Pinnock's improved edition of Dr. Goldsmith's History of Rome Part 4

2. How did Romulus subdivide the Roman tribes?

3. By what regulations were the gentes governed?

4. Who were the chiefs of the gentes?

5. What was the condition of the clients?

6. By whom were alterations made in the number and const.i.tution of the senate?

7. What a.s.sembly was peculiar to the patricians?

8. What were the powers of the Roman kings?

9. What great change was made in the Roman const.i.tution by Servius Tullius?

10. For what purpose was the census inst.i.tuted?

11. How were votes taken in the comitia centuriata?

12. Were the designs of Servius frustrated?

13. What was the Roman law respecting debtors?

14. When did the Roman power decline?

15. What changes were made in the const.i.tution of the equestrian rank?

16. What change was made after the abolition of royalty?

17. How were the liberties of the people secured?

18. Why was the office of dictator appointed?

19. How did the plebeians obtain the protection of magistrates chosen from their own order?

20. What additional triumphs were obtained by the plebeians?

21. What was the consequence of the establishment of freedom?

22. For what purpose was the censorship inst.i.tuted?

23. What change took place in the const.i.tution of the senate?

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The same remark may be applied to the Scottish clans and the ancient Irish septs, which were very similar to the Roman _gentes_.

[2] When the plebeians endeavoured to procure the repeal of the laws which prohibited the intermarriage of the patricians and plebeians, the princ.i.p.al objection made by the former was, that these rights and obligations of the gentes (jura gentium) would be thrown into confusion.

[3] This was also the case with the Irish tanists, or chiefs of septs; the people elected a tanist, but their choice was confined to the members of the ruling family.

[4] See Historical Miscellany Part III. Chap. i.

[5] They were called "patres nunorum gentium," the senators of the inferior gentes.

[6] The "comitia curiata," a.s.sembled in the comi'tium, the general a.s.semblies of the people were held in the forum. The patrician curiae were called, emphatically, the council of the people; (concilium populi;) the third estate was called plebeian, (plebs.) This distinction between _populus_ and _plebs_ was disregarded after the plebeians had established their claim to equal rights. The English reader will easily understand the difference, if he considers that the patricians were precisely similar to the members of a close corporation, and the plebeians to the other inhabitants of a city. In London, for example, the common council may represent the senate, the livery answer for the populus, patricians, or comitia curiata, and the general body of other inhabitants will correspond with the plebs.

[7] There were certain sacrifices which the Romans believed could only be offered by a king; after the abolition of royalty, a priest, named the petty sacrificing king, (rex sacrificulus,) was elected to perform this duty.

[8] Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the _exclusive_ right of legislation; for it appears that the comitia centuriata were sometimes summoned to give their sanction to laws which had been previously enacted by the curiae.

[9] See Chap. XII.

[10] The Romans were previously acquainted with that great principle of justice, the right of trial by a person's peers. In the earliest ages the patricians had a right of appeal to the curiae; the Valerian laws extended the same right to the plebeians.

[11] The senators were called conscript fathers, (patres conscripti,) either from their being enrolled on the censor's list, or more probably from the addition made to their numbers after the expulsion of the kings, in order to supply the places of those who had been murdered by Tarquin. The new senators were at first called conscript, and in the process of time the name was extended to the entire body.

CHAPTER V.

THE ROMAN TENURE OF LAND--COLONIAL GOVERNMENT.

Each rules his race, his neighbour not his care, Heedless of others, to his own severe.--_Homer_.

[As this chapter is princ.i.p.ally designed for advanced students, it has not been thought necessary to add questions for examination.]

The contests respecting agrarian laws occupy so large a s.p.a.ce in Roman history, and are so liable to be misunderstood, that it is necessary to explain their origin at some length. According to an almost universal custom, the right of conquest was supposed to involve the property of the land. Thus the Normans who a.s.sisted William I. were supposed to have obtained a right to the possessions of the Saxons; and in a later age, the Irish princes, whose estates were not confirmed by a direct grant from the English crown, were exposed to forfeiture when legally summoned to prove their t.i.tles. The extensive acquisitions made by the Romans, were either formed into extensive national domains, or divided into small lots among the poorer cla.s.ses.

The usufruct of the domains was monopolized by the patricians who rented them from the state; the smaller lots were a.s.signed to the plebeians, subject to a tax called tribute, but not to rent. An agrarian law was a proposal to make an a.s.signment of portions of the public lands to the people, and to limit the quant.i.ty of national land that could be farmed by any particular patrician.[1] Such a law may have been frequently impolitic, because it may have disturbed ancient possessions, but it could never have been unjust; for the property of the land was absolutely fixed in the state. The lands held by the patricians, being divided into extensive tracts, were princ.i.p.ally used for pasturage; the small lots a.s.signed to the plebeians were, of necessity, devoted to agriculture. Hence arose the first great cause of hostility between the two orders; the patricians were naturally eager to extend their possessions in the public domains, which enabled them to provide for their numerous clients, and in remote districts they frequently wrested the estates from the free proprietors in their neighbourhood; the plebeians, on the other hand, deemed that they had the best right to the land purchased by their blood, and saw with just indignation, the fruits of victory monopolized by a single order in the state. The tribute paid by the plebeians increased this hardship, for it was a land-tax levied on estates, and consequently fell most heavily on the smaller proprietors; indeed, in many cases, the possessors of the national domains paid nothing.

From all this it is evident that an agrarian law only removed tenants who held from the state at will, and did not in any case interfere with the sacred right of property; but it is also plain that such a change must have been frequently inconvenient to the individual in possession. It also appears, that had not agrarian laws been introduced, the great body of the plebeians would have become the clients of the patricians, and the form of government would have been a complete oligarchy.

The chief means to which the Romans, even from the earliest ages, had recourse for securing their conquests, and at the same time relieving the poorer cla.s.ses of citizens, was the establishment of colonies in the conquered states. The new citizens formed a kind of garrison, and were held together by a const.i.tution formed on the model of the parent state. From what has been said above, it is evident that a law for sending out a colony was virtually an agrarian law, since lands were invariably a.s.signed to those who were thus induced to abandon their homes.

The relations between Rome and the subject cities in Italy were very various. Some, called _municipia_, were placed in full possession of the rights of Roman citizens, but could not in all cases vote in the comitia. The privileges of the colonies were more restricted, for they were absolutely excluded from the Roman comitia and magistracies. The federative[2] states enjoyed their own const.i.tutions, but were bound to supply the Romans with tribute and auxiliary forces. Finally, the subject states were deprived of their internal const.i.tutions, and were governed by annual prefects chosen in Rome.

Before discussing the subject of the Roman const.i.tution, we must observe that it was, like our own, gradually formed by practice; there was no single written code like those of Athens and Sparta, but changes were made whenever they were required by circ.u.mstances; before the plebeians obtained an equality of civil rights, the state neither commanded respect abroad, nor enjoyed tranquillity at home. The patricians sacrificed their own real advantages, as well as the interests of their country, to maintain an ascendancy as injurious to themselves, as it was unjust to the other citizens. But no sooner had the agrarian laws established a more equitable distribution of property, and other popular laws opened the magistracy to merit without distinction of rank, than the city rose to empire with unexampled rapidity.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The Licinian law provided that no one should rent at a time more than 500 acres of public land.

[2] The league by which the Latin states were bound (jus Latii) was more favourable than that granted to the other Italians (jus Italic.u.m.)