509-508 B.C. were visible. The enrollment of the plebeians among the burgesses, the admission of certain of them to the senate, were victories of happy augury for the future. Those plebeian families admitted on account of their wealth or position into the senate naturally held aloof from the mass of the plebs. In addition to this distinction in the plebeian body, there arose another out of the system of voting in the comitia centuriata, which placed the chief power in that class of farmers whose property was in excess of that of the small freeholders, but inferior to that of the great proprietors; and this arrangement further enabled the seniors, although less numerous, to have as many voting divisions as the juniors. While in this way the ax was laid to the root of the old burgess-body and their clan-nobility, and the basis of a new burgess-body was laid, the preponderance in the latter rested on the possession of land and on age, and the first beginnings were already visible of a new aristocracy, based primarily on the consideration in which the families were held-the future nobility. Chapter VI THE TRIBUNATE OF THE PLEBS AND THE A T the beginning of the last chapter we noted the importance of the struggle which was intimately connected with landoccupation. Before proceding to describe the constitutional changes which arose from this struggle, we must revert for a time to the original land-tenure among the Romans, and, as far as possible, strive to clearly present the main features of this most difficult and important question. From the first, agriculture was felt to be the main support and fundamental basis of every Italian commonwealth. The Roman state in particular secured by the plow what it won by the sword; it felt that the strength of man and of the state lay in their hold over the soil; and this feeling caused the state to avoid, if possible, the cession of Roman soil, and caused the farmers to cling tenaciously to their fields and homesteads. The main object of war was to increase the number of freeholders; this object was also evident in the Servian constitution, which showed the original preponderance of the agricultural class in the state; and which, by its division of the community into "freeholders" and producers of children" (proletarii), without reference to their political position, proved that a large portion of the landed property had passed into the hands of non-burgesses. This division, by imposing upon the freeholders the duties of citizens, paved the way, as we have seen, to conceding them political rights. In the earliest times no burgess had any special property in land: all arable land was the common possession of the several clans; each clan tilled its own portion and divided the produce among its constituent households. When and how the distribution of land among the individual burgesses was made we cannot tell-at any rate it was previous to the Servian constitution; and that same constitution leads us to conclude that the mass of the land was divided into medium-sized farms of not less than 20 jugera, or 12 acres. Landed estates were successfully guarded against excessive subdivision by custom and Hist. Nat. III 4 495-449 B.C. the sound sense of the population. Evidence is also furnished by the Servian constitution that even in the regal period of Rome there were small cottagers and garden proprietors, with whom the mattock took the place of the plow. In addition to the ordinary farmers, it is clear from the same constitution that large landed proprietors had also come into existence-partly perhaps from the numerical inequality of the members of the various clans, when the clan-lands were divided among the members; partly, too, from the great influx of mercantile capital into Rome. But, as we cannot suppose that there were many slaves at this time, by whose labor such large estates were afterwards worked, we must conclude that a landowner assigned lots to tenants of such portion of his estate as he could not farm in person. Such tenants were composed of decayed farmers, clients, and freedmen, and formed the bulk of the agricultural proletariate. They were often free men, and were then called "tenants on sufferance" as their possession was only held at the pleasure of the owner. For this usufruct of the soil the tenant did not necessarily pay rent in kind, and, when he did, his position was not quite the same as that of the lessee of later times. The relation between the landlord and his tenants was all the closer, because the landlords did not employ middlemen, but lived themselves on their estates, and took the greatest interest in the welfare of those dependent on them; their lodging in the city was only for business purposes, and for avoiding, at certain seasons, the un healthful atmosphere of the country. Such slaves as were employed were, as a rule, of Italian race, and must have occupied very different relations towards their masters from those held by Syrians and Celts in later days. It was from these large landowners, and the system above described, that there sprang up in Rome a landed, and not an urban, nobility; and further, these tenants-on-sufferance were of the greatest service to the state, in furnishing trained and intelligent farmers to carry out the Roman policy of colonization. A sharp line divided arable from pasture land. The latter belonged to the state and not to the clan, and was consequently not subjected to the distribution, which has been described above. The state used such