On the other hand the newly made proprietors were contending with one another, if not with the commissioners.  The Italians were, in some cases, despoiled instead of relieved by the law.  The complaints of those turned out of their estates to make room for the clamorous swarms from the city, drowned the thanks of such as obtained a portion of the lands.  Not even with the wealth of Attalus had Tiberius bought friends enough to aid him at this time.[15] The same spirit of lawlessness which he himself had invoked in the passing of his law, was in turn made use of by his enemies to crush him.  Having been absent from Rome while performing his duties as commissioner, he now returned as a candidate for re-election to the tribunate, a thing in itself contrary to law, and in the struggle which arose over his re-election, was slain a little more than six months after his appointment[16] to membership in the collegium.

Uncertainty as to the Details of the Lex Sempronia. We are very imperfectly informed upon many points in Tiberius’ agrarian law.  In the first place, the question arises, were those persons holding less than 500 jugera at the time of its enactment given their lands as bona fide private property with the privilege of making up the deficiency?  If not, then the law, instead of punishing, would seem to reward violation of its tenets, and he who had with boldness appropriated the greatest quantity of domain land would now be an object of envy to his more honest but less fortunate neighbors.

Secondly, what arrangement was made as to the buildings and improvements already upon the land?  Were these handed over to the new owners without any payment on their part?  This would work great inequality in the value of allotments made, and yet we cannot see where the poor man was to obtain the money to pay for these.  Then again, what was to become of the numerous slaves which had hitherto carried on the agriculture now destined to be performed by small holders?  Their masters would have no further use for them and would consequently swell the lists of freedmen in order to avoid the expense of feeding them.  This law was passed in the midst of the Sicilian slave war and Tiberius Gracchus would surely not have neglected to make some provision to meet this exigency.  The law as it stands in its imperfect condition seems to be the work of an ignorant, unprincipled political charlatan, but we are convinced Tiberius was not that.  Moreover, we know that he had the help of one of Rome’s most able lawyers, Publius Mucius Scaevola, and the advice of his father-in-law, Appius Claudius, who was something of a statesman.  We are therefore convinced that some conditions which were to meet these obstacles were enacted.  We must admit, however, that it is a little surprising that no fragment of such conditions has ever reached us in the literature of Rome.