the shipbuilding yards. A tribune who betrays the popular cause, he urged, is no longer a tribune of the people. If a tribune had the right of casting even a consul into prison, how could it be disputed that the people had the right of taking away from a tribune the power which he employed against the people? King Tarquin had been dethroned because he acted unjustly; the holy virgins, if they neglected their duty, were buried alive, for through sin they forfeited their sanctity; and the same rule applied to the tribunes. Why then should not a magistrate who had received his office from the majority of the tribes be obliged to resign it when it was the unanimous desire of all the tribes? Nothing could be more holy than that which was consecrated to the gods, and yet nothing prevented the people from devoting it to whatever purpose they chose. Thus the people might look upon the office of a tribune as an offering to the gods, and transfer it from one to another, for it was no uncommon occurrence for magistrates to abdicate. CHAP. II. vance of Not one of these arguments applies to the matter at Irreleissue. Offences on the part of Vestal virgins were punished the apoafter trial and conviction, just like any other crime, ac- logy. cording to established law and not according to the whims of party politicians; the dethroning of the kings was a revolution, and could therefore afford no precedent for constitutional practice. That the decision of a majority might at any time be cancelled by a resolution of a greater majority, was a principle applicable only to the alteration of a law or of a formal statute, but not to the violation of an existing one. No public order or liberty would be possible if a sudden whim could overthrow every legal barrier; there is no sense or object in having laws at all, if they are not to be observed as long as they are formally in force. We need not refute the inference which Gracchus drew from the right of the people to dispose as they thought fit of that which was consecrated to the gods, for this right is not in any way germane to the case in question, neither is an abdication equivalent to a deposition. It certainly BOOK seems plausible that the people should have a right to dismiss from office a magistrate who does the reverse of that for which he was elected, and especially the tribune who injures the people instead of protecting them. But this theory is so utterly false that it has never been made law in any republic, for the simple reason that with such a law all government by regular magistrates would be impossible. The election of magistrates by popular vote merely signifies that the people admit their inability to conduct the public business themselves. Therefore they transfer their rights for a fixed period to men who enjoy their confidence. During this period the elective rights of the people must be suspended, for else the appointment would no longer be for a fixed period. Such magistrates are not irresponsible; but if open resistance be not provoked by treasonable acts or such as imperil the state, they must retain the authority entrusted to them. All magisterial power would be annihilated, and government by magistrates rendered altogether impossible, if the sovereign people were to depose a magistrate because he followed his own conviction in politics instead of following the prevailing current of public opinion. The very object of investing him with power is this, that he shall use it conscientiously according to his own judgment. Gross breaches of faith, such as firing the capitol, might be looked upon as next to impossible on the part of a man whom the esteem and confidence of his fellow-citizens had called to the head of the administration. It is not deemed necessary in any institution to provide against the possible crimes of a madman; should they nevertheless be attempted, then violence must be repelled by violence. As to private offences they come under the ordinary criminal law, and are punished in accordance with a fixed legal code. To regard and treat a magistrate as a With the same arguments as those employed by Tiberius Gracchus, any constituency of a member of Parliament might at any time recall their representative. It would under such a practice be useless to fix any time for the duration of a mandate. II. criminal for a political act which is formally justifiable CHAP. should surely not be in the power of an adverse party, even if it happened to be a majority. Else an end would be put to all free political life, which consists in the harmonious working of opposed forces, and in its place the worst form of despotism would be introduced, despotism in the form of a democracy. Tiberius was undoubtedly aware of the critical po- Dangerous sition which he had assumed by driving his colleague Tiberius, position of from office. One Titus Annius, a clever disputant, accused him publicly of having violated the sacred rights of the tribunes,' whereupon Tiberius became exceedingly wroth, and threatened to impeach Annius before the people. But Annius in reply simply asked him what he would do if one of his colleagues were appealed to and granted intercession against this impeachment; would he have this colleague also turned out of office? This simple question, says Plutarch, so abashed the eloquent Tiberius that he had not a word to say in reply. Gracchus carried. However, when Octavius had been turned out of office, The law of and the vacancy thus created