land for its own flocks and herds which were intended for sacrifices and other purposes, and which were kept up by cattle-fines; and such land was also used by individuals who paid a certain tax (scriptura) for the right to graze their cattle on the common pasture. This right was a special privilege of the burgess, and was 495-449 B.C. never granted to a plebeian, except under extraordinary circumstances. In the regal period such common pasture land was probably not extensive, and, as a rule, any conquered territory was parceled out as arable land, originally among the clans, and then among individuals. This description of land tenure in the earliest period now allows us to resume our history at the point of our digression. Although the new government at Rome passed certain measures such as the reduction of port-dues; the state-purchase of corn and salt, so as to supply the citizens at reasonable prices, the addition of a day to the national festival, the limitation of the magisterial power of fining,-which seemed intended for the good of the more numerous and less wealthy classes, unfortunately such regulations were exceptional. The object of the kings had probably been to check the power of capital and increase the number of farmers. The object of the new aristocratic government was to destroy the middle classes, and especially the smaller independent farmers; and thus to develop the power of the capitalists, and of large landowners, and to increase the number of the agricultural proletariate. Out of this action on the part of those in power arose the evil influence of the capitalists. The extension of the financial province of the state treasury to such matters as the purchase of grain and salt caused the state to employ agents, or middlemen, to collect its indirect revenues and more complicated payments. These men paid the state a set sum, and farmed the revenues for their own benefit. Thus there grew up a class of tax-farmers and contractors, who, in the rapid growth of their wealth, in their power over the state, to which they appeared to be servants, and in the absurd and sterile basis of their moneyed dominion, are completely on a parallel with the speculators on the stock-exchange of the present day. The mismanagement of the public land brought out these evils most clearly. The patricians now claimed the sole right of the use of the public pasture and state lands: a right which, as shown above, belonged by law to every burgess. Although the senate made exceptions in favor of the wealthy plebeian houses, the small farmers and tenants-on-sufferance, who needed it most, were excluded from the common pasture. Moreover, to oblige men of their own order, the patrician quaestors gradually omitted to collect the pasture-tax, and thus diminished the state revenues. And further, instead of making fresh assignations of land, acquired by conquest, 495-449 B.C. to the poorer citizens, the ruling class introduced a pernicious system of what was practically permanent occupation, on the condition of the state receiving from the occupier one-tenth of corn, or one-fifth of oil and wine. Thus the system of "precarium," or tenure-onsufferance, above described, was now applied to the state lands; and not only did this tenure become permanent, but it was allowed only to the privileged patricians and their favorites; nor was the collection of the fifths or tenths enforced with more rigor than that of the pasture-tax. Thus the smaller landholders were deprived of the usufructs which were their right as burgesses, were more heavily taxed in consequence of the lax collection of the revenues from the use of the public land, and lost the old outlet for their energies, which had been provided by the assignations of land. Added to these evils was the system of working large estates by slaves, which at this time was introduced, and which dispossessed the small agrarian clients, or free laborers. Moreover, owing to the enforced absence from his farm in time of war, and the exorbitant taxation and other state-imposed works which war entailed, the farmer often lost possession of his farm, and was reduced to the position of bondsman, if not slave, of his creditor. This creditor was often a capitalist, to whom speculation in land offered a new and lucrative field; if left as nominal proprietor, and actual possessor of the farm, the debtor was perhaps saved from utter ruin, but was demoralized by the consciousness that his person and estate really belonged to another, and that he was entirely dependent on his creditor's mercy. The misery and distress caused by these evils threatened to annihiliate the middle class of smaller farmers, and matters were not long in coming to a crisis. About 495 B.C. a levy was called for. Owing to the exasperation produced by the strict enforcement of the law of debt, the farmers refused to obey. One of the consuls, Publius Servilius, induced them to do so, by suspending the law and liberating the imprisoned debtors. On their return from the field of victory, the other consul, Appius Claudius, enforced the debtor-laws with merciless rigor. The war was renewed in the following year; and this time the authority attaching to the dictatorship and the personal popularity of the dictator, Manius Valerius, were found necessary to win over the reluctant farmers. Victory again was with the Roman army; but on its return the senate refused to agree to the reforms proposed by the dictator. On the news of this refusal reaching the army, arrayed |