ested in giving to political offenders that protection which he may some day want for himself. Roman tribunes were often dishonest men and violent partizans, but whether their motives were pure or not, they were useful at Rome. It is an evil when an honest man is pursued even in legal form by political opponents; but it is a greater evil still when men escape the punishment justly due to misconduct in a campaign or in the management of public affairs. State prosecutions were common at Rome, and the innocent as well as the guilty were exposed to them. But sometimes a great offender was caught and punished; and then public opinion was satisfied and the interests of the state were vindicated.

C. Mamilius Limetanus gave notice of a bill for establishing a commission to inquire into the conduct of those who had advised Jugurtha to disregard the decrees of the Senate, who as legati or commanders had received money from him, who had given up to Jugurtha elephants and deserters, who had made conventions with the enemy about peace or war. Those who were guilty, and those, who without being guilty feared the hostility of the popular party, did not venture openly to oppose the bill, for if such crimes had really been committed, and every body believed that they had, those who opposed such a bill placed themselves on the side of the criminals. However, says Sallust, they attempted or thought of attempting to secretly obstruct the passing of the law by their friends and chiefly by the help of the Latini and the Italian allies. But these men had no votes at Rome, and they could do nothing to hinder the bill from being passed except by making disturbance; and if they came to Rome for that purpose, they ought to have been driven out conformably to the law of Pennus. However the bill did pass, and the Plebs eagerly voted for it, because they hated the nobility, and not because they cared for the state. The people were delighted with their success: the nobles were so alarmed that they did nothing to avert the threatened danger. But Scaurus, Bestia's legatus in Africa, did not lose his presence of mind. He was one of the men against whom the bill was directed, and he saved himself by contriving to be elected one of the three commissioners under the law of

Mamilius. Thus he became a judge instead of appearing as a criminal. If he was really guilty, or if it was believed that he was guilty, it is a proof of the personal influence of Scaurus and his political dexterity that he was made a judge to try the men to whose knavery he was privy. The inquiry, says Sallust, was conducted in a harsh and irregular manner, under the influence of popular rumour and excitement. The plebeians, as Sallust names them, but in fact the leaders of the popular party, had for the time the advantage over the nobility, and they used their power as men will use it after a political victory. Sallust, I suppose, means to say that the commissioners who presided in the court, were not very strict about the evidence, and that reports were accepted as proof. The first great difficulty in bringing political offenders to trial is to find a court before which the charge can be made: the next is the difficulty of bringing the evidence to support the charge, particularly when the offence has been committed in foreign parts. But if all that Sallust has said is true, there could be little difficulty in convicting some of these men who had dealt with Jugurtha, and Scaurus wisely sacrificed a few of his friends to quiet the popular storm.

The names of those who were tried under the Mamilia Lex are not mentioned by Sallust. He says no more of the trials than what I have stated. But we learn from Cicero the names of some of the criminals. There was C. Sulpicius Galba, the son of him who massacred the Lusitani, L. Calpurnius Bestia, C. Cato, Sp. Albinus, and "that most excellent citizen L. Opimius, the killer of Gracchus," as Cicero describes him, all of whom except Galba had been consuls. The jury in these trials was composed of Equites, the "Gracchani judices," as Cicero names them, because they were appointed pursuant to the Sempronia Lex of Caius Gracchus. These men had a personal interest in the trial, for some of their friends in money speculations had been massacred at the capture of Cirta. Galba was a member of a college of priests, perhaps of the college of Pontifices, but notwithstanding this, he was tried and convicted, the first instance, according to Cicero, of a man who held a priestly office being condemned in a "public trial." Dionysius

