The reformation in Poland

One of the most potent causes of the spread of the Reformation in Poland in the sixteenth century was the enormous wealth of the Polish church. Owing to the liberality of princes, kings, magnates, and pious devotees, the church became a great economic power. Its large landed estates and great financial resources were both exasperating and enviable. It was one of the largest landowners in the country. Its financial resources were greater than those of the crown. It happened not infrequently that the king had to come to the powerful church dignitaries to ask them for financial contributions to the state treasury for purposes of government and defense. By the side of the baronial estates and princely incomes of some of the Polish bishops the wealth of even the most powerful magnates faded into insignificance.

In Great Poland, out of a total of 33,000 “łanów kmiecych,”[267] or hides of land under peasant cultivation, the church was in possession of 3,430 łanów or of 10.33 per cent.[268] In some districts and palatinates the estates of the church were more concentrated than in others. In the Palatinates of Poznań and Kalisz, for instance, they formed only 6 per cent. of the total land area under peasant cultivation, while in the Palatinate of Inowrocław they rose to 12 per cent., in the Palatinate of Brześć to 16 per cent., and in the Palatinate of Łęczyce to 22 per cent.[269]

In Little Poland, out of a total of 5,455 villages and 205 towns, the church owned 772 villages, 83 sections, or parts of villages, and 28 towns.[270] Allowing 5.3 villages to a square mile, the proportion then prevalent, 2 sections to a village, and a quarter of a mile to a town, we find that the landed property of the church in Little Poland in the sixteenth century covered an area of 160 square miles in a total of 1,013 square miles, and constituted about 15.5 per cent. of the total estimated land area of the province.[271] This property was about equally divided between the secular clergy and the monastic orders, the former owning 360 villages, 65 sections, and 12 towns, and the latter 372 villages, 18 sections, and 16 towns.[272] Fully one-half of the ecclesiastical lands in Little Poland,—388 villages, 49 sections, and 9 towns, or between 440 and 450 landed estates,—were located in one palatinate, namely, that of Cracow.[273]

Mazovia had an area of 578.3 square miles, 5,990 villages numbering 23,361 hides of land under peasant cultivation, and 94 towns. The church here was in possession of 15 towns and 505 villages comprising 5,849 hides of land. This was 16 per cent. of the towns, 8.7 per cent. of the villages, and 25 per cent. of the land under peasant cultivation.[274] The church lands in Mazovia were very intensively cultivated; for while the general proportion of “łanów kmiecych” to a Mazovian village was only 3.9, within the area of ecclesiastical estates the proportion was 11.5.

The Palatinate of Podlasie consisted of an area of 173.72 square miles, and numbered in the sixteenth century 1,304 villages, 26 towns, and 14,455 “włók wiejskich,” or village hides of land.[275] Of the 1,304 villages 30, or 2.3 per cent. containing 678.75 “włók wiejskich,” or 4.7 per cent. of the total acreage under village cultivation, were in possession of the Roman Catholic clergy.[276] The apparently small landed property here of the bishopric and the cathedral chapter of Łuck was further supplemented by various income producing privileges like fishing rights, rents, and tolls. For instance, besides his lands the bishop of Łuck had the right to maintain and operate a “liburnam et navigium” on the River Bug near the town of Drohiczyn. On account of its productiveness the operation of this ferry became a bone of contention in 1570 between Christopher Iwanowski and the bishop.[277]

In Volhynia the bishopric of Łuck owned several tracts of land numbering 14 villages with an area of 2.77 square miles, and the cathedral chapter of Łuck was in possession of 5 additional villages of 64 hides of land, covering an area of 0.8 of a square mile.[278] Besides the Latin bishopric of Łuck, there were in Volhynia two Greek Orthodox bishoprics, Łuck and Włodzimierz. The two owned together good sized landed estates. The figures for the totals are lacking. But one of the estates of the Greek Orthodox bishop of Łuck numbered 6 villages of 33 hides of land. The estates of the bishop of Włodzimierz consisted of two sections, including 13 villages and 1 town and covering an area of 4.38 square miles.[279] In Podolia the estate of the bishop of Kamieniec consisted of 13 villages and 1 town and had an area of 2.4 square miles. This was further supplemented by a few other smaller properties.[280]

