TADEUSZ MACIEJEWSKI

The History of Polish Legal System

from the 10th to the 20th century

WYDAWNICTWO C.H.BECK
WARSZAWA 2016

Wydawca: Anna Wieczorek

Tłumaczenie: Sebastian Macieja we współpracy z Piotrem Kitowskim i Dawidem Michalskim

Korekta językowa: David Malcolm

Zdjęcie na okładce: „Konstytucja 3 Maja 1791 roku” Jana Matejki na Zamku Królewskim w Warszawie: Adrian Grycuk/CC BY-SA 3.0-pl/Wikimedia Commons

Translation of this publication has been financed by Dean of the Faculty of Law and Administration, University of Gdańsk

This publication has been financed by University of Gdańsk, Powszechna Wyższa Szkoła Humanistyczna „Pomerania” in Chojnice and Notary Office Piotr Jakub Lis

© Wydawnictwo C.H.Beck 2016

Wydawnictwo C.H.Beck Sp. z o.o.
ul. Bonifraterska 17, 00-203 Warszawa

www.ksiegarnia.beck.pl

Skład i łamanie: Wydawnictwo C.H.Beck
Przygotowanie wersji elektronicznej: Wydawnictwo C.H.Beck

ISBN epub: 978-83-255-9600-2

To Students of Legal Studies

Spis treści

Translator’s note

Foreword

Chapter I. The state system of Old Poland (up to 1795)

§ 1. Patrimonial monarchy

I. The rise of the Polish state

1. The clan-tribe system and its collapse

2. The beginnings of Polish statehood

3. The patrimonial character of the state

II. The political system

1. The Monarch

2. State administration

3. Co-governing bodies

III. Judiciary

1. State courts

2. Ecclesiastical courts

3. German town law courts

IV. Social system

1. Knighthood

2. Clergy

3. Burgesses

4. Peasantry

§ 2. Estate monarchy (1320 – 1454)

I. The Crown of the Kingdom of Poland

II. The structure and rights of the estates

1. Nobility

2. Clergy

3. Burgesses

4. Peasantry

III. The political system

1. Royal power

2. Central offices

3. Local offices

4. The development of estate representation

IV. Judiciary

1. Royal courts

2. Nobles’ courts

§ 3. The Nobles’ republic (1454 – 1764)

I. Description of the state system

II. Territory and population

III. The monarch

1. Royal power

2. Elections

3. Pacta conventa and King Henry’s articles

IV. The General Sejm

1. Structure

2. Competence

3. Proceedings, voting, resolutions

4. Resident senators

V. Sejmiks

VI. Confederacy and rokosz

VII. Central and local offices

VIII. Poland and Lithuania’s Union of Lublin (1569)

IX. Central judiciary

1. Royal court

2. Crown and Lithuanian Tribunals

3. Sejm court

4. Assessors’ court

5. Referral court

6. Marshal’s court

7. Referendary’s court

§ 4. The beginnings of constitutional monarchy (1764 – 1795)

I. Sejm reforms of 1764 – 1766

1. Sejm reforms

2. Treasury and Military Committees

II. The reforms of the delegate sejm of 1767 – 1768

III. The reforms of the delegate sejm of 1773 – 1776

1. The Permanent Council

2. The National Education Commission

IV. The Four Years’ Sejm Reforms

1. Parties

2. Preparation and enactment of the Constitution of May 3rd

3. Social system

4. Political system

V. The Confederacy of Targowica (1792) and Grodno (1793)

VI. Kościuszko’s insurrection (1794)

1. Insurrection authorities

2. Peasant reforms

3. Judiciary

VII. Partitions. Territories and population

Chapter II. The law of Old Poland (up to 1795)

§ 1. Sources of law in the medieval period

I. The concept of a source of law

II. Characteristics of the system and sources of medieval law

1. Domination of customary law

2. Particularism of the law

3. The estate character of the law

4. Case law

5. Systematics of the law

III. Historical sources

IV. Books of endowments

V. Documents

VI. Polish law – land law

1. Collections of customary law

2. Statutory law

3. Resolutions of Sejms and sejmiks

4. Court books

VII. Canon law

VIII. Town law

1. Customary law

2. Willkurs

3. Legal instructions and urteils

4. Town privileges

5. Town books (board of aldermen’s or council’s books)

IX. Village law

§ 2. Sources of law in modern times

I. The Crown’s land law

1. Statutory law

2. Jan Łaski’s Statute (1506)

3. Codification of law

4. The Crown Metrica

5. Court books

II. Particular law in other areas of the Commonwealth

1. The law of Masovia

2. The law of Royal Prussia

3. The law of Lithuania

III. Canon law

1. Universal law

2. Provincial statutes

IV. Town law

1. Customary law

2. Statutory law

3. Legal literature

V. Village law

VII. Roman law

§ 3. Private law

I. Personal, marital and family law

1. Personal law

2. Marital law

3. Family law

II. Property law

1. The concept and classification of property

2. Possession and its protection

3. Ownership

4. Forms of ownership

5. Limitations of ownership

6. Acquisition of ownership

7. Loss of ownership

8. Limited real rights

III. Inheritance law

1. Intestate succession

2. Testate succession

IV. Law of obligations

1. The rise of obligations

2. Methods of assertion and strengthening of contracts

3. Expiration of obligations

4. Liability for obligations

5. Types of contracts

§ 4. Criminal law

I. Crime

1. Concept

2. Terminology

3. Basis for liability

4. Types of liability

5. Grounds for limiting or barring liability

6. Circumstances which limited or barred prosecution

7. Forms of participation in a crime

8. Classification of crimes

9. Types of crimes

II. Penalty

1. The concept and rationalization of penalty

2. The rules of administering a penalty

3. Types of penalties

§ 5. Court proceedings

I. Land trial

1. Principles

2. Parties at trial and their representatives

3. The competence of courts

4. Judicial examination

5. Enforcement proceedings

II. Town trial

1. Complaint trial

2. Inquisition trial

III. Village trial

Chapter III. The state system of the partitioned Polish territories (up to 1918)

§ 1. Polish territories in the first period of partitions

I. Russian partition

1. Social system

2. Structure of government

3. Judiciary

II. Prussian partition

1. Social system

2. Administrative system

3. Judiciary

III. Austrian partition

1. Social system

2. Political system

3. Judiciary

§ 2. The Free City of Gdańsk under Napoleon Bonaparte (1807 – 1813)

I. The foundation and dissolution of the Free City of Gdańsk

II. Political system

1. Principles of the political system and constitution drafts

2. The office of governor and agencies under his control

3. Central administration

4. Local administration

III. Judiciary

§ 3. The Duchy of Warsaw (1807 – 1815)

I. The foundation, territorial expansion and dissolution of the Duchy of Warsaw

II. Political system

1. Constitution

2. Monarch

3. Sejm

4. Council of State

5. Ministers and the Council of Ministers

6. Territorial administration and local-government

III. Social system

IV. Judiciary

1. Structure

2. Civil judiciary

3. Criminal judiciary

4. Cassation court

5. Administrative judiciary

6. Competence judiciary

§ 4. The Polish Kingdom (1815 – 1915)

I. The rise of the Polish Kingdom and its constitution

II. Political system

1. King

2. Viceroy

3. Council of State (General Assembly and Administrative Council)

4. Government committees

5. Sejm

6. Territorial administration. Local-government

III. Social system. Limitations on citizens’ rights and freedoms

IV. Judiciary

§ 5. Prussian partition (1815 – 1914)

I. The legal status of the Grand Duchy of Poznań. Autonomy of the state system

II. The structure of administration

1. Administrative division

2. Territorial local-government

III. Changes in the legal status of the estates

IV. Judiciary

1. Common judiciary

2. Administrative judiciary

§ 6. The Free City of Cracow (1815 – 1846)

I. The rise and fall of the Republic of Cracow

II. Political system

1. Supreme authorities

2. Territorial administration

III. Judiciary

§ 7. Austrian partition (1809 – 1914)

I. The state system of Galicia in the years 1809 – 1861

II. The autonomy of Galicia (from 1861). Political system

1. Domestic authorities

2. Territorial self-government

3. Governmental authorities

4. The administration of the school system

III. Judiciary

Chapter IV. The law in the partitioned Polish territories (up to 1918)

§ 1. Sources of law

I. Civil law

1. Prussian partition

2. Austrian partition

3. The Duchy of Warsaw

4. The Polish Kingdom

II. Commercial law

1. Prussian partition

2. Austrian partition

3. The Duchy of Warsaw and the Polish Kingdom

III. Labour law

1. Prussian partition

2. Austrian partition

3. The Polish Kingdom

IV. Criminal law

1. Prussian partition

2. Austrian partition

3. The Duchy of Warsaw and the Polish Kingdom

V. Civil procedure

1. Prussian partition

2. Austrian partition

3. The Duchy of Warsaw and the Polish Kingdom

VI. Criminal procedure

1. Prussian partition

2. Austrian partition

3. The Duchy of Warsaw and the Polish Kingdom

§ 2. Civil law

I. Personal, marital, family and custody law

1. Personal law

2. Marital law

3. Family law

4. Custody

II. Real rights

1. Ownership

2. Mortgage law

III. Inheritance law

1. General issues

2. Testate succession

3. Statutory succession

4. Contractual succession

IV. Law of obligations

1. Sources of obligations. Contracts

2. Civil liability

V. The areas of law distinguished from civil law

1. Commercial law

2. Labour law

§ 3. Criminal law

I. The doctrines of criminal law

1. Humanitarianism

2. The classical school

3. Positivist schools

II. General issues. The effectiveness of a criminal statute

III. Crime

1. The concept of crime

2. Classification of crimes

3. Liability

IV. Penalty

1. Definition and classification of penalties

2. Types of penalty

§ 4. Court proceedings

I. Civil trial

1. Common civil trial

2. Contemporary civil trial

II. Criminal trial

1. Inquisitorial trial

2. Mixed trial

Chapter V. The state system of the Second Republic, and during the Second World War

§ 1. The Second Republic (1918 – 1939)

I. The political system in the years 1918 – 1921

1. Establishment of a central state government

2. The Small Constitution (February 20th, 1919)

3. Territory and population

II. The political system in the years 1921 – 1926

1. The March Constitution (March 17th, 1921)

2. The functioning of the political system

III. The political system in the years 1926 – 1935

IV. The political system in the years 1935 – 1939

1. The April Constitution (April 23rd 1935)

2. The functioning of the system

V. The administration of the 2nd Republic of Poland

1. Central administration

2. General (consolidated) administration

3. Special (non-consolidated) administration

4. Local-government

5. Administrative judiciary

VI. The structure of justice

1. Basic principles of the judiciary

2. Common courts

3. Special courts

§ 2. The Free City of Gdańsk under the Treaty of Versailles (1920 – 1939)

I. Origins, territory and population

II. The political system of the Free City of Gdańsk

1. Constitution

2. Legislative power. People’s Assembly

3. Executive power. The Senate

III. Judiciary

IV. The rights of Poland in the Free City of Gdańsk

V. The prerogatives of the League of Nations and its High Commissioner

§ 3. The state system of the Polish state during the Second World War (1939 – 1945)

I. The state system of the occupied territories

1. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and its consequences

2. Polish territories under German occupation

3. Polish territories under Soviet occupation (up to 1941)

4. The structure of the judiciary of the occupying states

II. The Polish government-in-exile

III. The Polish Underground State

Chapter VI. The law of the Second Republic of Poland and during the Second World War

§ 1. Sources of law

I. Sources of law in the 2nd Republic period

1. The legal situation after gaining independence

2. Codification Committee

3. Codification of civil law, commercial law and law of civil procedure

4. Codification of material criminal law and criminal procedure

II. Sources of law in the Polish territories during the Second World War

1. Sources of law in the territories under German occupation

2. Sources of law in the territory under Soviet occupation

3. Sources of law applied in the special judiciary of the Polish Underground State

§ 2. Civil law and civil procedure

I. General issues

II. Personal, family and marital law

III. Real rights

IV. Inheritance law

V. Law of obligations

VI. Commercial law

VII. Litigious civil procedure

§ 3. Material criminal law and criminal procedure

I. Material criminal law

1. General principles

2. Felony

3. Penalty

II. Criminal procedure

§ 4. Labour law

I. Employment of a person

II. Tariff agreements and labour regulations

III. Legal protection of employees

IV. Employee associations

V. Control of compliance with the provisions of labour law

VI. Social insurance

Chapter VII. The state system under the people’s government (1944 – 1989)

§ 1. People’s Poland (1944 – 1952)

I. The political system during the take-over of power by communists (1944 – 1947)

1. The establishment of a communist government

2. The Polish Committee of National Liberation (PKWN)

3. The Interim Government (RT) and the Interim Government of National Unity (TRJN)

4. Elections to the Legislative Sejm (1947)

5. Borders, territory and population

II. The political system under the Small Constitution (February 19th, 1947)

1. The enactment of the Small Constitution

2. The Legislative Sejm

3. The President of the Republic of Poland

4. The Council of State

5. The Council of Ministers

6. Territorial administration

7. Judiciary

8. Citizens’ rights and obligations

§ 2. The People’s Republic of Poland (1952 – 1989)

I. The constitution of July 22nd, 1952, its amendments and principles

II. Supreme state authorities

1. The Sejm

2. The Council of State

III. The High Chamber of Inspection (NIK). Other forms of administrative control

IV. Supreme administrative authorities. The Council of Ministers

V. Local authorities and state administration

VI. Judiciary

1. Common courts

2. Special courts

VII. Citizens’ rights, freedoms and obligations

Chapter VIII. The law under the people’s government (after 1944)

§ 1. Sources of law

I. General issues

II. Civil law and civil procedure

1. Change in ownership relations

2. Consolidation of civil law

3. Codification of civil law

III. Material criminal law and criminal proceedings

1. Criminal regulations on responsibility for the effects of the war and the struggle against political opposition

2. Criminal regulations to protect the people’s government

3. Criminal regulations to protect the new socio-economic relations

4. Codification of material criminal law and criminal procedure

IV. Labour law

§ 2. Basic changes in the law

I. Civil law and civil procedure

1. Marital and family law

2. Real rights

3. Inheritance law

4. Law of obligations

5. Civil procedure

II. Material criminal law and criminal procedure

1. Material criminal law

2. Criminal procedure

III. Labour law

Translator’s note

With its sheer size and staggering variety of historical and legal terms, spanning no fewer than ten centuries, this work will definitely remain in the present writers’ memory for a long time as a particularly demanding language test and one of their most challenging tasks so far. Generally speaking, the language used by lawyers is an occupation-specific terminology inextricably connected with the legal system which it describes. Depending on the country, it also tends to have certain culture-specific foibles such as extreme verbosity (Polish) or quaint archaisms (English). Despite problems with finding the appropriate vocabulary, we have still made our best efforts to produce a good translation. That is why we hope that The History of polish legal system, in its English version, will please English-speaking readers as much as it did Polish ones and contribute to a better knowledge of our legal system abroad.

