newed as often as the bill was mentioned by its author or his supporters. The devoted perseverance of Publilius himself is beyond a doubt. It is indirectly testified by the historian, who expresses his surprise that the Tribune should have made no effort to revenge himself upon the Consuls for their conduct towards him at the time of the enlistment;11 and is proved directly by his reëlection to the tribunate for the succeeding year. With Publilius was chosen another Tribune, Caius Lætorius, of still greater boldness. He, with his colleague's assent, came forward to amend the bill, as yet a mere proposal, by making its single clause transfer the election of the Ediles, 42 as well as that of the Tribunes, to the Tribes, and, furthermore, by adding a new provision to endow the same assembly with the right of free discussion upon subjects of every kind.43 It requires a moment's reflection to weigh the full effect of the addition which the bill thus owed to Lætorius, or to the support he gave Publilius. Hitherto, the Tribes had met to debate upon their taxes, and in some rare instances, as we have observed, to decide upon the sentence of political offenders; but, with few exceptions, it was forbidden them to hear or to deliberate upon matters in which they might be supposed to take the deepest interest. In consequence, the Plebeians depended entirely upon their subordinate places in the Centuries, or oftener upon the 41" Post publicam causam pri- 43 Dion. Hal., IX. 43. vato dolore habito." Liv., II. 56. 42 See note 39; and compare Dion. Hal., IX. 41, 43. activity and intelligence of their Tribunes, for any information, or even for any opportunity of conversation, concerning the public events that were passing by them, as the Tiber flowed, one wave after another, but all alike unmeasured and unhindered. The new was no sooner added to the old clause of the bill, than it appears to have been laid directly before the assembly it was designed to benefit, that, namely, of the Tribes.44 No voice had ever broken the silence, as it were, in which the Plebeians were wont to be convened, except in times of tax-gatherings or stormy trials, until Publilius and Lætorius claimed perfect freedom of deliberation, and the right, imperfect though that then were, of legislation.45 It is plain that the opposition which had hindered the passage of the original bill through the Centuries would increase to violence against the additional substance it had received, and the unwonted manner in which it was now proposed. 47 The Consuls of the year,46 Appius Claudius, the son of the Sabine Patrician, and Titus Quinctius, were elected, the former by the Curies, to oppose, and the latter by the Centuries, perhaps to favor, the bill which Lætorius and Publilius were urging forward. Lætorius, especially, was sworn to succeed. He came into the Forum, on the day appointed for the meeting of the Tribes, and ordered the Patricians whom 44 See the narrative in Livy (II. 56) of the assembly in the Forum. 45 Depending upon Dion. Hal., IX. 43; Zonaras, VII. 17. 46 A. C. 471. 47 As Lætorius contended: -"A patribus non consulem, sed carnificem, ad vexandam et lacerandam plebem creatum esse [Appium]." Liv., II. 56. he saw gathered together there, with intents he well knew to be evil, to withdraw. As soon as he perceived, what he must have expected, that his commands were despised, he ordered some of the Patricians to be arrested; and when Appius, the Consul, who was in their group, bade them stand fast, nor fear an officer whose authority was binding only on the Plebeians, the Tribune, inflamed with wrath, sent his attendant to eject the Consul himself from the Forum. Appius ordered his lictor to seize Lætorius; but at this the multitude was stirred, and, after a brief but violent affray, the commands of the Tribune were enforced by a thousand attendants instead of one. The other Consul, Quinctius, and some of the liberal Senators who were with him, contrived to prevent any further tumult; although there could have been little tranquillity while every Tribe successively gave in its adhesion to the bill, and their leaders stood exulting, doubtless, and haranguing from the tribunal. The bill was no sooner passed, than a band of Plebeians hastened to the Capitol, in order, probably, to hold it as security for the acceptance of the bill, now become a decree of the Tribes, by the Senate and the Curies, without whose united consent the decree would never become a law. The menace, however, if meant as such, does not appear to have been required; for the Senate accepted and the Curies confirmed the proposal of the Tribes 48 as readily, to all appearance, as if Appius Claudius and his par 48" Lex silentio perfertur." Liv., Especially see Niebuhr's Hist., Vol. II. 57. Dion. Hal., IX. 48, 49. II. pp. 104 et seq. ty had been driven, not only from the Forum, but from the city. It has been sometimes thought, indeed, that the conflict in the Forum was more violent than appears in history, and that one or both of the Tribunes by whom the law was framed fell, slain in the strife preceding the votes of the Tribes.49 If it were so, there can have been few memories, amongst all that were familiar to their successors, more precious than those of Caius Lætorius and Volero Publilius, the champions and the martyrs of Plebeian liberty. The Publilian law, as it was always styled, was soon after 50 strengthened by another bill proposed by the Tribune Spurius Icilius,51 empowering the Tribunes to proceed against any one who should interrupt them in presence of the Tribes, by fining the offender, or adducing him before the assembly to be more severely sentenced.52 The new law, however, was not to protect the Tribunes generally, but particularly, as the presiding magistrates of the Tribes ; and little scrutiny need be made, in order to perceive its intention to have been the security of the assem 49 Arnold's Hist., Vol. I. p. 179. 50 Dionysius (VII. 17) gives an earlier date; but no one can hesitate to follow Niebuhr, who says, " It" -the Icilian law "must have been passed after the Publilian." Vol. II. pp. 51, 109. - 51 Whom Dionysius mentions both at the time of the secession and at the trial of Coriolanus. V. 88, VII. 26. 52 Dionysius (loc. cit.) speaks of the fine as the only punishment exacted by the law. Many modern writers represent it as the bail exacted from the offender. The statement in the text is therefore conjectural. The effect of the law is described by Cicero: "Contra verba atque interfationem legibus sacratis armatus [tribunus]." Pro Sext., 37. bly itself, in proceedings like those which Appius Claudius had nearly interrupted and in that way ruined. The Icilian law is thus an appropriate illustration of the spirit called into action by the Publilian, and is undoubtedly worthy of being considered a proof that the Plebeians had obtained some legislative power by the latter law. The different conduct of Appius and Quinctius, the Consuls, respecting the passage of the Publilian bill, was not lost upon the Plebeians, who revered their friends with nearly as much fidelity as they detested their enemies. On taking the field, according to the custom of every year, Quinctius was enabled to keep the enemy at bay and lay waste their territory, while Appius Claudius was twice defeated by the foe to whom his army was opposed. Each Consul, of course, commanded the same sort of soldiers; but the orders of the one were reluctantly executed by his men, who grudged him a triumph,-whereas the other, Quinctius, was cheerfully obeyed and joyfully hailed victorious. The second defeat of Appius was so shameful, that he punished many officers who had fled, by flogging and death, besides ordering every tenth man in the ranks to be beheaded. Much as this sentence must have exasperated the army and the people against the Consul, there was no resistance offered amongst the troops, nor did the Tribunes at the time conceive, apparently, the idea that he was to be accused of having inflicted a cruel punishment upon his faithless soldiers. But when, in the year succeed |