As to episcopal jurisdiction, this became a lost cause after 1552. The bishops, having once agreed to its suspension, though only temporary, were unable to recover it again, in spite of desperate attempts.[468] By a statute of the Diet of 1562-1563, all excommunicated persons were admitted to provincial and fortress courts (do sądow ziemskich i grodzkich) with their grievances and complaints, and the starostas were instructed to respect the constitutionally guaranteed privileges of the szlachta.[469] The result was that no one wanted now either to appeal to or to appear in any episcopal court. This took the teeth out of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Moreover, by the Constitution of 1565 the clergy were forbidden to summon before their courts starostas who in compliance with the statutory law of 1562-1563 refused to execute the verdicts of episcopal courts.[470] Deprived of the executive arm of civil authority, ecclesiastical courts became powerless and their verdicts of no effect. This was a great victory for the Polish nobility. At last their lives and their property were safe from further attacks of the clergy through arbitrary exercise of their ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
All the grievances of the Polish nobility in the sixteenth century were summed up and the remedies for these grievances were contained in the demand for “the execution of laws.” It was a demand of the Polish nobility for a return to the fundamental constitutional laws of the land, for conformity in private and public life to these laws, and for elimination of abuses. Many of the social and political ills and problems of the times were due either to disregard or to open violation of existing constitutional and statutory laws. For instance, after 1454 and particularly so after 1504, it became illegal for the king either to pledge or to grant any part of his royal lands to any private individual or to any institution without the sanction of the diet.[471] The extravagant liberality of the Polish rulers had made it necessary to make these restrictions; they were intended to safeguard the royal domain from undue diminution, the royal treasury from embarassing impoverishment, and the country from inadequate defense. Also, it became illegal after 1454, and especially after 1505, for the king to make any new laws or to issue edicts having the force of new laws without the common consent of the two chambers of the diet.[472] It was illegal, also, for the clergy to enlarge their landed estates either by purchase or by gift, while they evaded the responsibility of participation in the country’s defense.[473] Likewise, it was illegal for the king to confer upon them special privileges, exempting them from various public burdens.[474] Moreover, it was a flagrant violation of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the szlachta for the clergy to sit as their judges in matters of life, liberty, and property.[475] Yet all these violations and abuses had become so common that they almost had the force of perfectly lawful acts and practices. For a time they were tolerated. But when they began seriously to interfere with the liberties and economic interests of the Polish nobility, the nobles rose against them resolutely, and with determination demanded a general reformation of conditions.
Their demand for “the execution of laws” was directed particularly against the special privileges and immunities, real or pretended, of the clergy.[476] Beginning with the Diet of 1511,[477] both the secular and the regular clergy were repeatedly called upon by the diets of the sixteenth century to justify their specially privileged status and their evasion of public responsibilities and burdens by presenting their charters for examination, until at last they were forced to comply with this demand in part at least.[478] The continued insistence on the part of the nobility on the clergy’s participation in public burdens resulted finally in the imposition by the Diet of 1563 of a regular tax on episcopal property and tithes.[479] In the struggle regarding ecclesiastical jurisdiction the nobility appealed to its privileges of 1422, 1433, 1454, and the Constitution of 1505, demanding the annulment of all royal edicts against heresy as unconstitutional, together with ecclesiastical jurisdiction in matters involving the nobility’s constitutional rights to life and property. As a result of this appeal and demand the king issued instructions to the starostas in 1563 to respect the constitutional rights of the nobility. By this act the royal edicts against heresy and episcopal jurisdiction, whether in cases of heresy or of refusal to pay tithes, became invalidated and rendered of no effect.[480]
Thus, we see that the conflict between the Polish nobility and the ecclesiastical authorities in the sixteenth century, resulting in the former’s extensive revolt from the established church, was due mainly to the wealth of the Polish clergy, their immunities from public burdens, and their abuse of episcopal jurisdiction; for these not only increased the burdens of the Polish nobility, but also seriously menaced its social and economic status. Whatever particular form this conflict assumed, its underlying motives were essentially economic and social rather than religious or even purely political.
