money should be distributed among the poor. This measure then contained a poor-law, as we call it, or imposed a tax for their maintenance. This measure, observes Appian, was some relief to the poor by reason of the distribution of money, but it contributed nothing to the increase of population. The main object of Tiberius Gracchus, as already stated, was to encourage procreation by giving small allotments of land, a measure well calculated to effect that object. Appian adds:-"When the law of Gracchus had been in effect repealed by these devices, and it was a very good and excellent law, if it could have been carried into effect, another tribune not long after carried a law which repealed that relating to the payment of the tax or rent; and thus the plebes lost everything at In consequence of all this, there was still greater lack than before of citizens, soldiers, income from the (public) land, and distributions."

once.

Various Agrarian laws were passed between the time of the Gracchi and the outbreak of the Marsic war, B.C. 90, of which the law of Spurius Thorius (lex Thoria) is assigned by Rudorff to the year of the city 643, or B.c. 111; and this appears to be the third of the laws to which Appian alludes as passed shortly after the death of Caius Gracchus. Cicero also (Brutus, 36) alludes to the law of Thorius as a bad measure, which relieved the public land of the tax (vectigal). The subject of this lex was the public land in Italy south of the rivers Rubico and Macra, or all Italy except Cisalpine Gaul; the public land in the Roman province of Africa, from which country the Romans derived a large supply of grain; the public land in the territory of Corinth; and probably other pubiic land also, for the bronze tablet on which this law is preserved is merely a fragment, and the Agrarian laws of the seventh century of the city appear to have related to all the provinces of the Roman state. One tract, however, was excepted from the Thoria lex, the ager Campanus, or fertile territory of Capua, which had been declared public land during the war with Hannibal, and which neither the Gracchi nor any other poli

tician, not even Lucius Sulla, ventured to touch: this land was reserved for a bolder hand. The provisions of the Thoria lex are examined by Rudorff in an elaborate essay.

66

In the year B.C. 91 the tribune Marcus Livius Drusus the younger, the son of the Drusus who had opposed Caius Gracchus, endeavoured to gain the favour of the plebes by the proposal of laws to the same purport as those of the Gracchi, and the favour of the Socii, or Italian allies, by proposing to give them the full rights of Roman citizens. His own words," says Florus (iii. 17), "are extant, in which he declared that he had left nothing for any one else to give, unless a man should choose to divide the mud or the skies." Drusus agitated at the instigation of the nobles, who wished to depress the equestrian body, which had become powerful; but his Agrarian profusion, which was intended to gain the favour of the plebes, affected the interests of the Socii, who occupied public land in various parts of Italy, and accordingly they were to be bought over by the grant of the Roman citizenship. Drusus lost his life in the troubles that followed the passing of his Agrarian law, and the Socii, whose hopes of the citizenship were balked, broke out in that dangerous insurrection called the Marsic or Social War, which threatened Rome with destruction, and the danger of which was only averted by conceding, by a Lex Julia, what the allies demanded (B.c. 90). The laws of Drusus were declared void, after his death, for some informality.

The proposed Agrarian law of the tribune P. Servilius Rullus, in B.C. 63, the year of Cicero's consulship, was the most sweeping Agrarian law ever proposed at Rome. Rullus proposed to appoint ten persons with power to sell everything that belonged to the state, both in Italy and out of Italy, the domains of the kings of Macedonia and Pergamus, lands in Asia, Egypt, the province of Africa, in a word everything; even the territory of Capua was included. The territory of Capua was at that time occupied and cultivated by Roman plebeians (colitur et possidetur), an industrious class of good husbandmen and good soldiers: the pro

posed measure of Rullus would have turned them all out; there was not here, says Cicero (ii. 30), the pretext that the public lands were lying waste and unproductive; they were in fact occupied profitably by the possessors, and profitably to the state, which derived a revenue from the rents. The ten persons (decemviri) were to have full power for five years to sell all that belonged to the State, and to decide without appeal on all cases in which the title of private land should be called in question. With the money thus raised it was proposed to buy lands in Italy on which the poor were to be settled, and the decemviri were to be empowered to found colonies where they pleased. This extravagant proposal was defeated by Cicero, to whose three orations against Rullus we owe our information about this measure.

