"republic is treated by the historian (Dr Ferguson) as if actually, existing in full vigour and perfection, "that he might impute the whole guilt of its subver"sion to Cæsar." (Patton, 447.) Finally Mr. Patton convicts Dr. Ferguson of calumniating Cæsar, in saying" that, having sufficiently provided for the reputa❝tion of clemency, he now made a freer use of his "sword," and "he dipped his hand with less scruple in "the blood of his enemies." (Patton, 444. Ferguson, III. 3) Not only is there nothing in Hooke parallel,nothing equidistant from truth and equity, but (if human frailty admit of such praise) he is not chargeable with one deflection from those cardinal virtues of an historian. There was therefore no excuse for saying that, with reference to Hooke and Ferguson, "both "opinions are nearly in the same degree erroneous, and "that truth and justice lie in the middle state between them." (P. 446) III. Page 177. The vulgar reckoning of 244 years for the duration of the regal period cannot be admitted. According to Sir I. Newton, it only lasted 119 years. Page 178. He omits, with Vertot, to notice the admission of the conscripts to fill up the vacancies in the senate, on the expulsion of Tarquin: the policy of that measure in conciliating the principal equestrian families must have been essential to the establishment of the republic.Id mirum quantum profuit ad concor "diam civitatis, jungendosque patribus plebis ani"mos." (Liv. II. 1.) Page 181. Valerius "instituted an appeal to the as"sembly of the people from the judgments of the con"suls, or the ordinances of the senate."-" Did Valeri "us's law vest in the people a power to adopt and 66 "establish laws independent of, and without the con currence of the senate?" The appeal was not from "ordinances of the senate," but only (adversus magistratus, Liv. II. 8) from the judgments of magistrates in the exercise of their judicial functions. Neither did the law of Valerius enable the people to legislate without the concurrence of the senate. It was not till the year 414, when Q. Publilius Philo was dictator, that a law passed binding the senate to ratify beforehand whatever the centuries should enact (Liv. VIII. 12.) Page 189. The number of followers who emigrated with the first Appius Claudius from Regillum to Rome in the year 249, being five thousand families, is said to be "a pattern of the munificence of those days." We may judge more accurately of the absolute, and relative wealth of those days, from the amount of the grants of land made on the occasion, viz. 25 acres to Appius, and 2 to each of his followers. In the year 887 the maximum of land that any Roman was permitted to possess by the Licinian law was 500 jugera, or 350 acres. Page 205."Bellutus and Brutus were themselves "chosen (tribunes) with the addition of three others." So Dionysius. According to Livy C. Licinius and L. Albinus were elected, and they chose themselves three colleagues. (II. 32.) But the account of Piso (quoted by Livy II. 58.) seems more probable that there were only two tribunes until the passing of Volero's law for the election of tribunes in comitia by tribes in the year 282, when they were increased to five. Page 216. I think Hooke has succeeded in showing that Dionysius was mistaken in supposing that Coriolanus was tried in an assembly by tribes, and not by centuries. (Hooke, I. 230-247 369-372) Pages 221-222. Mr. Patton prefers, what appears to me the erroneous account given by Vertot of the sup posed crimes, trial, and punishment of Spurius Cassius Viscellinus, to Hooke's masterly refutation of it. (I. 255 -261.) He also adopts Vertot's objection to the agra rian law moved by Cassius: "it must be acknowledged "that abuses on this head had been flagrant and no"torious; but upon such a subject, at an after period, "to establish a general law, when the rights of posses ❝sion had been acknowledged and acted upon, and "property had passed by succession, alienation, and "fair purchase, from one person to another, was at "once to unhinge the security of all property." But Hooke replies to this objection in a manner equally satisfactory. (I. 288.) It is admitted by Livy (II. 23.) that the usurpations of public lands by the patricians did not begin till after the death of Tarquin in the year 257, only ten years before Cassius proposed his agrarian law; so that the plea of "long prescription" which was never urged by the opponents of the law, is wholly gratuitous. Page 226. "The matter was at last accommodated 66 by the senate agreeing to allow the tribunes, on the part of the people, to name one of the consuls, whilst "the other should be chosen by the senate, so that the "election became only matter of form." Anno 271. Still both consuls were formally, as usual, elected by the centuries. Page 258. The recall of Q. Cæso from banishment, and the banishment of Volscius, are facts of doubtful authenticity. (Hooke, I. 314.) Page 262. "The urns were opened, and the billets, "or tablets, distributed." So Dionysius and Vertot. Anno 298 But the method of voting by ballot at mak ing, or repealing laws, did not take place till 622. (Hooke, II. 511.) Page 299. "The subject of the agrarian law was more "seriously agitated in the following year by Micilius "and Metilius," i. e. in the year after that in which C Sempronius ex-consul, was fined. But more than three years intervened between these two events; the first being in 333, the second in 337. (Hooke, I. 4089. Liv. IV. 48.) Page 304. "In this view they were successful in es"tablishing the election of Quæstors to be made in the "assembly by tribes," &c. Anno 344. No authority for this in Livy. (IV. 54) Page 309. "Among the military tribunes chosen was "found a person of plebeian rank," &c. Anno 353. They were all plebeians except one. (Hooke, I. 424.) Pages 311-312. The circumstances connected with the voluntary exile of Camillus are not related with chronological accuracy. The tenth of the spoil was paid to Apollo in the year 357: the value of the tenth of the territory in 358: the law for removing half the senate and people to Veii was proposed in 358, and rejected by a majority of one tribe in 360, in which year 7 acres of the lands were assigned to each freeman. Camillus was cited before the people in 362. (Hooke, I. 430-6.) Page 314. "They (the senate) joyfully concurred in "the adoption of Camillus, whom they invested with the "supreme appointment of dictator." Le lenat & "les soldats, qui representoient le peuple, le declare"rent tous d'une voix dictateur." (Vertot. II. 235.) The senate passed a senatus-consultum, authorizing the Romans at Veii to assemble in comitia curiata for the purpose of investing Camillus with the authority of dictator. (Liv. V. 46.) The story of Camillus's speech to Brennus, and of the Gauls being exterminated, is fabulous. (Hooke, I. 447.) Page 322. Mr. Patton has not given due weight to Hooke's objections to the common account of the trial and death of M. Manlius Capitolinus. (I. 462-471.) Page 332. It is certain that the opposition of some of the tribunes was not withdrawn, but disregarded by Sextius and Licinius. (Liv. VI. 38.) Pages 338-9. It is clear from Livy (VI. 39. 42.) that the three Licinian laws were passed at the same time during the dictatorship of Camillus, in the year 386. Page 385. The quæstorship of Caius Gracchus was posterior to the events spoken of in page 390. Tuditanus was consul in the year 624: Caius was quæstor 627; tribune 630-631; murdered 632. Horæ Romanæ. man. Government. No. III. On the Anomalies in the Ro THE "Nature explained, no prodigies remain ; |