But the kinds of money on which, in the case of exchange, an agio is paid, are not always the more valuable intrinsically, but those which are most in request. For instance, when either gold or paper money is in demand for the purpose of being sent out of the country, those who hold the one or the other may keep it back till an agio is offered them in the current silver money; and a long period may often elapse before a sufficient quantity of the gold coin that has been sent out has come back to enable people to have it without an agio, while it may happen that at a subsequent time an agio must be paid in order to procure current silver money in place of the gold coin. (Rotteck, Staats-Lexicon.)

The term agio is also used to signify the rate of premium which is given when a person having a claim which he can legally demand in only one metal, chooses to be paid in another. Thus in France silver is the only legal standard, and payments can be demanded only in silver coin, a circumstance which is found to be so practically inconvenient, that the receiver will frequently pay a small premium in order to obtain gold coin, which is more easily transportable: this premium is called the agio on gold.

There are various meanings of agio in the French language, which are perversions of the proper and original meaning. AGIOTAGE, in the French language, is a new word, which is used to express speculations on the rise and fall of the public debt of states, or the public funds, as they are often called. The person who speculates on such rise or fall is called Agioteur. (Ganilh, Dict. Analytique d'Economie Politique.)

AGNATE. [CONSANGUINITY.]

AGRARIAN LAWS (Agraria Leges). Those enactments were called Agrarian laws by the Romans which related to the public lands (Ager Publicus). The objects of these Agrarian laws were various. A law (lex) for the establishment of a colony and the assignment of tracts of land to the colonists was an Agrarian law. The laws which regulated the use and enjoyment of the public lands, and gave the ownership of portions of them to the commonalty (plebes)

|

were also Agrarian laws. Those Agrarian laws indeed which assigned small allotments to the plebeians, varying in amount from two jugera to seven jugera (a jugerum is about three-fourths of an English acre), were among the most important; but the Agrarian laws, or those clauses of Agrarian laws which limited the amount of public land which a man could use and enjoy, are usually meant when the term Agrarian laws is now used.

The origin of the Roman public land, or of the greater part of it, was this: Rome had originally a small territory, but by a series of conquests carried on for many centuries she finally obtained the dominion of the whole Italian peninsula. When the Romans conquered an Italian state, they seized a part of the lands of the conquered people; for it was a Roman principle that the conquered people lost everything with the loss of their political independence; and what they enjoyed after the conquest was a gift from the generosity of the conqueror. A state which submitted got better terms than one which made an obstinate resistance. Sometimes a third of their land was taken from the conquered state, and sometimes two-thirds. It is not said how this arrangement was effected; whether each landholder lost a third, or whether an entire third was taken in the lump, and the conquered people were left to equalize the loss among themselves. But there were probably in all parts of Italy large tracts of uncultivated ground which were under pasture, and these tracts would form a part of the Roman share, for we find that pasture land was a considerable portion of the Roman public land. The ravages of war also often left many of the conquered tracts in a desolate condition, and these tracts formed part of the conqueror's share. The lands thus acquired could not always be carefully measured at the time of the conquest, and they were not always iminediately sold or assigned to the citizens. The Roman state retained the ownership of such public lands as were not sold or given in allotments, but allowed them to be occupied and enjoyed by any Roman citizen, or, according to some, by the patricians only at first, and in some cases

certainly by the citizens of allied and friendly states, on the payment of a certain rent, which was one-tenth of the produce of arable land and one-fifth of the produce of land planted with the vine, the fig, the olive, and of other trees the produce of which was valuable, as the pine. It does not appear that this occupation was originally regulated by any rules: it is stated that public notice was given that the lands might be occupied on such terms as above mentioned. Nor was the occupation probably limited to one class: either the patricians or the plebeians, either of these two portions of the Roman community, might occupy the lands. The enjoyment of the public land by the plebes is at least mentioned after the date of the Licinian laws. Such an arrangement would certainly be favourable to agriculture. The state would have found it difficult to get purchasers for all its acquisitions; and it would not have been politic to have made a free gift of all those conquered lands which, under proper management, would furnish a revenue to the state. Those who had capital, great or small, could get the use of land without buying it, on the condition of paying a moderate rent, which depended on the produce. The rent may not always have been paid in kind, but still the amount of the rent would be equivalent to a portion of the produce. The state, as already observed, was the owner of the land: the occupier, who was legally entitled the Possessor, had only the use (usus). This is the account of Appian (Civil Wars, i. 7, &c.). The account of Plutarch (Tiberius Gracchus, 8) is in some respects different. Whatever land the Romans took from their neighbours in war, they sold part and the rest they made public and gave to the poor to cultivate, on the payment of a small rent to the treasury (aerarium); but as the rich began to offer a higher rent, and ejected poor, a law was passed which forbade any person to hold more than 500 jugera of (public) land. The law to which he alludes was one of the Licinian laws. (Camillus, 39.)

