in opposition to the plan of the defence,
are no more so in reality than the principles of the defence
themselves; but for the sake of distinction, we call that a reason
which is urged by the party on his trial in the way of demurrer for
the sake of repelling an accusation; and unless he had such a refuge
he would have nothing to allege by way of defence: but the foundation
of his defence is that which is alleged by way of undermining the
arguments of the adversary, without which the accusation can have no
ground to stand upon.

XXX. But from the meeting and conflict, as it were, of the reasons
and of the corroborative proofs, a question arises, which I call a
dispute, in which the question is, what is the question before the
court, and what the dispute is about. For the first point which
the adversaries contend for implies an inquiry of large extent in
conjecture: as "Whether Decius has received the money;" in definition,
as "Whether Norbanus has committed treason against the people;" in
justice, as "Whether Opimius slew Gracchus lawfully." These questions
which come into conflict first by arguing and resisting, are, as I
have said, of wide extent and doubtful meaning. The comparison of the
arguments and corroborative proofs narrows the question in dispute. In
conjecture there is no dispute at all. For no one either can, or ought
to, or is accustomed to, give a reason for an act which he asserts
never took place. Therefore, in these causes the original question and
the ultimate dispute are one and the same thing. But in them, when the
assertion is advanced, "He did not commit treason in proceeding to
violent measures in respect to Caepio; for it was the first indignation
of the Roman people that prompted that violent conduct, and not the
conduct of the tribune: and the majesty, since it is identical
with the greatness of the Roman people, was rather increased than
diminished by retaining that man in power and office." And when the
reply is, "Majesty consists of the dignity of the empire and name of
the Roman people, which that man impairs, who excites sedition by
appealing to the violent passions of the multitude;" then comes the
dispute, Whether his conduct was calculated to impair that majesty,
who acted upon the inclinations of the roman people, so as to do a
thing which was both just and acceptable to them by means of violence.
But in such causes as these, when it is alleged in defence of the
accused party that so