When we come to Red Russia, we find that in that part of Poland the landed property of the church was composed of 98 villages and 8 towns, forming 3 per cent. of the total land under peasant cultivation in Red Russia.[281] Here most of the ecclesiastical lands were located in the “Ziemie” or districts of Sanok, Lwów, and Halicz. In the first they made up 5 per cent. of the total peasant cultivated lands, in the second 4 per cent., and in the third 3 per cent., although in the districts of Lwów and Halicz they maintained a percentage of four.[282]

In Ukraina by far the most extensive and the best located estates were those of the Latin clergy. The largest contribution in the nature of a land tax paid into the Commonwealth Treasury in 1581 was that of the cathedral and the cathedral chapter of Wilno, 158 and 133 Polish florins respectively. The only other large land owners, approaching anywhere near the clergy, were the Wiśniowieckis and the Kmitas, the former paying a contribution of 110 złp. and the latter of 90 złp. All the rest averaged only 35 złp.[283]

It is evident, therefore, that the Polish church belonged in the sixteenth century to the class of large property owners. Even in the eastern provinces of Podlasie, Volhynia, Podolia, Red Russia, and Ukraina, where its lands constituted a smaller percentage of the total land area cultivated by peasants than in the western provinces, the ecclesiastical estates were invariably large. Compared with the individual holdings of the Polish nobility and even of the crown, the estates of the bishops, cathedral chapters, and monastic institutions were everywhere baronial.[284]

To get a still clearer idea of the extent of the landed property of the church in sixteenth century Poland, it will be well to look at it a little more closely in the various sections of the country and compare it with that of the crown and of the nobility. We have seen that in Great Poland the church owned 10.33 per cent. of the land under peasant cultivation, in Little Poland 15.5 per cent. in Mazovia 8.7 per cent. of villages and 25 per cent. of “łanów kmiecych,” in Podlasie 2.3 per cent. of villages and 4.7 per cent. of “włók wiejskich,” and in Red Russia 3 per cent. of the land under peasant cultivation. For Volhynia, Podolia, and Ukraina the figures are very incomplete, and consequently the approximate proportionate amount of church property unknown. But judging by the size of some of the ecclesiastical estates we have observed in these palatinates, it is safe to infer that the percentage of church property in them was not smaller than in the immediately adjoining provinces.

Turning our attention now to the crown lands, we discover that in the most important sections of the country they were considerably smaller than those of the church. In Great Poland the crown lands constituted only 9 per cent. of the total property under peasant cultivation,[285] in Little Poland 7.5 per cent.,[286] in Mazovia 4.6 per cent.[287] From this it is evident that in Little Poland and in Mazovia the landed property of the church was more than twice as large as that of the crown. In Great Poland, taken as a whole, the disproportion was not quite as striking; yet in the Palatinate of Łęczyce, where the crown lands formed only 9 per cent., those of the church were more than twice as large, 22 per cent.[288] In Podlasie the crown lands gained in size, assuming a proportion of 19.4 per cent.[289] But in Volhynia and Podolia they were very small in the sixteenth century; in fact, compared with the estates of the church and the secular aristocracy in these provinces, the royal estates were very insignificant there.[290] This disproportion was somewhat made up in Red Russia, where the crown lands comprised 22 per cent. of the total area under peasant cultivation,[291] while those of the church formed only 3 per cent. This comparison reveals clearly the fact that only in two provinces, Podlasie and Red Russia, the royal lands occupied a more favorable position in respect of size than those of the church. In all the other provinces of the country the landed property of the church was larger, in some decidedly larger, than that of the crown. This, as we shall see later, had a very important bearing on royal and state finances, the problem of defense, and the attitude of the Polish nobility toward the church and its clergy. The economic implications in this matter were deeprooted and farreaching.

