The Government of the Kings of Rome

THE government of the kings of Rome had some relation to that of the heroic Greek kings. It was generally good, but had a defect

In order to give an adequate idea of thi s government, I shall distinguish that of the first five kings, that of Ser vius Tullus, and that of Tarquin.

The crown was elective. Under the first five kings, the senate had the greatest share in the election.

Upon the king’s decease, the senate examined whether they should continue the established form of government. If they thought proper to continue it, they named a magistrate from the senate who then chose a king.

• The senate then approved the election. [monarchy]
• The people then confirmed it. [democracy]
• The augurs then declared the approbation of the gods. [aristocracy]

If any of these three conditions were missing, they had to proceed to another election.

The constitution was a mix of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Such was the harmony of power, that there was no jealousy or dispute in the first reigns.

The king commanded the armies, and directed the religious sacrifices.

He could judge on civil and criminal causes. He called the senate together, convened the people, laid some affairs before the latter, and regulated the rest with the senate.

The senate’s authority was very great. The kings often pitched upon senators with whom they sat in judgement. They never laid any affair before the people till it had been prev iously debated in that august assembly.

The people had the right of choosing magistrates, of consenting to the new laws, and, with the king’s permission, of mak ing war and peace= but they had not the judicial power. When Tullus Hostili us referred the trial of Horatius to the people, he had his particular reas ons, which may be seen in Dionysius Halicarnasseus.

The constitution changed under Servius Tullius.

• The senate had no share in his election.
• He caused himself to be proclaimed by the people.
• He only judged on criminal cases.
• He laid all affairs directly before the people.
• He eased them of the taxes, and imposed the whole burthen on the patricians.

He weakened the regal and senatorial power and augmented the plebeian power.

Tarquin considered Servius Tullius as an usurper.

• He seized the crown as his hereditary right.
• He destroyed most of the senators

• Thus, his power increased.
• but the odium of that power received a new addition, by usurping also the authority of the people, against whose consent he enacted several laws.

Thus, the three powers were re-united in his person. But the people combined at a critical minute and ended Tarquin.

Chapter 13= The State of Rome after the Expulsion of its Kings

The patrician families always had great privileges. These distinctions, which were considerable under the kings, became much more important after their expulsion.

Hence arose the jealousy of the plebeians, who wanted to reduce them.

The contest struck at the constitution without weakening the government; for it was very indifferent of what family were the magistrates, provided the magistrac y preserved its authority.

An elective monarchy, like that of Rome, necessarily supposeth a powerful aristocratic body to support it; without which it changes immediately into tyranny or into a popular state. But a po pular state has no need of this distinction of families to maintain itself.

To this it was owing that the patricians, who were a necessary part of the constitution under the regal government, became a superfluous branch under the consuls; the people could suppress them without hurting themselves, an d change the constitution without corrupting it.

After Servius Tullus had reduced the pat ricians, it was natural that Rome should fall from the regal hands into tho se of the people. But the people had no occasion to be afraid of relapsing under a regal power by reducing the patricians.

A state may alter two different ways; ei ther by the amendment, or by the corruption, of the constitution. If it has preserved its principles, and the constitution changes, this is owing to i ts amendment; if, upon changing the constitution, its principles are lost, this is because it has been corrupted.

The government of Rome, after the expuls ion of the kings, should naturally have been a democracy. The people had al ready the legislative power in their hands; it was their unanimous consent that had expelled the Tarquins; and, if they had not continued steady to th ose principles, the Tarquins might easily have been restored. To pretend th at their design in expelling them was to render themselves slaves to a few families, is quite absurd. The situation, therefore, of things required t hat Rome should have formed a democracy, and yet this did not happen. There was a necessity that the power of the principal families should be tempere d, and that the laws should have a bias to democracy.

The prosperity of states is frequently g reater, in the insensible transition from one constitution to another, than in either of those constitutions. Then it is that all the springs of gover nment are upon the stretch; that the citizens assert their claims; that fri endships or enmities are formed amongst the jarring parties; and that there is a noble emulation between those who defend the ancient, and those who a re strenuous in promoting the new, constitution.