Nay, even that 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.