[355] Guaranteeing to compensate the szlachta for their participation in foreign expeditions and for injuries sustained in them, Louis of Hungary simply confirmed and further enlarged a right which had been previously granted by Casimir the Great by the Statute of Wiślice of 1347, where we read: “Sed extra Regni metas nobis servire non sunt obligati, nisi ipsis satis competens satisfactio per nos impendatur, vel per nos specialiter fuerint petiti et rogati ad hoc” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 44).
[356] Ibid., fol. 57.
[357] Sokołowski, vol. i, p. 295.
[358] “… item, ut gratia uberiori consolentur a nobis, etiam nos fide et servitiis amplioribus prosequantur, promittimus, quod exnunc et de caetero nunquam alicujus subditi Regni nostri, cujuscunque dignitatis, eminentiae, status aut gradus fuerit, bona haereditaria recipiemus, confiscabimus, recipi vel confiscari faciemus, nec se de eis per nos vel officiales nostros vel alios quoscunque homines intromittemus vel intromitti faciemus pro quibuscunque excessibus aut culpis, nisi prius super hoc preccedat judicium nostrorum, quos ad hoc deputaverimus, cum nostris praelatis, baronibus, matura cogitio et sententia sequatur” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 83).
[360] “Caeterum promittimus et spondemus, quod nullum terrigenam possessionatum pro aliquo excessu seu culpa capiemus seu capi mandabimus, nec aliquam vindictam in ipso faciemus, nisi judicio rationabiliter fuerit convictus, et manus nostras vel nostrorum Capitaneorum per judices ejusdem terrae, in qua idem terrigena residet, praesentatus; illo tamen homine, qui in furto et publico maleficio (ut pote incendio, homicidio voluntario, raptu virginum et mulierum, villarum depopulationibus aut spoliis) deprehenderetur; similiter illis, qui de se nollent debitam facere cautionem vel dare juxta quantitatem excessus vel delicti, duntaxat exceptis. Nulli autem bona seu possessiones recipiemus, nisi fuerit judicialiter per judices competentes vel Barones nostros nobis condemnatus” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 93).
[361] Ibid., fol. 250.
[362] Ibid., vol. i, folios 299-300. “De non faciendis constitutionibus sine consensu conciliariorum et Nuntiorum Terrestrium.”
[363] Henry C. Vedder, The Reformation in Germany, New York, 1914, p. 33; Adam Szelągowski, Money and the Overturning of Prices in the 16th and 17th Century in Poland (Pieniądz i przewrót cen w XVI i XVII ieku w Polsce), Lwów, 1902, pp. 60-63.
[364] Szelągowski, p. 65.
[365] Ibid., pp. 66-67.
[366] Ibid., pp. 67-68.
[367] Ibid., pp. 71-72.
[368] Ibid., pp. 67-68.
[369] Ibid., p. 73.
[370] Cf. Ibid., pp. 73, 82.
[371] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 151-152; also fol. 153, par. “De his qui telonea absque concessione Regum exigunt.”
[372] Ibid., fol. 257-258, art. “De liberis navigationibus et fluminibus ex nomine liberis.”
[373] Ibid., fol. 255-259, par. “De fluviis ad navigandum aperiendis praesertim circa Thorunium” and “De Thorunen, impedimento et navigatione.”
[374] Ibid., fol. 517, par. “De teloneis pontalibus, aggeralibus.…”
[375] Kazimierz Rakowski, A History of the Economic Development of the Polish State (Dzieje rozwoju ekonomicznego państwa polskiego), Warsaw, 1909, p. 134.
[376] Ibid., p. 130.
[377] Ibid., p. 131.
[378] Ibid., p. 132.
[379] Ibid., pp. 135-136.
[380] Ibid., p. 135.
[381] Ibid., p. 141.
[382] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 271, par. “De civibus et plebeis oppida, et bona alia in iure Terrestri non possessuris.”
[383] Ibid., folios 262-265, par. “De plebeis ad majores ecclesias non recipiendis” and “De numero plebeorum ad ecclesias recipiendorum.”
[384] Ibid., folios 302-303, par. “De numero plebeorum ad ecclesias cathedrales suscipiendorum” and “Statuta ecclesiarum.…”
[385] Cf. ibid., folios 511-512; Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 182.
[386] Acta Tom., vol. xiii, No. 2, cited by Dr. Pociecha in Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 182.
[387] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 183.
