all others denominated feudal, was in theory, and pretenſion, abſolute. The barons too, in this country as in all others, were very often impatient under ſuch reſtraint. When the prince was an able ſtateſman and warrior, he was able to preſerve order; but when he was weak and indolent, it was very common for two or three barons in conjunction to make war upon him; and ſometimes it happened that all together leagued againſt him at once. In every feudal country, where the people had not the ſenſe and ſpirit to make themſelves of importance, the barons became an ariſtocracy, inceſſantly encroaching upon the crown, and, under pretence of limiting its authority, took away from it one prerogative after another, until it was reduced down to a mere doge of Venice, or avoyer of Berne; until the kings, by incorporating cities and granting privileges to the people, ſet them up againſt the nobles, and obtained by their means ſtanding armies, ſufficient to controul both nobles and commons.
The monarchy of Poland, nearly abſolute, funk in the courſe of a few centuries, without any violent convulſion, into an ariſtocracy.
It came to be diſputed whether the monarchy was hereditary or elective, and whether its authority was ſovereign or limited. The firſt queſtion is reſolved, by ſuppoſing that the crown continued always in the ſame family, although, upon the death of a king, his ſucceſſor was recognized in an aſſembly of the nobles. The ſecond, may be anſwered by ſuppoſing, that when the king was active and capable, he did as he pleaſed; but when he was weak, he was dictated to by a licentious nobility. Caſſimir the Great retrenched the authority of the principal barons, and granted immunities to the leſſer nobility and