The individual possessions of the Polish bishops, abbots, and cathedral chapters were, by the side of those of the Polish nobles, princely. Speaking generally, they surpassed in size the estates of the secular magnates. The cathedral chapter of Lwów, for instance, had a landed estate of 10 villages,[292] that of Łuck of 5 villages comprising 64 “łanów kmiecych” and covering an area of 0.80 of a square mile,[293] and that of Gniezno of far greater proportions.[294] The landed estate of the cathedral chapter of Cracow consisted of 46 villages, 14 sections, and 1 town.[295] The endowments of monastic institutions were on the whole, of even greater proportions. The monastery of Trzemesz in Great Poland was endowed with 40 villages comprising 200 “włók chłopskich.”[296] In Little Poland the number of monastic institutions was very large, and they were all well provided for. The Abbey of Tyniec, the oldest in the country, possessed 44 villages, 4 sections, and 5 towns; the convent of the Klarysek at Sącz, 48 villages; the monasteries of Miechów, 42 villages, 2 sections, and 1 town; Pokrzywnice, 29 villages, 1 section, and 1 town; Łysa Góra, 21 villages, 1 section, and 2 towns; Sieciechów, 21 villages, 1 section, and 1 town; Jędrzejów, 20 villages, 1 section, and 1 town.[297] In Mazovia, the Abbey of Płock was in possession of 20 villages, and the Abbey of Czerwieńsk of 63 villages.[298] Especially striking as to size were the episcopal estates. The bishop of Poznań owned in the county of Poznań 16 per cent. of the land under peasant cultivation, in Mazovia, 19 villages, and in Little Poland, 3 villages.[299] The bishop of Łuck owned in Podlasie 100 “włók osiadłych,” besides “liburnam et navigium” on the River Bug near Drohiczyn, and in Volhynia 14 villages covering an area of 2.77 square miles.[300] The estate of the bishop of Kamieniec in Podolia consisted of 13 villages and 1 town, covering an area of 2.40 square miles, besides a number of other smaller tracts of land.[301] The bishop of Chełm had 11 villages, 3 towns, and other minor real estate properties. This last estate was evidently a very small episcopal estate; for as late as the beginning of the eighteenth century the bishop of Chełm was regarded as “a sola paupertate commendabilis.”[302] The bishop of Przemyśl was lord of 18 villages and 3 towns, and the archbishop of Lwów of 29 villages and 5 towns.[303] The wealthiest of the Polish prelates were the archbishop of Gniezno, primate of Poland, and the bishops of Płock and Cracow. The archbishop of Gniezno was grand lord of 200 villages; 30 in the county of Gniezno, 20 in the Palatinate of Łęczyce, and 130 in Mazovia in the Palatinates of Rawa and Mazovia, covering 20 square miles.[304] The bishop of Płock was the owner of the most extensive landed possessions in Mazovia. His estate consisted of 232 villages and 6 towns.[305] The landed estates of the bishop of Cracow were the most extensive, numbering from 280 to 300 villages and covering an area of from 50 to 70 square miles.[306]

Excepting the royal lands, the largest estates, whether in Great or in Little Poland, were those of the bishops or monastic institutions. They completely overshadowed the estates of the Polish nobility. Two-thirds of the landed estates of the nobility of Great Poland consisted of one village each. Even the magnates of Great Poland had comparatively small possessions. Large estates were exceptional in Great Poland, and they were either royal or ecclesiastical.[307] In Mazovia the only large land owners were the king and the clergy. There was absolutely no magnate in the entire duchy equal in wealth to the bishop of Płock. In fact, outside of the clergy, there were no magnates in Mazovia.[308] Nor was there a magnate in Little Poland equal as a landlord to the bishop of Cracow. The wealthiest of them, Prince Constantine Ostrogski, could boast of only 80 villages, an estate one-fourth the size of that of the bishop of Cracow. The next wealthiest aristocratic family, the Jordans, were lords of only 33 villages, the Zborowskis, 30, the Komorowskis, 29, the Szafraniec family, 22, and the rest had 10 to 20 villages each. To equal the landed property of the bishop of Cracow, it would have been necessary to combine the estates of ten wealthiest and foremost aristocratic families of Little Poland, whose combined properties numbered 292 villages, about the number of those of the bishop.[309] Viewed in the light of their landed property, the Polish bishops were not only ecclesiastical, but also secular princes. In fact, a number of them bore princely titles. The archbishop of Gniezno and primate of Poland was prince of Łowicz; the bishop of Warmia was at the same time prince of Warmia; the bishop of Cracow was prince of the Principality of Siewiersk; the bishop of Płock was prince of Pułtusk; and the prebendary of Płock was prince of Wieluń.[310]