[388] “Adscripsi ego in legatione nostra, omnibus approbantibus, ut Mtas Regia serio mandaret capitaneis omnibus statuta et decreta vetera adversus excomunicatos et haereticos exequi, quorum latens venenum in locis insignioribus et libellis famosis et aliis indiciis sese prodit,” wrote Primate Krzycki to Bishop Tomicki from Piotrków, Dec. 19, 1534 (cited by Dr. Wladislaus Pociecha in Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 166).
[389] “Sacra tamen Mtas Regia Serenissimus Dominus noster his diebus ad omnes dignitarios et capitaneos edictum misit severum dogmata et libros prohibendo et jubet punire severo tali haeresi contaminatos atque a studiis haereticorum revocat adolescentes sub poena perpetui exilii,” wrote M. Drzewicki to Jan Dantyszek from Gniezno, March 11, 1535 (cited by Dr. Pociecha in ibid., n. 3).
[390] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, pp. 166-167.
[391] Ibid., p. 167.
[392] Ibid., pp. 167, 183.
[393] Vol. leg., vol. i, folios 526-627, par. “De plebeiis et cortesanis.”
[394] Kutrzeba, p. 93; Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.
[395] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 369, par. “De testamentis condendis”; see also fol. 374.
[396] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, pp. 174, 176.
[397] Ibid., pp. 173-175, 176.
[398] Rakowski, p. 145.
[399] See Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 259, par. “De fugitivis kmethonibus”; fol. 367, par. “De colonis fugitivis restituendis”; fol. 503, par. “Consulentes commoditati rei communis domesticae Regni nostri.…”; fol. 524, par. “De profugis kmethonibus.”
[400] “Statuimus quod tantummodo unus filius de villa a patre recedere possit ad servitia, et praesertim ad studia, aut literarum, aut artificiorum, reliqui maneant in haereditate cum patribus” (ibid., fol. 260).
[401] “Et si unicus fuerit, ille in haereditate maneat et laboret in domo cum parentibus, vel in eadem haereditate quam parentes incolunt, aut domicilium, aut servitium, aut victum acquirat” (ibid., fol. 260).
[402] “Quod si aliquis adolescens villanus, praeter istud decretum, fugiens repertus fuerit, sive in civitatibus et oppidis sive alibi ubicunque, ille domino loci illius a quo fugit, sine juris strepitu restituatur, sub poena quatuordecim marcarum, et nihilominus illi qui eum retinuerint, poena toties quoties secus fecerint soluta, ad restitutionem sint astricti” (ibid., fol. 260).
[403] Ibid., fol. 394, par. “De laboribus kmethonum”; and fol. 396, par. “kmethones unum diem, plus minusve, septimantim laborent.”
[404] Kutrzeba, p. 96; Rakowski, pp. 148-149; Źr. dz. vol. viii, p. 395.
[405] Vol. leg., vol. i, Constitutions of 1523 and 1532.
[406] Ibid., folios 261-262, par. “De libertate nobilium in theloneis”; fol. 298, par. “De teloneis in terra et aqua solvendis et non solvendis”; see also folios 375, 517, 594.
[407] Ibid., fol. 375, par. “Ut de agris, hortis, et Scultetiis desertis, publicae contributiones non exigantur.”
[408] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.
[409] Ibid., p. 173.
[410] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 6, par. “De clericis bona haereditaria habentibus ad bellum ituris.”
[411] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.
[412] Ibid.
[413] “Quia onus praesertim quod omnes tangit inter plures divisum facilius deportatur. Quapropter statuimus, quod indifferenter omnes sculteti tam spiritualium quam etiam saecularium personarum juxta ipsorum facultates ad quamlibet expeditionem nobiscum transire teneantur” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 5).
[414] See ibid., fol. 532, par. “De Scultetis spiritualium.”
[415] See Zakrzewski, pp. 117, 118.
[416] Balzer, Corpus juris Polonici, vol. iii, No. 51, par. 17; Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.