affirms that the Pontifices "were not liable to any suit or penalty, not responsible either to the Senate or the people.” The members must however have been responsible to somebody, and therefore to the college of Pontifices at least in matters within the jurisdiction of the college. Indeed Dionysius may mean to say that the Pontifices were not responsible to the Senate or the people in ecclesiastical matters, for it is hardly credible that they were not responsible like other citizens in matters beyond their ecclesiastical functions. The exact meaning both of Cicero and Dionysius may be doubtful; and Cicero further confuses the subject by speaking of a "judicium publicum," for Galba and the rest were tried under a special commission, and, as Cicero himself says, the jury or Judices were Equites, and not the people as in a Judicium Publicum, properly so called. Galba made a speech in his own defence. The peroration was so highly valued as a morsel of eloquence when Cicero was a boy, that he learned it by heart. Cicero says nothing about Aulus Albinus, nor does he say what was the punishment of these great criminals. Bestia was living in Rome many years after. Opimius retired to Dyrrhachium in Epirus, where he died in poverty. C. Cato, the grandson of the censor, is the same man who is said to have been tried before and to have retired to Spain (Chap. xxii.). If Cicero's statement is true, Cato either did not go to Spain after his first conviction, or he very soon returned to Rome, and took the opportunity of again disgracing himself.

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE WAR WITH JUGURTHA.

B.C. 109.

In the early part of B.c. 109 Q. Caecilius Metellus, the nephew of Q. Metellus Macedonicus, and M. Junius Silanus were elected consuls. Metellus had the province of Numidia. He was a man of energetic temper, and an opponent of the popular party, but his character was unblemished. He had been praetor in B.C. 112, and after discharging some provincial administration he was prosecuted on a charge of Repetundae; for it is more likely that this prosecution took place before he was consul than after, though the matter is not quite certain. It was on this occasion that the jury (Judices), when Metellus laid his accounts before the court, refused to look at them; such confidence they had in the integrity of the man. Cicero, who tells this anecdote, says that he heard it when he was a boy from his father.

As Metellus had no confidence in the army which he would find in Africa, he raised some fresh troops, and furnished himself well with all necessary supplies. He must have had some money from the treasury, which the Senate could give him; but the Latini and the Italian allies as usual made large contributions. Some kings sent help too, but the names of these kings are not mentioned. He left Italy for Numidia with the favourable wishes and expectations of the people, who knew his merits and could trust a man who was known to be above a bribe.

Sallust is consistent when he says that Sp. Albinus waited for the arrival of Metellus in Africa and gave up the com

Ee

mand to him; for the historian had already said that Albinus returned to the army after his brother's disgrace. But Spurius Albinus was one of the men who were tried under the commission of the Mamilia Lex and convicted; and if he stayed in Africa till Metellus arrived, he must have been tried after his return to Rome. Metellus found the African army in a miserable state. The elections at Rome had been so long deferred that the season for the campaign was shortened; and though the people at home were impatient for good news from Africa, Metellus resolved to restore discipline before he tried his men in the field. It would seem scarcely credible that the armies of the greatest military state of antient times should have been in such a condition as we read of, when Scipio took the command before Numantia and Metellus in Africa. But the Roman system, which gave the command of an army to any man who had been elected praetor or consul, was quite inefficient for securing military discipline; and the good old practice of punishing generals for their misconduct or failure could not be maintained in a state where a small body of nobles had all the power. Experience shows that a close aristocracy or a pure democracy will never manage public affairs well, for both systems result in the same thing; power is generally exercised by a few fools, knaves, and intriguers. When an honest and able man holds office he will do the best that he can, but his successor may spoil his work; and so affairs go on, sometimes well, sometimes ill, till a master is wanted, and then he appears.

Albinus, after the defeat of his brother, had not ventured beyond the limits of the province Africa. Until the arrival of Metellus he kept his men in the fine season generally in the same place, and only moved his quarters when the stench of the camp or the want of forage compelled him to change his ground. This was contrary to the practice of the Romans, who neither kept their men in barracks nor in permanent camps, as Vegetius explains in his third book. They knew that fresh air and change of place are necessary for the soldier's health. In the African army the camp was unprotected by the usual ditch and rampart; the watches were not kept; and the soldiers straggled about as they liked, robbing the