BOOK 339 B.C. CHAPTER VII. THE LAWS OF PUBLILIUS PHILO, 339 B.C. BEFORE the new organisation of Latium was completed, a disturbance took place in Rome, which showed that the old opposition between patricians and plebeians had not yet Renewal of quite disappeared. We have already seen that the Licinian the strife, between law had failed to produce perfect peace and concord. The the patricians and mutiny of the legions in the year 342 B.C. had hardly led plebeians. to an agreement when the impending revolution in Latium 1 opened a prospect of change in all the social relations of the people. It seems that the nobility were still as anxious as ever to secure for themselves the greatest advantages. In the senate this party possessed the majority; and as the senate, acting as an executive council, was not only intrusted with carrying out the resolutions of the people as to the organisation of the newly-acquired districts, but could by their consent or refusal (i.e. by giving or withholding the patrum auctoritas) further or retard these resolutions, the people had practically no voice as to what should be done with the new acquisitions, whether a colony should be sent out, whether a simple assignment of land should take place, or whether occupation should be permitted. Both consuls of the year 339 B.C. had quarrelled with the senate. The origin of the dispute was a measure of the senate assigning to Roman citizens in the Latin and Falernian territory the wretched pittance 'Such an organisation required in each case that a law should be passed in due form. Such a law is referred to by Livy, viii. 17: Romani facti Acerrani lege ab L. Papirio prætore lata qua civitas sine suffragio data.' VII. 339 B.C. of from two to three jugera of land.' The plebeian consul СНАР. Publilius Philo, having been named dictator by his patrician colleague, Æmilius, probably in direct opposition to the senate, proposed a series of laws which had for their object to make the legislative prerogative of the people independent of the formal consent of the senate." lian laws; The first of the Publilian laws enacted that plebiscites The Publi(that is, the decisions of the plebeian assembly of tribes), the first should be binding on all citizens. This law looks like a law. re-enactment of the law which was proposed 449 B.C. by the consuls Valerius and Horatius. Whether it really was so, or whether it contained special provisions unknown to our informants, it is impossible to decide." law. The second law is plainer. It declares that the resolu- The second tions of the centuries should not depend on the consent of the senate. By this law the legitimate influence of the senate in legislation was not abolished. It continued to the end of the republic, and was rather increased than lessened, as with the growth of the state the counsel of a body of experienced statesmen naturally became more important. But it was possible that the opposition of the senate to a resolution of the people might bring about a deadlock. In such cases it was better for the law to decide which of the two should yield, than to leave the decision to chance or force, and it was quite in accordance with the constitutional theory of the ancient republics that the sovereignty should be vested in the people, and that the decision of the people should be the supreme law. When the people had succeeded in electing a 1 Livy, viii. 11: 'Bina in Latino iugera, ita ut dodrantem ex Privernati complerent data; terna in Falerno, quadrantibus etiam pro longinquitate adiectis.' Livy, viii. 12: 'Materiem præbebat criminibus ager maligne divisus.' 2 Livy, viii. 12: Tres leges secundissimas plebei, adversas nobilitati, tulit.' 3 Livy, viii. 12: 'Ut plebiscita omnes Quirites tenerent.' • See p. 202. • Compare Mommsen, Forschungen, p. 163 ff. Livy, viii. 12: Ut legum quæ comitiis centuriatis ferrentur ante initum suffragium patres auctores fierent.' In modern states various modes have been devised for getting over the difficulties of a deadlock. There was the suspensive veto of the French con BOOK III. 339 B.C. The third law. Admission of plebe. ians to the prætorship. popular consul, it was desirable that they should have power to enable him to carry those measures which for the well-being of the state would suffer no delay. It cannot be denied that great danger lay in this abolition of the veto of the senate. A reckless demagogue was now without any restraint but the good sense of the people, and it is a striking proof of the political wisdom of the Roman people that the Publilian law was very rarely used.1 A third law of Publilius ordained that in future one of the two censors must be a plebeian. If we consider that the formation of new tribes was in prospect, and actually took place some years later, 331 B.C., when Q. Publilius Philo himself was the first plebeian censor, we must infer that this law also had reference to the regulation of property caused by the new assignments of land. The plebeians were probably also admitted to the prætorship by the