The government of the kings of Rome
had some relation to that of the kings of the heroic times of Greece.
Its subversion, like the latter's, was owing to its general defect,
though in its own particular nature it was exceedingly good.
In order to give an adequate idea of this government, I shall
distinguish that of the first five kings, that of Servius Tullius, and
that of Tarquin.
The crown was elective, and 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
[20]
taken from their own body, who chose a king; the senate were to approve of the election, the people to
confirm it, and the augurs to declare the approbation of the gods. If
any of these three conditions was wanting, they were obliged to proceed
to another election.
The constitution was a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and
democracy; and such was the harmony of power that there was no instance
of jealousy or dispute in the first reigns. The king commanded the
armies, and had the direction of the sacrifices: he had the power of
determining
[21]
civil and criminal
[22]
causes; he called the senate together, convened the people, laid some affairs before the latter, and regulated the rest with the senate.
[23]
The authority of the senate was very great. The kings oftentimes
pitched upon senators with whom they sat in judgment; and they never
laid any affair before the people till it had been previously debated
[24]
in that august assembly.
The people had the right of choosing
[25]
magistrates, of consenting to the new laws, and, with the king's permission, of making war and
peace; but they had not the judicial power. When Tullius Hostilius
referred the trial of Horatius to the people, he had his particular
reasons, which may be seen in Dionysius Halicarnassus.
[26]
The constitution altered under
[27]
Servius Tullius. The senate had no share in his election; he caused himself to be proclaimed by the
people; he resigned the power of hearing civil causes,
[28]
reserving none to himself but those of a criminal nature; he laid all affairs
directly before the people, eased them of the taxes, and imposed the
whole burden on the patricians. Hence in proportion as he weakened the
regal together with the senatorial power, he augmented that of the
plebeians.
[29]
Tarquin would neither be chosen by the senate nor by the people; he
considered Servius Tullius as a usurper, and seized the crown as his
hereditary right. He destroyed most of the senators; those who remained
he never consulted; nor did he even so much as summon them to assist at
his decisions.
[30]
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. The three powers were by these means re-united in his person; but
the people at a critical minute recollected that they were legislators, and there
was an end of Tarquin.
