Such a change must have been gradual; but, when it had occurred, the admission of the Plebeians made this assembly thoroughly democratic in form, for a vote in this _comitia_ depended neither on land or wealth, but simply on personal membership of a _curia_, which was common to all the citizens. But it is the very comparison of such a body with the thoroughly timocratic organisation of the _comitia centuriata_ which leads us to believe that, at the time when the Plebeians were admitted, the _curiae_ had ceased to be a power. The condition reached by the _comitia curiata_ in historical times will be described elsewhere. Its most distinctive right—the _lex curiata_—had perhaps been a real power in the hands of the Patricians, as long as they were its sole members, although their preponderance in the _comitia centuriata_ would have made a conflict between these two bodies unlikely; but there probably never was a time when the masses of the Plebs gathered _curiatim_ upset the verdict of the Patricians and wealthy Plebeians assembled _centuriatim_. When we consider this situation, it is not surprising that the leading features of the first period of development of the Roman constitution (494-287 B.C.) were an attempt to limit the power of the magistrates, and a struggle of the Plebs for equality with the Patriciate. The two struggles do not run on parallel lines but are interwoven at every point, since the magistracy represented the Patriciate. Nor do they represent merely an effort to weaken or to obtain political privilege; in their earlier stages the motive of the Plebs is not ambition, but defence. Their first efforts have the negative object of the protection of rights, not the positive design of an attempt to share in a political power which was closed to their order.