ncroachment on the rights of
property, in all its practical bearings. It appeared to the jurists of
that age to be an ejection of the great landholders for the benefit of the
proletarians. The measure itself was therefore not without injustice,
desirable as a division of property might be. But the mode to effect this
division was incompatible with civilization itself. It was an appeal to
revolutionary forces. It was setting aside all constitutional checks and
usages. It was a defiance of the Senate, the great ruling body of the
State. It was an appeal to the people to overturn the laws. It was like
assembling the citizens of London to override the Parliament. It was like
the French revolution, when the Assembly was dictated to by the clubs.
Robespierre may have been sincere and patriotic, but he was a fanatic,
fierce and uncompromising. So was Gracchus. In setting aside his
colleagues, to accomplish what he deemed a good end, he did evil. When
this rich patrician collected the proletarian burgesses to decree against
the veto of the tribune that the public property should be distributed
among them, he struck a vital blow on the constitution of his country, and
made a step toward monarchy, for monarchy was only reached through the
democracy--was only brought about by powerful demagogues. And hence the
verdict of the wise and judicious will be precisely that, of the leading
men of Rome at the time, even that of Cornelia herself: "Shall then our
house have no end of madness? Have we not enough to be ashamed of in the
disorganization of the State?"

(M945) The law of Tiberius Gracchus survived its author. The Senate had
not power to annul it, though it might slay its author. The work of
redistribution continued, even as the National Assembly of France
sanctioned the legislation of preceding revolutionists. And in consequence
of the law, there was, in six years, an increase of burgesses capable of
bearing arms, of seventy-six thousand. But so many evils attended the
confiscation and redistribution of the public domain--so many acts of
injustice were perpetrated--there was such gross mismanagement, that the
consul Scipio AEmilianus intervened, and by a decree of the people, through
his influence, the commission was withdrawn, and the matter was left to
the consuls to adjudicate, which was virtually the suspension of the law
itself. For this intervention Scipio lost his popularity, unbounded as it
had been, even as Daniel Webste