the

This mode of occupying the land continued for a long period. It is not stated by any authority that there was originally

any limit to the amount which an individual might occupy. In course of time these possessions (possessiones), as they were called, though they could not be considered by the possessors as their own, were dealt with as if they were. They made permanent improvements on them, they erected houses and other buildings, they bought and sold possessions like other property, gave them as portions with their daughters, and transmitted them to their children. There is no doubt that a possessor had a good title to his possession against all claimants; and there must have been legal remedies in cases of trespass, intrusion, and other disturbances of possession. In course of time very large tracts had come into the possession of wealthy individuals, and the small occupiers had sold their possessions, and in some cases, it is said, had been ejected, though it is not said how, by a powerful neighbour. This, it is further said, arose in a great degree from the constant demands of the state for the services of her citizens in war. The possessors were often called from their fields to serve in the armies, and if they were too poor to employ labourers in their absence, or if they had no slaves, their farms must have been neglected. The rich stocked their estates with slaves, and refused to employ free labourers, because free men were liable to military service, and slaves were not. The free population of many parts of Italy thus gradually decreased, the possessions of the rich were extended, and most of the labourers were slaves. The Italian allies of Rome, who served in her armies and won her victories, were ground down by poverty, taxes, and military service. They had not even the resources of living by their labour, for the rich would only employ slaves; and though slave labour under ordinary circumstances is not so profitable as free labour, it would be more profitable in a state of society in which the free labourers were liable at all times to be called out to military service. Besides this, the Roman agricultural slave was hard worked, and an unfeeling master might contrive to make a good profit out of him by a few years of bondage; and if he died, his place would readily be

supplied by a new purchase. Such a system of cultivation might be profitable to a few wealthy capitalists, and would ensure a large amount of surplus produce for the market; but the political consequences would be injurious.

The first proposition of an Agrarian law, according to Livy, was that of the consul Spurius Cassius, B.C. 484, a measure, as Livy observes, which was never proposed up to his time (the period of Augustus) without exciting the greatest commotion. The object of this law was to give to the Latins half of the lands which had been taken from the Hernici, and the other half to the plebes. He also proposed to divide among the plebes a portion of the public land, which was possessed by the patricians. The measure of Cassius does not appear to have been carried, and after the expiration of his office, he was tried, condemned, and put to death, on some charge of treasonable designs, and of aspiring to the kingly power. The circumstances of his trial and death were variously reported by various authorities. (Livy, ii. 41.) Dionysius (Antiq. Rom. viii. 76) says that the senate stopped the agitation of Cassius by a measure of their own. A Consultum was passed to the effect that ten men of consular rank should be appointed to ascertain the boundaries of the public land, and to determine how much should be let and how much distributed among the plebes; it was further provided that if the Isopolite and allied states should henceforth aid the Romans in making any further acquisitions of land, they should have a portion of it. The Senatus Consultum being proposed to the popular assembly (duos), whatever that body may here mean, stopped the agitation of Cassius. This statement is precise enough and consistent with all that we know of the history of the Agrarian laws; nor does its historical value seem to be much impaired by the remarks of Niebuhr upon it (Licinian Rogations, vol. iii. note 12).

At length, in the year B.C. 375, the tribunes C. Licinius Stolo and L. Sextius brought forward among other measures an Agrarian law, which after much opposition was carried in the year B.C.

