CHAPTER VII.

CARTHAGINIANS AND ROMANS COMPARED.

The origin of both these people seems alike to have been extremely low. Romulus, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus, could form no more than three thousand foot and three hundred horse out of his whole people, where every individual was obliged to be a soldier. The Tyrians, who accompanied Dido in her flight from her brother Pymalion, could be but few in number from the very circumstances of their escape from an avaricious and vigilant tyrant.

Romulus, to supply this defect, not only opened an asylum for all fugitives, whom he admitted as subjects, but in all his conquests over the neighbouring states, annexed the lands to his own small territory, and incorporated the prisoners amongst his own Roman citizens. By this masterly policy, notwithstanding the number of men he must necessarily have lost during a warlike reign of thirty-seven years, he left at his death, according to Dionysius, forty-five thousand foot and a thousand horse. As the same policy was pursued under the republican as under the regal government, the Romans, though involved in continual wars, found themselves not inferior in number even to those nations, who were reputed the most populous. Dionysius, from whom I have taken this account, extols the policy of the Romans in this point as greatly superior to that of the Grecians. The Spartans, says that judicious historian, were obliged to give up their dominion over Greece by their single defeat at Leuctra; as the loss of the battle of Chæronea reduced the Thebans and Athenians to the sad necessity of yielding up the government of Greece, as well as their liberty, to the Macedonians. These misfortunes Dionysius imputes to the mistaken policy of the Grecians, who were, in general, unwilling to communicate the privileges of their respective states to foreigners. Whereas the Romans, who admitted even their enemies to the rights of citizenship, derived additional strength even from their misfortunes. And he affirms, that after the terrible defeat of Cannæ, where out of eighty-six thousand little more than three thousand three hundred and seventy men escaped, the Romans owed the preservation of their state, not to the benevolence of fortune, as some, he says, imagine, but to the number of their disciplined militia, which enabled them to encounter every danger. I am sensible that the remarks of Dionysius, which have been adopted by many of our modern writers, are extremely just in relation to the Thebans and Athenians. Because as the former of these people endeavoured to extend their dominions by arms, the latter both by arms and commerce, both states ought, like the Romans, to have attracted as many foreigners as possibly they could, to enable them to execute plans which require an inexhaustible supply of people. But the exclusion of foreigners ought not, in my opinion, to be censured as a defect in the Spartan constitution. Because it is evident, from the testimony of Polybius and Plutarch, that the great end which Lycurgus proposed by his laws, was not to increase the wealth or power of his countrymen, but to preserve the purity of their manners; as his military regulations, according to the same authors, were not calculated for making conquests and serving the purposes of ambition, but for the defence and security of his republick. I observe too in proof of my opinion, that the Spartans gradually lost their virtue, and afterwards their liberty, only so far as they deviated from the institutions of their legislator.... But I return from the digression into which this subject unavoidably led me.

In our researches back into the remote times of antiquity, we must lay hold of whatever helps we are able to meet with. If Justin therefore is to be credited, Dido not only received considerable assistance from a colony of Tyrians which she found settled in Utica, but admitted great numbers of the natives who settled with her in the new city, and consequently became Carthaginians.[330] I may add too in proof of this account, that unless the Carthaginians had long pursued this wise policy, it is scarce possible by the course of nature, that the Tyrians alone could have multiplied by propagation to so prodigious a degree, as to be able to furnish men sufficient to raise and carry on that extensive commerce, and plant those numerous colonies which we meet with in the earlier ages of their history.

