Titus Livius (Livy), The History of Rome, Book 8
Rev. Canon Roberts, Ed.

34. He had on his side the support of the august and venerable senate, the sympathy of the people, the protection of the tribunes, and the remembrance of the absent army. [2] On the other side were pleaded the unquestioned sovereign power of the Roman people and all the traditions of military discipline, the Dictator's edict which had ever been regarded as possessing divine sanction, and the example of Manlius who had sacrificed his affection for his son to the interests of the State. [3] Brutus too, urged the Dictator, the founder of Roman freedom, had done this before in the case of his two children. Now fathers were indulgent, and aged men, easy-going in matters that do not touch themselves, were spoiling the young men, teaching them to despise authority and treating military discipline as of little importance. [4] He declared his intention of adhering to his purpose, he would not abate a single jot of the punishment due to the man who had fought in defiance of his injunctions, while the auspices were doubtful and the religious sanction withheld. [5] Whether the supreme authority of the Dictator was to remain unimpaired did not depend on him; he, L. Papirius, would do nothing to weaken its power. [6] He sincerely hoped that the tribunes would not use their authority, itself inviolable, to violate by their interference the sovereignty of the Roman government, and that the people to whom the appeal had been made would not extinguish in his case especially Dictator and Dictatorship alike. [7] ‘If it did, it will not be L. Papirius but the tribunes, the corrupt judgment of the people that posterity will accuse and accuse in vain. [8] When the bond of military discipline has once been broken no soldier will obey his centurion, no centurion his military tribune, no military tribune his general, no Master of the Horse the Dictator. [9] No one will have any reverence or respect for either men or gods, no observance will be shown to the orders of commanders or the auspices under which they acted. [10] Without obtaining leave of absence soldiers will roam at will through friendly or hostile country; in total disregard of their military oath they will abandon their standards when and where they chose, they will refuse to assemble when ordered, they will fight regardless of day or night, whether the ground were favourable or unfavourable, whether their commander has given orders or not, keeping no formation, no order. [11] Military service, instead of being the solemn and sacred thing it is, will resemble wild and disorderly brigandage. Expose yourselves, tribunes, to all future ages as the authors of these evils! Make yourselves personally responsible for the criminal recklessness of Q. Fabius!’