In the year B.C. 60 the tribune Flavius brought forward an Agrarian law, at the instigation of Pompey, who had just returned from Asia, and wished to distribute lands among his soldiers. Cicero, in a letter to Atticus (i. 19), speaks at some length of this measure, to which he was not entirely opposed, but he proposed to limit it in such a way as to prevent many persons from being disturbed in their property, who, without such precaution, would have been exposed to vexatious inquiries and loss. He says, "One part of the law I made no opposition to, which was this, that land should be bought with the money to arise for the next five years from the new sources of revenue (acquired by Pompey's conquest of Asia). The senate opposed the whole of this Agrarian measure from suspicion that the object was to give Pompey some additional power, for he had shown a great eagerness for the passing of the law. I proposed to confirm all private persons in their possessions; and this I did without offending those who were to be benefited by the law; and I satisfied the people and Pompey, for I wished to do that too, by supporting the measure for buying lands. This measure, if properly carried into effect, seemed to me well adapted to clear the city of the dregs of the populace, and to people the wastes of Italy." A disturbance in Gallia Cisalpina stopped

this measure; but it was reproduced, as amended by Cicero, by C. Julius Cæsar, who was consul in the following year, B.C. 59. The measure was opposed by the senate, on which Cæsar went further than he at first intended, and included the Stellatis Ager and Campanian land in his law. This fertile tract was distributed among twenty thousand citizens who had the qualification which the law required, of three children or more. Cicero observes (Ad Attic. ii. 16), "That after the distribution of the Campanian lands and the abolition of the customs' duties (portoria), there was no revenue left that the State could raise in Italy, except the twentieth which came from the sale and manumission of slaves." After the death of Julius Cæsar, his great nephew Octavianus, at his own cost and without any authority, raised an army from these settlers at Capua and the neighbouring colonies of Casilinum and Calatia, which enabled him to exact from the senate a confirmation of this illegal proceeding, and a commission to prosecute the war against Marcus Antonius. Those who had received lands by the law of the uncle supported the nephew in his ambitious designs, and thus the settlement of the Campanian territory prepared the way for the final abolition of the republic. (Compare Dion. Cassius, xxxviii. 1-7, and xlv. 12.)

The character of the Roman Agrarian laws may be collected from this sketch. They had two objects: one was to limit the amount of Public land which an individual could enjoy; the other was to distribute public land from time to time among the plebes and veteran soldiers. A recent writer, the author of a useful work (Dureau de la Malle, Economie Politique des Romains), affirms that the Licinian laws limited private property to five hundred jugera; and he affirms that the law of Tiberius Gracchus was a restoration of the Licinian law in this respect (ii. 280, 282). On this mistake he builds a theory, that the law of Licinius and of Tiberius Gracchus had for their " object to maintain equality of fortunes and to create the legal right of all to attain to office, which is the fundamental basis of democratic government.”

His examination of this part of the subject is too superficial to require a formal confutation, which would be out of place here. But another writer already quoted (Rudorff, Zeitschrift für Geschichtliche Rechtswissenschaft, x. 28) seems to think also that the Licinian maximum of five hundred jugera applied to private land, and that this maximum of five hundred jugera was applied by Tiberius Gracchus to the Public land. Livy (vi. 35), in speaking of the law of Licinius Stolo, says merely "Nequis plus quingenta jugera agri possideret," but, as Niebuhr observes, the word "possideret" shows the nature of the land without the addition of the word Public. And if any one doubts the meaning of Livy, he may satisfy himself what it is by a comparison of the following passages (ii. 41; vi. 4, 5, 14, 16, 36, 37, 39, 41). The evidence derived from other sources confirms this interpretation of Livy's meaning. That the law of Gracchus merely limited the amount of Public land which a man might occupy, is, so far as we know, now admitted by everybody except Dureau de la Malle; but a passage in Cicero (Against Rullus, ii. 5), which he has referred to himself in giving an account of the proposed law of Rullus, is decisive of Cicero's opinion on the matter; not that Cicero's opinion is necessary to show that the laws of Gracchus only affected Public land, but his authority has great weight with some people.

It is however true, as Dureau de la Malle asserts, that the Licinian laws about land were classed among the Sumptuary laws by the Romans. The law of Licinius, though not directly, did in effect limit the amount of capital which an individual could apply to agriculture and the feeding of cattle, and jealousy of the rich was one motive for this enactment. It also imposed on the occupier of public land a number of free men: if they were free labourers, as Niebuhr supposes, we presume that the law fixed their wages. But their business was to act as spies and informers in case of any violation of the law. This is clear from the passage of Appian above referred to. the literal meaning of which is what has been here stated, and there is no authority for giving any other interpreta

