7.  The principal struggle, however, in supporting and opposing the bill, they say, was between Appius Claudius and Publius Decius Mus.  After these had urged nearly the same topics, respecting the privileges of patricians and plebeians, which had been formerly employed for and against the Licinian law, when the proposition was brought forward of opening the consulship to plebeians, Decius is said to have drawn a lively description of his own father, such as many then present in the assembly had seen him, girt in the Gabine dress, standing on a spear, in the attitude in which he had devoted himself for the people and the legions, and to have added, that the consul Publius Decius was then deemed by the immortal gods an offering equally pure and pious, as if his colleague, Titus Manlius, had been devoted.  And might not the same Publius Decius have been, with propriety, chosen to perform the public worship of the Roman people?  Was there any danger that the gods would give less attention to his prayers than to those of Appius Claudius?  Did the latter perform his private acts of adoration with a purer mind, or worship the gods more religiously than he?  Who had any reason to complain of the vows offered in behalf of the commonwealth, by so many plebeian consuls and dictators, either when setting out to their armies, or in the heat of battle?  Were the numbers of commanders reckoned, during those years since business began to be transacted under the conduct and auspices of plebeians, the same number of triumphs might be found.  The commons had now no reason to be dissatisfied with their own nobility.  On the contrary, they were fully convinced, that in case of a sudden war breaking out, the senate and people of Rome would not repose greater confidence in patrician than in plebeian commanders.  “Which being the case,” said he, “what god or man can deem it an impropriety, if those whom ye have honoured with curule chairs, with the purple bordered gown, with the palm-vest and embroidered robe, with the triumphal crown and laurel, whose houses ye have rendered conspicuous above others, by affixing to them the spoils of conquered enemies, should add to these the badges of augurs or pontiffs?  If a person, who has rode through the city in a gilt chariot; and, decorated with the ensigns of Jupiter, supremely good and great, has mounted the Capitol, should be seen with a chalice and wand; what impropriety, I say, that he should, with his head veiled, slay a victim, or take an augury in the citadel?  When, in the inscription on a person’s statue, the consulship, censorship, and triumph shall be read with patience, will the eyes of readers be unable to endure the addition of the office of augur or pontiff?  In truth (with deference to the gods I say it) I trust that we are, through the kindness of the Roman people, qualified in such a manner that we should, by the dignity of our characters, reflect back, on the priesthood, not less lustre than we should receive; and may demand, rather on behalf of the gods, than for our own sakes, that those whom we worship in our private we may also worship in a public capacity.”