As to their constitution, Rome and Carthage were both republicks, both free, and their form of government nearly similar, as far as we can collect from history. Two supreme magistrates,[331] annually elected, the senate, and the people, formed the body politick in each republick. The annual elections of their chief magistrates were a permanent source of division and faction alike in both; a defect which Lycurgus guarded against in the Spartan government, where the chief magistracy was perpetual and hereditary. The senate in both nations was composed out of the most respectable and greatest men in each republick. At Rome the consuls chose the senators with the approbation of the people, but at last the censors arrogated that power to themselves. At Carthage, as Aristotle informs us, the senators were elected; but as he has no where told us who were the electors, it is most probable, that the right of election was the inherent privilege of the people, since he censures that republick as too much leaning towards democracy. At Rome, in the virtuous times of that republick, birth and merit alone entitled the possessor to a place in the senate, as well as the chief offices in the state. At Carthage, though birth and merit seem to have been qualifications indispensably necessary, yet even these could not succeed,[332] unless the candidate was at the same time master of such a fortune as would enable him to support his dignity with lustre.[333] This Aristotle censures as a defect. For he looks upon all that merit, which was unsupported by the proper proportion of wealth, as so much lost to the Carthaginians; and he lays down that maxim in their government, as the real cause of that undue respect for wealth, and that lust of gain, which prevailed so much in that republick. But the sentiments of this philosopher, like those of his master Plato, are, I fear, too ideal to be reduced to practice. For he does not seem to attend to the different genius of different nations, but aims at adjusting the balance of power in his republick by the nice standard of philosophick theory. The genius of nations differs perhaps as much as their climate and situation, which seem (at least in some degree) to be the natural cause of that difference. The republicks of Sparta and Rome were both military, and military glory stamped the primary character of both these people. The republick of Carthage, like that of their ancestors, the Tyrians, was commercial. Hence the lust of gain marked their ruling character. Their military character arose from the necessity of defending that wealth which their commerce had acquired. Hence military glory was but a secondary passion, and generally subservient to their lust of gain. Unless we attend to the different ruling passion, which forms the different character of each republick, we shall never be able to make such a comparison as will do equal justice to each people. At Sparta and Rome wealth was despised, when put in competition with honour, and poverty joined with merit formed the most estimable of all characters. Quite different maxims prevailed at Carthage. Wealth with them was the chief support of merit, and nothing was so contemptible as poverty. Hence the Carthaginians, who were well acquainted with the power and influence of wealth, required the additional qualifications of an ample fortune in all candidates for the senatorial dignity, and publick employments. For they judged that such men would be less exposed to the temptations of corruption, and at the same time more anxious for the welfare of a state, in which they were so deeply interested by their private property. That this was the real state of the case, at Carthage, notwithstanding the suggestions of Aristotle and the Greek and Roman historians, may, I think, be fairly proved from the behaviour of their senate and the choice of their officers, which ought certainly to be admitted as the best evidence. For we constantly find all their publick employments filled up with men of the greatest families, and (unless when the intrigues of faction sometimes prevailed) of the greatest abilities. We find in general the same firm and steady attachment to the service of their country, and the same indefatigable zeal for extending the territories and power of their republick. Nor does the most partial historian charge any one of them with sacrificing the honour and interest of his country to any foreign power for money: a practice which was shamefully common amongst the Roman generals in the time of Jugurtha. Hence we may, I think, assign the true reason, why the greatest families in Carthage (as we are informed by historians) thought it no way derogatory to their honour to engage in commerce. For as this is most probably to be understood of the younger sons of their nobility, the true motive seems to arise, not from avarice, as their enemies object, but from a view of raising such a fortune, as might qualify them for admission into the senate, or any of the great employments. Hence too it is evident, that a regulation which might be highly useful and salutary in an opulent commercial republick, would be greatly injurious to such military republicks as Rome and Sparta, by corrupting their manners. We need no other proof than the fate of those two republicks, who both owed their ruin to the introduction of that wealth, which was unknown to their virtuous ancestors. The Carthaginian senate seems to have been much more numerous than the Roman. For at Carthage there was a select standing committee established, of one hundred and four of the most respectable members, to keep a watchful eye over the great families, and repress any attempts which their ambition might make to subvert the constitution.[334] To this committee all their commanding officers by sea and land, without exception, were obliged to give a strict account of their conduct at the end of every campaign. We may therefore properly term it the Carthaginian court-martial. Out of this venerable body another select committee was formed of five members only, who were most conspicuous for their probity, ability, and experience. These served without fee or salary; as glory, and the love of their country, were esteemed motives sufficient to engage men of their superior rank and character, to serve the publick with zeal and fidelity.[335] For which reason they were not chosen by lot, but elected by merit. Their power was very extensive. Their office was for life, and they filled up any vacancy in their own body, out of the one hundred and four, and all vacancies in that grand committee, out of the rest of the senate, by their own authority and at their own discretion.[336] They were the supreme judges besides in all causes whatsoever without appeal. The institution of this grand committee, in my opinion, exceeded every thing in the Roman policy. For it preserved their state from all those violent concussions, which so frequently shook, and at last totally subverted the Roman republick.[337] But the power of the committee of five was exorbitant, and dangerous to the lives and fortunes of their fellow-citizens. The proof is from fact. For at the conclusion of the second Punick war, they had made so arbitrary an use of their power, and were grown so odious to the people, that the great Hannibal regulated that amongst other abuses, and procured a law, which made that office annual and elective, with a clause forbidding any future alteration. Whether the Carthaginian senators enjoyed their seats for life, or whether they were liable to be expelled for any misdemeanour, and by whom, are points in which history is quite silent. At Rome, as the censors had the power of promoting to that dignity, so they had equally the power of expelling any member for bad manners, by the single ceremony of leaving out his name when they called over the list of the senate. I cannot help thinking this a great defect in the Roman polity: since it threw the power of garbling and modelling the senate into the hands of two men, who were liable to be corrupted to serve the ends of faction. A power which ought never to be lodged in so few hands in a country which enjoys the blessings of liberty. For how serviceable soever it might have been, as a curb to licentiousness in the earlier ages of that republick; yet Cicero, in his oration for A. Cluentius, inveighs bitterly against the abuse of the censorial power in his time, and gives several instances where it was made subservient to the ends of faction in modelling the senate. And he seems to fear that the censors list may bring as many calamities upon the citizens as the late most inhuman proscription; and that the point of the censors pen may prove as terrible as the sword of their late dictator. C. Nepos, in the life of Hamilcar, takes notice of an officer of the same nature amongst the Carthaginians, to whose inspection the greatest men in that republick seem to have been subject. But it does not appear from history, whether his power extended so far as to expel a senator. Should a bad prince, or a wicked minister, ever be invested with the power of weeding the house, and modelling the parliament at pleasure, there would be an end of our constitution and liberty.

In the Roman senate all questions were decided (as in our parliament) by a majority of voices. At Carthage no law could pass, unless the senate were unanimous, like the Polish diet. One single veto from any one member, took the question out of the hands of the senate, and gave up the ultimate decision to the people, who were the _dernier resort_ of all power. This Aristotle censures as inclining more towards democracy than was consistent with the just rules of a well regulated republick.[338] Because the magistrates were not only obliged to open all the different opinions and debates of the senators upon the question, in the hearing of the people, who were the absolute and decisive judges in all these cases of appeal; but any one, even the lowest fellow in the mob, might freely give his opinion in opposition just as he thought proper. A source of endless discord, anarchy, and confusion! A kind of polity, as Aristotle observes, unknown in any other form of republican government.

In this point, I think the Roman polity far preferable to the Carthaginian, except in those abuses of the tribunitial power, which so frequently happened towards the decline of that republick. But when any one turbulent, seditious tribune, instigated by ambition, or corrupted by a faction (which in those times was generally the case) could by his single veto, stop all proceedings of the senate, and haul the case before the people; nay when he could drag the supreme magistrates, the consuls themselves, to prison, by his sole authority, and could commit the most outrageous, and most shameful acts of licentiousness with impunity, because their office rendered their persons sacred by law, I esteem the Carthaginian polity infinitely more eligible. For that fear and jealousy of ceding any part of the authority, which is so natural to men in power, would always be a strong motive to union in a Carthaginian senate; because it would naturally induce any member, rather to give up his private opinion, than suffer an essential part of their power to devolve to the people. But the Roman tribunitial power, which was in constant opposition to the senatorial, drew at last by much too great a weight into the democratick scale, and in the last period of their liberty was a principal leading cause of the ruin of that republick. For as the senate was unsupported by a third power so essentially requisite to preserve the balance of government in its due æquipoise, the tribunes perpetually fomented and kept up those terrible feuds, which brought on anarchy, and terminated in absolute insupportable tyranny.