These princes of the church were also in the habit of leaving princely private fortunes to their relatives. Many Polish aristocratic families, like the Oleśnickis, the Myszkowskis, the Rytwianskis, the Górkas, and the Łaskis, owed their great wealth and power to having been left large fortunes by some of their ancestors who had occupied high offices in the church.[311] Cardinal Zbigniew Oleśnicki and Peter Myszkowski, both bishops of Cracow at different times, were notable examples in this particular. Peter Myszkowski, born in 1505 and educated abroad at Padua, on his return home received a large number of benefices, the canonries of Cracow and Gniezno, the prebendaries of Gniezno, Płock, Łęczyca, and Poznań, and the deanery of Cracow, so that he was called “the prebendary of the whole of Poland.” In 1563 he was appointed under-secretary of state, and at the same time coadjutor of the bishop of Płock. In 1568 he became bishop of Płock and in 1577 bishop of Cracow. In the last named office he remained for fourteen years until his death in 1591. He left his nephews a private fortune of 8,000,000 Polish florins, besides large landed estates purchased from the Oleśnickis.[312] One of his successors in office, Andrew Lipski, dying in 1630 as bishop of Cracow, left a private fortune of 900,000 ducats, not counting any real estate property. John Kuczborski, bishop of Chełm, left in 1623 in cash alone 500,000 ducats. In this connection let us recall that the bishop of Chełm was regarded as the poorest of the Polish bishops, and held up as an example of poverty. Karaffa, bishop of Płock, on his death in 1615, left his brother 7,000,000 thalers.[313] These legacies bespeak the handsome incomes of the Polish high church dignitaries.

Although some of the largest ecclesiastical estates were frequently situated along the borders of the country, and were sometimes in a somewhat primitive condition,[314] yet as a rule the lands of the church were most favorably located, and were compact and very productive.[315] They were usually grouped around the episcopal sees or monastic institutions in the most productive, most thickly settled, and most easily accessible parts of the country. A large portion of the landed property of the bishop of Poznań was located in the county of Poznań, in close proximity to the episcopal see and to the city. In the county of Gniezno, the lands of the archbishop of Gniezno constituted 22 per cent. of its area cultivated by peasants. In the Palatinate of Łęczyce, the most thickly settled and the most productive, the ecclesiastical lands made up also 22 per cent. of the total under peasant cultivation. In Mazovia in the Palatinate of Płock 71 villages belonged to the bishop of Płock. In Red Russia in the most thickly settled and most productive district around Lwów the church lands constituted 5 per cent. of the area cultivated by peasants. And when we come to Little Poland, we find that half of the ecclesiastical lands of that province,—388 villages, 49 sections, and 9 towns, or between 440 to 450 landed estates,—were located in the Palatinate of Cracow. The counties containing most of them were Proszowice, Szczyrzyce, and Ksiąsk, Proszowice leading with 183 ecclesiastical estates.[316] The number of “łanów kmiecych” per square mile shows that these counties were the best cultivated, most productive, and the richest. The County of Proszowice numbered 62.7 “łanów kmiecych” to the square mile, the County of Ksiąsk 40.1, and that of Szczyrzyce 32.4. In the Palatinate of Sandomir the County of Wiślice, where again numerous ecclesiastical estates were found, numbered 41 “łanów kmiecych” to the square mile.[317]

Another interesting characteristic of these ecclesiastical lands was that they invariably bordered on royal property. This close proximity of ecclesiastical estates to royal was to be found everywhere in Poland in the sixteenth century. This fact showed clearly that the ecclesiastical estates owed their existence to royal grants; that they had been carved out of the royal domain, and of the best portions of it.[318] For wherever the ecclesiastical estates were large and numerous, there existed also a corresponding diminution of royal property. In Great Poland, Mazovia, and in Little Poland the ecclesiastical property was twice as large as the royal. In the Palatinate of Łęczyce, where the church owned 22 per cent. of the land cultivated by peasants, the king owned only 9 per cent. In the Palatinate of Płock, where the bishop of Płock owned 71 villages, the king had only 12 villages.[319] In the Palatinate of Cracow the church owned 440-450 landed estates, while the king owned only about 240 to 250 estates in that rich and easily accessible section.[320]

In the light of these facts it is not to be wondered at that the royal treasury found itself in the sixteenth century constantly embarrassed; that the szlachta demanded “egzekucji praw,” that is, the return of royal property illegally acquired; and that it was exceedingly jealous of the privileged position of the clergy and envious of its wealth.

In this connection it is well to note that a similar proximity to royal lands characterized also the large estates of the secular aristocracy. In fact, the three groups of lands went invariably together. The natural inference, therefore, is that the estates of the secular aristocracy, as the estates of the clergy, were carved out of the royal domain. That this was actually the case there seems to be no doubt. This further explains the jealousy of the secular aristocracy of the clergy. It was a question of which class would be more successful in courting the favor of the king, and as a result of it could secure additional grants of royal land. And since the estates of the church already were disproportionately large, the magnates naturally kept a jealously watchful eye on the clergy.