In this brief note, we would like to explain the strategies and decisions which we have made in the course of our work on this book as a translators. Firstly, most of the historical vocabulary has been drawn from Norman Davies’ “God’s Playground,” a magnificent history of our country written in English, and “The Cambridge History of Poland,” edited by Oskar Halecki. Most legal terms have been supplied by Ewa Kucharska’s English translation of the Polish Civil Code and “Dictionary of Law Terms” by Ewa Myrczak-Kadłubicka, both of them an invaluable aid to a translator. When it comes to proper names (cities, countries, regions, people, political organizations), we have taken a three-pronged approach:

1. All place names (e.g. names of cities) are given in the language version of that country, to which they now belong, with all typographic marks included (e.g. Łódź, Piotrków, Orava, etc.), except in the case of those well-known place names which have a well-established English designation (e.g. Warsaw, Silesia, Vilnius, Cracow).

2. Those proper names which may be broken down into separately meaningful units have been translated (e.g. Wielkopolska as Greater Poland; Małopolska as Lesser Poland).

3. As the book mentions scores of different offices, functions, types of laws and documents in old Poland and then goes on to compare and contrast them with others, we have found it necessary, for reasons of clarity, to be as faithful to the original as possible and use approximate translations only when the context permitted (e.g. województwo as ‘voivodship’ rather than ‘province’ or ‘region,’ as the latter two serve to translate the Polish words prowincja and region, which the text clearly distinguishes from województwo). This might be considered a little awkward by some, but it enables us to avoid terminological confusion and has the benefit of bringing the foreign reader closer to Polish reality.

There is also the problem of culture-specific terms which seem to have no English counterpart at all, e.g. wilkierz, wyderkaf. These have been given in the German version (Willkür, Wiederkauf) because German words are more easily adaptable in English.

Sebastian Macieja

in cooperation with Piotr Kitowski and

Dawid Michalski,

August 4th, 2015

Foreword

This textbook is an attempt to present the history of Poland’s state system and law from the earliest times up to the present. The material has been periodized in the traditional manner. In so doing, the basic criterion of division, which has been adopted, are the transformations of the form of the state. These would, as a matter of course, lead to transformations in the substance of court law. The greatest challenge for the scholar is to periodize the state system and the law in old Poland (up to 1795). The basis for the periodization of the state system was provided by Stanisław Kutrzeba in his “The History of the State System in Poland (1905)”, and elaborated by Juliusz Bardach in “The History of the State and Law of Poland” (1957). It is as follows:

a) the rise of tribal states and, subsequently, of the Polish state (8th century – mid-10th century);

b) patrimonial monarchy (mid-10th century – 1320), whereby that period may be further divided into early-feudal monarchy, up to 1138, and fragmentation;

c) estate monarchy (1320 – 1454); and

d) the nobles’ republic (1454 – 1795), divided into subperiods of noblemen’s democracy (1454 – 1652), magnate oligarchy (1652 – 1764) and the beginnings of constitutional monarchy (1764 – 1795).

Recently, Wacław Uruszczak has proposed a new periodization by dividing the history of the law and the state system in Poland into three periods: Piast Monarchy (966–1370), Kingdom of the Angevin and the Jagiellons (1370 – 1572) and the Commonwealth of Two Nations (1572 – 1795).

The starting point and time-span of some of these periods have stirred controversy to date. This is as a result of different evaluations of processes related to the state system and the law, even despite the adoption of similar criteria of systematization. It is far easier to systematize the history of the law in the old Polish period. The basis for that was created by Michał Bobrzyński, the author of “The History of Poland in Outline” (1877), who proposed the division of his native history into three periods:

a) primeval (up to 1241);

b) medieval (1241 – 1505), and

c) modern (1505 – 1795).

On that basis, Józef Rafacz created a division of the history of old Poland’s law into the following periods: medieval (up till the late 15th century, rightly assuming that sources concerning the history of the law up to the 13th century are extremely scanty) and modern (16th - 18th centuries). To do justice to the differing periodizations of the history of Poland’s state system and law up to 1795, a common denominator has been adopted for the purpose of this textbook, to allow discussing both these issues within almost completely overlapping periods. Such a solution, although far from perfect, is based on the practice adopted in the majority of textbooks.

Further periodization of the history of Poland’s state system and law offers no major difficulties, for it may be divided into the following periods:

a) rule of the partitioning powers, taking into consideration Polish state-like entities with partial sovereignty or autonomy (1772/1795 – 1918);

b) 2nd Republic of Poland and Polish territories under occupation (1918 – 1944/45); and

c) people’s government (1944/45 – 1989), subdivided into: People’s Poland (up to 1952) and People’s Republic of Poland (up to 1989).

It is worth noting, however, that adopting such a periodization of the history of the law is simplifying matters to some extent, as it conflicts with the time-periods, in which the partitioning powers’ codifications were in force.

This textbook takes advantage of Polish scholars’ research contained both in basic handbooks on the history of the Polish state system and law, as well as in monographs and specially focused studies.

The following has been done to make using this textbook easier: the text has been divided into smaller portions (chapters, paragraph, listings with Roman and Arabic numerals), and bold type has been used for the most important terms, petit print for remarks supplementing the main text; also, an index, genealogical charts, tables and graphs have been introduced.

The present text is intended for lecturing purposes. This justifies all the short-cuts and simplifications necessitated by the need to select from an enormous body of primary sources and literature. As a result, a number of issues have been given cursory treatment or only mentioned.

This book is a translation into English of my textbook entitled Historia ustroju i prawa sądowego Polski, published by C.H.Beck, Warsaw 1999, 2003, 2008, 2011 (476 pages).

Generally speaking, this publication is intended for Polish students who are studying law in English. It also attempts to popularize the history of Poland’s law abroad. For this, it is the first study of this kind in Poland available in English. This will help to bring the subject-matter closer to all readers in the world.

***

I would like to give very special thanks for funding this publication to the Authorities of the University of Gdańsk – Rector prof. Bernard Lammek, Vice-Rector for Education prof. Anna Machnikowska, Dean of the Faculty of Law and Administration prof. Jakub Stelina, the Authorities of the Powszechna Wyższa Szkoła Humanistyczna “Pomerania” in Chojnice, especially President of the Board Collegium POMERANIA dr Janusz Daszkiewicz and Notary Office Piotr Jakub Lis.

Gdańsk, April 2015

Professor Tadeusz Maciejewski

Chapter I. The state system of Old Poland (up to 1795)

§ 1. Patrimonial monarchy

I. The rise of the Polish state

1. The clan-tribe system and its collapse

Pre-Polish tribes belonged among the Western Slavs. They arrived in the area located between the Oder and Bug rivers, on one hand, and the Carpathians and the Baltic Sea, on the other, during the Migration Period, most probably in the 6th century. The basic unit of Slav society was the clan. Initially, it included all those who originated from the same ancestor (agnatic), but with time a clan which consisted of relatives on both the father’s and the mother’s side (cognatic) became predominant. It served religious, military, economic, social, as well as protective purposes. Usually, the members of the clan inhabited a single settlement. The clan consisted of families.

A number of clans would form a tribe, which was based on common ancestry as well, but also served state functions. The state-forming process started first within the so-called small tribes inhabiting an area of up to 10,000 sq. km. These would combine to form a larger structure, i.e. the large tribe, which comprised a loose association of multiple small tribes. This process became more evident especially in the 8th century. Tribal associations formed in such a way occupied an area of up to 40,000 sq. km. The most important ones were: the Vistulans, the Polans, the Goplans, the Lendians, the Silesians, the Masovians and the Pomeranians.

Superior authority in a small tribal state was held by the veche (congress). It gathered all free men, i.e. only male co-members of a tribe, able to bear arms. In a large tribal state, the veche gathered the elders and the princes of small tribes in order to decide on the most important state affairs such as: declaration of war and peace, the judiciary as well as the election of the grand prince.

Economic development, migrations, as well as the rise of personal property led in the 7th century to the collapse of the clan community and its replacement with a territorial community based on neighbourly ties. The newly created territorial association came to be termed as the opole. This occupied an area from 40 to 400 sq. km, which contained the burgh, as well as numerous villages and settlements. The population’s chief occupation was farming and animal husbandry.

2. The beginnings of Polish statehood

Larger territorial structures, based on the above-mentioned tribes, formed in the Polish lands in the 9th century. Information about them was first recorded by the Bavarian Geographer, who enumerated their names and the number of gords possessed by them. The strongest tribal state was created by the Polans, who had conquered the neighbouring tribes. Probably, in the 9th century, the state of the Polans witnessed the toppling of the ruling dynasty, of which the last member was Popiel, and power was then taken over by the Piastowiczes, who – already in possession of Greater Poland and Kuyavia – went on to seize the lands of Sieradz, Łęczyca as well as Masovia, thus creating the foundation for the Polish state.

Another important entity was the state of the Vistulans. In the 9th century, however, it was subjected by the Great Moravian Empire and later, after the latter’s collapse, by the Czech state. It was recaptured by the Polish state, together with Silesia, by Mieszko I at the end of his reign. Under the first Piasts, the Polish state stretched over 250,000 sq. km and was home to a population of around 1,000,000. There are no precise records concerning the growth of the state of the Polans. In written sources, it appears only in the 960s in a description by Abraham ben Jacob, and later in Widukind of Corvey’s chronicle.

3. The patrimonial character of the state

Patrimonial monarchy arose in Germanic states which emerged following the collapse of the Roman Empire. Such a concept was later adopted in other countries which arose in the Middle Ages, including Poland. This meant that the state had been an object of private property rights, i.e. the monarch’s private property for him to freely dispose of as a whole, including all the particular territories and population, under ducal law (ius ducale). This concept lacked a distinction between the monarch’s private property (patrimonium) and public authority exercised by him. This concept persisted until the rise of estate monarchy. A different view has recently been expressed by Wacław Uruszczak, claiming that the Polish state was not the property of the Piasts but only hereditarily controlled by them, which means that its rulers were only the possessors.

II. The political system

1. The Monarch

In accordance with the principle of a patrimonial state, the monarch was considered to be both the ruler and the private owner of the country. Usually, the rulers of Poland in the early-feudal monarchy period held the title of prince, as by 1138, only three of them had gained the title of king: Bolesław the Valiant (1025), Mieszko II (1025) and Bolesław the Bold (1076).

The title of king increased the ruler’s prestige both at home and abroad by emphasizing the unity and independence of the state. In the period of feudal fragmentation, coronations were discontinued and restored only in 1295 (Przemysł II). Besides the titulature, another way to strengthen the monarch’s power was to ensure dynastic continuity. Those entitled to the throne were the ruler’s male inheritors related to him first directly and, secondly, collaterally.

The scope of royal power in the period of the centralized and unitary state was considerable, especially at the turn of the 10th/11th centuries under Mieszko I and Bolesław the Valiant. Later, it gradually diminished to be recaptured temporarily (Bolesław the Bold). The monarch rights included the legislative, executive, military and judiciary powers.

The crisis of the monarch’s power was caused by decentralizing factors, represented especially by barons endowed with offices, privileges and immunities, who once independent economically, also tried to gain political independence. This was compounded by quarrels or even in-fighting for the ducal throne between feuding sons, as well as conflict with the clergy. The overall picture was further complicated by people’s uprisings. The major crises for the state power occurred in the 11th century, especially during the reign of Mieszko II (people’s uprising and struggle for the throne with Bezprym), Bolesław the Bold (internal opposition led by Władysław Herman and the bishop of Cracow Stanisław), Bolesław Wrymouth (civil war with Zbigniew, followed by the opposition of the voivod Skarbimir). Decentralizing tendencies intensified especially at the turn of the 11th/12th centuries. This resulted in the state division in 1097, temporarily for the first time, into provinces by Władysław Herman, who having retained control over Masovia, handed over Greater Poland and Kuyavia to his older son Zbigniew, and Silesia and Lesser Poland to his younger son Bolesław. On his death in 1102, Władysław Herman left Poland divided. Conflicts between his sons led to a civil war, combined with the intervention of Emperor Henry V, which fortunately ended with the country reunion. The country was divided permanently by Bolesław Wrymouth on the strength of his 1138 testament (statute), which was an act to regulate succession and power structure.

The testament introduced in Poland the principle of seniorate. According to it, power was divided among the senior prince (princeps), who was to be the oldest prince in the clan, and junior princes (juniors). The princeps, besides his own province, would also receive the transferrable and formally indivisible principate province, which consisted of the lands of Cracow, Łęczyca and probably part of Greater Poland with Gniezno, Gdańsk Pomerania, as well as control over Western Pomerania. Each of Wrymouth’s adult sons received, according to the testament, his own province, which was hereditary and could be divided (Władysław II, the senior – Silesia, Bolesław the Curly – Masovia and Kuyavia, Mieszko III – Greater Poland). The senior prince, the princeps, held control over affairs of a country-wide nature, including foreign policy, superior military command, appointment of Church and state dignitaries and maintenance of garrisons in the juniors’ gords.

Władysław II’s attempt to overrule the testament and restore one-man rule failed, and the prince was banished (1146). A similar fate fell on Mieszko III the Old (1177), who strove to strengthen the central power. The reign of Casimir the Just (up to 1194), who followed him, marked the last period of stable superior rule and country-wide congresses. His death opened up a new stage of struggle for the throne at Cracow, leading to the erosion of the princeps’ power and transformation of the provinces into separate state entities. After 1227, a condition of lasting feudal fragmentation began in Poland, which continued de facto until 1320, even though unification processes had been evident since the second half of the 13th century.

In that period, the junior princes lost power in favour of barons and the clergy. Under Henry IV Probus (late 13th century), the right to resist (ius resistendi) was officially pronounced, allowing the ruler to be deprived of the throne for non-compliance with the laws or breach of obligations. This institution had existed in practice since the 11th century (Mieszko II, Casimir the Restorer).

In conclusion, the basic principles of the state system under the first Piasts were: rule of monarchy, sovereignty, connection of state and Church, as well as concentration of power in the monarch’s hands and a hereditary throne.

2. State administration

a) Central administration

The government of the Polish state was generally based on models taken over from Carolingian administration, taking into account its own specific features. Central offices developed in the epoch of early-feudal monarchy and feudal fragmentation only asserted the existing status quo in each province.

Officials holding senior offices were initially known by the term comes or its Polish counterpart żupan. Lower ones were called bailiffs. With time, these became honorary titles designating distinguished persons. A characteristic feature of the patrimonial monarchy was also a lack of distinction between state and court offices.

