emperor had frequently gratified them. They had therefore less to fear,
and more to hope, from the government of a single person than any other
class of Roman citizens. With regard to the partiality for Claudius, it
may be accounted for partly from the low habits of life to which he had
been addicted, in consequence of which many of them were familiarly
acquainted with him; and this circumstance likewise increased their hope
of deriving some advantage from his accession. Exclusive of all these
considerations, it is highly probable that the populace were instigated
in favour of Claudius by the artifices of his freedmen, persons of mean
extraction, by whom he was afterwards entirely governed, and who, upon
such an occasion, would exert their utmost efforts to procure his
appointment to the throne. From the debate in the senate having
continued during (333) two days, it was evident that there was still a
strong party for restoring the ancient form of government. That they
were in the end overawed by the clamour of the multitude, is not
surprising, when we consider that the senate was totally unprovided with
resources of every kind for asserting the independence of the nation by
arms; and the commonalty, who interrupted their deliberations, were the
only people by whose assistance they ever could effect the restitution of
public freedom. To this may be added, that the senate, by the total
reduction of their political importance, ever since the overthrow of the
republic, had lost both the influence and authority which they formerly
enjoyed. The extreme cruelty, likewise, which had been exercised during
the last two reigns, afforded a further motive for relinquishing all
attempts in favour of liberty, as they might be severely revenged upon
themselves by the subsequent emperor: and it was a degree of moderation
in Claudius, which palliates the injustice of his cause, that he began
his government with an act of amnesty respecting the public transactions
which ensued upon the death of Caligula.