« PreviousContinue »
sonal change of the holders of the sovereign power. But, although the king's authority was so absolute, he never came to be regarded by the Romans as other than mortal, nor, as by divine right, higher and better than his fellow-citizens. This view of the kingship was at once the moral and practical limitation of its power. The king was the people's representative, and derived his power from them, and was accountable to them for its use and abuse. Moreover, the legal limitation to his power lay in the principle that he was entitled only to execute the law, not to alter it. Any deviation from the law had to receive the previous sanction of the assembly of the people and the council of elders. There is no parallel in modern life to the Roman family, or Roman state, or Roman sovereign.
The principle on which the division of the burgesses rested was that ten houses formed a clan, ten clans a wardship (curia), ten wardships the community. Each householder furnished a footsoldier and each clan a horseman and senator. If communities combined, each was a part or tribe of the whole community. Originally each household had its own portion of land, but when households combined into a gens, each clan had its lands, and this system naturally extended to curies and communities, whether single or combined. Thus clan-lands formed in primitive times the smallest unit in the division of land. Although this division into ten curies early disappeared in Rome, we find it in later Latin communities, which always had one hundred acting councilors, each of whom was " head of ten households." This constitutional scheme did not originate in Rome, but was a primitive institution, common to all Latins. What the precise object and value of this division was we cannot now determine, and it is clear that any attempt to rigidly fix the number of households and clans must, through ordinary human accidents, have failed. The really important unit in the division was the curia, the members of which were bound by religious ties, and had a priest of their own. Military levies and money valuations were made according to atrial divisions, and the burgesses met and voted by curies. Although all full citizens or burgesses were on a footing of absolute equality as regarded one another, the distinction between those who were burgesses and those who were not was most sharply and rigidly defined. If a stranger were adopted into the burgess-body he could not retain his rights as citizen elsewhere. If he did, he merely possessed honorary citizenship at Rome and was entitled to the privileges and protection of a guest, not to the exercise of full citizen rights. There were no class privileges at Rome. All wore the simple woolen toga in public, although certain officers by virtue of their office were distinguished by dress. As the Latin immigrants had no conquered race to deal with, the nobility of Greece and the caste of India were unknown to them. The most important duty of the burgesses was military service, as they alone had the right of bearing arms. Hence the name populus ("body of warriors," connected with populari, " to lay waste ") ; hence, too, the name of quirites (" lancemen "), given them by the king. Other duties incumbent on the burgesses were such as the king laid upon them; among these was the all-important task of building walls, to which the name of inoenia (" tasks ") was given. As there was no state pay for services so rendered, there was no direct state expenditure of state taxation. The very victims for sacrifice were provided by the deposit, or cattle-fine, which the defeated party in a lawsuit was bound to pay. In cases of urgent need a direct contribution was levied, but this was regarded as a loan and repaid when times improved. Although the king managed the state exchequer, the state property, e. g., the land won in war, was not identified with the private property of the king. His exchequer was filled partly by the land-taxes, i. e., the scriptura, or pasture tribute, paid by those who fed cattle on the common pasture, and the vectigalia, or payment in' 1 in place of rent, by those who were lessees of the state lands; partly by gains in war; partly by harbor dues levied on the exports and imports of Ostia; partly, perhaps, by the tax which the non-burgesses settled at Rome paid him for protection. In addition to these duties the burgesses had also rights. They were convoked by the king in formal assemblies (comitia curiata) twice a year, or in such other meetings as the king thought fit to hold. They had no right of speech on such occasions, unless the king saw fit to grant it; their duty was merely to listen and return simple answers without discussion to the king's questions. As long as the king was executor of existing laws, no intervention was necessary on the part of the citizens; but where abnormal events arose which necessitated any change of or deviation from existing laws, the cooperation and assent of the burgess body was essential. The king put the question and the people returned answer; and the lex, or law, which was the outcome of this process, was not in its origin a command of a king, but a contract proposed by the king and accepted or refused by his hearers. The citizens alone could allow a man to make such a will as transferred his property on his death to another; they alone could sanction the adoption of a man into the burgess-body, or allow a burgess to surrender his rights as citizen; they alone could pardon a condemned criminal, whence arose the right of appeal, which was allowed only to those who pleaded guilty. Thus far the assembly of the community, restricted and hampered as it first appears, was yet from antiquity a constituent element of the Roman commonwealth, and was in law superior to, rather than coordinate with, the king.