The most important official from the 11th to the 13th century was comes palatine (comes palatinus). With time, he came to be known as the voivod. He was de facto a deputy of the monarch, particularly with regard to the judiciary, state governance and the military. The position of voivod rose to prominence during feudal fragmentation when voivods attempted to take over the prince’s power, and their status was to be emphasized by the use of titulature containing the formula “by the grace of God”. At the end of the 13th century, voivods lost importance. This was especially true of the voivods of Cracow, who in the official hierarchy were preceded by castellans.

In Silesia, the equivalent of the voivod was the palatine, and in Western Pomerania, the marshal.

The next in hierarchy was the chancellor (cancellarius). Sources attest to this office from the beginning of the 12th century. It was usually held by a clergyman, as it required the ability to read and write. The official was tasked with drafting and sealing public documents. With time, a princely chancellery was established for the office, supervised by the protonotary, who was in charge of notaries tasked with editing diplomas. An important role was also played by the treasurer (thesaurarius), who took charge of the monarch’s treasury and of keeping state documents, as well the minter (monetarius), who managed the supplies of money and bullion. Among other major officials were also dignitaries who dealt with particular courtly functions, such as: the cupbearer (in charge of cellars), the pantler (in charge of the pantry), the equerry, master of the hunt, sword bearer, etc. Each of them had one or more deputies, e.g. the royal cupbearer, steward, etc. To sum up, all the above-mentioned officials may be divided into the ones who assisted in the exercise of royal power and courtly ones.

In the period of the unitary state, as well as in the beginnings of the period of fragmentation, there was only one dignitary (e.g. voivod, chancellor) for the whole state or province. Offices were integrated when some of the provinces merged. From the beginning of the 13th century, however, there appeared a tendency to keep a separate official hierarchy for each province. This resulted in the transformation of central offices into land ones. Their strong position was underlined by the fact that they were held for life.

b) Territorial administration

The early-feudal monarchy period was characterized by a division into provinces. This harked back to the large tribal states (the provinces of Poznań and Gniezno, Cracow, Sandomierz, Silesia, Masovia, Kuyavia, Łęczyce and Sieradz). Each province was headed by a viceroy appointed by the monarch. The division disappeared later during feudal fragmentation.

The basic unit of territorial division, however, was the gord district which, from the 12th century onwards, was known as the castellany. Authority belonged to the gord comes, and then to the castellan. The gord was the centre of government, as well as serving administrative, military, tax-collecting and judiciary functions. During feudal fragmentation, castellanies were divided to expand the local power structure. As a result, by the mid-13th century, there were nearly a hundred of them. Local officials within a castellany were as follows: wojski (responsible for safety), standard-bearer (convening the knighthood), gord judge (local judiciary) and bailiff (economic affairs). The castellany’s revenue was used to provide salaries for the officials.

c) Starost

The office of starost appeared at the end of the 13th century. It was introduced by king Wacław II, and it was based on the Czech model. The (general, district) starost was appointed by the king for particular lands. As an appointed official, he could be recalled at any time. Usually, as a representative of the king’s interests against barons, he would come from the minor knighthood. He was given administrative and military power. The office was strengthened by Władysław the Short, who had appointed starosts for all the former districts except Lesser Poland. Gord courts (judge, subjudge, clerk), as well as administrative courts (substarosts, burgraves) were accountable to the starost.

3. Co-governing bodies

a) The monarchy council

The centre of state government was the princely court where court officials managed various areas of state administration. These dignitaries formed the original monarchy (royal, princely) council. With time, the council was expanded to include lay and clerical barons. It acted only in an advisory capacity and its competence was never defined, as the monarch could deal with every matter himself without consulting anyone. Nevertheless, the council was, to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the ruler’s position, a limitation on his prerogatives.

b) Veches and feudal congresses

Veches harked back to pre-state traditions. Up to the 12th century, they comprised all free men. They gradually evolved, however, as barons came to dominate public life, and as the size of the state and royal power grew to make matters decided increasingly more complex. In effect, decision-making passed to the monarch and the barons, only sporadically to be put to the general vote and that only to make the matter appear more solemn.

With time, the general veche turned into a feudal congress, which comprised – besides the prince – only barons, the knighthood and city representatives, which made it more official. The period of feudal fragmentation saw the rise of district and interdistrict veches. The latter were country-wide, the former only local. Feudal veches (congresses) were competent to give their opinions on matters related to: foreign policy, levy of taxes, appointment of officials, division of districts, etc.; to administer justice, as well as elect a new ruler or deny him obedience. The most well-known veches were congresses which acknowledged the privileges of the Polish Church: the synod of Łęczyca (1180) and the veche in Borzykowo (1210).

III. Judiciary

1. State courts

The most important institution was the monarch’s court (princely court). It was designated as court in curia or court in colloquio. It consisted of the ruler and assessors. Justice was usually administered on the monarch’s behalf by the judge (iudex curiae) or subjudge (subiudex curiae). The subject-matter competence of the court was not precisely defined, as the prince could bring any case before his court.

A lower court was the castellan’s court, whereby justice was usually administered on the castellan’s behalf by the gord judge (iudex castri), acting in collaboration with assessors. Originally, the castellan’s court had jurisdiction over all persons inhabiting the district.

A special form of state courts was represented by voivod’s courts, which decided upon matters in which a Jewish person was a party, as well as marketplace courts held by a marketplace judge (iudex fori).

2. Ecclesiastical courts

Ecclesiastical judiciary emerged at the beginning of the 13th century as the first estate judiciary based on the relevant princely privileges. It was adjusted to the ecclesiastical structure. In the first instance, the judge was an archdeacon, whose verdict might be appealed to a bishop. However, at the synod of Wrocław (1248), the bishop’s judiciary duties were placed with the newly established office of officialis, whose verdicts could be appealed to the archbishop. The structure was complemented by synodic courts which were held when the bishop was touring the diocese.

3. German town law courts

Municipal courts were held by a college or an individual person. Among collegiate courts were: a council court, an ordinary aldermen’s court, an extraordinary aldermen’s court (in the form of a necessary court, guest court, or criminal court) and a veto court. Courts held by an individual person were as follows: the mayor-president’s court, the burgrave’s court and the village head’s court (judge). A special type of court was a fief court which settled matters brought forward by voigts and village heads.

The verdicts of aldermen’s courts could be appealed. Royal cities would appeal to Magdeburg. The first higher German town law court in Poland was established in Chełmno (1233). It was replaced by a higher court in Toruń (1458 – 1608). Due to the absence of an intermediate instance between the lower and royal courts, Casimir the Great created the Supreme German Town Law Court at the Royal Castle (1356). It consisted of a landvoigt and 7 aldermen. The third instance was represented by a royal commissioner’s Court of Six Cities (1356).

Village courts were based on models created by the municipal judiciary. They consisted of a village head and village aldermen appointed by the lord or village head.

IV. Social system

1. Knighthood

a) Development of the knighthood

The emergence of the estates was a long-standing and complex process spanning the entire period of patrimonial monarchy, which ended as late as the mid-14th century. The noble estate derived from the knighthood, i.e. the group of people who engaged in warfare as a profession. It comprised both barons (nobiles) and ordinary knights (milites). The barons, known as comeses, owed their importance to the fact that they held state offices, at the court and in gords, as well as to the rise of great land ownership, which emerged following the break-up of the great clan community, and as such was continually enhanced by the monarch’s endowments and illegal seizures. The knighthood derived from ducal soldiers and free members of opole communities. They were known as wlodykas. They were the first to own land granted to them by the ruler as a benefice under knights’ law (ius militare) in exchange for the duty of military service. Others held it hereditarily. The collapse of the army structure led to the spread of knights’ full (allodial) ownership, free from burdens imposed by ducal law.

b) Immunities and other privileges

Originally, an immunity was a privilege related to an estate, one which released it from obligations to the monarch. Later, it became more personal. First, it could only be acquired by barons, but at the turn of the 13th/14th centuries, immunity was extended to all lands held by the knighthood. With regard to its substance, we may distinguish judicial immunity and economic immunity. The former allowed the lord to administer justice in the area under immunity. Initially, this only applied to minor cases (causae minores) and non-free or semi-free population, but gradually also major cases (causae maiores) and the entire population. Economic immunity, on the other hand, consisted in the population, which inhabited the area granted immunity, being exempt from fees, tributes and services to the monarch, as these would now be received by the lord in the form of a land rent. The grant of economic immunity usually involved the lord relinquishing the so-called regalia to the ruler, i.e. control of certain economic activities reserved for the monarch.

Concerning the scope of exemption, we may distinguish general and partial immunities. The former would abrogate the whole or nearly whole ducal law with a single document and was usually granted to the clergy; the latter, on the other hand, exempted a person only from some servitudes, performances and court matters, and it was addressed to barons and later also to the knighthood.

Alongside immunities, barons and later the knighthood also began to gain other privileges. From the second half of the 13th century, the right of non-response (ius non responsivum) had become common, which ensured exclusion from the jurisdiction of castellan’s courts and submission to that of the monarch’s courts. Barons and the knighthood were given better legal protection and even the right to erect their own gords. They were also distinguished by having a coat of arms (personal sign) and appellation (emblem). The entirety of knights’ rights was designated as the knights’ law (ius militare).

2. Clergy

As a separate estate, the clergy developed the earliest (in the early 13th century). Its separation took place based on the functions it fulfilled and not on birth. Although formally accessible to everyone, this estate was in fact internally divided, as the position of clergymen depended on their social background.

In regard to positions held, the clergy was divided into higher and lower clergy. The former included archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, members of chapters and colleges. The others comprised the lower clergy. In regard to ordainment and vows, the clergy was divided into secular diocesan clergy and monastic order clergy. Last but not least, in regard to denomination, there existed Catholic and non-Catholic clergy.

The privileged position of the clergy originated from the synod of Łęczyca (1180) when Casimir the Just waived movable property left behind by deceased bishops and abbots (ius spolii) and released the population in Church-owned villages from the obligation to provide horse-drawn carriages to royal officials. Another privilege for the Church was granted by the Piast princes in Borzykowo (1210). This guaranteed free election of bishops, the clergy’s freedom of appointment to higher Church offices, submission of the clergy to ecclesiastical courts (privilegium fori). It also confirmed ius spolii.

The Church’s economy was based on enormous land complexes, which placed it, alongside the monarch, among the largest land-holders. Usually, the lands came from endowments by princes and lay barons. The archbishop of Gniezno’s estate in 1136 comprised 149 settlements and was constantly growing. Monasteries were also generously endowed. The least endowed were parishes.

3. Burgesses

a) Town locations

The location of Polish towns was related to three phenomena: the emergence of a collectivity as an agent which dealt jointly with the lord, the rise of money-goods economy, and spatial transformations.

The 13th century witnessed an influx of German settlers into an economically developing Poland, especially into Silesia, who once endowed with judicial and economic immunity for the land allotted to them, began to create their own forms of local-government. Most frequently, a colony of arrivals was settled in the vicinity of existing Polish settlements (Gdańsk, Słupsk); sometimes, however, a new area was designated for the “guests” (Płock). With time, a model of settling and organizing towns became common whereby the settlers would adopt Magdeburg law and effect the so-called location. Initially, the term locare meant “to place, to put in place”.

Depending on who issued the location document, ducal (later: royal) and private towns were distinguished. The location document granted town rights, designated the town limits and suburb areas, organized town authorities, regulated the rules of commercial activities and craft work, listed the rights and obligations of the burgesses, set forth the rights of the owner of the town, etc.

The town was organized by a person known as a locator. He was an entrepreneur, usually of German – exceptionally of Polish – descent, tasked with bringing a specific number of settlers specializing in trade and manufacturing, accommodating them in the town and providing a basis for economic activity. Settlers were given comfortable terms such as their own judiciary, tax-free years, i.e. exemption from heavy taxation for a number of years, a grant of individual and hereditary land plots, as well as common ground allocated to the borough, the privilege of free trade and of pursuing a craft, etc. This was especially advantageous for the locator, who was given an area of his choice and was free to build economic facilities in it (such as mills, abattoirs, timber mills) to secure profits for himself.

The basic model in terms of the system and law for most Polish towns was that of Magdeburg. It was a mother-town, on whose model other centres, known as filial towns or daughter towns, were located to form a town law family together, in which similar rules applied in terms of structure, system and legal standards (a filial system). The process of town location under Magdeburg law began first in the Silesian district, where the town of Złotoryja (1211) was first settled, to be followed by Lwówek (1217). In total, by 1370, 234 towns had been settled with Magdeburg law in Poland.

With time, two local varieties of Magdeburg law developed to produce a model for the organization and laws of new towns. These were Środa Law (Środa Śląska), by which over 100 towns were settled, starting from 1235, mainly in Silesia, Greater Poland and the land of Sieradz and Łęczyca, as well as Culm Law (Chełmno), by which, starting from 1233, 225 towns were settled in total, usually in Pomerania and Masovia.

Alongside Magdeburg law and its local varieties, Polish cities were also settled with Lubeck law. Interactions with Lubeck resulted from Hanseatic influences, which is why these settlements took place mainly along the coast in Western Pomerania.

b) Town system

The town was headed by a hereditary voigt (Vogt, advocatus). Sometimes he was known as “town head”. He was usually the locator, who received the position of voigt as a compensation for his efforts and outlays. The town lord’s relationship with the voigt was of a private- and public-law nature. The private law relationship translated into grants of land and other benefits serving as compensation for the settlement. The public law relationship translated into granting the voigt authority which involved representative, administrative, judiciary, police and military functions.

The wealth and importance of voigts became inconvenient with time, particularly for burgesses and owners. In the 14th century, a tendency appeared (first in Silesia) to eliminate the voigt’s office; this was done usually by purchase. Voigts were replaced by municipal local-government authorities, such as the council and board of aldermen.

The manner in which the council developed raises debates and doubts, mainly in the case of Magdeburg law towns (in Lubeck law towns, councils appeared at the moment of settlement). It is assumed that the councils of some towns took root still in the period of voigtship (Strzegom, Legnica), but most of them appeared in the 14th century when the office of voigt had already been eliminated. The number of councilmen was not fixed. It depended on the size of the town, varying from 4 to 24, e.g. Gdańsk had 23 councilmen, including 18 from the Main Town, and 5 from the Old Town (but the latter had only one vote together). In Cracow, there were 24 councilmen, of whom the council in office numbered 8 persons, and the supplementary council 16. With time, councils began to be presided over by the mayor (Bürgermeister, magister consulum). He chaired the council and represented the town, but had no independent right to decide on town-related matters. To a small degree, he had authority over the judiciary. The council’s authority included: municipal legislation, approval of guild statutes, safety, defence, jurisdiction over criminal, administrative and trade matters.

The authority competent to administer justice was the board of aldermen. In the period of voigtship, it was appointed by the voigt, later by the council. It consisted of between 7 and 12 aldermen, as it was the case in Toruń.

c) Social system

According to the legal criterion, burgesses were divided into citizens and dwellers. Citizenship could be hereditary or acquired. Only citizens could take advantage of town rights and privileges, among which were: holding offices, owning real estate, trading or pursuing crafts, brewing beer, etc. Citizens were obliged, among other things, to pay taxes and keep watch. The rest of the population were dwellers, who consisted mostly of a formerly rural population immigrating into the towns. They would acquire personal freedom after staying in the town for a year and a day, in accordance with the principle of “town air makes free”. Dwellers were not entitled to town rights but were obliged to comply with the regulations of the town.

