plebis intercesserunt ne idem homines in eodem magistratu perduellionis bis eundem accusarent. itaque actione mutata isdem accusantibus multa inrogata: populus cum damnavit aeris gravis cxx millibus.

(0) Livy XXVI 3 §§ 5-12 (case of Cn Fulvius) bis est accusatus pecuniaque anquisitum: tertio testibus datis, cum, praeterquam quod omnibus probris onerabatur, iurati permulti dicerent fugae pavorisque initium a praetore ortum, ab eo desertos milites, cum haud vanum timorem ducis crederent, terga dedisse; tanta ira accensa est, ut capite anquirendum contio succlamaret. de eo quoque novum certamen ortum: nam cum bis pecunia anquisisset, tertio capitis se anquirere diceret, tribuni plebis appellati collegae negarunt se in mora esse, quo minus, quod ei

3 For this important case see Clark, Early Roman Law §§ 11-16. I am reminded by Mr Reid that the words vel intra pomerium vel extra pomerium would not be necessary until the ius provocationis was definitely established. Their introduction here is therefore an anachronism. And if we are meant to

understand that the duumvirs had really

no power to acquit (but see Clark § 13), this also smacks of the Republican period, when the duumvirs simply condemned the accused, and their sentence was merely introductory to the real trial.

more maiorum permissum esset, seu legibus seu moribus mallet, anquireret, quoad vel capitis vel pecuniae iudicasset* privato. tum Sempronius perduellionis se iudicare Cn Fulvio dixit, diemque comitiis ab C Calpurnio praetore urbis petit. inde alia spes ab reo temptata est, si adesse in iudicio Q Fulvius frater posset, florens tum et fama rerum gestarum et propinqua spe Capuae potiundae. id cum per litteras miserabiliter pro fratris capite scriptas petisset Fulvius, negassentque patres e re publica esse abscedi a Capua, postquam dies comitiorum aderat, Cn Fulvius exsulatum Tarquinios abiit. id ei iustum exsilium esse scivit plebs.

(1) Livy XLIII 16 §§ 10-16 (case of the two censors) Ti Gracchi primum bona consecravit, quod in multa pignoribusque eius, qui tribunum appellasset, intercessioni non parendo, se in ordinem coegisset; C Claudio diem dixit, quod contionem ab se avocasset; et utrique censori perduellionem se iudicare pronuntiavit, diemque comitiis a C Sulpicio praetore urbano petiit. non recusantibus censoribus quominus primo quoque tempore iudicium de se populus faceret, in ante diem octavum et septimum Kal Octobres comitiis perduellionis dicta dies. censores extemplo in atrium Libertatis escenderunt, et ibi signatis tabellis publicis clausoque tabulario et dimissis servis publicis negarunt se prius quicquam publici negotii gesturos, quam iudicium populi de se factum esset. prior Claudius causam dixit; et cum ex duodecim centuriis equitum octo censorem condemnassent multaeque aliae primae classis, extemplo principes civitatis in conspectu populi anulis aureis positis vestem mutarunt, ut supplices plebem circumirent. maxime tamen sententiam vertisse dicitur Ti Grocchus, quod cum clamor undique plebis esset periculum Graccho non esse, conceptis verbis iuravit, si collega damnatus esset, non exspectato de se iudicio comitem exsilii eius futurum. adeo tamen ad extremum spei venit reus, ut octo centuriae ad damnationem defuerint. absoluto Claudio tribunus plebis negavit se Gracchum morari.

In this passage capitis answers to legibus, pecuniae to moribus. Thus there are here (as Huschke pp 145-6

remarks) two things based on custom, (a) the tribune's right of choice, (b) the fine-procedure itself.

(k) Livy XXV 4 §§ 7-11 (case of the fraudulent contractor M Postumius Pyrgensis, who had been accused for peculatus, with fine-penalty in view, before the tribes but had caused his friends to use violence so as to prevent a vote being taken) haec cum ab optimo quoque pro atrocitate rei iacta essent, vimque eam contra rem publicam et pernicioso exemplo factam senatus decresset, confestim Carvilii tribuni plebis omissa multae certatione rei capitalis diem Postumio dixerunt, ac ni vades daret, prendi a viatore atque in carcerem duci iusserunt. Postumius vadibus datis non adfuit. tribuni plebem rogaverunt, plebesque ita scivit, si M Postumius ante kal Maias non prodisset, citatusque eo die non respondisset neque excusatus esset, videri eum in exsilio esse; bonaque eius venire, ipsi aqua et igni placere interdici. singulis deinde eorum, qui turbae ac tumultus concitatores fuerant, rei capitalis diem dicere ac vades poscere coeperunt. primo non dantis, deinde etiam eos qui dare possent in carcerem coiciebant; cuius rei periculum vitantes plerique in exsilium abierunt.

