The striking point in the last extract is his remark about a 'small
thing.' It is likely, enough that the losses of the proprietors as a
body would not be overwhelming, and that the opposition was rendered
furious almost as much by the principle of restitution, and
interference with long-recognised ownership, as by the value of what
they were called on to disgorge. Five hundred jugera of slave-tended
pasture-land could not have been of very great importance to a rich
Roman, who, however, might well have been alarmed by the warning of
Gracchus with regard to the army, for in foreign service, and not in
grazing or ploughing, the fine gentleman of the day found a royal road
to wealth. [Sidenote: Grievances of the possessors.] On the other hand
it is quite comprehensible both that the possessors imagined that they
had a great grievance, and that they had some ground for their belief.
A possessor, for instance, who had purchased from another in the full
faith that his title would never be disturbed, had more right to be
indignant than a proprietor of Indian stock would have, if in case of
the bankruptcy of the Indian Government the British Government should
refuse to refund his money. There must have been numbers of such cases
with every possible complexity of title; and even if the class that
would be actually affected was not large, it was powerful, and every
landowner with a defective title would, however small his holding
(provided it was over 30 jugera, the proposed allotment), take the
alarm and help to swell the cry against the Tribune as a demagogue and
a robber. This is what we can state about the agrarian law of Tiberius
Gracchus. It remains to be told how it was carried.

[Sidenote: How the law was carried.] Gracchus had a colleague named
Octavius, who is said to have been his personal friend. Octavius had
land himself to lose if the law were carried, and he opposed it.
Gracchus offered to pay him the value of the land out of his own