Another criterion for the division of burgesses was financial status. The most important position was held by the patriciate consisting of the wealthiest merchants and craftsmen, as well as the members of town authorities. Another stratum, the most numerous one, were the commons, which consisted of small merchants/shopkeepers, owners of small workshops and journeymen. Usually, both of these groups had town rights. Lower down the scale were the plebs, made up of poor townspeople such as labourers, house servants, beggars in temporary employment, tramps, etc.

4. Peasantry

a) Dependence of the peasant population

Free yeomen constituted the majority of the population when Polish statehood was developing. The development of feudalism, however, drove them more and more into dependence, both for political and economic reasons. Under the early-feudal monarchy, it was possible to distinguish the following strata of dependent rural population: ducal peasants (independent farmers subjects to the duke and holding land under the rule of dependent ownership), land-bound peasants (dependent population, settled on an ecclesiastical estate) and debt prisoners (debtors placing themselves and their families in surety until their debts have been worked off).

The rest of the free population had fallen into dependence through commendations, trying to avoid military service and other public duties incumbent on the free. Widely applied was the practice of precaria, consisting in the peasants’ voluntarily placing themselves and their lands under the care of ecclesiastical, and later lay, feudal lords. Precaria resulted in the feudal lords taking over superior ownership of the land, which was then handed to the peasants, but only under usufructary ownership with the obligation to provide prescribed services.

b) Peasant services

Peasants settled on a land were obliged to provide a number of services known as feudal rent. There existed three types of such: in kind, in labour and in money. The rent in kind involved supplying cattle, grain, honey or game to the ruler or lord. The rent in labour involved peasants’ forced labour. At times, both these rents were combined into a joint service. This dominated in the feudal economy from the 11th to the 13th century. As the goods-money economy developed, the above-mentioned types of rent were replaced with a census rent. This was rendered in money or in grain (a commodity with a definite exchange value).

c) Polish law colonization

In the early 12th century, the Polish countryside witnessed beneficial changes, resulting from progress in farming technology (the three-field system, iron tools), developments in animal husbandry, reduction in the unfree population, land consolidation, etc. These improved the living standards of peasants, and consequently, demographic growth and an increase in income followed. This encouraged feudal lords to have wastelands settled which had thus far lain unused. In these areas, the lords provided the settlers with more convenient conditions than in lands already farmed. This led to a colonization movement known as the Polish law colonization or “the custom of free guests”. Newly settled villages were given the following rights: a fixed rent paid in grain or money, tax-free years, a development loan, limited right of exit and right to the usufructary ownership of land. With time, the lords would settle unfree populations and their own subjects under Polish law.

d) German law colonization

The settlement of villages with German law was conditional upon the monarch’s award of a settlement permission to the lord, which usually occurred after the previous grant of an immunity to that same lord. Based on such permission, the lord would conclude a settlement contract with a village locator-organizer, to whom a formal settlement deed was issued. The document defined the following: village area, locator’s and settler’s rights and obligations. It also released the village from encumbrances in relation to the prince. The locator-organizer would become a village head. This was a hereditary office and its benefits consisted of a few rent-free lands, the right to collect 1/6 of rents and 1/3 of court penalties, and to own an inn, abattoir and mill. The village head fulfilled the following duties: presiding over the village board of aldermen, organizing military service, collecting rents and tributes for the lord. The importance of village heads started to diminish with the issuance of the Warta statute (1423), which allowed the nobility to remove a recalcitrant village head and the lord to buy up the land left behind, if no one else volunteered to purchase it.

§ 2. Estate monarchy (1320 – 1454)

I. The Crown of the Kingdom of Poland

The unity of the Polish state was restored at the coronation of Władysław the Short in 1320. At that time, Poland covered an area of 106,000 sq. km, comprising Lesser Poland, Greater Poland, the land of Sieradz (the land of Łęczyca was temporarily enfeoffed to Kuyavian princes in exchange for the lost Kuyavia). Casimir the Great managed to annex Kuyavia and the land of Dobrzyn (1343), Red Ruthenia (1352, 1366), the land of Wschowa (1343), as well as, temporarily, Santok and Drezdenko (1365–1370), all of which covered an area of 170,000 sq. km, to which were added the fiefs in Masovia amounting to 70,000 sq. km. By the death of Casimir Jagiellon, the size of the country had extended to include: the land of Wieluń (1396), Spis (1412), Podole (1430), the duchy of Siewiersk (1443) and Royal Prussia (1466), all of which totalled 260,000 sq. km. Added to that were the Duchy of Prussia, Moldova and Masovia, which constituted fiefs.

Poland’s overcoming feudal fragmentation, combined with a simultaneous shift in a number of other European countries away from disintegration, changed ideas about the manner in which a state should be structured and run. The restoration of central power favoured a gradual drift away from a patrimonial state toward an understanding of the state as a public and sovereign institution. In terms of the law and state system, this tendency demonstrated itself in Poland in the development of the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland (Corona Regni Poloniae), modelled after 13th-century England and Hungary. This embodied the principles of the sovereignty, indivisibility and inalienability of the state, as well as its separation from the monarch. In practice, this meant that the state and monarch became independent of the universalist doctrine of Emperor and Pope (although some relics of the latter’s superiority remained, such as tithes, Peter’s Pence and annates). It also meant that rulers were obliged to restore lost possessions, expand their territories and increase the importance of estate representation. The state emblem was established, a country-wide flag adopted, and Cracow grew in importance as the state capital and place of coronation and burial of rulers.

II. The structure and rights of the estates

1. Nobility

a) Division of the nobility by wealth

The existing social system led to the consolidation and unification of barons and knighthood/nobility within a single estate, including all knights. This distinguished the Polish nobility from other European countries, in which privileges applied only to barons. Moreover, Poland never developed a system of fiefs, which made all knights directly subordinate to the monarch. The only criterion for the division of the nobility were financial differences, for in respect of the law the principle of equality of all nobles had been adopted. With regard to wealth, the nobility was divided into: magnates, middle nobility, petty nobility, farm nobility and landless nobility. The first four categories were termed proprietors, i.e. land owners. Magnates usually had 10 villages, middle nobility usually one, petty nobility had only a part of a village with serfs, while farm nobility, especially numerous in Masovia, had no serfs and worked their own lands. Farm nobility did not own or lease land, hence they were known as non-settled or non-proprietor nobility. With few exceptions, the landless nobility enjoyed all noble rights and privileges.

b) Principle of belonging

A consequence of the development of the noble estate was its statutory closure. In the middle of the 14th century, the principle was adopted that possession or acquisition of land under knights’ law was not equivalent to entry into the noble estate. Belonging to it was decided on the basis of one’s father’s noble birth, which meant that the nobility was a closed estate. This arrangement was sanctioned by Casimir the Great’s statutes.

Birth, therefore, was an important factor in establishing one’s belonging to the noble estate. Not infrequently, birth had to be proved. The censure of nobility had the form of a court trial, in which it was necessary to produce a prescribed number of sworn witnesses to confirm a person’s belonging to a family. Acquisition of nobility took the form of knighting. Initially, this was performed by the monarch and later, from the 16th century onwards, by the Sejm.

c) Noble privileges

In the period of estate monarchy, from the second half of the 14th century, the nobility gained a number of general country-wide privileges. The most important of them were as follows:

– the privilege of Budzino of 1355, issued by Louis I of Hungary, by which the ruler obliged himself not to impose extraordinary taxes, to use his own stations while touring the country, and to compensate the nobles for losses suffered during foreign expeditions;

– the privilege of Koszyce of 1374, also issued by Louis I of Hungary, exempting the nobles from taxes except 2 groszes per peasant’s land, obliging the king to buy out a nobleman from foreign captivity, limiting the nobles’ duties regarding castle building, and forcing the ruler to appoint land officials exclusively from among Polish large landowners and starosts;

– the privilege of Czerwin of 1422, issued by Władysław Jagiello, by which the ruler banned the confiscation of nobles’ property without a court order, forbade combining the office of starost with that of land judge, and promised to judge the nobility according to the written, not customary law;

– the statute of Warta 1423 provided for expanding the noble’s rights in relation to towns and peasants, and introducing the right to remove a disobedient village head;

– the privileges of Jedlno and Cracow of 1430 and 1433, issued by Władysław Jagiello, by which the ruler introduced the principle of nobles’ personal immunity from arrest (neminem captivabimus nisi iure victum);

– the privileges of Cerkwica and Nieszawa of 1454, issued by Casimir Jagiellon, stating that the king may not convene a levy en masse or lay down new laws without the consent of the land sejmiks.

2. Clergy

In the 15th century, the increasing importance of the nobility enabled it to take over higher ecclesiastical offices. This was helped by royal statutes (1430 – 1433) and papal orders (1414, 1421).

Successive rulers granted the clergy privileges, which transformed it into a separate estate. Especially important was Louis I of Hungary’s privilege of 1381, which exempted the clergy from taxes, except 2 or 4 (in the case of monastic grounds) groszes per łan.The clergy’s rights were further expanded by the privilege of Piotrków of Władysław Jagiello (1388). Besides freedom from taxes, the clergy could also exercise the right to an exclusive use of ecclesiastical benefices, to be exempt from military service and to be subject to a separate jurisdiction and law.

3. Burgesses

The 14th and 15th centuries witnessed a considerable increase in the number of town settlements. This came as a result of a developing goods-money economy and conscious town-settling efforts necessitated by the king and private owners’ interests. Among the newly settled towns, large cities were few, which made the burgesses in medieval Poland weak compared to those of Western Europe.

4. Peasantry

In the 14th and the first half of the 15th centuries, a rent economy dominated in the country. At that time, the greatest number of towns were settled. The rural population in that period still enjoyed considerable freedom, even though limitations had been placed on the conditions under which peasants might leave a feudal lord. In accordance with Casimir the Great’s statutes, a peasant under the jurisdiction of German law could leave after having paid the rent for the tax-free years which he had enjoyed and finding someone to step into his place; while under Polish law, he had to work off the tax-free years and pay a one-time compensation (exit fee). With time, limitation of exit caused peasants to run away. The issue was raised by lauda and the statute of Warta (1423), to be finally regulated by the privileges of Nieszawa (1454) which made it obligatory to hand over fugitives and pay an appropriate fine.

III. The political system

1. Royal power

Up to 1370, Poland had been ruled by the Piasts as a hereditary dynasty. After they died out, the throne became elective. Following the death of Casimir the Great, the throne passed to his nephew Louis I of Hungary, and then to his daughter Jadwiga. They held the throne as the inheritors of the Piasts but only with the consent of the estates and in exchange for privileges. In 1386, Władysław Jagiello, Jadwiga’s husband, was elected the king. It was an election of him personally, not of a dynasty. Near the end of his life, Jagiello, also in exchange for privileges, was promised that his sons would inherit the throne. From then on, until 1572, kings were elected from among the members of the Jagiellonian dynasty. The candidate for king was proposed by the royal council and presented for approval to the electoral congress. The election was followed by coronation performed by the primate. The celebrations ended with the king swearing a state oath to confirm the estates’ rights and privileges and to oblige himself to recover lost lands. From the coronation of Władysław of Varna onwards, this was contained in a separate document.

The scope of royal power still remained very broad despite limitations provided for by estate privileges. The king had the most influence over state governance. He had authority over the administration and the appointment of court and land officials as well as starosts. A limitation on his freedom to appoint land officials was his obligation to consult the nobility council of the relevant land and to select the appointee from among proprietor nobles. The king’s position was further weakened by the principle of a life-long term in all offices (except that of starost). The monarch’s position, however, was strong in the judiciary, as he was the highest judge and highest source of justice, able to bring any matter before his court and to influence appointments to other courts. Regarding military matters, the monarch’s duties included the supreme command of the army and direction of foreign policy. The field with the greatest restrictions was royal legislation. The king’s position, however, was strengthened by the fact that he possessed enormous land holdings, known as crown land.

The royal council was the monarch’s advisory body. It consisted of the highest central and land dignitaries, as well as Catholic archbishops and bishops. The king could extend it to include more members. The council’s competence was not formally defined. It did have a large influence, however, on foreign, domestic and monetary policies. Its members also sat in the royal court. The council also represented the estates regarding the protection of their rights and privileges. It was also known as the chamber council or court senate.

2. Central offices

Central offices were divided into crown and court ones, although the scope of their powers was not precisely demarcated. They included: chancellor and vice-chancellor, grand treasurers – of the Crown and of the court – and marshals – the great marshal of the Crown and the great marshal of the court. The above-mentioned offices arose from offices that existed in the Cracow province.

As country-wide offices, those of chancellor and vice-chancellor crystallized the earliest. They were usually held by clergymen. Both managed the work of the royal chancellery, which from the reign of Władysław Jagiello onwards had become the central administrative agency of the state. They were tasked with drafting state documents, exchanging diplomatic correspondence and issuing privileges. The chancellor used a large state seal, while the vice-chancellor used a smaller one, although they had equal force.

The grand treasurer of the Crown managed the state treasury, looked after the royal treasury, supervised the mint, collected and disbursed payments from the treasury, and supervised the state archive, while the grand treasurer of the court, whose office arose in the 15th century, kept the state accounts.

The office of court marshal, later known as marshal of the crown, was established in 1358. It originated in Silesia. It was tasked with managing the royal court, administering justice to courtiers and deciding food prices in the place where the king was staying. The court marshal also acted as a master of ceremonies. At the beginning of the 15th century, the office of his deputy – marshal of the court – was created.

3. Local offices

Poland was divided into territorial units of equal status: voivodships and lands. Voivodships were former provinces, which had maintained a complete hierarchy of officials, including voivods. The remaining provinces constituted lands. Voivodships were divided into castellanies, which continued to exist until the middle of the 15th century. They were replaced with poviats, which were first treasury and judiciary districts, and later also administrative ones.

Territorial government was the responsibility of local officials, who were divided into land officials and crown officials. Land offices were, in their turn, divided into dignitary and lower ones. Dignitary officials included voivods, castellans, chamberlains and land judges. On appointing them, the king was obliged to consult the barons of a given land (1386) and, from the privileges of Nieszawa (1454) onwards, the principle took hold that the monarch would appoint to any vacated court position one out of four candidates presented to him and selected at a sejmik. Land dignitaries also had to be proprietors in a given land (1384). Their appointment was for life.

Voivods were at the head of the official hierarchy. They were tasked with: presiding over the council of voivodship lords and the electoral sejmik, participation in the court veche, appointing court bailiffs and administering justice to them, jurisdiction over the Jewish population, supervision of towns, setting prices for craft goods (tariffs) and additionally, in Greater Poland, with granting asylum to persons pursued by royal courts.

