such cases were tried.

As Mommsen has pointed out (Staatsrecht, ii 112) the senatorial tribunal tried various and miscellaneous charges, and criminals of every rank and order, but still it was more especially a court for political or official offenders of senatorial rank. Charges against provincial governors might be made by a province as a whole represented by its consilium (Plin. Ep. iii 9, 4) by separate communities in a province (id. ib.) by individual provincials or by some subordinate official of the governor himself (Tac. Ann. xii 59). In any case the accuser had to come before the consuls in the first instance with his accusation to demand that it might be heard (Tac. Ann. ii 28; xiii 44). This occasioned a preliminary hearing, as the result of which the senate either decided to try the charge itself in the Curia, in which case the consul would preside, and the rule of procedure would be the same as in the quaestiones (Plin. Ep. iii 1 1), or if it was a mere case for pecuniary reimbursement, the senate might, if it chose, pass it over to the quaestio de repetundis or iudices (Plin. Ep. iii 11; iv 9), or recuperatores (Tac. Ann. i 74; Suet. Dom. 8), or if the case seemed too complex or too invidious, they might request the emperor himself to undertake it; this, however, was seldom or never granted, though the emperor might preside as consul in the senatorial court. He occasionally also by his tribunician. veto either prevented a trial from taking place (Tac. Ann. iii 70), or hindered the execution of the punishment pronounced (Tac. Ann. xiv 48). If the senate undertook the hearing of the case, it designated members of its own body both to accuse and to defend, drawing lots apparently among a certain number of names in each case. If, however, the provincials wished for any particular advocate, their wishes appear to have been for the most part consulted (Plin. Ep. iii 4, 3), while provincial advocates took part in the trial along with the senatorial pleaders. A certain advantage was conceded to the accuser by making the attendance of his witnesses compulsory, while the defendant had to secure the presence of his as he could. Conviction under the charge of repetundae always and necessarily involved partial infamia, i.e. expulsion from the senate and loss of official dignity.

This was ipso facto involved in the preliminary decision of the senate that the case should be handed over to the

iudices. In addition to this common penalty for all convictions, there might be a pecuniary reimbursement, viz. the quadruple amount of the money wrongfully exacted, while in more serious cases the various grades of banishment might be inflicted either in tempus' or 'in perpetuum,' not even stopping short of deportatio with its complete infamia and confiscation of property.

But apart from any mitigation on the part of the emperor, the senate as a deliberative as well as a judicial body, was not strictly bound down to any hard-and-fast lines and gradations of punishment. In certain cases they could mitigate the penalty, in others they could intensify it (Plin. Ep. iv 9, 17), 'licet mitigare leges et intendere;' and we know several instances in which they availed themselves of this elasticity, not always perhaps in the interests of justice or equity.

Turning to our authorities we find that advantage was taken by the provinces with some frequency of this means of obtaining compensation for the oppression of bad or corrupt governors. That Tiberius continued in regard to the provinces, as in other matters, the policy laid down by Augustus, we know from several passages of Tacitus; he prevented new burdens, and provided against the avarice and cruelty of the magistrates (Ann. iv 6); he assisted particular states in cases of emergency by a temporary remission of tribute (Ann. iv 13, and ii 47), while there were in his reign eight cases of provincial governors being accused of mal-administration.

(1) Tac. Ann. i 74. Granius Marcellus, proconsul of Bithynia, was accused by his own quaestor both of maiestas. and repetundae. Acquitted of the former charge, he was sent before recuperatores for the latter, and in consequence degraded.

(2) Ann. iii 38.

Caesius Cordus, proconsul of Crete, was accused of repetundae by Ancharius Priscus, a delator, and condemned.

(3) Ann. iii 66. C. Silanus, proconsul of Asia, was accused by the provincials and condemned, and in gratitude for this 'decrevere Asiae urbes templum Tiberio.' (4) Ann. iv 13. Vibius Serenus, proconsul of Hispania ulterior, was accused and condemned, 'de vi publica' and banished (deportatus) to the island of Amorgos.

(5) Ann. iv 15. Lucilius Capito, procurator of Asia, was accused by the province and condemned, the emperor

asserting 'non se ius nisi in servitia et pecunias familiares dedisse.'

(6) Ann. iv 18. C. Silius, legatus Germaniae superioris, was accused by Seianus, mainly of maiestas, and promoting civil war, but a charge of repetundae was added, and the accused anticipated condemnation by suicide. (7) Ann. iv 31. P. Suillius, formerly the quaestor of Germanicus, on being convicted 'pecuniam ob rem iudicandam cepisse' was 'relegatus in insulam.'

(8) Ann. vi 29. Pomponius Labeo, legatus Moesiae, was accused, 'male administratae provinciae,' and committed suicide.

Of these eight cases it will be observed that only two relate to imperial provinces; that all were convicted or anticipated conviction by suicide, and that the punishment ranges from a mere pecuniary reimbursement to actual deportatio.