The condition of the Roman populace before the erection of the tribunitial power, seems, in my judgement, to have been little better than that state of vassalage, which the peasants groan under in Poland. The relation between patron and client amongst the Romans, seems to be something analogous to the relation between lord and vassal, with this difference, that the client had the free choice of his patron, which the vassal has not with respect to the lord. At least it is certain, if we may credit the Roman historians, that their people were subject to equal, if not greater exactions and oppressions from the Patricians. How heavy these were, we may learn from the numerous mutinies, insurrections, and that great secession, which compelled the Patricians to create the tribunitial office in their favour. This new office occasioned a great revolution in their new government, and produced those perpetual conflicts between the aristocratick and democratick powers, which fill the history of that republick. The Patricians had recourse frequently to their only resource a dictator with absolute power, to defend them from the insolence of the tribunes. But this was only a temporary expedient. The people renewed their attacks, until they had abolished the distinct prerogatives arising from birth and family, and laid open all honours, even the consulship, and dictatorship, the supreme magistracy of all, to the free admission of their own body. The people were highly elated with these repeated victories, as they imagined them, over their old enemies the Patricians, but they were quickly sensible, that in fact, they were only the dupes of their ambitious leaders. The most opulent and powerful of the Plebeians, by serving the high offices of the state, acquired the title of nobles, in contradistinction to those, who were descended from the Patrician families, who still retained their ancient appellation. These new nobles, many of whom had crept into the senate, sided constantly with the Patricians in all disputes and contests with their former friends, the people, and were generally their greatest enemies. The Patricians, strengthened by this new acquisition of power, were frequently too hard for the tribunes. In those memorable contests with the two Gracchi, who endeavoured in their tribuneship to revive the Agrarian law (calculated to divide the conquered lands among the poor citizens) the dispute seems to have lain wholly between the rich and the poor: for the nobles and rich Plebeians were as unwilling to part with their land, as the Patricians. This strengthened the Patricians so much, that they were able in each of those contests, to quell the efforts of the people by force, and quash the whole affair by the death of both the Gracchi.

It has been a general remark of most writers, both ancient and modern, that the Roman republick owed its preservation to the firmness and wisdom of the senate, and the subordinate obedience of the people: and that the republick of Carthage must ascribe its ruin to that ascendency, which the people had usurped over the authority of the senate. The reverse of this seems to be the truth. We meet with but one instance in history, where the power of the Carthaginian people over-ruled the authority of their senate, so far as to compel them to act contrary to their opinion. This was that shameful violation of the law of nations in seizing the transports which were bringing necessaries to Scipio’s camp, during the truce he had granted that they might send ambassadours to Rome to negotiate a peace with the Roman senate. For though they threatened violence to the senate, if they submitted to those hard terms which were imposed by Scipio after the defeat at Zama; yet they were easily reduced to obedience by Hannibal, and resigned the whole affair to the decision of the senate. The Roman history, on the contrary, is one continued detail of animosities, and frequently most bloody contests, between the senate and the people in their perpetual struggles for power. And the frequent elections of that low Plebeian Marius to the consular dignity, in opposition to the Patricians, (the malignant effects of the over-bearing power of the people) opened that scene of blood and anarchy, which ended only in the utter subversion of their liberty and constitution.

The judicious Montesquieu observes, “that the Carthaginians grew rich much sooner than the Romans, and consequently sunk much sooner into corruption.” He adds too; “that whilst merit alone entitled the possessor to the great employments at Rome, every thing which the publick at Carthage had the power of bestowing, was venal.”... The former part of this assertion is too general to be admitted without proper restrictions; the latter is a plain transcript from Polybius. The Carthaginians must have been rich several ages before the Romans. For both Herodotus and Thucydides (who was but thirteen years younger) take notice of them as a very formidable maritime power, a circumstance which could only arise from their naval genius and extensive commerce. Yet we find no instance of their being corrupt, until the conclusion of the second Punick war, when Hannibal reformed those shameful abuses, which had crept into the management of the publick revenue, and restrained that power which the committee of five had usurped over the lives and fortunes of their fellow-citizens. As for the quotation out of Polybius, whose country was at that time a province to the Romans, with whom he resided only as a state prisoner; I esteem it as no more than a compliment to the Romans’ vanity at the expense of the Carthaginians, whose very name was odious to that people. Or very probably he might bring that charge against the Carthaginians, as a hint to show the consequences of the same species of corruption, which, even in his time, had found entrance amongst the Romans.

As to religion, both nations were equally superstitious. If many of the religious ceremonies amongst the Romans were absurd and childish, it must be owned that the Carthaginian worship, like that of their ancestors the Canaanites, from whom they received it, was truly diabolical.[339] But it is by no means candid to judge of the natural bent and temper of a people, from effects produced in their minds by superstition. For the same superstition which enjoins such horrid rites, will naturally place the chief efficacy of the sacrifice in the zeal and sincerity of the offerer. Consequently the highest degree of merit in such oblations, will consist in stifling every human affection, and over-ruling nature. Thus in the Carthaginian idolatry, the softer sex, as more susceptible of tenderness for their offspring, were required to attend in person. They were even compelled,[340] upon this dreadful occasion, to affect all the joy and cheerfulness of festivity, because, as Plutarch informs us, if a sigh or a tear escaped them, the merit of the offering would be absolutely lost, and themselves liable to a fine. That the Carthaginians were no more void of parental affection than other nations, is evident from that pious fraud they had so long practised,[341] of secretly buying up poor children, whom they substituted as victims to their bloody deity instead of their own. But after a great defeat which they received from Agathocles, they attributed their ill fortune to the resentment of their god for their repeated sacrilege. They sacrificed two hundred children of the first families in Carthage,[342] and three hundred other persons offered themselves as voluntary victims to atone for a crime, to which the highest degree of guilt was affixed by their impious religion. The Roman superstition must in general be acquitted of the charge of inhumanity. The only tendency towards it, was in the custom of inhuming alive such of the vestal virgins, as had violated their vow of chastity.[343] But the bloody and frequent shows of the gladiators, which were the delight of the Romans, fix an indelible blot on the character of a brave people.[344] Historians in general brand the Carthaginians with cruelty and inhumanity. If the charge is just, it must be chiefly attributed to that execrable custom of human sacrifices, which always prevailed amongst that people. Nor do I in the least doubt, but that savage ferocity, which the Romans were so guilty of in war, was in a great measure owing to those barbarous spectacles, where wounds, and murder in cold blood, made the most agreeable part of the entertainment.

