proposed that the vectigal should be remitted, and that the land that
had been assigned might be sold by the occupier. How this would catch
the farmer's fancy is as obvious as is its odious dishonesty. It was
dishonest to the State because it was only fair that each occupier
should contribute to its funds, and because it did away with the
hope of filling Italy with free husbandmen. It was dishonest to the
occupier himself, because it put in his way the worst temptation to
unthriftiness. When Caius renewed his brother's laws he purposely
charged the land distributed to the poor with a yearly vectigal.
How different was this from the mere demagogic trick of Drusus!
It appears, then, that the Lex Frumentaria of Caius is not the
indefensible measure which modern writers, filled with modern notions,
have called it. It has, moreover, been well said that it was a kind
of poor-law; and, even if bad in itself, may have been the least bad
remedy for the pauperism which not Caius, but senatorial misgovernment
had brought about. No doubt it conferred popularity on Caius, and no
doubt his popularity was acceptable to him; but there is no ground for
believing that his noble nature deliberately stooped to demoralise the
mob for selfish motives.

[Sidenote: His Lex Judiciaria.] One great party, however, he had thus
won over to his side. The Lex Judiciaria gained over the equites
also. It has been before explained that the equites at this time were
non-senatorial rich men. Senators were forbidden by law to mix in
commerce, though no doubt they evaded the law. Between the senatorial
and moneyed class there was a natural ill-will, which Caius proceeded
to use and increase. His exact procedure we do not know for certain.
According to some authorities he made the judices eligible from the
equites only, instead of from the Senate. In the epitome of Livy it is
stated that 600 of the equites were to be added to the number of the