crime roused public indignation, or his enemies took advantage of the opportunity to attack a man who was generally disliked. There was at this time no regular court for trying men who had been guilty of such acts as Galba had committed. The Roman people in their public meeting was the judge of all criminal acts which directly affected the general interests of the state. The legislation of the Twelve Tables left the criminal law in a very imperfect condition; and in fact this division of law is one of the last which receives a settled form. The definition of crimes, the measure of punishment assigned to them, and the establishment of forms of procedure were unknown in the early history of Rome. Galba could only be punished by a vote of the people. But in a state, where the aristocracy or nobles possess the political power, we cannot expect them to be active in punishing one of their own body; and it is necessary for the interests of the state that there should be some magistrates whose duty it is to bring such political offenders to justice, for the crime of Galba was in fact treason against the Majesty, in the Roman sense, of the Roman state. It was an act which impaired the character of the Roman people and was an exercise of power which went beyond the general's commission. The tribuni plebis were originally appointed to protect the political rights of the Plebs, but they had made themselves the general guardians of the State. The tribune L. Scribonius Libo (B.c. 149) proposed a bill or Rogatio, as the Romans called it, which was in the nature of an impeachment, or what the Romans sometimes called a Privilegium. Cicero was not quite certain whether Libo's tribunate was in the year B.c. 150 or 149; but it was in B.c. 149, the year in which Cato died. The Rogatio would contain the charge against Galba and the penalty which it was proposed to inflict on him. It also proposed that the Lusitani who had been sold by Galba should be restored to liberty. This might seem to have been properly a separate Rogatio, but it was not unusual with the Romans to put a number of things in one bill. If this was done so on this occasion, the restitution of the Lusitanian captives to liberty depended on the fate of the Rogatio; and on the acceptance or rejection of the whole

Rogatio by the votes of the people the fate of Galba depended. This was a very imperfect form of procedure, for it would be impossible to present to the people the evidence in support of the charge, in such a manner as evidence is produced in a court of justice; and yet we cannot suppose that the people would vote on such a bill without some evidence about the charges on which it was founded. The bill was supported by M. Porcius Cato, now eighty-five years old, and L. Cornelius Cethegus. The old man said in his speech for the bill that many things strongly urged him not to appear in public, his great age, his feeble voice, his failing strength, but the matter was too weighty to allow him to excuse himself. Galba, who in Cicero's judgment was the best orator of that time, defended himself against Libo's bill in two speeches, and in a third against Cethegus. These three speeches were extant when Cicero wrote, but he did not think that they sustained Galba's reputation; and he gives a very probable reason why speeches, which were written out and published after delivery, as was the usual practice of antient orators, had not always the same energy and merit as the spoken oration. In his reply to Cethegus Galba said that he had discovered that the Lusitani, when they were encamped near him after their surrender, intended to attack him, and that he anticipated the treachery by attacking them. Q. Fulvius Nobilior spoke against the bill in favour of Galba. Cicero says in his Brutus, that Galba was the first Latin speaker who employed the arts which properly belong to the orator and are in a manner his legitimate weapons; to digress for the purpose of adding ornament to his subject, to please his hearers, to move the affections, to exaggerate, to excite compassion, and to use all the common-places, the topics and the terms, of which every man who speaks much has a large stock at command to serve on all occasions. But the popular opinion was turning against Galba and all his arts would have failed, if he had not resorted to a trick. He presented his two young sons to the people and the son of C. Sulpicius Gallus, his kinsman, now an orphan under Galba's guardianship. Galba did not care for himself; he was ready to submit to the pleasure of the

people; but what would these little ones do without their natural guardian, one of them already deprived of his father, an illustrious man, whose services to the state were still fresh in remembrance? The tears of the orphan and the sight of the children moved the compassion of the people, and the Rogatio was rejected. Appian adds that Galba saved himself by his wealth, which must mean by bribery, but he does not say and probably did not know how Galba employed his money to purchase the rejection of the Bill.

Cato died a few days or a few months, for Cicero was not certain as to the time, after Galba's acquittal, and in this year died also the old Numidian king Massinissa at the age of ninety or more. Livy says that Cato also died in his ninetieth year, but the evidence for his being only in his eighty-sixth year is stronger. He entered the Roman army when he was seventeen, in the year B.c. 217, in which year Hannibal defeated the Romans at Lake Trasimenus. From that time to his death Cato was actively engaged in the service of the state. He passed through all the offices which a Roman could fill, and served in nearly every country to which the Roman arms were carried. In B.c. 195 he was consul, the same year in which Terence was born. In B.C. 191 he served as a tribune in the war against King Antiochus, and herein he showed the admirable Roman example of one who had filled the consulship afterwards bearing arms under another commander-in-chief. In B.C. 184 he attained the high dignity of censor, whence he is often named the Censor. He was a man, says Livy, of such mental vigour, that in whatever condition he had been born, he would have made his fortune. His talent was so versatile that he could do any thing, and he seemed to be made to do well whatever he took in hand. He was a brave soldier, a skilful general, a good lawyer, and an eloquent speaker. Cicero had found and read above one hundred and fifty of his speeches, a number not much less than the Athenian Lysias left behind him, who is supposed to have written more orations than any other person. Cato's speeches, adds Cicero, contained every merit that belongs to an orator, and he is numbered among those writers who enriched and

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 pro-. duced. 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