Striking as is the foregoing picture, it is necessary, in order to make it still more realistic, to supplement it with a number of details. It is necessary to bear in mind that the statistics here cited, giving the landed wealth of the Polish church in the sixteenth century, are minimum statistics; that while they are the best we have of the period, they are not always complete for every province; and that they do not include the private properties cultivated by serf labor. These statistics are based on Income Registers of the Commonwealth Treasury. They invariably give only minimum property figures, and only for properties from which contributions were actually collected, omitting those that succeeded in evading the payment of these contributions.[321] Then, too, they are not always complete. For instance, the extent of the church’s landed property in Great Poland is calculated on the basis of statistics for only six out of the eight palatinates.[322] For the Palatinates of Sieradz and Wieluń there are no figures. Yet we know that they, too, included church lands; for the Prebendary of Płock was prince of Wieluń. Nor do our statistics include the principality of Warmia. We know, also, that the bishop of Warmia was prince of that principality. Due to the same fact, the real extent of church lands in the eastern provinces is likewise somewhat uncertain. Moreover, as has already been stated, the foregoing statistics do not include private lands cultivated by serf labor; for gentlemen paid no land tax from the “łany” which they exploited directly by means of forced labor. They give only estates cultivated by tenant peasants. The tax known as “łanowe” or “poradlne” was paid by peasants only. The private estates of the clergy and of the nobility, cultivated by serf labor, were free from this tax,[323] and consequently not listed in the tax registers. In the fourteenth and the first half of the fifteenth century the “łany” of the peasants were a great deal more extensive than the demesne estates of the nobility, clerical and lay. In the sixteenth century the peasant lands and the demesne estates were about equal in area. By the seventeenth century the ratio was inverted, greatly to the peasants’ disadvantage.[324] In no way, then, is our picture of the extent of the Polish church’s landed property in sixteenth century Poland overdrawn. On the contrary, it need be supplemented in a number of details. Its lines can safely be still more sharply and clearly drawn, making the picture still more striking. It is estimated that in France the landed property of the church constituted from one-fifth to one-fourth of the lands of the country;[325] in Poland, according to Dr. Kubala, the lands of the church constituted one-third of the entire landed property of the commonwealth in the sixteenth century.[326] As late as 1791, after a considerable portion of ecclesiastical lands had already been sold in 1790, particularly in Galicia, the peasants of ecclesiastical lands still constituted 10.5 per cent. of the entire population of the country at that time, or one-sixth of the peasantry alone.[327] At that time, besides their lands, the clergy owned also over one-tenth of the houses in Poland, or 153,551 out of a total number of 1,434,919.[328]

Moreover, in addition to these large estates and the income derived from them, the Polish clergy were entitled to one-tenth of the gross receipts which the nobility derived from their estates, to one-tenth from the peasantry, jura stolae, free gifts of the pious, and, as a specially privileged class, to exemption from practically all public burdens, although the Greek Orthodox clergy were placed on the same footing with the peasants as regards taxation.[329] The tithes paid to the clergy by the nobility were voluntary at first, but by the middle of the fifteenth century they were made compulsory;[330] and in consequence became very obnoxious to the nobility, for they were the only tax the nobility paid.[331] Before the thirteenth century the prince called upon the population of ecclesiastical estates as well as on that of the estates of the knighthood to participate in the building of new or in the rebuilding of old strongholds, but in the course of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, owing to the immunities granted the clergy, the princely right to summon the population of ecclesiastical estates to perform any work on defenses was either very much curtailed or altogether abolished.[332] Also, the mayors of ecclesiastical villages were largely exempt from participation in the country’s defense prior to the reign of Casimir the Great (1333-1370). In Casimir’s time a law was passed, making these mayors liable to military service.[333] The clergy, however, disregarded and evaded the provisions of this law after Casimir’s death. It was not until in the second half of the sixteenth century that the nobility brought the clergy to terms in this regard. Taking their actual receipts plus the value of their exemptions into account, Dr. Kubala estimates that the Polish clergy of the sixteenth century were recipients of one-half of the national income.[334]

