THE DECLINE OF THE ROMAN REPUBLIC. BY GEORGE LONG. VOL. III. LONDON BELL & DALDY, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN. CAMBRIDGE: DEIGHTON, BELL, & CO. 1869. [The Right of Translation is reserved.] PREFACE. SINCE the remarks on the Roman method of trying questions of bribery at elections were written (p. 205), a new way of settling these matters has been established in this country. If the new way is not perfect, it is certainly better than the old fashion, and it seems to be generally approved. Our present way of trying bribery questions by a single judge could never have been established at Rome; and perhaps there is no other country in which such an experiment would have succeeded. We have fortunately judges who are placed beyond the influence of those who hold political power, and are also elevated above the necessity of seeking popular favour. Some persons, who look far into the future, see reasons for fearing that our prospects are not so hopeful as others think that they are, and all of us wish them to be. The best test of the social condition of a country is the possibility or impossibility of correcting political and social evils without violent revolution. Now it seems to us, who look back on the past, very difficult to conceive that any practicable reforms could have cured the political evils of the Roman State in the time of Cicero and Caesar; for the mischief lay among the rich and noble even more than among the poor. The poor had the power in name by virtue of the annual elections; 284278 but the rich and noble had it in reality. There are indications that there were a few honest men even in those days (p. 206); but they were few in the Senate, and very few among the money-making class. We are more fortunate than the Romans. We have many good men in all classes and conditions of life, and enough at present to keep in check the bad part of the community, which is however a very formidable body, and a vigorous hand is now required to bridle the fraud, the corruption and the violence of which we have daily evidence. But it is a good sign of stability and order when a single judge can go down to a great town to inquire into the behaviour of candidates for the House of Commons, their election agents, and the electors, hear evidence, give his judgment unbiassed by fear or any unworthy motive, and retire amidst the applause even of those to whom his judgment is adverse. In another place (p. 470) there are some remarks on the tolls or duties which obstructed commerce in Italy and Gallia. We are not yet free from these impositions, though we profess the doctrines of free trade. In Brighton for instance a toll of two shillings and six pence a ton is levied on all coals good and bad which enter within the municipal limits of the town, while other parts of the town not included within these limits are exempt from the duty. Taxes are also levied generally on vehicles drawn by horses for the carriage of persons, and even on the carriage of passengers on railroads. Since the remarks made in p. 470 were written the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1869) has removed or diminished some of these impositions; but the evil is not yet cured. I have something to say which is suggested by experience on the way of making a book such as this. The writer, if he does his duty, looks at all the authorities, interprets them as well as he can, and combines all the evidence into the form of a narrative of events. His reflections, if he makes any, should clearly appear to be what they are; and they should not be mixed with the facts which he undertakes to present to the reader. But there are two difficulties which the writer will encounter. He may sometimes misunderstand or misrepresent his authorities, even when there is no ambiguity in them. This is one of the dangers to which all writers are exposed. The other difficulty arises from the obscurity or ambiguity of the antient authorities, and it occurs much more frequently than a person would suppose who has not had experience of it. The best way of meeting these difficulties is to submit the manuscript or the proof sheets to some careful reader and competent judge. It is only lately that I have found a friend willing and able to undertake this labour, the Rev. J. H. Backhouse, of Felstead Grammar School in Essex. His revision began with page 177 of this volume. When I speak of revision, it might be understood to mean nothing more than reading the proofs carefully. But Mr. Backhouse's revision has been something very different. He has turned to all the authorities which I have cited and even to those which I have not cited: he has examined them carefully, and wherever he found any error or any thing on which he disagreed with me, he sent me his remarks. Such a revision from a careful reader and an exact critic has been very useful. Mr. Backhouse and I have not always agreed about the interpretation of the antient authorities; and in the cases where I have retained my own opinion, the fault is mine, if I have made any mistake. In this volume I have of course used very largely the evidence of Cicero's orations and his letters. I have long known, and I now know it still better, that Cicero's orations are very doubtful evidence for historical facts. Many, perhaps most of these speeches, or even all of them, were published after the delivery, and with alterations and embellishments. It is possible, and indeed very probable, that some of these speeches bear very little resemblance to the speeches which were delivered. Nor can we value them more highly as |