The origin of the senate can with probability be ascribed to that remote period when each clan in Latium was under the rule of its own elder. As the clans became amalgamated, the position of such an elder was necessarily subordinated to that of the head or king of the community; but that the senate was not a mere conclave of trusty councilors called into being by the king, but an institution as old as that of king and burgess-assembly, admits of little doubt. It resembled the assembly of princes and rulers, gathered in a circle round the king as described by Homer. The number was fixed at three hundred, corresponding to the three hundred clans of which the three primitive communities, forming the whole state, were composed. All senators sat for life; they were chosen by the king, and it is only natural to suppose that, if originally the senate consisted of the ancient body of clan elders, the king always chose, when a senator died, a man of the same clan to fill his place. The senators were, therefore, so many kings of the whole community, although the chief power, as in the household, was vested in one of their body, namely the king; their insignia, though inferior to those of the king, were of the same character; the purple border being substituted for the purple robe of the king, and the red shoes of the senator being lower and less striking than those which the king wore. Should the king die without appointing a successor, one of the senators, chosen by lot as interrex, exercised his authority for five days, and this interrex appointed the next, thus passing on the five days' sovereign power to one of his own body. Finally, one of these interreges, but never the one first chosen, nominated the king, and his choice was ratified by the whole assembly of the citizens. Thus the senate was the ultimate holder of the ruling power, and was a guarantee of the permanence of the monarchy. Further, it was the guardian of the constitution, examining every new resolution which the king suggested and the burgesses adopted, and having the right of vetoing these resolutions, should they appear to violate existing rights. The senate's consent had also to be obtained before war could be declared. And thus the senate's duty was to guard against any innovation or violation of the constitution, whether coming from king or burgessassembly. In consequence of this power of the senate, or at least in close connection with it, arose the very ancient custom of the king's convoking the senate, and submitting to it the proposals he intended to bring before the citizens. By thus ascertaining the opinions of the individual members, the king avoided the possibility of any subsequent opposition from that body. On most questions, involving no breach of the constitution, the senate's part was doubtless merely that of compliance with the king's wishes. The senate could not meet unless convoked by the king, and no one might declare his opinion unasked; nor was the consultation of the senate on ordinary matters of state business legally incumbent on the king; but this consultation soon became usual, and from this usage the subsequent extensive powers of the senate were in great measure developed. To sum up, the oldest constitution of Rome was in some measure constitutional monarchy inverted. In the Roman constitution the community of the people exercised very much the same functions as belong to the king in England. The right of pardon, which in England is the prerogative of the crown, was in Rome the prerogative of the community; while all government was vested in the president of the state, whose royal power was at once absolute and limited by the laws. Further, in the relations of the state to the individual, we find that the family was not sacrificed to the community, but that, though power of imprisonment or death was vested in the state, no burgess could have his son or his field taken from him, or even taxation imposed on him. In no other community could a citizen live so absolutely secure from encroachment, either on-the part of his fellows or of the state itself. This constitution was neither manufactured nor borrowed; it grew and developed with the growth and development of the Roman people, and as long as there existed a Roman community, in spite of changes of form, it was always held that the magistrate had absolute command, that the council of elders was the highest authority in the state, and that every exceptional resolution required the sanction of the sovereign, or, in other words, of the community of the people.
We have already stated that the earliest amalgamation in the history of Rome was that which blended together the Ramnes, Tities, and Luceres. This was followed by the union of cantons located on the other hills in the same neighborhood, but no new tribe was added to the original three, the new burgesses being distributed among the existing tribes and curies. Henceforth each of the three tribes contained two divisions or ranks, and these ranks were denoted by the names "first" (priores) and " second" (posteriores). But no increase was made in the number of the senate, the primitive number of three hundred remaining unchanged down to the seventh century of the city's history. So also the magistrates or king's deputies remained the same. This amalgamation increased the bulk, but did not change the character of the Roman state. But another process of incorporation, the first steps of which may be traced to this period, and which proceeded very gradually, did profoundly affect the community. We refer to the development of the plebs—a problem most intricate and elusive. On a previous page the position of " clients" was described as twofold—that of those dependent on and protected by the master of the household, and that of those dependent on and protected by the state, i. e., by the king. Every fresh amalgamation doubtless brought in an accession of clients, but the principal increase must have been due to the attraction that Rome, as a commercial center, possessed for foreigners, who became metics, or resident aliens, and to the influence of war, which while it transferred the citizens of conquered towns to Rome, at the same time thinned the ranks of the Roman citizens, who alone had the doubtful privilege of bearing the brunt of such wars. In truth this latter fact was the chief cause in promoting the amalgamation of the clients and the citizens. With the increase of the whole body of clients, and especially of that portion consisting of foreigners, attached as clients to the Roman state, but often retaining the citizenship of other communities, the old restrictions, which were more easily observed in the case of household clients, must have broken down. Many, in fact, must have enjoyed practical freedom, though, of course, not the full rights of Roman citizens. The immemorial principle of Roman law that, when once a master or owner had renounced his ownership, he could never resume it over the freedman or the freedman's descendants; the liberal concessions, made by Roman law especially to foreigners, as regarded marriage and the acquisition of property; the increasing number of manumitted