As to publick virtue or love of their country, the Carthaginians were no way inferior to the Romans. The intrepid behaviour of the Philæni,[345] two Carthaginian brothers, who consented to be buried alive to enlarge the boundaries of their country, equals the most heroick instance of that kind of enthusiasm, which the Roman story can boast of. The fate of Macheus, Bomilcar, Hanno, and others, afford undeniable proof, that neither birth, dignity, nor the greatest services, could screen that man from the most ignominious death, who made the least attempt to subvert the liberty of his country. I have before taken notice of the _punica fides_, or that proverbial want of sincerity, which has been so often objected by the Roman historians: but I cannot help observing with the more impartial Montesquieu,[346] “that the Romans never made peace with sincerity and good faith, but always took care to insert such conditions as, in the end, proved the ruin of the people with whom they treated: that the peace they granted was no more than a politick suspension of arms, until an opportunity offered of completing their conquests: that it was their invariable maxim to foment divisions among the neighbouring powers, and by siding alternately with either party, as they found it most conducive to their own interest, play one against the other, until they had reduced all equally into provinces: that they frequently employed the subtilty and ambiguity of terms in their own language, to finesse and chicane in their treaties.” Thus they cheated the Ætolians by the ambiguous phrase of yielding themselves up to the faith of the Roman people.[347] The poor Ætolians imagined, that the term implied only alliance. But the Romans soon convinced them, that what they meant by it, was absolute subjection. They destroyed Carthage under sanction of the most vile equivocation,[348] pretending, “that though they promised that deluded people to preserve their state, they did not mean to grant them their city, which word they had purposely omitted.” Maxims which the French have steadily and too successfully pursued, and are still pursuing!... Montesquieu very judiciously observes “... that the Romans were ambitious from the lust of domination: the Carthaginians from the lust of gain.” This accounts for the different reception which commerce met with in the two nations. At Carthage commerce was esteemed the most honourable of all employments. At Rome commerce was held in contempt. It was there looked upon as the proper occupation of slaves only, and disgraceful to a free citizen. Thus the one loved war for the sake of glory and acquiring dominion; the other looked upon war as a means of acquiring wealth, and extending commerce. The Romans plundered the vanquished enemy to make a parade with their wealth in the triumphal procession. The Carthaginians fleeced not only their enemies, but their tributary provinces, and oppressed their allies, to feed their own private avarice, as well as that of the publick. The oppressions of the Carthaginian generals in Spain lost them all their allies. The wiser policy of Scipio attached those allies unalterably to the Romans. The exactions of their rapacious governors in the African provinces, were the sources of perpetual revolts, upon the approach of any invader, from a desire of changing masters. When Scipio landed, he was joined by all those provinces, who looked upon the Romans as their deliverers. As soon as luxury had introduced avarice and corruption amongst the Romans, their generals and governours pursued the same destructive maxims, which was one leading cause of the final ruin of both the western and eastern empires.

There cannot be a stronger proof of a weak or a corrupt administration, than when indigent and necessitous men are appointed to the government of distant provinces, from no other motive than party merit, and with no other view than to raise a fortune at the expense of the people. Whether the wretched and defenceless condition in which the French found our colonies at the beginning of this war, ought not to be ascribed chiefly to this cause, is a question I shall wave at present. Because the evils we have already suffered from former misconduct, will, I hope, be now removed, by a total alteration of measures under an able and honest administration.

It is remarkable, that not one of the historians who reproach the Carthaginians with corruption, were ever able to accuse them of luxury and effeminacy. The Carthaginians, to their immortal honour, stand single upon the records of history, “the only people in the universe, upon whom immense wealth was never able to work its usual effects.” The Romans, corrupted by wealth, quickly lost all pretensions both to publick and private virtue, and from a race of heroes, degenerated into a nation of the most abject slaves. The Carthaginian virtue was so far from degenerating that it shone brighter in the last period of their history, than in any of the former. Even the behaviour of their women in that long and brave defence of their city against the whole Roman power, equalled, or rather exceeded, that of the Roman matrons in those times, when they were most celebrated for publick virtue. When the Romans were masters of the city, one small part only excepted, and that part actually in flames, the generous wife of Asdrubal the chief commander,[349] closed the scene by as desperate an act of heroick bravery, as can be met with in history. After she had upbraided her husband as a coward and a traitor for submitting to Scipio, she declared her determined resolution of dying free, and not surviving the fate of her country. She first stabbed both her children, and threw them into the flames; then leaped in after their bodies, and buried herself in the ruins of Carthage.

The sententious Montesquieu remarks,[350] “that when Carthage made war with her opulence against the Roman poverty, her great disadvantage arose from what she esteemed her greatest strength, and on which she placed her chief dependence. The reason, as he judiciously observes, is evident. Gold and silver may be easily exhausted, but publick virtue, constancy, and firmness of mind, fortitude and poverty, are inexhaustible.” The Carthaginians in their wars employed foreign mercenaries. The Roman armies were composed of their own natives. A defeat or two at sea obstructed the Carthaginian commerce, and stopped the spring which supplied their publick exchequer. The loss of a battle in Africa, where their country was quite open, and destitute of fortresses, and the natives as much strangers to the use of arms as our own country people, reduced them to submit to whatever terms the victors thought proper to impose. Regulus, in the first Punick war, cooped up the Carthaginians in their capital, after he had given them one defeat by sea, and one by land. The Romans, after receiving four successive defeats from Hannibal, the last of which was the fatal battle of Cannæ, where they lost most of their best officers, and all their veteran troops, would hearken to no terms of accommodation, and even sent re-enforcements to Spain and other places, though Hannibal was at their gates. The reason is plain. The citizens of Carthage consisted chiefly of unarmed, and undisciplined tradesmen. The citizens of Rome, without distinction, composed a regular body of disciplined militia.... A short comparison between the Roman and Carthaginian polity, with respect to the military of each people, will easily point out to us the true cause which gave the Romans their manifest superiority.

I have already taken notice of some capital defects of the Carthaginians, both in their marine and military departments. Montesquieu imputes several capital errors to the Romans, but he attributes their preservation after the defeat at Cannæ, when they were at the very brink of ruin, to the force of their institution. He seems to place this force in the superior wisdom and firmness of the Roman senate. A short inquiry into their conduct, during the second Punick war, will show that the cause of their preservation at that time must be ascribed to a very different principle, and that Montesquieu too hastily adopted that opinion from the Greek and Roman historians.