365.

The measures of Licinius and his colleague are generally spoken of under the name of the Licinian Rogations. The provisions of this law are not very exactly known, but the principal part of them may be collected from Livy (vi. 35), Plutarch (Tib. Gracchus, 8), and Appian (Civil Wars, 8). No person was henceforth to occupy more than five hundred jugera of public land for cultivation or planting; and every citizen was qualified to hold to that amount, at least of public land acquired subsequently to the passing of the law. It was also enacted that every citizen might feed one hundred head of large cattle and five hundred head of small cattle on the public pastures. Any person who exceeded the limits prescribed by the law was liable to be fined by the plebeian ædiles, and to be ejected from the land which he occupied illegally. The rent payable to the state on arable land was a tenth of the produce, and that on lands planted with fruit or other trees was a fifth. This is not mentioned by Appian as a provision of that law which limited the possessions to five hundred jugera, but as an old rule; but if the law of Licinius contained nothing against it, this provision would of course remain in force. A fixed sum was also paid, according to the old rule, for each head of small and large cattle that was kept on the public pastures.

The rent was farmed or sold for a lustrum, that is, five years, to the highest bidder. There was another provision mentioned by Appian as part of the law which limited possession to five hundred jugera, which is very singular. To render it more intelligible, the whole passage should be taken together, which is this: "It was enacted that no man should have more of this land (public land) than five hundred jugera, nor feed more than a hundred large and five hundred small cattle; and for these purposes the law required them to have a number of free men, who were to watch what was going on and to inform.” * Niebuhr

This passage of Appian is very obscure, but it has certainly been misunderstood by Niebuhr. The Latin version is "Decretum praeterea est, ut ad curanda opera rustica certum numerum

simply expressen the last enactment thus : | "The posseurs of the public land are obliged to employ free men as field la burers in a certain proportion to the sint of their possessions," Nothing is and as to any assignment of lands to the pichiana by the law of Mtolo, though Nicht nude the following as one of the clauors of the law: "Whatever portions the public land persons may at present pecs alive five hundred jugers, either in fickle or plantations, shall be assigned all the plebeians in lots of seven jugers a abendute property. He observes in a

"No historian, it is true, speaks of ile assignment, but it must have been made," and then follow some reasons why it must have been made, part of which are good to show that it was not made, Hut though Livy does not speak of assignments of land as being made to the Picbos, such assignment is mentioned at one of the objects of his laws in the speech of Livining (Lávy, vi, äu) and of ke oppment Appius Claudius (vi, 41).

About two hundred and thirty years after the passing of the Licinian law, the thland Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, who was of a plebeian but noble family, brought forward his Agrarian law, n..

The same complaints were still made as in the time of Licinius: there ** general poverty, diminished popula tem, and a great number of servile isisters. Accordingly he proposed that the Lacinian law as to the five hundred mpera should be renewed or confirmed, which implice, not perhaps that the law bad been repealed, but at least that it had fallen into distes: but he proposed to silew a man to hold two hundred and 1 jugera, in addition to the five hum dral, for each son that he had, though the must have been limited to two sons, Niebuhr observes, inasmuch as one thousand jugera was the limit which a sman was allowed to hold. The land that remained after this settlement was to be

distributed by commissioners among the poor. His proposed law also contained a clause that the poor should not alienate their allotments. This Agrarian law only applied to the Roman public lands in Apulia, Namnium, and other parts of Italy, which were in large masson it did not affect the public lands which had already been assigned to individuals in ownerships or sold. Nor did it comprise the land of Capua, which had been made public in the war against Hannibal, nor the Stellatis Ager: these for file tracts were reserved as a valuable public property. and were not touched by any Agrarian law before that of C. Julius Caesar.

