[133 B.C.]
In a short time his plan was matured and his bill brought forward. He proposed to revise the Licinian law of 364 B.C., by which it was enacted that no head of a family should hold more than five hundred jugera (nearly 320 acres) of the public land; but to render the rule less stringent, he added that every son of the family might, on becoming his own master, hold half that quantity in addition.[74] Whoever was in possession of more was to give up the excess at once to the state; but to obviate complaints of injustice, he proposed that those who gave up possession should be entitled to a fair compensation for any improvements they had made during the term of their possession. All public lands were to be vested in three commissioners (triumviri), who were to be elected by the tribes. Their business was to distribute the public lands to all citizens in needy circumstances, and to prevent lands so distributed being again absorbed into the estates of the rich land owners; the sale of the new allotments was altogether prohibited.
The greater part of these public lands had fallen into the hands of the rich land owners. They had held them, on payment of a small yearly rent, for generations; and many of these persons had forgotten perhaps that their possession could be disturbed. After the first surprise was over, the voices of these land holders began to be heard; but as yet the majority of the senate showed no disfavour to the law of Gracchus. The persons interested alleged that the measure, though it pretended only to interfere with state lands, did in fact interfere with the rights of private property; for these lands were held on public lease and had been made matters of purchase and sale, moneys were secured on them for the benefit of widows and orphans, tombs had been erected on them: if this law passed, no man’s land could be called his own.
If Gracchus had proposed a forcible and immediate resumption of all state lands, without compensation for moneys spent on them, these arguments would have had more weight. Rights arise by prescription; and if the state had for a long course of time tacitly recognised a right of private property in these lands, it would have been a manifest injustice thus abruptly to resume possession. But the Licinian law was evidence that the state claimed a right to interfere with the tenure of the public lands. That the Romans felt no doubt about the right is shown by the fact that in framing his law Tiberius was assisted by his father-in-law App. Claudius, the chief of the senate, and by P. Mucius Scævola, consul of the year.
It was certain that the law would be carried in all the country tribes, because it was precisely in these tribes that the strength of Gracchus lay, and all his arguments show that he knew it. It was to the country people, who had lost or were afraid of losing their little farms, that he spoke.[b] A few specimens of the fervent eloquence of Tiberius still remain in the fragments[75] quoted in Plutarch[e] and Appian.[g] Plutarch describes the present event as follows:
“Tiberius defending the matter, which of itself was good and just, with such eloquence as might have justified an evil cause, was invincible; and no man was able to argue against him to confute him, when, speaking in the behalf of the poor citizens of Rome (the people being gathered round about the pulpit for orations), he told them, that the wild beasts through Italy had their dens and caves of abode, and the men that fought, and were slain for their country, had nothing else but air and light, and so were compelled to wander up and down with their wives and children, having no resting-place nor house to put their heads in. And that the captains do but mock their soldiers, when they encourage them in battle to fight valiantly for the graves, the temples, their own houses, and their predecessors. For, said he, of such a number of poor citizens as there be, there cannot a man of them show any ancient house or tomb of their ancestors, because the poor men go to the wars, and are slain for the rich men’s pleasures and wealth; besides, they falsely call them lords of the earth, where they have not a handful of ground that is theirs. These and such other like words being uttered before all the people with such vehemency and truth, so moved the common people withal, and put them in such a rage, that there was no adversary of his able to withstand him. Therefore, leaving to contradict and deny the law by argument, the rich men put all their trust in Marcus Octavius, colleague and fellow-tribune with Tiberius in office, who was a grave and wise young man, and Tiberius’ very familiar friend. That the first time they came to him, to oppose him against the confirmation of this law, he prayed them to hold him excused, because Tiberius was his very friend. But in the end, being compelled to it through the great number of the rich men that were importunate with him, he withstood Tiberius’ law, which was enough to overthrow it.”[e]
The morning came. The Forum was crowded with people expecting the completion of the great measure which was to restore some share in the broad lands of Italy to the sons of those who had won them. Strange faces were seen everywhere: vine-dressers from Campania and the Auruncan hills, peasants from the Sabine and Æquian valleys, farmers of valley and plain from the Clanis to the Vulturnus.
Gracchus rose. His speech was received with loud applause by the eager multitude. When he had ended, he turned to the clerk, and bade him read over the words of the law before it was put to the vote. Then Octavius stood up and forbade the man to read. Gracchus was taken by surprise. After much debate he broke up the assembly, declaring that he would again bring on his defeated bill upon the next regular day of meeting.
The intervening time was spent in preparing for the contest. Gracchus retaliated upon the veto of Octavius by laying an interdict on all public functionaries, shut up the courts of justice and the offices of police, and put a seal upon the doors of the treasury. Further, he struck the compensation clauses out of his bill, and now simply proposed that the state should resume possession of all lands held by individuals in contravention of the Licinian law.
On the day of the second assembly Gracchus appeared in the Forum escorted by a bodyguard. Again he ordered the clerk to read the bill; again Octavius stood forth, and barred all proceedings. A violent scene followed, and a riot seemed inevitable, when two senators, friends of Gracchus—one named Fulvius Flaccus—earnestly besought him to refer the whole matter to the senate. Gracchus consented. But his late impatient conduct had weakened whatever influence his name possessed in the great council, and his appearance was the signal for a burst of reproaches. He hastily left the house, and returning to the Forum gave out that on the next day of assembly he would for the third time propose his measure; and that, if Octavius persisted in opposition, he would move the people to depose their unfaithful tribune.