If we examine the boasted behaviour of the Roman senate, from the first attack of Saguntum to the memorable battle of Cannæ, we shall find it to consist of one continued series of blunders, which carry all the marks of weak, factious, and divided counsels. The Romans had certain intelligence of Hannibal’s design of attacking them in Italy. This was no secret in Spain, where every preparation, and every motion of Hannibal’s was directed to that point of view. The Romans were certainly jealous of such a design, when they sent ambassadours to Hannibal, to inform him, that if he passed the Iberus, and attacked the Saguntines, they should look upon it as a declaration of war. When they had received an evasive answer from Hannibal, they crossed over to Africa, and made the same declaration to the Carthaginian senate. When Hannibal laid siege to Saguntum, did the Romans act up to their formidable declaration, or did they send a single man to the assistance of those faithful allies? just the reverse; they wasted nine months, the time the siege lasted, in useless debates, and fruitless embassies. They sacrificed that faithful and heroick people, together with their own interest and character, by their folly and irresolution.[351] For if they had sent a powerful army at first, they might have saved Saguntum, or at least confined the war to Spain, and prevented it from penetrating into their own bowels. After Hannibal had laid Saguntum in ashes, did the boasted wisdom and firmness of the Roman senate appear in more vigorous, or more politick measures? They again employed a whole winter in a wise embassy to Carthage, to just as little purpose as the former, and gave Hannibal all the time he could wish to prepare for his expedition. When Hannibal was on his march for Italy, instead of shutting up the passages of the Alps, which would easily have defeated that daring enterprise, they ordered the consul Scipio, with his army, to oppose his passage over the Rhone. The consul came just in time enough to learn, that such dilatory measures would never check the progress of so active and vigilant an enemy, who had already passed that river, and was on his march for the Alps.[352] The consul immediately re-embarked his troops, and hastened to meet him in his descent from those mountains. But Hannibal was already near the banks of the Po, where the consul attacked him, but was defeated and dangerously wounded. The senate, alarmed at Hannibal’s passage over the Alps, which they had taken no precaution to prevent, sent in a great fright for the other consul Sempronius, with his army, out of Sicily. He arrived, and joined his wounded colleague Scipio, who was an able officer, and having learnt, by experience, how dangerous an enemy they had to cope with, advised caution and prudence in all their operations. But Sempronius, vain, rash and ignorant, was deaf to all salutary advice, which he ridiculed as the effect of fear. Hannibal, who never inquired into the number of his enemies, but studied only the foibles of their commanders, directed all his operations upon that principle. He applied therefore to the foible of Sempronius, which he was soon master of, drew him into a snare, and cut off almost his whole army. The senate was dreadfully frighted at this second defeat; but to mend the matter, they suffered Flaminius, a man more vain, more headstrong, and more rash than Sempronius, to be chosen consul, and sent against Hannibal. As he acted upon the same principles, he ran headlong into the trap laid for him by his artful enemy, and lost his life together with his whole army. Though this terrible blow threw the Romans into inexpressible consternation, yet it seems to have brought them to their senses. For they at last created the celebrated Fabius dictator, who was the only Roman commander capable of opposing Hannibal. Yet even here they could not help giving another instance of their folly, by forcing Minucius upon him for his general of horse, a man of the same character with Sempronius or Flaminius. Fabius acted upon a quite different plan. He knew the danger and folly of opposing new raised troops to veterans, flushed with repeated victories, and commanded by so consummate a general. He therefore opposed art to art, watched every motion of his enemy, and cut off his foragers. Hannibal, whose army was composed chiefly of soldiers of fortune out of different nations, connected to him by no other tie than the hopes of plunder, and their esteem for his personal abilities, was sensible, that such a conduct in his enemy would quickly put an end to all his hopes in Italy. He tried therefore every art he was master of to bring Fabius to a battle; but the wary Roman convinced him, that he knew his trade too well to deviate from that plan, which alone could save his country. Though Hannibal did justice to those fine strokes of his antagonist, yet they were too delicate for the eyes of the Romans. They were disgusted at his conduct, because they wanted capacity to understand it, and gave credit to the idle boasts of Minucius, though they had already suffered so severely by trusting men of his genius. Yet, by the most unaccountable folly, they raised Minucius to an equality of power with Fabius; and Rome, for the first time, saw two dictators vested with unlimited authority. The wiser Fabius, though amazed at the stupidity of his countrymen, adhered steadily to his first plan. He gave up half the army to the command of his new colleague, but was determined to preserve the other moiety at least, upon which so much depended. Hannibal was sensible that the Romans could not have done him a more essential piece of service, unless they had recalled Fabius. He immediately threw out a bait for Minucius, which that rash, unthinking commander as greedily bit at. He fell into the trap laid for him by the crafty Hannibal; was enveloped by the Carthaginians, and must inevitably have perished, with all the troops under his command, if Fabius had not flown to his assistance, repulsed the enemy, and rescued him from the most imminent danger of death or captivity. Though Fabius had been so ill used by his countrymen in general, and by his colleague Minucius in particular, yet he showed, by this generous action, a greatness of soul superior to private resentment, and every selfish passion, which he was always ready to sacrifice to the publick welfare. Minucius indeed felt the force of the obligation, as well as of his own incapacity: he nobly acknowledged it in the strongest terms, and returned to his former post and duty to his abler commander. But this heroick behaviour of Fabius seems to have made no more impression upon his countrymen, than his masterly conduct. Two new consuls were chosen, to whom he resigned his authority and army, and retired to Rome neglected and unemployed. The new consuls followed the advice of Fabius, and avoided coming to action, which distressed Hannibal extremely. But the following year exhibits such a masterpiece of folly and stupidity in that Roman senate, whose firmness and wisdom are so much boasted of by historians, and such infatuation in the body of the Roman people as would seem incredible, if the facts, as handed down to us by their own historians themselves, did not prove it beyond a possibility of doubt or contradiction. Determined to drive Hannibal out of Italy, and put a speedy end to so ruinous a war, they raised one of the mightiest armies they had ever yet brought into the field, and employed in it every officer of note or distinction at that time in Rome, the great Fabius alone excepted. This was the last stake of the Romans, upon which their all was ventured. But where does the boasted wisdom of the senate appear in the management of this affair, which was of the last importance? Of the two consuls, Paulus Æmilius, the one, was a respectable man, and an experienced officer: Terentius Varro, the other, was a fellow of the lowest extraction, who, by noise and impudence, had raised himself to the tribuneship, was afterwards made prætor, and, by the assistance of one Bebius, his relation, at that time a tribune of the people, had forced himself into the consular dignity. This wretch, who had but just talents sufficient for a captain of the mob, who had never seen an action (nor perhaps an army) in his life, had the impudence to censure the conduct of Fabius, and to boast in the senate, that he would immediately drive Hannibal out of Italy. The wise senate were not only so weak as to believe, but, in opposition to all the remonstrances of Fabius, even to trust such an empty coxcomb with an equal share in the command. They even gave the consuls orders to fight the enemy without delay, so great was their confidence in the gasconading Varro. Hannibal at that time was so greatly distressed for want of provisions, that his Spanish troops begun to mutiny, and talked openly of revolting to the Romans, and he himself had thoughts of retiring into Gaul for his own personal safety. Æmilius, who endeavoured in every point to follow the advice of Fabius, declined fighting, and was convinced by his intelligence, that Hannibal could not subsist his troops above ten days longer. But Varro was alike deaf to reason or persuasion. Debates at last run so high between the consuls, that repeated expresses were sent to the senate by Æmilius for fresh orders. Had the senate acted with that prudence, which has been so loudly celebrated by historians, they would certainly have created Fabius dictator at that critical juncture, which would have put an end to the differences and authority of the consuls. For how could they reasonably hope for success, whilst the army was commanded by two generals, vested with equal power, who differed as widely in opinion as in temper? But their chief view at that time seems to have been to mortify Fabius, and to that favourite point they wilfully sacrificed the publick honour and safety.[353] Æmilius at last returned to Rome, and laid the whole affair before the senate. But Varro’s party proved the majority, and orders were renewed for fighting, but not immediately. Æmilius still declined fighting, and followed the advice of Fabius, but the alternate command of the two consuls, which took place every day, defeated all his measures. Varro, on the day of his command, marched the army so close to the enemy, that it was impossible to retire without fighting. This imprudent step brought on the famous battle of Cannæ, where Hannibal, whose whole force scarce equalled the moiety of the Romans, gave them the most remarkable defeat we ever read of in their history. Polybius, and after him the rest of the historians, impute this defeat to the great superiority of the Carthaginian army in horse, and the ignorance of Varro in pitching upon a plain open country for the field of battle, where Hannibal could employ his cavalry to the best advantage. That the Carthaginian horse was superior to the Roman in goodness, is readily admitted. But if we compute the number of the cavalry of the Romans, and that of their allies, as given us by Polybius himself, we shall find the difference in each army amounted but to four thousand; so small an advantage therefore, in point of number, could never possibly have turned the scale in favour of Hannibal when the Romans had such prodigious odds in the number of their infantry, who showed themselves no way inferior to Hannibal’s foot, either in bravery or intrepidity. The true reason was, the infinite superiority of Hannibal in point of generalship. That consummate leader, by a most exquisite disposition of his troops, a _manœvre_ much too fine for the eyes of the Roman generals, caught their whole infantry fairly in a trap (though in a plain level country) where they were almost to a man cut to pieces, or taken. Æmilius, and all the other general officers, with seventy thousand Romans, lay dead upon the field of battle after a brave and obstinate resistance.[354] The infamous Varro, that base minded fellow, as Polybius terms him,[355] who commanded the cavalry of the allies on the left wing, behaved like a true bully in the face of danger. He fled almost at the first attack, and rather chose to live with infamy than die with honour. When the fatal news reached the city of Rome, both senate and people gave up all hopes of safety. Fabius alone took the lead, and acted with his usual firmness and calmness upon this occasion. He placed guards at the gates to prevent the desertion of the citizens, who were flying in great numbers to escape the conquerors, whom they expected every moment. He confined the women to their houses, who had filled the city with lamentations. He manned the walls and outworks, and took every other precaution which the shortness of the time would admit of. All resigned themselves implicitly to his conduct, and he acted for the time as sole governor. Many of the senators, and principal of the Roman nobility, were in actual consultation about leaving Italy, and retiring elsewhere for safety. But they were prevented, as Livy informs us, by the terrible threats of young Scipio, and compelled to stay and share the fate of their country.[356] Hannibal has been greatly censured for not attacking Rome itself immediately after the battle, and is accused of not knowing how to make the proper use of a victory, though he knew so well how to conquer. The candid Montesquieu acquits him of this charge. His reasons are, that though Rome at that time was in the highest degree of consternation, yet the effects of fear upon a warlike people, inured to arms like the Romans, and a low undisciplined rabble, who are strangers to the use of arms, are very different. In the former, who are conscious of their own strength, it almost always changes into the most desperate courage. In the latter, who feel their own weakness too sensibly, it dispirits so much as to render them incapable of resistance. Hence he gives it as his real opinion, that Hannibal would have failed of success if he had undertaken the siege of that city. His proof is, because the Romans at that very time were able to send sufficient succours, drawn from their own citizens, to every part where they were then wanted. Thus Rome was saved, not by the wisdom or firmness of the senate, but the prudence and magnanimity of one old officer, whom they despised and hated, and the intrepidity of a boy of eighteen, joined, as I observed before from Dionysius, to the force of that part of their institution, which formed the whole body of their citizens into a militia, ever ready, and capable of taking the field as soldiers. All the Roman armies, which were opposed to Hannibal, were drawn out of this militia. Nor do we meet with one instance of cowardice, or ill-behaviour amongst the men, but rather of intrepidity even to rashness, which used to be the characteristick of the British nation. Polybius, who was at least as able a judge of the military as any man of that age, and who lived very near the time of the Hannibalick war (as he terms it) is loud in his praises of the Roman troops, whose infantry he prefers greatly to the Carthaginian mercenaries.[357] Nor does he once impute any of their defeats to the fault of their men, but invariably to the folly and incapacity of their commanders.

