hat scheme was proposed, which after the taking of Rome by the
Gauls was still more strongly urged, of removing to Veii. But they
destined Veii to be inhabited by half the commons and half the senate;
and that two cities of one common republic might be inhabited by the
Roman people.[167] When the nobles strove against these measures so
strenuously, as to declare "that they would sooner die in the sight of
the Roman people, than that any of these things should be put to the
vote; for that now in one city there were so many dissensions; what
would there be in two? Would any one prefer a vanquished to a victorious
city; and suffer Veii now after being captured to enjoy greater
prosperity than it had before its capture? Lastly, that they may be
forsaken in their country by their fellow-citizens; that no power should
ever oblige them to forsake their country and fellow-citizens, and
follow Titus Licinius (for he was the tribune of the commons who
proposed the measure) as a founder to Veii, abandoning the divine
Romulus, the son of a god, the parent and founder of the city of Rome."
When these proceedings were going on with shameful contentions, (for the
patricians had drawn over, one half of the tribunes of the commons to
their sentiments,) nothing else obliged the commons to refrain from
violence, but that whenever a clamour was set up for the purpose of
commencing a riot, the principal members of the senate, presenting
themselves among the foremost to the crowd, ordered that they themselves
should be attacked, struck, and put to death. Whilst they abstained from
violating their age, dignity, and honourable station, their respect for
them checked their rage even with respect to similar attempts on others.

[Footnote 167: "A proposal so absurd would have justified the most
vehement opposition of the senate. But it is much more probable, that
the scope of the proposition was, that on this occasion the whole of the
conquered land should be divided, but amongst the whole nation, so that
the patricians also and their clients should receive a share as absolute
property."--_Neibuhr_, vol. ii. p. 248.]

25. Camillus, at every opportunity and in all places, stated publicly,
"that this was not at all surprising; that the state was gone mad;
which, though bound by a vow, yet felt greater concern in all other
matters than in acquitting itself of its religious obligations. He would
say nothing of the contribution of an alms more strictl