provision made it necessary for every resolution of the Diet to be unanimous. Any deputy might, without reason assigned, pronounce his veto upon the subject under discussion; nay, more, by a refinement of this privilege,[10] he might by withdrawing declare the Diet dissolved, and until he was induced or compelled to return public business was suspended. This power, though very ancient, was not exercised till 1652, but was afterwards repeated with increasing frequency. It would once have been dangerous for an individual to defy the mass, but when the republic was in a state of anarchy it was easy to find supporters, and the gold of France or Austria often proved a powerful incentive. ♦Obstruction.♦ Another mode of obstruction was called drawing out the Diet, which could not[11] sit for more than six weeks. This consisted in the proposal and tedious discussion of irrelevant matter, until the day of dissolution arrived. In this state of things a resort to force was very common, and the public streets were often the scenes of a sanguinary fray. ♦Confederations.♦ When the Diet was not sitting, the Senate, with the king as its president, was responsible for the government. But if the nobles were dissatisfied with their measures, or if the veto had hopelessly clogged the wheels of state, recourse was had to an extraordinary assembly called a “confederation.” ♦Convocations.♦ This was formed sometimes to resist, sometimes to enforce the established law; and in the latter case it often took the shape of a “convocation,” which exactly resembled the Diet except that the veto was inadmissible. The Poles were always more happy in organising anarchy than in organising their institutions. Of course, the authority of a confederation depended upon the number and weight of its adherents; and it frequently happened that several of these bodies were sitting at the same time. We sometimes find in Polish history the Senate at variance with the Diet, the Diet with the king, the king with the grandees, the greater with the lesser nobles, and the whole nobility with their armed serfs. ♦Strife among the nobles--how caused.♦ Among the nobles religious inequality was the principal cause of dissension. Although none but Catholics could hold offices of state, a large number of the poorer nobles were “Dissidents,” and belonged to the Greek or Protestant persuasion. ♦Their three main classes.♦ They were thus naturally jealous of the official families; for, though all were theoretically equal, the differences of wealth and prestige tended to divide them into three classes: first, a few princely families who owned whole provinces and aspired to the posts of the supreme executive; secondly, the average gentry, who scrambled for the lesser offices, or were indignant at their religious disabilities; and thirdly, the poorer freemen, who made up for their lack of power by a spirit of captious disaffection. In stormy times the confusion was increased by half the middle