Upon the whole, the great defect in the Carthaginian military institution consisted in the want of a national militia, which, as Polybius observes, was the reason of their employing foreign mercenaries. The capital defects in the Romans lay in that equality of power with which each consul was vested in the field, and the short duration of their command, as their office was only annual. Every battle which the Romans lost to Hannibal except the first, may be fairly ascribed to the former of these causes. The defeats of Trebia and Thrasymene were plainly occasioned by the jealousy of one of the consuls, lest the other should share with him in the glory of beating Hannibal; as the want of harmony, and difference of opinion between the two consuls, was the primary cause of the dreadful defeat at Cannæ. To the latter cause we may justly attribute the long duration of the Hannibalick war. When the great man, who entered Italy with no more than twenty thousand foot and six thousand horse, maintained his ground above sixteen years, without any assistance from Carthage, against the whole united force and efforts of the Romans, by the mere strength of his own extraordinary genius. For as every man, who had interest sufficient to obtain the consulship, was immediately vested with the command of an army, however qualified or not, so he was obliged to resign his command at the end of the year, before he had well time to be thoroughly acquainted with the true method of dealing with his enemy. Thus every new successive commander, amongst the Romans, had the same task to begin afresh at the opening of every campaign. I know that political writers ascribe this mistaken policy to that jealousy, and fear of lodging so much power in so few hands for any length of time, which is so natural to all republican governments. And that the office of dictator was contrived as a remedy against any abuse, or inconveniency, which might at any time arise from the consular power. But the event showed, that the remedy was much worse than the disease. Whilst publick virtue existed, the office of dictator was frequently useful. But when luxury had introduced corruption, the _pro tempore_ dictator soon came to be perpetual, and the perpetual dictator terminated in a perpetual and despotick emperor.

