plebeians, subject to a tax called tribute, but not to rent. An
agrarian law was a proposal to make an assignment of portions of the
public lands to the people, and to limit the quantity of national land
that could be farmed by any particular patrician.[1] Such a law may
have been frequently impolitic, because it may have disturbed ancient
possessions, but it could never have been unjust; for the property of
the land was absolutely fixed in the state. The lands held by the
patricians, being divided into extensive tracts, were principally used
for pasturage; the small lots assigned to the plebeians were, of
necessity, devoted to agriculture. Hence arose the first great cause
of hostility between the two orders; the patricians were naturally
eager to extend their possessions in the public domains, which enabled
them to provide for their numerous clients, and in remote districts
they frequently wrested the estates from the free proprietors in their
neighbourhood; the plebeians, on the other hand, deemed that they
had the best right to the land purchased by their blood, and saw with
just indignation, the fruits of victory monopolized by a single order
in the state. The tribute paid by the plebeians increased this
hardship, for it was a land-tax levied on estates, and consequently
fell most heavily on the smaller proprietors; indeed, in many cases,
the possessors of the national domains paid nothing.

From all this it is evident that an agrarian law only removed tenants
who held from the state at will, and did not in any case interfere
with the sacred right of property; but it is also plain that such a
change must have been frequently inconvenient to the individual in
possession. It also appears, that had not agrarian laws been
introduced, the great body of the plebeians would have become the
clients of the patricians, and the form of government would have been
a complete oligarchy.