Castellans lost most of their administrative, treasury and judiciary authority during the estate monarchy period, and their high position was only because of their right to sit on the royal council. Their task was to lead the detachments of a levy en mass to the voivod.

Chamberlains and land judges fulfilled court tasks. The majority of lower land officials became honorary (pantler, steward, cupbearer, royal cupbearer, master of the hunt, sword bearer). The standard bearer and wojski still performed military functions, and the subjudge, land clerk and court bailiff performed judiciary ones.

Starosts and burgraves were royal officials. We distinguish general starosts (Greater Poland, Ruthenia, Podolia), land starosts (particular lands) and district starosts (burgraves). From 1374 onwards, this office could be held only by Poles born in the Crown, but not necessarily proprietors in a given starostship. They were appointed by the king, whom they represented. Hence, they were known as the royal arm. Starosts performed, on the monarch’s behalf in the area subordinate to them, all functions related to governance, except issuing privileges. At the end of the 14th century, however, they lost the right to convene and command levy en masse. This office was given special protection (protection of majesty).

The king’s permanent presence in Lesser Poland made it necessary to create separate government there. It was divided between the offices of justiciary (criminal courts), grand governor (economic governance of crown lands) and burgraves (governance of castles). The starost of Cracow, known as the general starost, had mainly judiciary authority.

During the estate monarchy period, the first limitations appeared regarding the conduct of offices. Already Władysław Jagiello obliged himself to swear a given person the right of first offer to an office in case it became vacant (the so-called expectatives). The privilege of Czerwińsk (1422) forbade combining certain offices (incompatibilitas). As a result, combining two offices was forbidden, especially those of land judge, voivod and castellan (Greater Poland).

4. The development of estate representation

After the unification of the Polish state, the former provincial veches gave rise to country-wide congresses, convened as early as under Władysław the Short and Casimir the Great, and known from the reign of Louis I of Hungary onwards as general sejms. The following persons participated in them: the king, state and ecclesiastical dignitaries, representatives of the nobility and, initially, representatives of royal cities. With time, however, they were discontinued by rulers to be replaced by provincial congresses, separately for Lesser Poland, on one hand, and Greater Poland and Kuyavia, on the other. This resulted from both the personal policies of individual monarchs (especially Casimir the Great) and from differences which continued to exist between the provinces.

The scope of authority given to congresses was shaped by practice. At country-wide congresses, kings were elected, statutes enacted and pressure put on the monarch to issue privileges. Provincial congresses dealt mainly with legislation. In the 14th century, the nobility began to participate in general sejms. Eventually, the general sejm consisted in the 15th century of: dignitaries sitting on the royal council (later the senate), land officials and nobility, as well as representatives of city councils and cathedral chapters (although the cities and chapters did not manage to keep their places). It usually convened once a year, usually in Piotrków.

Sejmiks were derived from the provincial veche, which became divided – after the unification of the state – into the veche court and the council of land lords. The nobility’s rise in importance forced land dignitaries to seek recourse to the entirety of the noble estate increasingly more frequently. This resulted in the emergence of the land sejmik, which was a voluntary congregation of the nobility of the land, voivodship or province. The sejmik proceedings were presided over by a starost (in Greater Poland) or voivod (Lesser Poland). Their rise to importance followed the privileges of Nieszawa (1454).

IV. Judiciary

1. Royal courts

The royal court appeared in three forms: courtly court, commissioner’s court and sejm court. As the supreme judge and source of justice, the king could settle all matters in the royal court, both those presented directly to him and referred to him by lower courts.

For a matter to be settled outside the courtly court, the monarch delegated his commissioners. They could be lay or ecclesiastical dignitaries, as well as town councilmen (in matters related to burgesses). They formed a commissioner’s court. Its verdicts had to be approved by the king.

In the 15th century, the sejm court appeared. It was presided over by the monarch within the general sejm. It decided the most important state matters.

Royal courts had jurisdiction over: the most serious crimes, especially homicides and those against the crown, matters of settled nobles if they were threatened with the death penalty, loss of honour or confiscation of property (except the four district articles), complaints about officials, economic matters related to the ruler’s and state treasury’s landed estates and revenues, quarrels between estates about the scope of privileges, and all other matters submitted to the king or referred by a lower court.

2. Nobles’ courts

Nobles’ courts were derived from monarch’s courts. They had an estate character. They appeared in the form of a veche court, a sejmik court, a land court, district courts and chamberlain courts. They were a new type of court which replaced the castellan’s courts and curbed the authority of the voivod’s courts.

Veche courts were a continuation of the provincial prince’s courts. They existed in every voivodship and land. Initially, they convened three times a year, but from the privileges of Nieszawa (1454) onwards, this changed to only once a year, and eventually they ceased to exist in the second half of the 14th century. They settled barons’ matters, referred by land courts, concerning hereditary property, as well as complaints about judges.

Sejmik courts were derived from the officials’ veche. They developed at the end of the 14th century. They were endowed with country-wide authority under the privileges of Nieszawa. They were presided over by the voivod, while land dignitaries proffered judgments under the control of the gathered nobility. They declined in importance after the rise of a bicameral sejm (1493).

Land courts developed out of the courtly courts of particular provinces, therefore each voivodship and land had its own land court. The jurisdiction of land courts included matters of the settled nobility, excluding those referred to the jurisdiction of other courts and those related to keeping court books. Justice was administered in court sessions which took place during tours of the voivodship or land in specific towns. The intervals at which court sessions were held were known as “years”. The sessions were held initially every two weeks and later every four weeks (1425). From the privileges of Nieszawa (1454) onwards, four sessions were held annually in each poviat.

District courts were derived from the judicial jurisdiction of the general starosts. They were presided over by gord starosts who appeared in Lesser Poland as early as during the reign of Casimir the Great. Their jurisdiction covered 2 or 3 poviats. The starost or substarosts appointed by him were judges. Sessions took place at six-week intervals. They tried the settled nobility’s crimes under the four district articles: arson, assault of a nobleman, robbery on a public road and rape. Among other functions of the district courts were enforcement of the judgments of all other courts, keeping court books and supervision of the office of justiciary.

Chamberlain courts developed in Lesser Poland in the middle of the 14th century, and in Greater Poland in the 15th century. The chamberlain or a bailiff appointed by him was the judge. Their jurisdiction covered land demarcation disputes between nobles. They took place at the place of the dispute (on the site).

Other estate courts: municipal courts, village courts and ecclesiastical courts: basically, their structure and jurisdiction did not change, and they continued to be based on principles discussed earlier.

§ 3. The Nobles’ republic (1454 – 1764)

I. Description of the state system

In the middle of the 15th century, Western Europe tended towards absolute monarchy. Poland, on the contrary, started developing a variety of estate monarchy known as the nobles’ republic. This system spanned almost three centuries and may be divided into the following periods: nobles’ democracy (up to 1652) and magnates’ oligarchy (up to 1763).

Nobles’ democracy meant the actual government by the nobility, which had developed large-scale economic activities, became politically active, dominated other estates through privileges and created institutions to ensure that they would stay in power. The interest of the state was made synonymous with the interests of a single estate which represented around 10 per cent of the population. The development of nobles’ democracy progressed in three important stages. The first – creating the institutional basis for exercising power, which demonstrated itself in the rise in importance of land sejmiks, and subsequently of the general sejm, all of which were measures against magnates (1454–1505); the second – formulating a political program for the nobility, beginning with the Nihil novi constitution (1505) to its implementation through the execution sejm’s reforms (1505–1573); the third – laying down the basic principles related to the state system of the Commonwealth (1573–1578), thanks to which the monarch fell into dependence and magnates rose in importance (1573–1652).

Sigismund III Vasa’s pro-magnate policy and the failure of M. Zebrzydowski’s rebellion (1606–1607) ushered in a crisis in the nobles’ democracy and a gradual aggrandizement of the magnates’ position, who had become dominant in political and economic terms already by 1652, and even more so after J. Lubomirski’s rebellion (1666–1667), and continued to be so until 1764. This period is known as the magnates’ oligarchy.

The basic principles of the state system of the 1st Republic were: sovereignty of the state and nobility, a combined monarchy-and-republic form of government, unity, division of power, an elective throne, a parliamentary system, unanimity, free vote and veto, as well as respect for legal autonomy.

From 1573 onwards, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was sometimes called a republican monarchy (mixed system), in which the king was the head of state, but the form of government had a republican character.

II. Territory and population

In the middle of the 15th century, the Crown occupied an area of 235,000 sq. km. In 1454, Poland incorporated Prussia, but in fact, the second peace of Toruń of 1466 provided for the incorporation only of Royal Prussia, which enlarged the state to 260,000 sq. km. The remaining part of Prussia, the so-called Teutonic Prussia, became a fief. At the next stage, Masovia was incorporated, which coincided with the extinction of the line of the local princes (1462–1526). In 1561, Sigismund August subjugated Livonia, whose southern part consisted of the fiefs of Courland and Semigalia. Sejms between 1562 and 1564 decided to incorporate the duchies of Oświęcim and Zator, which were purchased by Polish kings as early as the 15th century. The sejm of Lublin of 1569 first decreed the incorporation of the south-west parts of the Lithuanian state, i.e. Podlasie, Volhynia, Podolia, and soon afterwards also the land of Kiev. The act of union joined, through a real union, two sovereign states and nations, which the nobility called the Commonwealth of Two Nations. At the end of the 16th century, the area of the Commonwealth was 815,000 sq. km (armistice in Jam Zapolski in 1582). In the early 17th century, after the incorporation of Russian lands (peace in Polanów – 1634), the territory expanded to 990,000 sq. km.

In the 17th century, the period of expansion ended definitively, while the Commonwealth was, at the same time, being displaced from the occupied areas. In 1622 (formally in 1660), Livonia, with the exclusion of a strip of land on the river Daugava, known as Polish Livonia, fell away to join Sweden. In 1657, under the treaties of Welawa and Bydgoszcz, the right to overlordship over the Duchy of Prussia was rescinded, the towns of Czaplinek and Drahim were pawned and Bytów and Lębork enfeoffed to Brandenburg. As a result of wars with Russia, under the armistice of Andruszów (1667) and the peace of Grzymułtowo (1686), all of Transdniepria was yielded to Russia. Within such borders, spanning an area of 733,000 sq. km, excluding the temporary occupation of Podolia by Turkey (1672-1699), the Commonwealth remained until 1772.

After the union of Lublin (1569), the Commonwealth had a population of 8,000,000, of which 40% were Polish, 20% Ruthenian, and the rest of the multinational state was made up of Lithuanians, Germans, Jews, Latvians, Armenians, Scots and other ethnic groups. The nobility made up 10%, burgesses 20%, and the peasantry 70%. In the middle of the 17th century, the population stood at 11,000,000 (the fourth largest in Europe). However, wars, epidemics and territorial losses in the second half of the 17th century cut that figure by 30%. The 18th century marks a gradual rise in the population, as in 1772 it numbered 14,000,000.

III. The monarch

1. Royal power

In the second half of the 15th century, kings gained considerably in importance. Casimir the Jagiellonian, who ruled in person, even considered absolutism, which was coming into existence in Western Europe at that time. The position of the monarch was strengthened by the principle, which remained in force until the death of Sigismund August (1572), of electing Jagiellons, who had hereditary rights to Lithuania, to the Polish throne.

Against strong royal power based on magnates rose the nobility movement to enact, at the sejm of Radom in 1505, the constitution Nihil Novi, which created the basics of the concept of state sovereignty based on the king’s subordination to the sejm and the law. Sigismund the Old and his wife Bona Sforza attempted to resist this by having prince Sigismund August forcibly enthroned (1529) and crowned (1530), when his father was still alive. That, combined with Bona’s amassing large tracts of royal domains, caused the outbreak of the “chicken war” (1537), which despite appearances of achieving a compromise, ended in success for the nobility, which further strengthened its position at the sejms of Piotrków and Cracow (1538). The next ruler Sigismund August also faced wide opposition from the nobility for as long as he was supported by the Polish-Lithuanian magnate oligarchy. An essential turning point in his policy occurred at sejm in 1562 (in Piotrków) where he appeared as a spokesman for the nobility’s interests and the execution movement.

The weakening of the monarch’s position occurred when the Jagiellonian dynasty died out and free election and King Henry’s articles were introduced. Although rulers still had a fair amount of authority such as, most importantly, co-exercising legislative power together with the sejm, overlordship over enfeoffed lands, supreme command of the army and some judiciary authority, part of this competence had to be shared with state authorities, which will be discussed later.

2. Elections

When Sigismund August died without issue in 1572, the problem of the election of a new ruler appeared. The principles, shaped during the first interregnum, became a model for later elections. Already before the king’s burial, nobility confederacies, the so-called hoods, formed spontaneously to capture power in voivodships and lands. The struggle of the nobility party (election of the king by the nobility) against the magnate party (election of the king by the senate) brought about a compromise solution for the election itself.

At the congress of Kaski (1572), Catholic senators pushed through a decision to hand over power to the primate, the interrex, during interregnum.

The convocation sejm of Warsaw (1573), on the other hand, forced the election of the king without the nobility’s consent, the so-called viritim election, whereby the nobility’s participation in the election was voluntary. Senators, on the other hand, designated the neighbourhood of Warsaw as the place of the future election. The nobility immediately diluted the possible impact of that decision on the minor nobility by proclaiming a vote by voivodship and imposing on the king elect the duty to accept religious tolerance. It was decided, moreover, that the right to convene sejm and co-ordinate the election would be due to the primate, while the grand marshal of the crown would be responsible for announcing the election of the king and maintaining public safety.

For an election to be effected, three sejms had to be organized and take place – a convocation sejm, an election sejm and a coronation sejm. The convocation sejm would convene a general confederacy (hood), approved the members of the hood court, set the time and regulations of the election, as well as the date of pre-sejm sejmiks for the election sejm. The election sejm, which was usually held in Wola near Warsaw, would hear legates, who presented the candidates, and compose pacta conventa. The senate, chamber of deputies and the nobility divided according to the voivodships and lands, together with delegates from privileged towns, held separate sessions. The fictional principle of unanimous election was adopted, ignoring minor opposition. A number of times a double election took place, in which case a war was necessary to decide who would receive the crown (Sigismund III Vasa and Maximilian Habsburg – 1587; Stanisław Leszczyński and August III – 1734). The number of nobles participating in the election varied, but that did not affect its validity. The most nobles gathered at the election of Stanisław Leszczyński in 1733 (around 15,000), and the fewest at the election of his opponent Frederick August (900 people).

Coronation sejm was held in Cracow. The coronation was performed by the primate or a bishop. There also, an oath was taken from the king to confirm the laws enacted during the convocation and election. Also, current affairs were discussed.