Publilian law, for in the year 337 B.C. Q. Publilius Philo himself first filled the office, which from this time forward was held alternately every year by patricians and plebeians. As the Roman prætor nominated the prefects, who exercised jurisdiction in the municipia, it is evident that the interest of the plebeians in this office was of particular importance just at this period. stitution, and there is the qualified veto of the President of the United States, which can be set aside by artificial majorities of Congress. Another remedy is the change of ministry, whereby the executive is placed in accordance with the Legislature. Where there is an Upper House of Parliament, the Crown has the means of preventing a collision by creating new peers. Such constitutional rights, which are very essential, though very seldom used, are the veto of the crown, the right of refusing supplies, and of impeachment of the ministers. 2 Livy, viii. 17. CHAPTER VIII. THE EXTENSION OF THE ROMAN DOMINION TOWARDS THE new settlement of the relations between Rome and Latium occupied some years. The allies of the Latinsthe Volscians, the Ausonian tribes on the Liris, between Latium and Campania, and the Capuans-were treated as the Latins had been.' But serious efforts were necessary before the Romans could succeed in gaining a firm footing in those parts. Cales was conquered in a war with the Sidicinians, and in this important place, between the Liris and the Volturnus, a colony was established of 2,500 men, which was intended to secure the road to Campania. The Romans had thus pushed their conquests into the immediate neighbourhood of the Samnites, with whom it was clear that a conflict could not long be postponed. 2 The settlement made in Capua deserves particular attention (Livy, viii. 11, 14). The nobility in Capua had taken the Roman side, but had been unable to prevent the town joining the Latins. At the conclusion of peace, Capua forfeited a portion of her public land. As a compensation to the Capuan nobility, who probably had had the use of this public land, the people of Capua were made to pay each of the 1,600 nobles an annual sum of 450 denarii. It was like substituting a civil list for the possession of domain lands. The proceeding throws a light on the position of the nobility not only in Capua, but also in Rome, where similar institutions prevailed. It was an acknowledgment of the duty of the people, i.e. the plebs, to pay for the support of the nobility. The most natural manner of taxation is the payment of a portion of the produce of the public land. Where this was abolished, as in Capua, it was replaced by a direct contribution in money. It has to be remarked that the plebs of Capua received the limited Roman franchise (civitas sine suffragio), whereas the nobles were admitted to the full franchise. This completes the analogy between the plebeians and patricians of Capua and of Rome.j 2 In the year 335 B.C.—. —Livy, viii. 16. CHAP. 337-326 B.C. Treatment of the allies of the Latins. BOOK 337-326 B.C. Position of the Samnites. In the very next year two Volscian towns, Fabrateria and Luca, placed themselves under the protection of the Romans, to be safe from the Samnites, and the Samnites, at the instance of the Romans, refrained from hostilities against these new friends of their allies. They also looked on quietly while the Romans (330 B.C.) chastised, with the greatest severity, the two towns of Fundi and Privernum, which had tried to shake off the yoke of the limited Roman franchise imposed upon them.' The leader of this revolt, a noble citizen of Fundi, of the name of Vitruvius Vaccus, atoned for his undertaking by death at the hands of the executioner. The town of Privernum was deprived of its walls, the senators were banished to Etruria, their land divided among Roman citizens, and the town ceased to be a self-governing community. At length (in 328 B.C.) the Romans established a colony in the town of Fregellæ, a most important locality on the river Liris, on one of the two roads leading to Campania. Thus Rome pushed to the very utmost the advantages of her victory over the Latins. The Roman territory was greatly enlarged, the former allies made entirely subservient to the interests of the state, and bound to Rome with chains of iron. The subject territory, in different degrees of dependence, stretched from Tibur and Præneste as far as Campania; new fortifications secured the frontiers. Rome had more than doubled her size. Her internal organisation had become stronger, and she was ready to break through the narrow bounds which had thus far confined the ambition of her citizens. The Samnites did not look on with indifference at this extension of the Roman power, which could advance southwards only at their expense. Their interest imperatively demanded that they should oppose its further growth, and especially that they should protect their nearest neighbours and kinsmen, the Volscians, Aruncans, and Campanians, against the Romans. Yet they remained 1 Livy, viii. 19. |