(λ) Cicero de legibus III § 6 cum magistratus iudicassit irrogassitve, per populum multae poenae certatio esto. And § 10 omnes magistratus auspicium iudiciumque habento. And § 27 deinceps igitur omnibus magistratibus auspicia et iudicia dantur: iudicia, ut esset populi potestas ad quam provocaretur; auspicia, ut multos inutiles comitiatus probabiles inpedirent morae: saepe enim populi impetum iniustum auspiciis di inmortales represse

runt.

(u) Cicero II in Verrem I §§ 12-14 ex hoc quoque evaserit: proficiscar eo, quo me iam pridem vocat populus Romanus: de iure enim libertatis et civitatis suum putat esse iudicium et recte putat. confringat iste sane vi sua consilia senatoria, quaestiones omnium perrumpat, evolet ex vestra severitate: mihi credite, artioribus apud populum Romanum laqueis tenebitur.

*

credent omnes quinque et hanc ego

*

since they had been brought into direct correspondence with the tribes, are constantly spoken of in this sort of way.

3

is proved, not only by its derivation from duellum and t prefix per which stamped it with an unfavourable1 sense fou also in perfidus periurus perdere perire perperam etc, also by the testimony of antiquity' and the many surviv traces of ancient usage. But as the word hostis lost original wide meaning 'stranger' and came to mean no m than 'enemy'; so by a like narrowing perduellis came to m only 'internal enemy', a traitor or enemy to his own coun The offence committed by such a person is perduellio, a t closely corresponding to our 'high treason'.

7 I must remark that, even if with Huschke p 181 we see in these three crimes respectively perduellio parricidium and proditio-and I grant it probable-, still there is nothing to shew that, regarded as offences against the state, they could not all be brought under the general notion of perduellio. I cannot see the marked distinction between this and proditio, asserted by Lange I 384. That we do not hear of cases of proditio coming before the centuries is (as he admits II 526) owing to such offences being dealt with in the field under the plenary imperium of

(6) It is impossible to give any more precise definition of perduellio by specifying any class or classes of actions to which alone that term could strictly speaking be applied. I cannot find that the ancients themselves had any such definition; nor is such to be looked for in the infancy of jurisprudence. At the same time it is to be observed that the word needed no further definition. We hear of a law of perduellio existing in the regal period; but it seems to have dealt only with the procedure to be followed and the punishment to be inflicted on the guilty. The truth is that in a trial for perduellio the question raised was not so much a question of fact as of intent or effect. If the people hold that a citizen has by some course of action harmed or imperilled the state, they find him guilty of perduellio: if not, they acquit him. Thus, by being the ultimate judge of the quality of the action, the sovereign people is the guardian of its own safety and honour.

It is only by holding fast this conception of perduellio that we can understand how it was that such a variety of offences were able to be brought under it. We hear of many forms of treason directly political, both within the city, as attempts to kill injure or impede in execution of duty the officers of the state, misuse of magisterial powers, aiming at monarchy, and indeed conspiracies in general; also without the city, as treasonable assistance of or correspondence with an enemy: and of others not directly political but either military, as cases of cowardice neglect or other misconduct in the field; or religious, as neglect of auspices etc; or such injuries as are inflicted upon the state by violence used by a fraudulent contractor to defeat the ends of justice: a strange though not exhaustive list of offences, which had only this one point' in common, that they were held to outrage the majesty and endanger the security of Rome.

4 See Maine's Ancient Law c 9 (p 316), c IO (p 372). The change in legal conceptions is from general to special. It seems that there was no definition of Treason in the old English law.

5 See Maine's Ancient Law c 10,

Sheldon Amos' Science of Law c 10 (p 237).

6 adfectatio regni. See passage (v) quoted above.

7 With this view Madvig II p 274 essentially agrees.