[1647] Livy iii. 31. 5 f. (454); Dion. Hal. x. 34 f., 42, 48; Pliny, N. H. vii. 28. 101.
[1648] Livy iii. 10; 25. 9; 30. 5; Dion. Hal. x. 15. 3; 20. 4; 26. 4; Dio Cass. Frag. 21.
[1649] Livy iii. 30. 5; Dion. Hal. x. 30. 6 (457). The object, as stated by Livy, was increased protection for the commons. Any enlargement of the number after they had acquired the veto would have been a positive disadvantage; Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 161; cf. above p. 270, n. 2. The change was made with the consent of the senate, doubtless through a centuriate law.
[1650] P. 233, 265, n. 1 (3).
[1651] P. 265, n. 1 (3).
[1652] Herzog, Röm. Staatsverf. i. 170.
[1653] Livy. ii. 9. 6. Even if these acts are not historical, there can be no doubt that the senate had the power which they imply.
[1654] Cf. Livy ii. 15. 1 f.
[1655] Livy ii. 3. 5; 5. 1.
[1656] Cf. Livy iii. 70. 14.