in the full number of tribunes had been filled by the election of Caius Mummius,' the land bill was passed, and the clause omitted which provided that the present holders of state land should be indemnified for investments made on lands to be surrendered.3 Tiberius is said to have dropped this clause in order to punish the aristocrats for their opposition; but more likely he resolved to drop it on account of the difficulty The writers who speak of the deposition of Octavius, and discuss the legal question on which it turned, confine their remarks to the office of a tribune, instead of speaking generally of the deposition of republican magistrates. They were more struck with the violence done to the sacred office of the tribune than by the illegality of the act as it affected all republican offices. It does not follow from this one-sided representation that the old annalists were unaware of the general principle which was involved in the case of Octavius. 2 Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 13. According to Plutarch, Tib. Gracch. 13, the name of the new tribune was Mucius. * Plutarch, Tib. Gracch. 10; πρὸς τοῦτο παροξυνθεὶς ὁ Τιβέριος τὸν μὲν φιλάνθρωπον ἐπανείλετο νόμον. BOOK Passive resistance of the senate. Will and bequest of Atialus, mum. of raising the necessary funds for the indemnities in question. A committee of three men was appointed to carry the law into execution, consisting of Tiberius himself, his brother Caius, and his father-in-law Appius Claudius Pulcher. Thus was attained the object at which the bold innovator had aimed. Notwithstanding the opposition of the almost unanimous senate and of a portion of his colleagues, by a single vote of the sovereign people, or at least of that portion which had assembled at Rome for the purpose, a law had been passed which deeply affected the interests of all classes, and was intended to lay a fresh foundation for the material welfare of the Italian peasantry. When Tiberius and his two colleagues applied in the senate for means to defray their official expenses, the defeated aristocrats betrayed their vexation by granting, as in mockery, on the motion of P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica, a daily allowance of twenty-four asses (one shilling), whilst they refused to grant tents and other necessary articles on the plea that a tribune, not being permitted to quit the town, would have no use for them. By such paltry devices they could not, of course, hope to gain anything; but they showed by what spirit the highest authority in the state was animated, and how little cause Tiberius had to hope that his law would be conscientiously carried out after he should have retired from office. The consequence was that he endeavoured to secure the permanent good will of the people, and to counteract the intrigues of the optimates, who by means of their wealth could easily supplant him in the favour of the venal populace. It so happened that ample means for this purpose were at this very time supplied; for Attalus III., King of Pergamum, the last of his line, had just died, and had bequeathed his empire and treasures to the Roman people. An envoy from Pergamum appeared in Rome with the king's will to lay the magnificent inheritance before the senate. Tiberius Gracchus, who was justly apprehensive that the great influence of 2 II. the optimates would be increased by their having the CHAP. right to dispose of such a treasure, proposed' to apply the money for providing the new settlers on the allotted land with working capital. A second proposal, equally hostile to the nobility, was that the organization of the newly acquired province of Asia should be taken from the cognisance of the senate, to which it properly belonged, and be given to the people. It was evident that not the people but the popular leader thus obtained an immense increase of power and influence. The hatred of the nobility knew no bounds. They had a fair pretext for accusing Tiberius of the attempt to make himself master of Rome by squandering away the public wealth in bribes for the populace. Rumours were spread about that he meant to make himself king, that he had entered into a conspiracy, and had actually been presented by Eudemus, the agent of the deceased king of Pergamum, with a royal diadem and a purple mantle. of Grac That the latter reproach was not only unfounded but Further absolutely absurd needs no proof. Possibly it may have measures originated at a later period, when in the course of the chus. civil disturbances it occurred to the annalists that an adventurer might possibly assume the title and power of a king. But though Tiberius never dreamt of establishing a throne for himself, he certainly intended to break the power of the nobility. To that end it was necessary to enlarge the prerogative of the people by placing in their hands the control of the finances and the management of the provinces. Another reform which Tiberius had in view, and which was carried by his brother Caius, consisted in curtailing the judicial powers of the senators and in conferring these powers on the order of knights. The evidence we possess on this matter is very defective. It is not clear whether Tiberius intended to elect judges from the equestrian order in addition to the senatorial It seems that this proposal was not formally accepted and passed into a law. Comp. Mommsen, Röm. Gesch. ii. 113. 2 Plutarch, Tib. Gracch. 14. Aurel. Vict. 64. VOL. IV. D D |