3. Pacta conventa and King Henry’s articles

Pacta conventa were public law contracts between the elected king and nobility. They were composed during the election sejm and contained the king’s individual obligations. They were in use starting from the election of Henry of Valois, who agreed, among other things, to pay off Sigismund August’s debts, allow noble youth to be educated in France, build a war fleet on the Baltic Sea and form an alliance with France.

King Henry’s articles emerged simultaneously with pacta conventa and embodied the basic fundamental laws and principles of the Commonwealth’s state system. These included: the king’s acceptance of free election and his relinquishing of a hereditary throne, convening the general sejm at 2-year intervals, consulting the senate on matters related to war and peace, not convening a levy en masse without the sejm’s consent, paying for it on foreign expeditions and not dividing it into hosts, maintaining a quarter army, creating a privy council consisting of resident senators, as well as guaranteeing religious freedom. The king’s non-compliance with the provisions of the articles, particularly those related to the nobility’s rights and privileges, released the nobles from obedience to the king after he was exhorted three times, firstly, by the primate, secondly, by a sejmik, and thirdly, by the sejm (articulus de non praestanda oboedientia). In practice, this took on the form of a rebellion. Since some of King Henry’s articles began to be included in pacta conventa (1587, 1632), they ceased to be differentiated. The articles remained in force until the second half of the 18th century, when – after being amended – they were replaced by cardinal laws.

IV. The General Sejm

1. Structure

The sejm’s structure had been developing throughout the second half of the 15th century, the entire process being crowned by the convention of the first general sejm of the Crown in Piotrków in 1493 and its final shape being formed at the sejm of Radom in 1505 (Nihil novi constitution).

The Sejm consisted of two chambers: the senate, i.e. the higher chamber, and the chamber of deputies, i.e. the lower chamber. It was bicameral. The king also formed part of the sejm. Heading the senators, the king had the rights of a separate estate. Hence, the doctrine, from the second half of the 16th century, had mentioned “three estates in parliament”: the king, the senate and the chamber of deputies.

The chamber of deputies represented the noble estate. It consisted of noble deputies elected at pre-sejm sejmiks. The number of deputies depended on the size of a given voivodship or land. As a result, sejmiks of the voivodships of Greater Poland and Lesser Poland usually elected six deputies each, while the others elected only two or even only one each. Deputies did not represent the nation, but their particular land. They were bound by written instructions which they were obliged to comply with. Non-compliance with the instructions did not have any specific consequences but made it more difficult for the deputy to be re-elected in the future. Instructions gave full powers, which allowed complete freedom of vote, but they were granted as an exception, or conditional powers, by which the deputy’s vote depended on the sejm agreeing to the demands of particular sejmiks.

The representatives of cities did not eventually enter the chamber of deputies, although some of them (from the cities of Cracow, Vilnius, Lvov, Kamień Podolski, Lublin) could send the so-called ablegates to act as observers. The representatives of chapters were not included among the deputies. As a result, the chamber of deputies consisted only of the nobility. The number of deputies changed to stand eventually, after the union of Lublin, at 170, of which 48 came from Lithuania. The chamber of deputies was presided over by the marshal.

The senate derived from the former royal council. It consisted of Catholic archbishops and bishops, voivods, castellans, as well as dignitaries of the crown and the court. The senate emerged in its final shape under the reign of Sigismund the Old. That form excluded from the senate hetmans and the treasurer of the court, which had been considered to be ministerial offices as of 1569 when dignitaries from Lithuania and Royal Prussia were added to the senate. The senate was presided over by the king.

The general sejm did not originally have a fixed seat. Initially, it was customarily convened in Piotrków, but sessions were held also in other cities, depending on the current situation. In 1569, the seat was fixed at Warsaw, although as of 1673 every third sejm was held in Grodno.

Initially, there were no fixed meeting dates for the sejm. The sejm was convened by the king, usually once a year. The work of the sejm was organized under King Henry’s articles (1573) by dividing sejms into ordinary and extraordinary ones. The first type was convened every two years for a period of 6 weeks, while the second was convened when needed for two weeks. Prolonging a session was possible with all the deputies’ consent.

2. Competence

The competence of the sejm was generally determined by the Nihil Novi constitution (1505). Its main authority included country-wide legislation. This restricted the king’s legislative power, leaving it to him only to issue edicts related to: royal towns, Jews, fiefs, peasants and mining. The scope of sejm legislation was circumscribed by the rights and liberties of the nobility, as well as by common law. Constitution bills were initiated mostly by the senate or the king, more rarely by nobles.

Also important was the sejm’s competence related to finance, particularly the levying of taxes. Considering the nobility’s freedom from taxation, imposing a tax was the main circumstance which forced the king to convene the sejm in order to ensure the security of state borders and organize defences, especially because it was mandatory to approve taxes every year. Also with regard to financial matters, the sejm enacted new customs, monopolies and regulated monetary issues. It was also tasked with supervising treasurers and selecting tax collectors.

As regards foreign policy, the sejm would hear foreign envoys, integrate fiefs, set the general direction of foreign policies, as well as conclude treaties and alliances. From this competence resulted the military authority given to the sejm to convene levy en masse, gather heavy cavalry and reform the system of state defences.

The sejm also had authority over the following: general control of the government, granting pardons and amnesties, ennoblements and indigenates, hearing resident senators’ reports, as well as the sejm judiciary (all of which will be discussed later).

3. Proceedings, voting, resolutions

The opening of a sejm was preceded by a solemn mass, after which the session would start. Sejm proceedings began with the marshal greeting the king in the presence of the chamber of deputies and senate. The king responded to this through his chancellor. Next, the throne would present proposals concerning the most important matters to be debated and ask for them to be positively considered. Later, senators would take turns to express their opinions. After the senators’ votes, the chambers would split. The chamber of deputies considered bills and presented their own proposals and complaints. To inform each other of the progress of proceedings, the chambers would meet for a common session. Plenary proceedings were held in the hall of the senate. The king would not take the floor personally, but through a chancellor, vice-chancellor or secretary, if at all. Senators also kept silent, as their opinion had already been formulated during the senate session in the form of a conclusion, which was read out at the plenary session. The elected noble deputies had the most to say, as they made declarations on behalf of the whole chamber, province, voivodship or land. Alongside the plenary session, the sessions of particular chambers, meetings of senators and deputies from the same province, as well as conferences of bishops were held.

After reaching a consensus, resolutions were made. At the end, the marshal would make a ceremonial farewell speech and the chancellor would respond to it on the king’s behalf. The whole affair was concluded by a mass. That order was not fixed, which made the sejm proceedings messy at times.

The requirement of unanimity during sejm proceedings was difficult to fulfil, especially when deputies were constrained by instructions. Therefore, in the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century, a fiction of unanimity was adopted, whereby opposing votes, if they were few, were disregarded. In the case of opposition which could not be persuaded to step down, the final decision was referred to pre-sejm sejmiks. Prevalently, however, efforts were made to conclude sejms successfully. This situation continued until 1652 when the sejm bowed to Władysław Siciński, who did not allow the sejm to be prolonged, as a result of which it ended inconclusively. This type of conduct soon found eager imitators, who pushed through the principle of actual unanimity – liberum veto. The first time a sejm was broken off before reaching its prescribed end-date was in 1669, while in 1688 the sejm was broken off even before the marshal was selected. Breaking off a sejm would nullify all its enactments, including those resolutions which had already been approved, as every sejm was treated as an integral whole. Liberum veto rendered the sejm completely powerless.

The Saxon times (1697 – 1762) witnessed the greatest decline of the sejm, as only five sejms were then concluded successfully.

Resolutions passed at a sejm with all its members’ consent were called constitutions. Their final text was edited by the royal chancellery after the closure of the sejm proceedings. This made it prone to fraud, against which deputies and sejmiks frequently protested. The binding text of a constitution was announced on the king’s behalf.

4. Resident senators

The institution of resident senators was established under king Henry’s articles (1573). In practice, they started acting in 1607 (M. Zebrzydowski’s rebellion). They were appointed for a term of two years, and were 16 in number, from among voivods, castellans and bishops. Four of them would stay permanently at the king’s side, changing every half-year. In 1614, their number was raised to 28. They were tasked with advising and controlling the king. From 1717 onwards, resident senators’ resolutions had to be executed by the king. In the 18th century, resident senators were displaced by the council of state.

V. Sejmiks

Ever since the rise of a bicameral sejm (1493), the role of land sejmiks had changed, although they still existed and continued to exert a wide influence over legislation by selecting deputies, giving them instructions and taking legislative initiative. The decline of the sejm in the second half of the 17th century and a decentralization of power restored the importance of the sejmiks. They thrived especially in the years 1652 – 1717, the period being known as sejmik rule. They were restricted by the reforms of the silent sejm (1717), which stripped them of all of their military and most of their financial authority.

Depending on their function, land sejmiks were divided into:

– pre-sejm sejmiks: electing deputies for the general sejm and compiling instructions for deputies,

– reference sejmiks: hearing reports on sejm proceedings and making resolutions on matters related to the implementation of sejm constitutions and matters referred to sejmiks for resolution,

– election sejmiks: selecting candidates for the vacant office of land judge, to be nominated by the king,

– deputy sejmiks: annually selecting a deputy for the Crown Tribunal,

– hood sejmiks: organized in the form of a confederacy during an interregnum,

– economic sejmiks: making resolutions on matters related to land, taxes and the army,

– exutant sejmiks: congresses of the nobility from lost voivodships (after 1654).

Land sejmiks (excluding election and deputy ones) were convened by the king, usually three weeks before an ordinary sejm (after 1638), but exceptions did occur. As a rule, a sejmik lasted a day. The proceedings were usually held in a parish church, more rarely in an open field. All the nobles in a given land could participate in the proceedings, but on average 100 members would appear. The session was opened by selecting a marshal. Next, a legate would present the royal legation. After reading it, senators present at the sejmik would deliver their speeches. Eventually, the floor was given to the nobility. Afterwards, resolutions (lauda) were made. The principle of unanimity was followed, although it was frequently disregarded in favour of the majority principle to enable the sejmik to function efficiently.

The fact that sejmiks were convened by the king was a serious impediment for the nobility. Hence, the customary practice of limitations, or deferral of sejmiks, became established to allow a session to be resumed if necessary.

VI. Confederacy and rokosz

The first confederacies of knights appeared already in the 14th century (Maćko Borkowic). Later, their importance declined. They were revived in the second half of the 16th century (after 1572) to become, in the 17th century, a fixed element of a political life.

Confederacy was a voluntary association of nobles at the voivodship and country-wide (general) level, serving to accomplish goals which could not be achieved by the king. As a result, they acted, as it were, as a replacement for the monarch (interregnum) or to force him to agree to specific postulates that frequently served the interests of magnate factions. A confederacy’s founding act and its resolutions were recorded in court books.

Confederacies were founded “with the king” or “against the king”. The latter were known as rokoszes. The most well-known of them are M. Zebrzydowski’s rokosz (1606) and J. Lubomirski’s rokosz (1666). The silent sejm (1717) prohibited confederacies, although the ban was not respected in practice.

The elective executive power of a confederacy was held by the generality. It consisted of a confederacy marshal, councillors and regimentaries (military commanders). The supreme power was held by a general council, selected by confederacy sejmiks, and presided over by the confederacy marshal.

VII. Central and local offices

Central offices, developed in the estate monarchy period, continued to function in the nobles’ Republic largely unchanged, enlarging, at the most, their scope of authority at times to a small extent. A novelty was the office of crown hetman (1503), who initially commanded the heavy cavalry. From 1581 onwards, he was, as grand crown hetman, a permanent official for life. His deputy was a field hetman. If it proved impossible for them to exercise their official duties, the king would appoint their temporary substitutes, the so-called regimentaries. Hetmans were entitled to issue articles which contained military and judicial regulations.

The structure of local offices did not undergo any major changes. An exception was the transformation of the office of starost into a land office. In 1611, the hierarchical order of seniority of offices was sanctioned and honoured in the case of promotions.

VIII. Poland and Lithuania’s Union of Lublin (1569)

One of the postulates of the nobles’ execution movement was to tighten the relationship between the Crown and Lithuania. This was favoured by a variety of political, legal, economic and social factors combined with a prospect of a break-up of the personal union in the case of Sigismund August’s death without issue. That, however, met with fierce resistance from the nobility and Lithuanian boyars. The situation prompted Sigismund August to make efforts to speed up the union. The matter was handled by the sejm of Lublin in 1568, but the Lithuanian oligarchy left it secretly in 1569, hoping that proceedings would then be suspended. Contrary to expectations, their departure helped the union, as the king, pressurized by the Polish nobility, incorporated into the Crown the voivodships of Podlasie, Volhynia, Bracław, and then also of Kiev. Thus, the Lithuanian magnates were forced to return to the sejm and take up negotiations, culminating in the formation of a union.

The terms of the union were based on the principle of equality. The Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania were to be joined in a real union, which provided that these two countries would exist separately but share the following institutions: the monarch chosen in a common election and acting as head of state for both countries, a common sejm, warfare and foreign policy. The following, however, would remain separate: administration, offices, judiciary, military, treasury and the law. Thus, a political formation was created known as the Commonwealth of Two Nations.

IX. Central judiciary

1. Royal court

In the period of the nobles’ Republic, the structure and functioning of the royal court underwent important changes. The king remained the supreme judge until 1578. At that time, the royal court still had the form of courtly, commissioner’s and sejm courts. After 1504, the commissioner’s court practically lost its authority, while the others expanded theirs considerably after 1578. Hearing appeals (from 1523 onwards) constituted the greatest burden for the royal court.

2. Crown and Lithuanian Tribunals

A Crown Tribunal was created in 1578 following Stephen Batory’s waiver of rights to exercise supreme judicial authority. It consisted of 27 noble deputies, who represented the nobility and were selected annually at deputy sejmiks, 1 or 2 from each voivodship, as well as 6 clerical deputies selected at diocesan synods. It was headed by a president, and thus amounted to 33 persons in total. The Tribunal was presided over by a marshal. Noble deputies were not required to have any legal training, while their re-election could take place after 4 years. They had exclusive authority to try noblemen’s cases, while in mixed cases, they accounted for half the judges. In 1590, the number of noble deputies was increased to 51, while that of clerical ones to 8, but in 1726, the original numbers were restored. The Tribunal for Lesser Poland convened in Lublin (in spring and summer) and that for Greater Poland in Piotrków (in autumn and winter). From 1585 onwards, the Tribunal had jurisdiction over Royal Prussia and from 1590 also over the voivodships of Ruthenia, which initially had a separate Tribunal in Łuck.

