improved the Latin tongue. When he was an old man he began a work called Origines, which was in seven books. The third book contained a sketch of the origin of every Italian state, and this, it seems, induced the author to give to his work the title Origines. He continued it to the time of his death, for the seventh book contained his speech against Ser. Sulpicius Galba, and we may conclude from this that he lived more than a few days after Galba's acquittal. In his old age he studied Greek with great eagerness, and perhaps the literature of the Greeks softened a little his rigid temper. One of Cicero's latest and one of his best pieces, entitled Cato Major, represents the veteran statesman discoursing with P. Scipio Africanus the younger and Scipio's friend C. Laelius. The subject is old age, which Cato handles like a Greek philosopher, and as a Roman of practical good sense. Cicero makes Cato speak wisely and well, perhaps not more wisely than Cato both spoke and acted. Cato was what the Romans called a "novus homo," the first of his family who attained the high honours of the state. It is his great glory that at a time when manners were becoming corrupt, he retained the antient simplicity and severity. He was a firm opponent of the arrogance of the Roman nobles, a great friend to economy both private and public, and resolutely bent on protecting the Roman dependencies against the greediness and oppression of the Roman governors. He had of course many enemies and his life was one continued struggle in which he never flinched before an adversary. He was an indefatigable worker, with some roughness of tongue and harshness of character, with a strong body and a strong mind, and such a man though he has the highest virtues is not the most amiable companion. As a Roman of the old time he was of course a farmer. He was a strict master to his slaves, and if Plutarch tells the truth, a rough and unfeeling master. A part of his work on rural matters is extant, and it contains many curious things and some good advice to those who would farm. He is also charged with being fond of money and eager to make it in all ways that were then in use. We can readily believe that he was hard in his dealings and loved to save; but the

reports which have been handed down do not impute to him any dishonesty of any kind, and we know from experience that he who is very just and economic, and not generous, never escapes the charge of being grasping or avaricious. With some great faults, and many great virtues, we must pronounce him one of the most illustrious of the distinguished men whom the Roman aristocratical system produced. According to the fashion of that republic he bore no title of honour except the name which he had himself made honourable, and he lived on his own estate and his own earnings without drawing a pension or any pecuniary reward from his country which he had served so long and So well.

In this year B.c. 149 the tribune L. Calpurnius Piso Frugi, who was one of the Roman writers of Annals, proposed and carried a Lex Calpurnia, which made a great change in the Roman criminal procedure. Before this time and to the third Punic war, when a magistratus had misconducted himself in his foreign administration by oppressive acts and spoliation, there were several ways of inquiring into his offence. Sometimes the Senate, which was the administrative power in the State, examined the matter in a summary way. The Senate could also appoint an extraordinary commission of one person or more to inquire, and to redress the wrong by compelling the guilty magistratus to make restitution. Thirdly, the offender might be impeached by the Tribuni Plebis before the Comitia Tributa, and this was called a Judicium Populi. The judgment in this case might go further than mere restitution of what had been wrongfully taken, and a pecuniary penalty also might be imposed on the guilty magistratus. These three forms of proceeding were applicable both for the purpose of giving redress to Peregrini, or those who were not Roman citizens, and to giving redress to Roman citizens. Roman citizens could also sue directly for restitution and satisfaction.

But these modes of procedure were insufficient to protect the subjects of Rome against bad magistratus. The business in the Senate was constantly increasing, and there was little leisure to listen to complaints of grievances. The

Senate too would often screen the guilty members of their own body. An impeachment before the people was the most effectual means, for the Rogatio or bill could contain any thing that might be thought necessary for the purpose of justice, both restoration of what had been wrongfully taken and pecuniary penalties. But these impeachments were rare. The Senate also, as modern critics affirm, must first consent to the Rogatio, which it was the office of the Tribuni to promote, and the accused might still secure himself from danger by the protection of the Tribuni or of a single Tribunus who interposed his Veto. It might happen too that the Rogatio was rejected, as in the case of Galba.

The remedy for these evils was the establishment of a court under the name of Quaestio Perpetua de pecuniis repetundis, the first regular criminal court that existed at Rome. Courts similarly constituted were afterwards established for the trial of persons charged with other offences.

The Lex Calpurnia defined the offence of Repetundae, as it was briefly named, to be the taking of money by any irregular means for the use of a governor. The name Repetundae was given to this offence, because the object of the procedure was to compel the governor to make restitution. A governor was also forbidden to buy slaves in his province and to carry on mercantile dealings. If this had not been forbidden, a governor might have employed his authority to do indirectly what he could not do directly. Such acts as having an interest in government contracts in our time, or dealing in provincial railroads, banks, and other such undertakings, would come within the provisions of a Lex like the Calpurnia. This Lex did not apply to a magistrate's abuse of his office within Rome. The Lex Calpurnia determined also the form of procedure. It was chiefly designed to give Peregrini protection by allowing the institution on their behalf of this proceeding against a governor. Roman citizens still retained their former right of action against a governor who had wronged them in the province, and this right was expressly secured by the Lex. The court consisted of a presiding judge, the Praetor Pere

grinus, as some modern writers say, but I cannot find the evidence for it, and of a body of judices or jurymen annually appointed. The number of this body of judices is not known, but they were all Senators. The judge and a jury taken from the body of judices tried all the cases which came before them during one year; and hence came the name Quaestio Perpetua or standing court, in opposition to the extraordinary commissions which had hitherto been appointed as the occasion arose. We do not know that the Lex Calpurnia contained any penalties. As far as the evidence shows, it simply enabled the complainants to obtain satisfaction. Nor do we know how the costs of such expensive proceedings were settled, but there must have been some provision on this point, for simple recovery of money wrongfully taken would be a poor recompense to the Peregrini for coming to Rome to sue. The purpose of the Lex was good, but it failed in a point in which it was difficult to avoid failure, in the constitution of the court; for the jury lists were formed from a body of men to which the provincial governors themselves belonged, and a man who was rich and had many friends could use both his influence and his money in corrupting those whose verdict would acquit or condemn him.

Before the enactment of the Lex Calpurnia two of the six praetors, who were annually elected, stayed in Rome during their year of office. These two were the Practor Urbanus, who exercised jurisdiction in all suits between Roman citizens, and the Praetor Peregrinus who exercised jurisdiction in suits where Peregrini or aliens were parties. The other four praetors were sent to the provinces, and it was decided by lot what province each of the four should have. It is stated by some modern writers that after the Lex Calpurnia the whole six praetors remained in Rome during their year of office to preside in the various Quaestiones Perpetuae, and that at the end of the year they were all sent as propraetors into the provinces. The Quaestio de Repetundis was the first that was established, but the other Quaestiones about Peculatus, Ambitus, Majestas, and other crimes were established later. It would therefore not be necessary that

this practice of all the praetors staying in Rome during their year of office should have followed immediately upon the enactment of the Lex Calpurnia, for one additional praetor only would be required to preside in this Quaestio, and even one more would not be wanted, if it is true that the Praetor Peregrinus presided in the Quaestio de Repetundis. It may be true that some time after the Lex Calpurnia all the praetors spent their year of office in Rome, but we do not know at what time this practice began. The antient authorities are so imperfect that we are ignorant about the time and circumstances of many of the changes in the Roman administration, and modern writers often make assertions for which there is no evidence. There is accordingly constant contradiction among them, because they will affirm things which nobody knows. It is useful to remind people of this, and to inform them that much which they read in modern books about antient things is either false or incapable of proof.