tion to it.* The law of Tiberius Gracchus forbade the poor who received assignments of land from selling them; a measure evidently framed in accordance with the general character of the enactments of Licinius and Gracchus. The subsequent repeal of this measure is considered by most writers as a device of the nobility to extend their property; but it was a measure as much for the benefit of the owner of an allotment. To give a man a piece of land and forbid him to sell it, would often be a worthless present. The laws of Licinius and Gracchus, then, though they did not forbid the acquisition of private property, prevented any man from employing capital on the public land beyond a certain limit; and as this land formed a large part of land available for cultivation, its direct tendency must have been to discourage agriculture and accumulation of capital. The law of Licinius is generally viewed by modern writers on Roman history as a wise measure; but it will not be so viewed by any man who has sound views of public economy; nor will such a person seek, with Niebuhr, to palliate by certain unintelligible assumptions and statements the iniquity of another of his laws, which deprived the creditor of so much of his principal money as he had already received in the shape of interest. The law by which he gave the plebeians admission to the consulate was in itself a wise measure. Livy's view of all these measures may not be true, but it is at least in accordance with all the facts, and a much better comment on them than any of Livy's modern critics have made. The rich plebeians wished to have the consulate opened to them: the poor cared nothing about the consulate, but they wished to be relieved from debt, they wished to humble the rich, and they wished to have a share of the booty which would arise

*The precise meaning of this passage of Appian is uncertain. If the words τὰ γιγνόμενα refer to the produce, their duty was to make a proper return for the purpose of taxation, that But this passage is, of the tenths and fifths. requires further consideration. All that can be safely said at present is that Niebuhr's explanation is not warranted by the words of Appian.

from the law as to the 500 jugera. They would have consented to the law about the land and the debt, without the law about the consulate; but the tribunes told them that they were not to have all the profit of these measures; they must allow the proposers of them to have something, and that was the consulate they must take all or none. And accordingly they took all.

The other main object of the Agrarian laws of Rome was the distribution of public land among the poor in allotments, probably seldom exceeding seven jugera, about five English acres, and often less. Sometimes allotments of twelve jugera are spoken of. (Cicero against Rullus, ii. 31.) The object of Tiberius Gracchus in this part of his legislation is clearly expressed; it was to encourage men to marry and to procreate children, and to supply the state with soldiers. To a Roman of that age, the regular supply of the army with good soldiers would seem a sound measure of policy; and the furnishing the poorer citizens with inducement enough to procreate children was therefore the duty of a wise legislator. There is no evidence to show what was the effect on agriculture of these allotments; but the ordinary results would be, if the lands were well cultivated, that there might be enough raised for the consumption of a small family; but there would be little surplus for sale or the general supply. These allotments might, however, completely fulfil the purpose of the legislators. War, not peace, was the condition of the Roman state, and the regular demand for soldiers which the war would create, would act precisely like the regular emigration of the young men in some of the New England States: the wars would give employment to the young males, and the constant drain thus caused would be a constant stimulus to procreation. Thus a country from which there is a steady emigration of males never fails to keep up and even to increase its numbers. What would be done with the young females who would be called into existence under this system, it is not easy to conjecture; and in the absence of all evidence, we must be content to remain in ignorance. It is not

stated how these settlers obtained the necessary capital for stocking their farms; but we read in Livy, in a passage already quoted, that on one occasion the plebes were indifferent about the grants of lands, because they had not the means of stocking them; and in another instance we read that the treasure of the last Attalus of Pergamus was to be divided among the poor who had received grants of lands. A gift of a piece of land to a man who has nothing except his labour, would in many cases be a poor present; and to a man not accustomed to agricultural labour-to the dregs of Rome, of whom Cicero speaks, it would be utterly worthless. There is no possible way of explaining this matter about capital, except by supposing that money was borrowed on the security of the lands assigned, and this will furnish one solution of the difficulties as to the origin of the plebeian debt. It is impossible that citizens who had spent most of their time in Rome, or that broken-down soldiers should ever become good agriculturists. What would be the effect even in the United States, if the general government should parcel out large tracts of the public lands, in allotments varying from two to five acres, among the population of New York and Philadelphia, and invite at the same time all the old soldiers in Europe to participate in the gift? The readiness with which the settlers in Campania followed the standard of young Octavianus shows that they were not very strongly attached to their new settlements.

The full examination of this subject, which ought to be examined in connexion with the Roman law of debtor and creditor, and the various enactments for the distribution of grain among the people of Rome, would require an ample volume. The subject is full of interest, for it forms an important part of the history of the Republic from the time of the legislation of Licinius; and it adds one to the many lessons on record of useless and mischievous legislation. It is true that we must make some distinction between the laws of Licinius and the Gracchi, and such as those proposed by Rullus and Flavius: but all these legis