In 1581, the Lithuanian Tribunal was created. It consisted of 46 noble deputies. It resided alternately in Vilnius, Nowogródek and Mińsk. In 1726, it was split into a Vilnius Tribunal and a Nowogródek-and-Mińsk Tribunal. The Tribunal heard appeals concerning the judgments of land, district and chamberlain’s courts both in criminal and civil matters. Its decisions were final and had to be made unanimously. If unanimity was not achieved in the third vote, the matter was referred to a sejm court. From the mid-17th century onwards, the Tribunal would try first-instance cases. This caused a slow-down in passing judgments.

3. Sejm court

The sejm court tried matters under the king’s supervision, excluding cases concerning lèse-majesté. Following the establishment of the Crown Tribunal, the authority of the sejm court was reduced. Since then, it only tried first- and second-instance cases related to crime against the king, high treason, financial fraud by high-ranking officials, violations committed at a sejm, sejmik or Tribunals, etc.

4. Assessors’ court

The assessors’ court of the Crown, known as the Assessory, developed in the 16th century out of the courtly court to become an independent branch of the judiciary in the 17th century. The Assessory had jurisdiction over first-instance cases against royal cities (rarely) and appeals relating to the judgments of courts in such cities, as well as cases of towns settled under Magdeburg and Culm law, which involved state offices, nobility, the Church and burgesses. It was also the court competent in cases related to royal property and revenue.

5. Referral court

The referral court was a form of assessors’ court, in which the king and senators present at the court took part. It was basically an appeals court for the Crown’s fiefs, i.e. Royal Prussia and Courland. It also passed judgments in cases between the Uniate and Orthodox Churches concerning the seizure of church buildings and their property (from 1641 onwards) and tried appeals relating to the judgments of Orthodox bishops (from 1676 onwards).

6. Marshal’s court

The Marshal’s court tried cases in the king’s residence and its jurisdiction covered crimes committed at the royal court or in a place where the monarch was staying. With time, it took on cases concerning the lease of premises, card playing in the capital, as well as crimes committed in the area adjacent to Warsaw. Its judgments were immediately enforceable.

7. Referendary’s court

In 1507, two referendaries were appointed – lay and clerical. They replaced the court judge, whose office had ceased to exist. Initially, they were tasked with questioning parties and referring cases to the Assessory. In the second half of the 16th century, they began trying – in their capacity as the highest court of the king’s dominion – cases involving peasants from royal landholdings. With time, they also became a legislative body which issued laws to regulate rural relationships. Their official language was Polish.

§ 4. The beginnings of constitutional monarchy (1764 – 1795)

I. Sejm reforms of 1764 – 1766

1. Sejm reforms

Following August III’s death (1763), two camps – the hetmans’ camp and the Familia – clashed in a struggle for power in the state. Eventually, the Familia decided to summon Catherine II’s army to their assistance, accepting thereby the empress’ severe terms, as she strove to take control of the Commonwealth. At the convocation sejm, in session under marshal Adam Kazimierz Czartoryski, steps were taken immediately to implement the reforms proposed by voivod Adam Zamoyski. From May 7th to June 23rd, 1764, the sejm passed over 180 constitutions (there had not been a single one in the preceding 27 years). This became possible, as the convocation sejm – being confederated – adopted the principle of majority voting. Subsequently, the election sejm, held under the control of the Russian army, unanimously elected on September 6th, 1764 Stanisław Poniatowski, pantler of Lithuania, to be the king, who at his coronation adopted the name of August.

The convocation sejm initiated a process of state system reforms in the Commonwealth, of which only some, unfortunately, were implemented. These concerned various areas of state authority.

2. Treasury and Military Committees

In June 1764, the sejm unanimously appointed the Crown’s Treasury Committee and, a few days later, an analogous committee for the Grand Duchy. Prior to the end of the convocation, the Crown’s Military Committee was also created, to be followed by its Lithuanian counterpart. The committees were presided over by ministers (treasurers and hetmans), who entered it ex officio. Besides them, the sejm elected 9–16 members to sit on each committee. The committee’s term in office lasted two years. They were responsible to the sejm, to which they submitted reports and from which they received a discharge.

The task of the Treasury Committees was to carry out economic reforms which would “tend towards the good of the Commonwealth.”. This general statement allowed them to include under their authority all matters related to the treasury, taxes and judiciary, which sparked outrage within the opposition.

The Military Committee obtained far better results. Efforts were begun to modernize the army, reduce the number of cavalry in favour of the infantry, organize supplies for the army and develop military training. Especially important in this context was the Knight’s School established in 1765.

II. The reforms of the delegate sejm of 1767 – 1768

The sejm of 1766, at which the Russian diplomacy prepared a bill for a constitution to allow Russian guarantees to be extended not only to Orthodox Christians, but also to Protestants, did not grant political rights to members of other religions, but only allowed them freedom of religious practice. The Russian ambassador Nikolay Repnin’s reaction was to arrest and remove from Warsaw the opposition senators and deputies. The intimidated sejm agreed to select delegates (hence the name of the sejm, also known as Repnin’s sejm) to draft bills for approval by all. The delegates were 70 in number. Formally, the principle of majority of votes applied, but in fact Repnin’s dictate ensured unanimity.

The court at Petersburg aimed to subject the Commonwealth entirely to Russian control and to ensure the permanence of that control. This was to be achieved by enacting the cardinal laws in 1768, also known as fundamental laws. Their form harked back to king Henry’s articles (1573), but, as they claimed to be “forever constant” they were a kind of constitution. They contained: approval of the existing privileges for the nobility (neminem captivabimus, dominion over peasants [excluding the death penalty], offices held for life, etc.), free election, tripartite division of the sejm into estates, liberum veto (materiae status), religious tolerance, and the right to disobey the king.

They were guaranteed by the empress Catherine II. In 1775, further cardinal laws were enacted to complement the existing ones with all the partitioning powers’ guarantees, as well as the statement that only a Polish person, excluding the previous monarch’s sons and grandsons, might be the king. They were made into law in January, 1791. They consisted of 11 articles which together formed a declaration of independence of the state.

Besides the cardinal laws, the delegate sejm precisely determined the matters which were to be classified as status and economic matters. Status (state) matters, among which were: increasing taxes, military auction, declaration of war, convening a levy en masse, conclusion of alliances and commercial treaties, change of the scope of authority of offices and courts, order of sejms and sejmiks, monetary matters, granting indigenates and knighthoods by the sejm, were settled by a unanimous vote (liberum veto). The remaining matters, known as economic ones, were decided by a majority vote.

III. The reforms of the delegate sejm of 1773 – 1776

1. The Permanent Council

The actions of the Confederacy of Bar (1768) caused a five-year pause in the work of successive sejms. Only when pressurized by the neighbour states to conclude treaties with the partitioning powers to approve the partitions did the Commonwealth convene an extraordinary sejm in 1773.

Eventually, its resolutions restricted the king’s rights, created the Permanent Council and appointed the National Education Committee.

The king was stripped of the following rights: to grant starostships, appoint senators, ministers, officers and officials, distribute crown lands or instruct administrative bodies.

The newly created Permanent Council (1775) consisted of 36 members, including 18 ministers and senators, as well as 18 councillors from the “estate of knighthood”. They were appointed in a secret ballot by senators and deputies at the first joint session of sejm chambers. Each successive sejm, at two-year intervals, was to change 2/3 of the Council members. The rest would sit for the next two years to ensure continuity of operations. It was presided over by the king and, in parallel, by a marshal selected by the Council members. The Council consisted of five departments: Foreign Affairs, Police, Good Order, Army, Justice and Treasury. The first department numbered 4 members and was headed by the king, while the others consisted of 8 members headed by relevant ministers (marshal, hetman, chancellor, treasurer). Decisions were made by an absolute majority of votes.

The Council’s authority was very wide. In respect of executive power, it took over a considerable part of the monarch’s prerogatives discussed above. Also, each department received extensive authority for its specific type of activity. With regard to legislation, its authority mostly included the right to pass and amend laws (1776). In exercising its powers, the Council passed numerous resolutions to bind state authorities, which were then, in many cases, abrogated by the sejm. With regard to the judiciary, the Department of Justice was especially important, particularly because it had the right to try last-instance cases concerning corruption in the courts and motions to convene a sejm court.

Against its creators’ wishes, the Permanent Council actually helped to strengthen the king’s position. After the upheaval of 1776, in the years to come, the rule of king and ambassador emerged, in which the main roles were played by Stanisław August Poniatowski and the Russian ambassador Otto Stackelberg.

2. The National Education Commission

The National Education Commission was appointed in 1773. It consisted of 8 members selected by the sejm for six years, its first-time members were being nominated by the king. The chairmen were the bishop Ignacy Massalski, followed by primate Michał Poniatowski. Its activity was financed out of the wealth of the disbanded Jesuit order. The Commission had authority over all public schools (except military ones). The Universities of Cracow and of Vilnius were the first to be reformed, whereupon they were re-named as principal schools. Then followed secondary schools, and lastly, primary schools. All of them were part of a hierarchy of subordination. Also, the Elementary Schoolbook Association was appointed, which published 27 textbooks. Another result of the Commission’s activity was the secularization of the education system.

IV. The Four Years’ Sejm Reforms

1. Parties

Embroiled in a war with Turkey and Sweden, Catherine II consented, at a meeting with Stanisław August Poniatowski in Kaniów in 1787, to convene a confederacy sejm, whose purpose was to form an alliance against Turkey and enlarge the army.

The sejm was opened in October, 1788. Stanisław Małachowski was chosen to be the crown’s confederacy marshal, while Stanisław Nestor Sapieha was selected as the former’s Lithuanian counterpart. S. Małachowski also became marshal of the chamber of deputies. The sejm was in session in two terms, first in the years 1788 – 1790, and the second, with the number of deputies doubled, between 1790 and 1792. It went down in history as the Four Years’ Sejm or, in honour of the reforms it had accomplished, the Great Sejm.

The magnate party, also known as the hetmans’ party, was the most conservative. Their goal was to maintain the status quo and especially to eliminate the Permanent Council, which at that time represented a strong royal power, and to increase the independence of particular voivodships and lands. They were hoping for Russian guarantees to keep the state authorities unchanged. Moderate tendencies were represented by the court party, which supported the rule of the king and ambassador, and recognized the need for moderate reforms in the spirit of enlightened absolutism in collaboration with Catherine II. The radical movement was embodied in the patriotic party, which called for the modernization of the state, modelled on the French Enlightenment, as well as cutting ties with Russia. At first, the patriotic party was successful in: eliminating the Permanent Council (which benefited magnates, too), taxing the nobility (10%) and the clergy (20%), as well as in confiscating the bishop of Cracow’s estate by the treasury, creating commissions for civil and military order, enlarging the army to 100,000 soldiers and presenting to the king the case of the burgesses (“black procession”).

In June, 1790, it was resolved that the sejm’s term would be prolonged and new deputies added. The majority of selected deputies (177) supported the king. The total number of deputies was 354, senators 155 (509 in all). The new sejm persuaded the magnate party members that it was necessary to come to terms with the king, which they did in 1790. At that time, joint efforts started to publicize and enact a constitution.

2. Preparation and enactment of the Constitution of May 3rd

Work on the bill of the constitution started in late 1789. In August, 1790, the board of deputies presented a “Bill for the reform of the government”, which was then hotly debated in the sejm.

In the end, there were a few constitution bills. One of the most important ones, which contained the blueprint for a constitutional monarchy modelled on England, was proposed by the king himself. Another one was presented by the royal secretary Scypion Piattoli. Last, Hugo Kołłątaj developed a collective bill (laws of constitution), which served as a basis for the final text. After realizing that the constitution bill would not be accepted by most deputies, its proponents decided to use a political stratagem. Taking advantage of the Easter holidays, which fell on the 24/25th of April, they announced a four-week recess in the proceedings. Those deputies, however, who had been initiated into the secret, stayed in Warsaw. On May 3rd, marshal Stanisław Małachowski opened a plenary session. After a stormy six-hour debate, the constitution was passed, as the king swore on it before the bishop of Cracow. Stanisław August swore on it again in St. John’s Cathedral, where most of the deputies gathered.

The constitution consisted of a preamble and 11 articles, in which the following matters were regulated: religion (I), nobility (II), burgesses (III), peasants (IV), division of powers (V), legislative (VI), executive (VII), judiciary (VIII), regency (IX), royal children’s education (X) and the army (XI). The first four regulated the social system, the subsequent ones regulated the political system.

3. Social system

The constitution upheld the division into estates. The nobility was guaranteed “all liberties, freedoms, prerogatives and priority in private and public life”. This, however, applied only to proprietor nobles. This category was defined under the act on sejmiks of March, 1791, to include nobles owning land and their adult sons, as well as pledgees and hereditary owners who paid at least 100 zlotys in tax every year. Such persons were to be entered in the land registers. The hide and rent nobility were removed from political life, which made magnates considerably more influential. At the same time, the institution of scartabellat was upheld without granting knighted nobles the right to hold public office in the first two generations.

The case of burgesses was regulated by the act of April, 1791, considered as part of the constitution. It referred only to royal cities, and its application in ecclesiastical and private towns depended on the good will of particular owners, so that in practice, the act was only partially implemented there. The act referred only to town proprietors, to whom certain rights and privileges of the nobility were granted, including: personal and property immunity, acquisition of landed property, holding lower administrative and judiciary offices, and access to the legal profession, lower officer ranks, as well as the position of canon. Knighting of burgesses was also made possible on a wide scale. Also, 24 plenipotentiaries of towns sat on the deputies’ benches, but only with a vote in municipal and economic matters.

The case of the peasantry was handled very generally, however, it was actually mentioned, which in itself marked a huge turning point. In the introduction, in line with the doctrine of Polish physiocrats, the view was expressed that the “farmer folk”, because it made up the largest share in the population, would be “taken care of by the law and the state government”. This implied that, in the future, it would be possible for state court and administrative bodies to have a say concerning the relationship between the nobility and peasantry, which had hitherto been subject to the landlord’s dominion. Additionally, in the specific provisions, landlords were encouraged to conclude individual and collective agreements with peasants, the aim of which was to define the type and amount of duties due to the manor on the part of the peasants. All changes in the agreed-upon terms would then require both parties’ consent and were controlled by the state administration. Personal freedom was given only to people arriving from other countries with the intention of settling in Poland, as well as fugitives who voluntarily returned to their homeland.

Besides general laws for each estate, the constitution formulated, with regard to the social system, the principle of freedom of belief, however, with the Catholic religion as dominant, and denial of it was still prosecuted as apostasy. The creators of the constitution also deviated from the traditional understanding of the nation as including only the nobles, in favour of declarations that conceived of the nation and citizens in the context of the entire society.

