gather to ratify the decrees of their betters, with a theoretical
right to dissent (though not to discuss), a right which they seldom or
never at once care and dare to exercise.

F. 6.--In course of time we see that everywhere the supremacy of the
Kings became more and more distasteful to the Aristocracy, and was
everywhere set aside, sometimes by a process of quiet depletion of the
Royal prerogative, sometimes by a revolution; the change being, in
the former case, often informal, with the name, and sometimes even
the succession, of the eviscerated office still lingering on.
The executive then passed to the Lords, and the state became an
oligarchical Republic, such as we see in Rome after the expulsion of
the Tarquins. Next came the rise of the Lower Orders, who insisted
with ever-increasing urgency on claiming a share in the direction of
politics, and in every case with ultimate success. Almost invariably
the leaders who headed this uprising of the masses grasped for
themselves in the end the supreme power, and as irresponsible
"Dictators," "Tyrants," or "Emperors" took the place of the old
constitutional Kings.

F. 7.--Such was the cycle of events both in Rome and in the Greek
commonwealths; though in the latter it ran its course within a few
generations, whilst amongst the law-abiding Romans it was a matter of
centuries. And the pages of Caesar bear abundant testimony to the fact
that in his day the Gallic tribes were all in the state of turmoil
which mostly attended the "_Regifugium_" period of development. Some
were still under their old Kings; some, like the Nervii, had developed
a Senatorial government; in some the Commons had set up "Tyrants" of
their own. It was this general unrest which contributed in no small
degree to the Roman conquest of Gaul. And the same state of things