It is however true, as Bureau de la Malle asserts, that the Licinian laws about land were classed among the Sump tuary laws by the Romans. The law of Licinius, though not directly, did in effect limit the amount of capital which an individual could apply to agri culture and the feeding of cattle, and jealousy of the rich was one motive for this enactment. It also imposed on the occupier of public land a number of free men : if they were free labourers, as Nie buhr supposes, we presume that the law fixed their wages. But their business was to act as spies and informers in case of any violation of the law. This is clear from the passage of Appian above re ferred to. the literal meaning of which is what has been here stated, and there is no authority for giving any other interpreta don to it The law of Tiberius Gracchus forbade the poor who received assign ments of land from selling them ; a mea sure evidently framed in accordance with the general character of the enactments of Licinius and Gracchus. The subse quent repeal of this measure is considered by most writers as a device of the nobility to extend their property ; but it was a measure as much for the benefit of the owner of an allotment. To give a man a piece of land and forbid him to sell it, would often be a worthless present. The laws of Licinius and Gracchus, then, though they did not forbid the acqui sition of private property, prevented any man from employing capital on the pub lic land beyond a certain limit; and as this land formed a large part of land available for cultivation, its direct ten dency must have been to discourage agriculture and accumulation of ca pital. The law of Licinius is generally viewed by modern writers on Roman history as a wise measure ; but it will not be so viewed by any man who has sound views of public economy; nor will such a person seek, with Niebuhr, to pal liate by certain unintelligible assump tions and statements the iniquity of an other of his laws, which deprived the creditor of so much of his principal mo ney as he had already received in the shape of interest. The law by which he gave the plebeians admission to the con sulate was in itself a wise measure. Livy's view of all these measures may not be true, but it is at least in accord ance with all the facts, and a much better comment on them than any of Livy's modern critics have made. The rich plebeians wished to have the consulate opened to them : the poor cared nothing about the consulate, but they wished to be relieved from debt, they wished to humble the rich, and they wished to have a share of the booty which would arise from the law as to the 500 jugera. They would have consented to the law about the land and the debt, without the law about the consulate ; but the tribunes told them that they were not to have all the profit of these measures ; they must allow the proposers of them to have something, and that was the consulate : they must take all or none. And ac cordingly they took all.
The other main object of the Agrarian laws of Rome was the distribution of public land among the poor in allot ments, probably seldom exceeding seven jugera, about five English acres, and often less. Sometimes allotments of twelve jugera are spoken of. (Cicero against Rullus, ii. 31.) The object of Tiberius Gracchus in this part of his legislation is clearly expressed ; it was to encourage men to marry and to procreate children, and to supply the state with sol diers. To a Roman of that age, the regu lar supply of the army with good soldiers would seem a sound measure of policy; and the furnishing the poorer citizens with inducement enough to procreate children was therefore the duty of a wise legislator. There is no evidence to show what was the effect on agriculture of these allotments ; but the ordinary results would be, if the lands were well cultivated, that there might be enough raised for the con sumption of a small family; but there would be little surplus for sale or the general supply. These allotments might, however, completely fulfil the purpose of the legislators. War, not peace, was the condition of the Roman state, and the re gular demand for soldiers which the war would create, would act precisely like the regular emigration of the young men in some of the New England States : the wars would give employment to the young males, and the constant drain thus caused would be a constant stimu lus to procreation. Thus a country from
which there is a steady emigration of males never fails to keep up and even to increase its numbers. What would be done with the young females who would be called into existence under this system, it is not easy to conjecture ; and in the absence of all evidence, we must be con tent to remain in ignorance. It is not stated how these settlers obtained the ne cessary capital for stocking their farms ; but we read in Livy, in a passage already quoted, that on one occasion the plebes were indifferent about the grants of lands, because they had not the means of stock ing them ; and in another instance we read that the treasure of the last Attains of Pergamus was to be divided among the poor who had received grants of lands. A gift of a piece of land to a man who has nothing except his labour, would in many cases be a poor present ; and to a man not accustomed to agricul tural labour—to the dregs of Rome, of whom Cicero speaks, it would be utterly worthless. There is nd possible way of explaining this matter about capital, ex cept by supposing that money was bor rowed on the security of the lands as signed, and this will furnish one solution of the difficulties as to the origin of the plebeian debt. It is impossible that citizens who had spent most of their time in Rome, or that broken-down soldiers should ever become good agriculturists. What would be the effect even in the United States, if the general government should parcel out large tracts of the pub lic lands, in allotments varying from two to five acres, among the population of New York and Philadelphia, and invite at the same time all the old soldiers in Europe to participate in the gift? The readiness with which the settlers in Cam pania followed the standard of young Octavianus shows that they were not very strongly attached to their new set tlements.
The full examination of this subject, which ought to be examined in connex ion with the Roman law of debtor and creditor, and the various enactments for the distribution of grain among the people of Rome, would require an ample volume. The subject is full of interest, for it forms an important part of the history of the Republic from the time of the legislation of Liciuius ; and it adds oue to the many lessons on record of use less and mischievous legislation. It is true that we must make some distinction between the laws of Licinius and the Gracchi, and such as those proposed by Rullus and Flavius but all these legis lative measures had the vice either of in terfering with things that a state should not interfere with, or the folly of trying to remedy by partial measures those evils which grew out of the organization of the state and the nature of the social system.
The subject of the Roman revenue de rived from the Public Land has not been discussed here. This belongs to LAND TAX, REVENUE, and TAXATION.
The nature of the Agrarian laws, par ticularly those of Licinius and the Gracclu, has often been misunderstood in modern times ; but it is a mistake to sup pose that all scholars were equally in error as to this subject. The statement of Freinsheim, in his Supplement to Livy, of the nature of the legisla tion of the Gracchi, is clear and exact. But Heyne (Opuscula, iv. 351) had the merit of putting the matter in a clear light at a time, during the violence of the French revolution, when the nature of the Agrarian laws of Rome was ge nerally misunderstood. Niebuhr, in his Roman History, gave the subject a more complete examination, though he has not escaped error, and his economical views are sometimes absurd. Savigny (Das .Recht des Besitzes, p. 172, 5th ed.) also has greatly contributed to elucidate the nature of possession of the public land, though the main object of his admirable treatise is the Roman law of possession as relates to private property.