It was this enormous wealth of the Polish church and its clergy, actual and potential, that made the Polish nobility very restless, and gradually led it as a class to an open revolt from the Roman Catholic Church and to a determined opposition to the Roman clergy, its pretensions, its greed, and its exactions. This all the more so, since owing to its great wealth, the Polish clergy had lost its religion and its moral authority. It was far more concerned about its social position, its political influence, and its tithes than about religion and morals. Monastic discipline was loose. The ignorance of the lower clergy was proverbial. Simony was the order of the day, paving the way to higher ecclesiastical appointments. The higher clergy were wholly indifferent to religion, and cared far more for comfort, luxury, and the enjoyment of life than for the things of the spirit. Bishop Zebrzydowski of Cracow used to say: “Believe in a goat, if you wish, only pay me your tithes.”[335] John Drohojowski, learned, prominent, and influential, for years bishop of Kuyavia, preached only twice in his church during that time.[336]

Indifferent as the Polish clergy were in matters of religion and morals, they were never found napping in matters of property and the exaction of tithes. It was this greed, this completely materialistic character of the Polish clergy, together with their immense wealth resulting in great influence and unscrupulous power, that chiefly paved the way in Poland for Hussitism in the fifteenth century and for the Reformation in the sixteenth century. As early as 1406 and 1407 the Polish nobility in conventions at Piotrków assembled deliberated regarding measures to safeguard itself against the exploitation of the clergy.[337] In 1432, owing to a war with the Teutonic Knights and the need of large sums of money, regular taxation of the clergy was being considered.[338] In the course of the first half of the fifteenth century, due very likely to the unprecedented grants of Wladislaus Jagiello to the church, the nobility proposed a confiscation of ecclesiastical estates.[339] This proposal, as we shall see later, was repeated again several times in the sixteenth century. At that time the nobility protested also against the concentration of prebendaries and benefices in the hands of a few specially favored and privileged ecclesiastics, and against the exportation of annates to Rome.[340] These protests, too, were renewed in the sixteenth century. In 1544 the Diet voted that the king take steps to secure the Pope’s consent to the retention of the papal tax within the country for purposes of defense.[341] The desired papal consent had evidently not been given, for the Diet of 1567 voted the retention of the annates, with the king’s consent, even though against the wishes of the Pope.[342] These annates amounted to 21,266 florins annually,[343] and were to strengthen the national treasury (Skarb rawski). But according to the treasury registers these annates were not being paid in. In every annual summary report of the Treasury a note is found, stating that the higher clergy, from whom these annates were due, had not paid them in, with the exception of Krasiński, bishop of Cracow, and his successor, Peter Myszkowski.[344] So stubborn were the bishops that the Diet of 1569 threatened them with collecting double the amount from all the delinquent payers, and the Diet of 1576 had to call upon them again to comply with the law regarding annates.[345]

By a law of 1496 and 1505 the nobility, with its eye on the wealth of the church, restricted all the higher ecclesiastical offices and preferments to itself and its sons, excluding from them the townspeople and all plebeians.[346] In 1510 and again in 1527, as the needs of the country were steadily growing, it was proposed that the clergy share in carrying the burdens of the country’s defense along with the nobility. In all proposed measures of treasury reform in the sixteenth century the clergy were singled out as the wealthiest estate in the land and placed at the head of the lists of those best able to help bear public burdens. In some of the proposals they were asked to give up their tithes to the needs of the country, and bishops and abbots were urged to contribute the annates to the national treasury.[347] The clergy, however, protested vigorously. They were opposed to any taxation of their property; at the same time they were also reluctant to make voluntary contributions.[348] The collection of the “subsidium charitativum” was always a very difficult matter. Out of the 40,000 florins, which the clergy agreed in 1510 to contribute toward the country’s needs, only 7,000 florins actually came into the national treasury.[349] At the synod of 1577 the clergy manifested the greatest reluctance to make any contribution,[350] and the same thing was true in every case until the end of Poland’s national existence toward the close of the eighteenth century.[351] Yet in justice to the clergy it must be said that once in a while they did manifest unusual liberality. Inspired by the new religious reform movement of the century, the nobility went so far in 1536 and 1537 as to propose confiscation and a sale of all ecclesiastical estates, which were tax-free, and on account of which the nobility had to bear all the heavier public burdens.[352] In 1563 it at last succeeded in securing actual taxation of ecclesiastical property.[353] In 1576 it again protested against the great wealth of the church.[354] And so practically throughout the sixteenth century it struggled under the inspiration and with the help of the religious reform movement against the social and economic oppression and exactions of the Roman clergy.