3

nate, about the negative which it possessed upon all laws, which began soon after the expulsion of Tarquin, made the rights of these different parts of the government be much more fully stated than they otherwise would have been.

AND it is obvious, that the senate frequently made an improper use of the power which it possessed, of a negative upon laws, particularly in refusing its consent to have a code of written laws to regulate the judges, which was the immediate cause of that power being withdrawn.

IF the senate had been claiming greater power than it possessed during the time of the kings, or, if the society collectively had been claiming new powers, such claims must have been taken notice of, and retorted upon one another by the parties. As no such charge therefore was made, we must conclude that the society collectively had always exercised

the sovereign power and the disposal of offices; that the senate had always possessed the same powers, which it exercised during these debates, and that the consuls, during that period, possessed the same power jointly, which was formerly possessed by the kings.

THE Roman historians show a want of attention, in representing the power of the kings as nearly absolute, and at the same time state, that the consuls were vested with the same

power jointly; by which they inform us, indirectly, that the kings had always been legally as much under the control of the senate, as the consuls were afterwards. They seem to have been led into this inconsistency by the records of that early period, which narrated the principal events only, in which the kings were the supreme commanders and directors.

BUT if all the speeches in the senate and foif all the acts of the senate, and of the as

rum;

5

semblies of the people, and all the orders and directions of the senate to the consuls, were expunged from the succeeding history, the consuls would then appear to have been as powerful as the kings, as no narratives would remain, but of those transactions in which the power of the consuls was supreme.

THE Roman people, in appointing two men, called consuls, to execute an office, instead of one man, called king, exercised their sovereign power over that office, in the same manner as British sovereigns exercised their power over the office of lord high admiral, when they appointed a certain number of men to execute that office. And the causes for both alterations were of a similar nature.

THE kings of Britain found, that the powers of the lord high admiral were dangerous to them and the Romans had been taught, by

;

the usurpation of Tarquin, that the possession of

their kings for life, was incompatible with liberty. And in both cases similar remedies were adopted. The Romans not only divided the power between two men, to be called consuls, but also limited the duration of their power to one year. This alteration had the desired effect, not only in checking the presumption of the consuls during the time of their power, by preventing them from acquiring improper influence in the army; but there was no instance afterwards of any man claiming right to that high office, on account of his be ing the son of a consul, as had been done by several of the sons of the kings, before Tarquin made his claim effectual.

HISTORIANS seem to have been also inaccurate in stating the manner of appointing senators. Some of them say positively, that when the first hundred were appointed, each of the three tribes chose three, each of the thirty curiæ chose three, and that Romulus chose

one.

7

And when another hundred were added, upon incorporating the Sabines, it is expressly said, that they were chosen by the people; yet others say that the kings, and afterwards the consuls and censors, had the power of nominating the Senators.

It is probable that this seeming contradiction was owing to the notoriety of the people's power at the time, which made historians think it unnecessary to mention it in every case; that they mean the same thing by both modes of expression. For the same reason, they frequently call a law, the law of a certain consul; yet they do not mean that he enacted it. In like manner, when a king is said to appoint senators, they mean that he presided at the meeting; and suppose it to be understood, that the votes, or approbation of the people, determined the matter, as in the case of enacting laws. That such is their meaning appears more clear, when we reflect that Livy