At Carthage their military institution was entirely different. The power of the generals in the field was absolute and unlimited; and, if their conduct was approved of, generally continued to the end of whatever war they were engaged in. They had no occasion for the dangerous resource of a dictator. The watchful eye of their standing court-martial, the committee of one hundred and four of their ablest senators, was a perpetual, and never-failing check upon their ambition, or ill behavior of their generals.[358] The sacred cohort amongst the Carthaginians, consisted of a large body of volunteers of the richest and greatest families of the nation. This wise and noble institution was one of the chief supports of the Carthaginian state; and as it was the constant seminary of their officers and commanders, might very probably be one cause why luxury and effeminacy could never obtain footing in that warlike republick. For we always find this generous body giving the most signal instances of bravery and conduct,[359] and bearing down all before them.... Nor did they ever quit the field of battle, until they were deserted by the rest of the army, and even then generally retired in excellent order.

The Romans were gradually trained up, from the very infancy of their republick, in long and obstinate wars with their Italian neighbours, who were masters of the same arms and disciplines, and were no way their inferiors in bravery. Nor did they perfect themselves in the art of war, until they learned it by bloody experience from Pyrrhus, the most consummate captain of that age. The Carthaginians were only exercised in war with the wild undisciplined Africans, or the irregular Spaniards, nor were they able with their numerous fleets and prodigious armies to complete the reduction of that part of Sicily, which was inhabited by Grecian colonies, who retained their native arms and discipline. Hence arose the great superiority of the Romans, both in soldiers and commanders. Though the Barcan family produced some great officers, who at least equalled the ablest generals Rome could ever boast of.

It is evident from the course of this inquiry, that the ruin of the Roman republick arose wholly from internal causes. The ruin of Carthage was owing remotely to internal, but immediately to external. The Plebeian faction reduced Rome to the verge of ruin at the battle of Cannæ, and a complication of factions completed the subversion of that republick under the two triumvirates. The envy and jealousy of the Hannonian faction deprived Carthage of all the fruits of Hannibal’s amazing victories and progress, and paved the way for the utter excision of their very name and nation by the Roman arms. Such are the direful effects of faction, when suffered to run its natural lengths without control, in the most flourishing and best constituted government!...

[330] Justin. lib. 18. c. 5.

[331] Termed consuls by the Romans, _susetes_ by the Carthaginians.

[332] Οὐ γὰρ μόνον ἀριστίνδην, ἀλλὰ καὶ πλουτίνδην οἴονται δεῖν αἱρεῖσθαι τοὺς ἄρχοντας. Arist. de Repub. lib. 2. p. 234. c. 11.

[333] Αἱροῦνται γὰρ εἰς δύο ταῦτα βλέποντες (τὸν πλοῦτον, scil. καὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν) καὶ μάλιστα τὰς μεγίστας, τούς τε Βασιλεῖς καὶ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς. Ibid. p. 335.

[334] Ἔχει δὲ πολιτεία τῶν Καρχηδονίων παραπλήσια τῇ Λακωνικῇ πολιτείᾳ τὰ μὲν συσσίτια τῶν ἑταιριῶν τοῖς φιδιτίοις· τὴν δὲ τῶν ἑκατὸν καὶ τεττάρων ἀρχὴν, τοῖς Ἐφόροις, πλὴν οὐ χεῖρον. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ, ἐκ τῶν τυχόντων εἰσὶ. Ταύτην δ’ αἱροῦνται τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀριστίνδην. Ibid. p. 334.

[335] Τὸ δ’ ἀμίσθους καὶ μὴ κληρωτὰς ἀριστοκρατικὸν θετέον, καὶ εἴτε τοιοῦτον ἕτερον. Ibid.

[336] Τὸ δὲ τὰς πενταρχίας κυρίας οὔσας πολλῶν καὶ μεγάλων, ὑφ’ αὑτῶν αἱρετὰς εἶναι, καὶ τὴν τῶν ἑκατὸν ταύτας αἱρεῖσθαι τὴν μεγίστην ἀρχήν. ἔτι δὲ ταύτας πλείονα ἄρχειν χρόνον τῶν ἄλλων (καὶ γὰρ ἐξεληλυθότες ἄρχουσι, καὶ μέλλοντες) ὀλιγαρχικὸν. Ibid.

[337] Σημεῖον δὲ πολιτείας συντεταγμένης, τὸ τὸν δῆμον ἔχουσαν, διαμένειν ἐν τῇ τάξει τῆς πολιτεῖας, καὶ μήτε στάσιν, ὅτι γὰρ ἄξιον εἰπεῖν, γεγενῆσθαι, μήτε Τύραννον. Ibid.

[338] Τὸ μὲν προσάγειν, τὸ δὲ μὴ προσάγειν πρὸς τὸν δῆμον, οἱ Βασιλεῖς κύριοι μετὰ τῶν γερόντων, ἂν ὁμογνωμονῶσι πάντες. εἰ δὲ μή, καὶ τούτων ὁ δῆμος. Ἃ δὲ ἂν εἰσφέρωσιν οὗτοι οὐ διακοῦσαι μόνον ἀποδιδόασι τῷ δήμῳ τὰ δόξαντα τοῖς ἄρχουσιν, ἀλλὰ κύριοι κρίνειν εἰσὶ· καὶ τῷ βουλομένῳ τοῖς εἰσφερομένοις ἀντειπεῖν ἔξεστιν. Ὅπερ ἐν ταῖς ἑτέραις πολιτείαις οὐκ ἔστι. Ibid. pag. 334.

[339] The idol to whom the Carthaginians sacrificed their children was the Molock of the Canaanites, from whom they were lineally descended. This idol was the Chronos of the Greeks, and Saturn of the Latins.

[340] Plut. de Superstit. p. 171.

[341] Diodor. Sicul. lib. 20. p. 739.

[342] Id. ibid.

[343] This institution has been adopted since, by the Greek and Latin churches. The only difference in the punishment is, that the ancient vestals were buried alive, the modern vestals are immured between four walls.