Under Claudius, whose provincial administration apparently also followed the Augustan tradition, we have two cases only in Tacitus.

(1) Ann. xii 22.

Cadius Rufus was accused by the Bithynians under the lex repetundarum, and condemned. That he was expelled from the senate we know definitely from the statement (Hist. i 77), that he was restored to it by Otho.

(2) Ann. xii 59. Statilius Taurus, proconsul of Africa, was accused by his legate Tarquitius Priscus, of repetundae, and committed suicide. This was, however, apparently not a bona fide accusation, but was due to the intrigues of Agrippina.

The first six years of Nero's reign were marked by an excellent provincial administration on the whole, though we have no fewer than eleven cases of repetundae in this time.

(1) Ann. xiii 30. Vipsanius Laenas, proconsul of Sardinia, was accused ob provinciam avare habitam' and

condemned.

(2) Ann. xiii 30.

Cestius Proculus, proconsul of Crete, was accused by the provincials of repetundae, but acquitted. (3) Ann. xiii 33. P. Celer was accused by the province of Asia, and the emperor, unable to acquit, and yet unwilling to convict, postponed the matter indefinitely. (4) Ann. xiii 33. Cossutianus Capito, legate of Cilicia, was accused by the provincials, and 'pervicaci accusatione

conflictatus postremo defensionem omisit ac lege rep. damnatus est.

(5) Ann. xiii 33. Eprius Marcellus, legate of Lycia and Pamphilia, accused by the provincials, escaped by means of ambitus.

(6) Ann. xiii 43. P. Suillius, proconsul of Asia, was accused 'publicae pecuniae peculatus,' and banished to the Balearic Islands.

(7) Ann. xiii 52. Sulpicius Camerinus, proconsul of Africa, was accused by a few private individuals 'saevitiae magis quam captarum pecuniarum,' and acquitted. (8) Ann. xiii 52. Pompeius Silvanus, proconsul of Africa, was accused by 'magna vis accusatorum,' and acquitted through his pecuniosa orbitas.'

(9) Ann. xiv 18. Pedius Blaesus, proconsul of Crete and Cyrene, was accused by the provincials of taking the treasure of Aesculapius, and a corrupt management of the levy; he was condemned and expelled from the senate.

(10) Ann. xiv 28. Vibius Secundus, procurator of Mauretania, was accused of repetundae by the provincials, and exiled from Italy.

(11) Ann. xiv 46. Tarquitius Priscus, proconsul of Bithynia, was accused by the provincials of repetundae, and condemned.

A noticeable fact about these cases is, that accusation by informers has now almost entirely given way to accusation by the provinces themselves. In seven cases this is definitely stated, and in two others is tolerably clear. Again we find only three cases relating to imperial provinces, and of these, one was merely procuratorial. It is noticeable, however, that in five cases out of eleven, a conviction was not secured, and

in three of them corrupt motives were the cause of the acquittal.

The Flavian dynasty found the empire disquieted and disorganised owing to the later years of Nero's insane régime, and they seem to have infused fresh life and vigour into the provincial system no less than into the internal administration. The conferment of the Latin franchise upon the Spanish provinces as well as the more frequent admission of provincials into the Roman senate, points to a liberal and judicious policy. Whether Vespasian had himself set an example of rectitude in his proconsulship of Africa is doubtful, since while Suetonius (Vesp. 4) affirms it, Tacitus (Hist. ii 97) as clearly denies it. Only one case of repetundae is recorded under Vespasian, in which Antonius Flamma, proconsul of Crete and Cyrene, was accused by the provincials of repetundae and saevitia, and condemned (Hist. iv 45).

Of Domitian, tyrant as he was in Rome in his later years, it is expressly recorded by Suetonius, that 'provinciarum praesidibus coercendis tantum curae adhibuit ut neque modestiores unquam neque iustiores exstiterint,' and this testimony is at least negatively confirmed by the fact that only one case of provincial accusation is known in his reign, viz. that of Baebius Massa, proconsul of Baetica, who was condemned and his property confiscated in 93 A.D. (Plin. Ep. vii 33), though the failure of Tacitus for this period to some extent weakens this evidence.

It is when we come to Trajan's reign that we really get most information concerning the trials for repetundae, since Pliny's letters admit us to a certain extent behind the scenes. Altogether there were four cases in the first seven or eight years of the reign, and in all of them Pliny was engaged. It is possible that during Nerva's weak reign, and Trajan's absence in Germany, the Flavian discipline might seem for a moment to be relaxed. At any rate, with the exception of two cases in Bithynia, which, as we know, was in a state of disorganisation, the other cases, viz. those of Marius and Classicus, occurred at the very beginning of Trajan's reign. Marius Priscus, proconsul of Africa, was accused by one community in the province, and a number of individuals (Plin. Ep. iii 9, 2). The provincials begged that Pliny might be their advocate (ad Trai. 3 a), and he,