forward the general interest.

Plundering and pillage, as well as the modes of dividing the spoil, were reduced to system and method; and the religious observation of oaths was conducive to the success of both.  Every soldier was sworn to be faithful to his country, both in fighting its battles, and in giving a rigid account of whatever might be the fruits of the contest. [end of page #28]

The moveables and lands taken from an enemy were sold for the benefit of the public; the former went wholly for that purpose, and the latter were divided into two equal portions; one of which, like the moveables, went into the general stock, the other was distributed to the poorer citizens, at the price of a small acknowledgement.

The consequence of this system was, a perpetual state of warfare; in which it was clear that the armies must obtain a superiority over neighbours, who but occasionally employed themselves in acts of hostility.

From such a plan of operations it naturally followed that they must either have been subdued altogether, or come off in general with some advantage, otherwise it would have been impossible to proceed.  Of this they seem to have been fully sensible; for, with them, it was a maxim never to conclude peace unless they were victorious, and never to treat with an enemy on their own territory.

Acting in this manner, and engaging in wars with different nations, unconnected with each other by treaties of alliance; without any common interest, or even any knowledge of each others =sic= affairs; ignorant, in general, even of what was going on, the Romans had, in most cases, a great advantage over those with whom they had to contend.

There were in Italy some very warlike people, and those were nearest to Rome itself.  The contest with those was long obstinate, and repeatedly renewed; but still the system of conquest was followed; and at last prevailed.

The consular government was favourable, also, for perpetual warfare.  Those temporary chief magistrates did not enjoy their dignity long enough to become torpid or careless, but were interested in distinguishing themselves by the activity of their conduct while in office; whereas, in hereditary power, or elective monarchy, the personal feelings of the chief, which must have an influence upon the conduct of a nation, must sometimes, happily for mankind, lead him to seek peace and quietness. {27}