[344] Polybius informs us, that when the Romans took a city by storm, they not only put all the men to the sword, but even quartered the dogs, and hewed off the limbs of every other living creature they found in the place.

Πολλάκις ἰδεῖν ἐστιν ἐν ταῖς τῶν Ῥωμαίων καταλήψεσι τῶν πόλεων, οὐ μόνους τοὺς ἀνθρώπους πεφονευμένους, ἀλλὰ τοὺς κύνας δεδιχοτομένους, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζώων μέλη παρακεκομμένα. Polyb. lib. 10. p. 820.

[345] Sallust. de Bell. Jugurth. p. 126....27.

[346] Grandeur des Romains, p. 68, &c.

[347] In fidem populi Romani sese dedere. Vide Polyb. Exerpt. Legat. p. 1114, 15.

[348] Ibid. p. 1349, 50.

[349] Appian. de Bell. Pun. p. 82.

[350] Grandeur des Romains, p. 34.

[351] When the Roman ambassadours, soon after the loss of Saguntum, solicited an alliance with the Volsicani, a people of Spain, that people seemed astonished at the effrontery of the Romans, and bid them go and seek for allies amongst those nations who had never heard of the destruction of Saguntum, which, as they assured them, would be a melancholy and striking warning to the Spaniards how they ever placed any confidence in the good faith and friendship of the Romans. Liv. lib. 21. c. 19. p. 144.

[352] Polyb. lib. 3. p. 270. et seq.

[353] It has been asked—for what reason? I answer, Livy will inform us in the 22d book of his history.—“The studied delay of Fabius (who industriously avoided fighting) which according to that historian, gave such just cause of uneasiness to Hannibal, was treated at Rome with the utmost contempt by the citizens of every rank both military and civil; particularly after the general of the horse Minucius had gained some slight advantage over Hannibal during his absence.”—He adds, “that two unlucky incidents concurred to augment the displeasure of the citizens against the dictator. One was the artful behaviour of Hannibal; who wasted all the country around with fire and sword, the estate of Fabius alone excepted, which he carefully preserved, in hopes that such a different treatment might be thought the effect of some clandestine correspondence between the two commanders.”—The other was—his settling an exchange of prisoners with Hannibal by his own proper authority, and by the same cartel which had subsisted between the Roman and Carthaginian generals in the first Punick war. By that it was agreed: that if any prisoners should remain on either side, after the exchange of man for man was finished, such prisoners should be redeemed at the rate of two pounds and a half of silver for each soldier. When the exchange was made, two hundred and forty-seven Roman prisoners remained to be ransomed.—But as the senate hesitated greatly at passing a decree for the payment of the stipulated sum, because the dictator had not consulted them upon the occasion; he sold those very lands which Hannibal had left untouched, and discharged the debt due from the publick out of his own private fortune.—Whether these were the only reasons or not; yet, they had evidently such an effect upon the Romans, that Fabius seems to have been at that time the object of their resentment, which they never failed to give proofs of upon every occasion.—Thus when Fabius opened the campaign, his cautious conduct was so disagreeable to the officers as well as soldiers, who listened wholly to the idle boasts of Minucius; that if the choice of their commander had depended upon the voices of the military men, Minucius, as Livy affirms, would undoubtedly have been preferred to Fabius. The same historian tells us; that when Fabius returned to Rome to preside as dictator at their religious ceremonies the tribunes of the people inveighed so bitterly against him in their publick harangues, that he refrained from coming to their assemblies.—Even what he spoke in the senate met with a very indifferent reception, especially when he extolled the conduct and abilities of Hannibal, and enumerated the repeated defeats they had received for the two last years through the rashness and incapacity of their own commanders.—When Fabius returned to the camp he received a much more mortifying proof of their displeasure. For they raised Minucius to an equality with him in the command, an act for which there had been no precedent since the first erection of the dictatorial office.—Nor did their enmity to Fabius subside until after the fatal defeat at Cannæ. For the worthless Varro obtained not only the consulship, but what is still more extraordinary, even the confidence of the greater part of the senate, and almost the whole army by railing at Fabius and Fabian measures, and out boasting Minucius. I have showed above from Polybius what trust the majority of the senate reposed in Varro. But I cannot omit a remarkable instance, which Livy gives us, of the absurd and fatal partiality of the military men to Varro, in opposition to Æmilius, who avowedly followed the advice of Fabius.—In a council of war, says that historian, held a little before the battle of Cannæ, when each consul persisted firmly in his former opinion; Æmilius adhering to Fabius’s plan for avoiding fighting; Varro to his resolution of engaging the enemy immediately; Servilius one of the consuls of the former year was the only one who joined Æmilius, the rest declared for Varro.

[354] Above eighty thousand, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

[355] Polyb. lib. 3. p. 370.

[356] Liv. lib. 22. p. 242.

[357] Polyb. lib. 6. p. 688.

[358] Our method of trying delinquents, either in the land or sea service, by a court-martial composed of their respective officers, has been judged liable to many objections, and has occasioned no little discontent in the nation. For as their inquiry is restricted to a particular set of articles in each service, I don’t see how a commanding officer, vested with a discretionary power of acting, can strictly or properly come under their cognizance, or be ever liable to their censure, unless he is proved guilty of a direct breach of any one of those articles. But as a commander in chief may easily avoid an offence of that nature, and yet, upon the whole of his conduct in any expedition, be highly culpable; a court-martial, thus circumscribed in their power of inquiry, can never be competent judges in a cause where they are denied a proper power of examining into the real demerits of the supposed offender. Much has been said about trying offences of this nature, like other criminal cases, by juries: a scheme which, at the very first sight, must appear absurd and impracticable to the rational and unprejudiced.

As therefore instruction is the true end and use of all history, I shall take the liberty of offering a scheme, drawn from that wise and salutary institution of the Carthaginians, which is,—“that a select standing committee be appointed, to be composed of an equal number of members of both houses, chosen annually by balloting, with a full power of inquiring into the conduct of all commanders in chief, without any restraint of articles of war; and that, after a proper examination, the committee shall refer the case, with their opinion upon it, to the decision of his majesty.”

This scheme seems to me the least liable to objections of any I have yet met with. For if the numbers are chosen by balloting, they will be less liable to the influence of party. If they are chosen annually, and refer the case to the decision of the crown, which is the fountain of justice as well as mercy, they will neither encroach upon the royal prerogative, nor be liable to that signal defect in the Carthaginian committee, which sat for life, and whose sentence was final without appeal.

[359] Diodor. Sicul. lib. 20. p. 739.