221 



(r) The nature of this political arrangement is graphically described by Hume ; JEssai/s, 

 Part ii, Essay 10 ; from which we extract the following : 



"A wheel within a wheel, such as we observe in the German empire, is considered by 

 Lord Shaftesbury as an absurdity in politics : but what must we say to two equal wheels 

 whieu govern the same political machine, without any mutual check, control, or subordina- 

 tion ; and yet preserve the greatest harmony and concord? To establish two distinct legis- 

 latures, each of which possesses full and absolute authority within itself, and stands in no 

 need of the other's assistance, in order to give validity to its acts ; this may appear, before- 

 hand, altogether impracticable, as long as men are actuated by the passions of ambition, 

 emulation, and avarice, which have hitherto been their chief governing principles. And 

 should I assert, that the State I have in my eye was divided into two distinct factions, each 

 of which predominated in a distinct legislature, and yet produced no clashing in these inde- 

 pendent powers, the supposition may appear incredible. And if, to augment the paradox, 

 I should affirm, that this disjointed, irregular government, was the most active, triumphant, 

 and illustrious commonwealth, that ever yet appeared, I should certainly be told, that such 

 a political chimera was as absurd as any vision of priests or poets. But there is no need 

 for searching long, in order to prove the reality of the foregoing suppositions : for this was 

 actually the case with the Roman republic. 



" The legislative power was there lodged in the comitia ceniuriala and comitia tributa. In 

 the former, it is well known, the people voted according to census ; so that when the first 

 class was unanimous, though it contained not, perhaps, the hundredth part of the common- 

 wealth, it determined the whole ; and, with the authority of the senate, established a law. 

 In the latter, every vote was equal : and as the authority of the senate was not there requis- 

 ite, the lower people entirely prevailed, and gave law to the whole State. In all party divi- 

 sions, at first between the patricians and plebeians, afterwards between the nobles and the 

 people, the interest of the aristocracy was predominant in the first legislature ; that of the 

 democracy in the second : The one could always destroy what the other had established : 

 Nay, the one, by a sudden and unforeseen motion, might take the start of the other, and 

 totally annihilate its rival, by a vote, which, from the nature of the constitution, had the 

 full authority of a law. But no such contest is observed in the history of Rome : no in- 

 stance of a quarrel between these two legislatures ; though many between the parties that 

 governed in each. Whence arose this concord, which may seem so extraordinary ? . . . . 



"No instance is found of any opposition or struggle between these comitia ; except one 

 slight attempt of this kind, mentioned by Appian in the third book of his civil wars." 



There is some confusion as to the various Roman legislatures, which it would be hopeless 

 to attempt to untangle in the brief space at our command. It seems, however, that another 

 assembly, the Concilium Plebis, from which the patricians were excluded, was at a later date 

 also vested with legislative power. But this assembly, though differing in its mode of action, 

 was, in the power it represented, scarcely distinguishable from the Comitia Tributa. (See on 

 this point, Momsen's History, and the article on " Roman Law " in the Encyclopedia Britan- 

 nica.) At a later period the Senate also acquired independent legislative power ; and, on 

 the institution of the empire, the emperor also. Accordingly, in Justinian's collections, the 

 ditfereut kinds of statutes are enumerated as consisting of leges, jjlebiscila, Senatus consulta, 

 principum placita, corresponding respectively to the several legislatures named in the text, 

 and in this note. 



PROC. AMER. PHTLOS. SOC. XXXIV. 148. 2 C. PRINTED AUG. 26, 1895. 