4. Political system

a) State system principles

The state system under the Constitution of May 3rd was based on the political ideas of the Enlightenment. Article 5 set forth the principle of national sovereignty borrowed from the works of Jean Jacques Rousseau, but this clearly referred to the political sovereignty of the nobles’ sejm. The idea of tripartite division of powers, taken from Charles Montesquieu, was also adopted. It was to be implemented within the framework of a constitutional monarchy. There was no doubt, however, that balance between the powers did not exist, as the legislative was concentrated in the sejm and, as such, clearly superior to the executive, exercised by “a moderate government”, or the judiciary. A tendency also emerged to create a unitary state by eliminating the real Polish-Lithuanian Union of 1569.

b) The legislative. The Sejm and sejmiks

The Sejm was bicameral and consisted of the chamber of deputies and the senate. In the former sat 204 deputies selected at nobles’ sejmiks, of which – as was determined later – 2/3 were deputies of the Crown and 1/3 deputies of Lithuania. To that were added 24 plenipotentiaries of towns, selected by municipality department congregations, with an advisory vote in municipal, industrial and commercial matters and with the right to sit on those committees, from which they have been delegated. The senate consisted of 102 voivods and castellans, as well as 30 diocese bishops and ministers. It was presided over by the king, who had the right to a second vote in case of a deadlock. After Stanisław August Poniatowski’s death, lay senators were not supposed to be elected for life but appointed by the king from among 204 candidates proposed by land sejmiks.

The chamber of deputies had authority in respect of: legislation in political, civil and criminal law, taxes, monetary matters, knighting, allotment of public expenditure, war and peace, international treaties and control of officials. The senate’s prerogatives, on the other hand, were considerably curbed, as it lost a legislative initiative, and had only the right to veto laws passed by the chamber of deputies, the veto being overruled if the chamber of deputies passed the same law again. Last, the sejm as a whole was tasked with amending the constitution. This was to take place at an extraordinary constitutional sejm after the passage of 25 years, i.e. in 1816.

Extremely important changes were made in the structure of the sejm. The deputy instructions ceased to be binding, and the deputies became representatives of the nation. The “sejm ever ready” rule was adopted, which meant that deputies were not elected every two years but for a period of two years, i.e. for a term. This divided parliamentary sessions into ordinary ones, held at twoyear intervals for a period of 70 days with possible extensions to up to 100 days, and extraordinary ones, convened by the king or the sejm’s marshal during the term in order to deal with the most urgent matters. Liberum veto was abolished and replaced with a majority vote, ordinary or qualified (2/3 or 3/4, respectively). To make the work of the sejm more efficient, deputy committees were selected to draft bills, which then, in plenary sessions, had only to be approved, rejected or returned for corrections.

Land sejmiks were reorganized under a separate act. Non-proprietor nobles were excluded from them. Proprietors entitled to vote, on the other hand, were entered into land registers, which started to be kept at this time. The greatest importance was gained by election sejmiks, which: elected deputies for the sejm, composed instructions and postulates of voivodship sejmiks, and also appointed the members of voivodship order committees and judges for land courts. Deputy sejmiks merged with economic sejmiks, both of them being banned from imposing taxes. Reference sejmiks gained the right to deprive a deputy of a mandate and replace him with a new one.

c) The executive. The king, Guard of Laws, grand and order committees

The constitution introduced essential changes in the monarch’s position. The most important of them was to establish a hereditary throne and eliminate free election. On Stanisław August Poniatowski’s death, the throne was to pass to the Wettin dynasty of Saxony, represented by elector Frederick August. Should the dynasty become extinct, a special election sejm was to find a replacement.

The strengthening of the sejm’s authority restricted the king’s legislative powers. He lost the status of a separate estate and was reduced to presiding over the senate. Admittedly, he retained legislative initiative, but this was to be shared with the Guard of Laws. On the other hand, he lost the right to sanction legislation. Although the king retained the right to convene the sejm, the entitled to convene and held sessions of the sejm without the king attending. However, all acts were still announced on the ruler’s behalf, who also retained the right to pardon, with the exclusion of high treason cases.

With regard to executive power, the king was tasked with nominating the highest officials, including ministers and chairmen of the Guard of Laws. At the same time, the principle of the monarch’s non-liability was introduced on the English model (barring the right of resistance), to be replaced with the liability of the ministers sitting among the Guard of Laws, who had to co-sign all legal acts issued in the king’s name. In practice, this meant that, although the king’s position was formally retained, power actually shifted to the ministers.

The Guard of Laws (government) became the central executive authority. It consisted of the king (chairman), primate (head of clergy and chairman of the National Education Committee), as well as five ministers, namely: the minister of the police (one of the marshals), the minister of the seals, i.e. of internal affairs (one of the chancellors), the minister of foreign affairs (another chancellor), the minister of war (one of the hetmans) and the minister of the treasury (one of the treasurers). Also among the Guard of Laws, though without a vote, sat the marshal of the sejm and the adult heir to the throne (if there were one). Ministers for the Guard of Laws were appointed by the king from among all ministers, 14 in all. Nominations were made during a sejm session in which deputies could express a vote of no confidence in the candidate. The ministers were parliamentarily and constitutionally liable for their actions. The ministers’ parliamentary (political) liability was to the sejm (both chambers), which by a 2/3 majority vote could pass a vote of no confidence in them as a response to their policies. The ministers’ constitutional liability (for breach of the law) was to the sejm court, based on charges formulated by a joint ordinary majority vote of both chambers. The sejm court could pass any sentence, including that of capital punishment, and the king, in such a case, could not grant a pardon. The constitution did not, however, make the ministers jointly liable, for each of them was separately accountable. To sum up, it might be said that the Guard of Laws constituted an executive body modelled on the English cabinet. It did not, however, manage to take any actions on a wider scale.

The Guard of Laws had authority over four grand committees: that of the Police, the Army, the Treasury, and National Education. They were common to the Crown and Lithuania. They had a collegiate structure. They consisted of a chairman, who was a minister not sitting among the Guard of Laws, as well as 14 or 15 commissioners selected by the sejm for a period of two years. Also, the Committee of the Police and of the Treasury included 6 plenipotentiaries of royal cities, while in the Committee of the Army civilians predominated.

The Committees of the Army, the Treasury and National Education had developed their competence already at the earlier reform stages (1764 and 1773) and were, at present, acting without major changes. The Committee of the Police was a novelty. It was tasked with supervising cities, including matters related to safety, administration, transport and communications, industry, finance, health, commerce, morals, etc.

Local administration was exercised by civil-military order committees, created in 1789 for voivodships, lands and poviats. These committees consisted of 15 noble commissioners and 3 urban proprietor commissioners (nobility or burgesses). The committee had authority over military matters related to recruitment, accommodation, supplies, issuing passports, control of movements of population and other general matters connected with trade, craft, agriculture, the school system, social welfare, etc. They could be considered as a form of territorial local-government.

d) The judiciary

The FourYears’ Sejm restructured the state and estate judiciary. The central court was still the sejm court, although it had extended its authority to include matters related to the legal liability of ministers sitting among the Guard of Law, as well as of persons who had committed political crimes posing a threat to the state, including not only sejm members or dignitaries but all inhabitants. At that time, the sejm court consisted of 12 senators and 24 deputies. The jurisdiction of the assessors’ court, the highest court for towns at the time, began to cover burgesses. Also, it became possible to appeal to it from private, lay and ecclesiastical towns. The referendary’s court was curtailed in its authority by removing from its jurisdiction criminal cases involving serfs, which had hitherto been tried by a court in the nearest royal city, which acted as an appeals court. The process of law was speeded up in them. The courts of government committees and order committees were an entirely new type of central court. The courts of the Treasury Committee tried financial and commercial cases (up to 1791). The Police Committee had judicial authority in cases related to excessive spending out of town funds, forgery of measurements and weights, municipal officials’ crimes and acts against the town’s authorities. The courts of the Army Committee tried military matters and crimes committed by soldiers. Last, civil-military order committees settled disputes between soldiers and civilians.

With regard to the nobles’ judicial institutions, the former land courts, district courts and chamberlain’s courts were joined to form landowners’ courts. Their verdicts could be appealed at the Crown Tribunal. In 1791, two Tribunals were established: for Greater Poland in Piotrków, and for lesser Poland in Lublin. Both acted permanently.

The reform of the town courts was the widest in range. It was adjusted to reflect the new division of the law into civil and criminal law. For civil cases, three instances were singled out: the first was the municipal magistrates’ court, the second the departmental appeals court, and the third the assessors’ court. For criminal matters, two instances were created: the first was the departmental court, while the second was the assessors’ court, the verdicts of which could only be appealed in the case of long-term or life imprisonment.

V. The Confederacy of Targowica (1792) and Grodno (1793)

The enactment of the Constitution of May 3rd had, from its very outset, caused a great deal of discontent on Catherine II’s part, but even the offer of an anti-sejm confederacy, which the main opponents of the Great Sejm’s reforms, i.e. Szczęsny Potocki, Ksawery Branicki and Seweryn Rzewuski, extended to her failed to persuade the empress to take action. It was only when Russia and Turkey concluded peace in January, 1792, Austria became involved in a war with France, and Prussia strengthened its ties with Russia again, that Catherine II changed her attitude to the Commonwealth.

The official reason for the Russian intervention was provided by the formation in Petersburg on April 4th, 1792 of a confederacy, announced in Targowica with the false date of May 14th, 1792. The act of confederacy claimed that the Constitution of May 3rd was illegal and accused its creators of despotism, conspiracy to abolish cardinal laws and imitating the French revolution, all of which prompted righteous citizens to call on the Commonwealth’s guarantor to help to restore the state system.

The Russian intervention led directly to the second partition of the Commonwealth (January, 1793), in which Russia and Prussia took part. The initial reaction of Targowica confederates to the partition was to call for resistance and start preparations for an uprising. Under Russian pressure, however, these preparations were cancelled, and after sejmik elections a new sejm was convened in Grodno.

The confederacy of Grodno formed at that sejm suspended the Constitution of May 3rd, approved the partitions and effected reforms of the state system, set forth in the so-called Grodno constitutions.

New cardinal laws were passed regarding the social system. These confirmed all the rights and privileges of the nobility, including dominion over peasants with the reservations, however, that the death penalty was barred and that a landlord intentionally killing a peasant might even be punished with death. Also the regulations concerning burgesses were to remain in force.

The political system of the state changed to a very considerable degree. Supreme authority passed to a unicameral sejm which consisted of both senators and deputies. Ordinary sejms were to be held at four-year intervals and to last eight weeks with no extensions possible. Extraordinary sejms were to be convened by the Permanent Council for a period of two weeks. Sejm constitutions were passed by a majority vote except in status matters which required a qualified ¾ majority of votes. The sejm controlled, through its deputies, all the highest executive bodies. The elective throne was restored, whereby the king was to be elected by a specially convened election sejm. The king was again liable for breach of cardinal laws. The administration was headed by a reactivated Permanent Council, which consisted of the king, 10 senators and 14 deputies elected for four years. It controlled resort departments as well as government committees and voivodship order committees. The Permanent Council also had priority in legislative initiative, as it drafted bills for the sejm and entered them in the royal universals, which were then sent to land sejmiks. The state system set forth in the Grodno constitutions lasted only for a few months until the outbreak of Kościuszko’s insurrection.

VI. Kościuszko’s insurrection (1794)

1. Insurrection authorities

The uprising began on March 24th, 1794 with Tadeusz Kościuszko proclaiming the Citizens’ Uprising Act. The power structure which it introduced was temporary, and it was left till after the war of independence to create the groundwork for a new state system. Formally, monarchy was upheld although the king had no power at all. This situation resulted from a clash of different political camps within the insurrection’s high command.

The uprising was commanded by the Commander-in-Chief of the National Armed Forces Tadeusz Kościuszko, to be followed, in the final phase, by Tomasz Wawrzecki. The Commander-in-Chief was given command of the army and a series of other competencies, which grew as the uprising progressed to give him eventually dictatorial powers. The Commander-in-Chief appointed the Supreme National Council, which was an auxiliary body. The following departments were created: order, safety, justice, treasury, food supply, army, foreign affairs and education. The Council held plenary sessions under the Commander-in-Chief’s supervision or, in his absence, under that of another member.

Order comittees for voivodships and lands acted as local administrative bodies. They were divided into seven departments (excluding foreign affairs), which were, to a large extent, estate-segregated. Under the act of July 26th, 1794, the Council divided the country into districts headed by district supervisors. A district supervisor’s administrative control extended over 1000 to 1200 households. They acted as intermediaries in matters involving landlords and peasants, ensured public safety, maintenance of roads and bridges, schooling, etc.

2. Peasant reforms

The peasantry was regulated by the Universal of Połanieck of May 7th, 1794. Its provisions abolished serfdom and allowed peasants to leave their village under certain conditions. Also, they could not be removed from a land if they had paid their dues to the landlord. In practice, this meant that they gained the right to dependent ownership.

3. Judiciary

During Kościuszko’s insurrection, the existing civil judiciary was suspended and the criminal judiciary abolished. The newly created criminal courts were common, which meant that they had jurisdiction over all people, regardless of estate.

VII. Partitions. Territories and population

Before the first partition, the Commonwealth had an area of 756,000 sq. km, while its population was around 14,000,000. The first partition treaty was signed in Petersburg in 1772 and ratified in 1773. Russia occupied the voivodships of: Livonia, Mścisław, almost all of Witebsk, and part of Połock and Mińsk, which added up to 92,000 sq. km inhabited by 1,300,000 people. Prussia occupied Royal Prussia excluding Gdańsk and Toruń, as well as northern Greater Poland and Kuyavia and the fief of Lębork and Bytów, all of which amounted to 36,000 sq. km inhabited by approximately 600,000 people. Austria occupied almost all of the voivodships of Ruthenia and Bełsko and parts of the voivodships of Cracow, Sandomierz, Lublin, Volhynia and the land of Chełmno, all of which totalled 83,000 sq. km with a population of 2,700,000. In all, the Commonwealth lost 211,000 sq. km and a population of 4,600,000, while the number of its voivodships dropped to 14.

Austria did not participate in the second partition in 1793. Russia occupied Ukrainian and Belarussian lands east of the Druja-Pińsk-Kamieniec Podolski line, which added up to 250,000 sq. km with a population of 3,000,000. Prussia, on the other hand, seized Gdańsk, Toruń and the lands west of the Częstochowa-Sochaczew-Działdowo line, which covered an area of 57,000 sq. km with population of 1,000,000. The number of voivodships dropped to 11.

In 1795, the third and final partition of the Commonwealth occurred. Russia occupied the Lithuanian, Belarussian and Ukrainian territories to the Bug-Niemirów-Grodno line, all of which had an area of 120,000 sq. km and a population of 2,000,000. Prussia seized lands stretching to the rivers Pilica, Bug and Niemen, which consisted of an area of 48,000 sq. km and held a population of around 1,000,000. Austria occupied Cracow and lands stretching up to the rivers Pilica, Vistula and Bug, which had an area of 47,000 sq. km and a population 1,500,000.

On October 24th, the 1st Republic of Poland ceased to exist, while on November 25th, 1795 the last king Stanisław August Poniatowski was forced to abdicate the throne.