The complaints of the possessors were loud against this proposed law; and to the effect which has already been stated. They alleged that it was unjust to disturb them in the possessions which they had so long enjoyed, and on which they had made great improvements, The policy of Gracchina was to encourageo population by giving to the poor small allotments, which was indeed the object of such grants as far back as the time of the capture of Veil (Livy, v. 30); he wished to establish a body of small independent landholders. He urged on the possessors the equity of his proposed measure, and the policy of having the country filled with free labourers instead of slaves; and he showed them that they would be indemnified for what they should lose, by receiving, as com pensation for their improvements, the ownership of five hundred jugera, and the half of that amount for those who had children. It seems doubtful if the law as finally carried gave any compen sation to the persons who were turned out of their possessions, for such part of their possessions as they lost, or for the improvements on it. (Plutarch, Tib Gracchus, x.) Three persona (triumviri) were appointed to ascertain what was public fand, and to divide it according to the law: Tiberius had himself, his bro ther Caius, and his father in law Appius Claudius appointed to be commissioners, with full power to settle all suite which might arise out of this law. Tiberius

Gracchus was murdered in a tumult excited by his opponents at the election

when he was a second time a candidate for the tribuneship (D.C. 133). The law, however, was carried into effect after his death, for the party of the nobility prudently yielded to what they saw could not be resisted. But the difficulties of fully executing the law were great. The possessors of public land neglected to make a return of the lands which they occupied, upon which Fulvius Flaccus, Papirius Carbo, and Caius Gracchus, who were now the commissioners for carrying the law into effect, gave notice that they were ready to receive the statements of any informer; and numerous suits arose. All the private land which was near the boundary of the public land was subjected to a strict investigation as to its original sale and boundaries, though many of the owners could not produce their titles after such a lapse of time. The result of the admeasurement was often to dislodge a man from his well-stocked lands and remove him to a bare spot, from lands in cultivation to land in the rough, to a marsh or to a swamp; for the boundary of the public land after the several acquisitions by conquest had not been accurately ascertained, and the mode of permissive occupation had led to great confusion in boundaries. "The wrong done by the rich," says Appian, "though great, was difficult exactly to estimate; and this measure of Gracchus put everything into confusion, the possessors being moved and transferred from the grounds which they were occupying to others" (Civil Wars, i. 18). Such a general dislodgement of the possessors was a violent Revolution. Tiberius Gracchus had also proposed that so much of the inheritance of Attalus III., king of Pergamus, who had bequeathed his property to the Roman State, as consisted of money, should be distributed among those who received allotments of land, in order to supply them with the necessary capital for cultivating it. (Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus, 14.) It is not stated by Plutarch that the measure was carried, though it probably was.

Caius Gracchus, who was tribune B.C. 123, renewed the Agrarian Law of his brother, which it appears had at least

not been fully carried into effect; an he carried measures for the establishme of several colonies, which were to composed of those citizens who were receive grants of land. A variety other measures, some of undoubted valu were passed in his tribunate; but the do not immediately concern the presen inquiry. Caius got himself appointed execute the measures which he carrie But the party of the nobility beat Cair at his own weapons; they offered th plebes more than he did. They procure the tribune Marcus Livius Drusus t propose measures which went far beyon those of Caius Gracchus. Livius accor ingly proposed the establishment of twel colonies, whereas Gracchus had only pr posed two. (Plutarch, Caius Gracchu 9.) The law of Gracchus also had r quired the poor to whom land was a signed to pay a rent to the treasury which payment was either in the natu of a tax or an acknowledgment that ti land still belonged to the state: Drus relieved them from this payment. Drust also was prudent enough not to give him self or his kinsmen any appointment unde the law for founding the colonies. appointments were places of honour least, and probably of profit too. Ti downfall of Caius was thus prepared, an like his brother, he was murdered by t party of the nobility, B.C. 121, when h was a third time a candidate for the tr bunate.

Suc

Soon after the death of Caius Gracchu an enactment was passed which repeale that part of the law of the elder Gracchu which forbade those who received assign ments of lands from selling them. (Appiar Civil Wars, i. 27.) The historian add which one might have conjectured with out being told, that the rich immediatel bought their lands of the poor; "o forced the poor out of their lands on th pretext that they had bought them: which is not quite intelligible. Anoth law, which Appian attributes to Spuri Borius, enacted that there should be n future grants of lands, that those wh had lands should keep them, but pay rent or tax to the Aerarium, and that thi

ταῖσδε ταῖς is probably corrupt.