[417] “Visum est, ut si probatum fuerit Scultetos spiritualium teneri ad expeditionem bellicam, Sculteti eorum sint obligati deinceps Nobiscum in bellum proficisci: praeter eos qui privilegiis essent ab expeditione exempti et liberati; quae privilegia, domini spirituales, in Synodo proximo, postquam praeterita, propter mortem Domini Archiepiscopi effectum sortita non est, se recensere promiserunt, et illa post modum in Conventu Generali Regni, proxime post Synodum futuro exhibebunt; ut ex illis fiat cognitio de immunitate Scultetorum seu Advocatorum; vel obligatione ad praestandam et sustinendam bellicam expeditionem” (Vol. leg. vol. i, fol. 532).
[418] See above, p. 60, cf. Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 623, par. 56.
[419] Acta Tom., vol. v, p. 128, cited by Dr. Pociecha in Reformation of Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.
[420] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.
[421] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 623, par. 55.
[422] See ibid.; above, p. 60.
[423] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 176.
[424] See above, p. 98; Reformation in Poland, pp. 174-175.
[425] Zakrzewski, pp. 237-238.
[426] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, pp. 176-177.
[427] Balzar, Corpus juris, vol. iii, No. 181; see also Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 177.
[428] Reformation in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 177.
[429] Ibid., p. 179; Acta Tom., vol. xii, p. 402, as cited by Dr. Pociecha.
[430] See Kutrzeba, p. 83.
[431] Smoleński, p. 76; Caro, vol. iv, pp. 85-89.
[432] Sokołowski, vol. i, p. 295.
[433] Vol. leg. vol. i, fols. 95-104; Caro, vol. iv, p. 40.
[434] See Caro, vol. iv, pp. 115, 116.
[435] Krasiński, vol. i, p. 52.
[436] Caro, vol. iv, p. 115; Smoleński, p. 81.
[437] Kakrzewski, pp. 64, 243.
[438] Vol. leg., vol. i, folios 85-86; folios 194-195; “Ex quo etiam,” etc.
[439] Kubala, p. 22.
[440] Smoleński, p. 76.
[441] “Praeterea volumus quod laici deinceps pro debitis et in aliis causis civilibus per clericos, ad forum ecclesiasticum non trahantur, nisi forte sit causa spiritualis, vel spirituali annexa, aut debitum fuerit decimale” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 102).
[442] Caro, vol. iv, pp. 310-311.
[443] Ibid., p 311.
[444] Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 277, “De inhibitionibus ecclesiasticis ad judicia.”
[445] “… quapropter decernimus et statuimus, quod judices spirituales saecularia judicia non exerceant neque judicent in futurum” (Vol. leg., vol. i, fol. 304).
[446] Ibid., vol. i, fol. 506, “Prospicientes,” etc.
[447] Ibid., vol. i, folios 578-581, “Differentias judiciorum,” etc.
[448] Ibid., vol. ii, fol. 598, par. 41.
[449] Ibid., vol. ii, fol. 597, par. 37.
[450] Kubala, pp. 26-27.
[451] Ibid., p. 27.
[452] Ibid., p. 55.
[453] “… Pollicemur, nos hereticos expugnaturos, ex regno nostro propulsaturos, ecclesiasticas item personas eorumque jura defensuros et conservaturos” (cited from Wegierski, by ibid., p. 100n.)
[454] Ibid., pp. 28, 30, 55.
[455] Ibid., p. 30.
[456] Ibid., p. 30.
[457] Ibid., p. 30.
[458] Ibid., p. 31.
[459] Ibid., p. 31.
[460] Ibid., pp. 35-37, 55-56.
[461] Ibid., p. 56.
[462] Ibid., pp. 58, 101, n. 42.
[463] Ibid., pp. 58, 101, n. 43.
[464] Ibid., pp. 58, 101, n. 46.
[465] Ibid., p. 56.
[466] Ibid., p. 67.
[467] Ibid., p. 58.
[468] See above, pp. 59-60.
[469] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 625, par. 68; cf. fol. 692, par. 74.
[470] Ibid., vol. ii, fol. 692, par. 74.
[471] Ibid., vol. i, folios 184, 298-299, “De mode bonorum Regalium inscribendorum.”
[472] Ibid., vol. i, fol. 299-300, “De non faciendis constitutionibus sine consensu Consiliariorum et Nuntiorum Terrestrium” et “De constitutionibus novis per proclamationes publicandis.”
[473] Cf. Caro, vol. iv, p. 311; Ref. in Poland, vol. ii, No. 7, p. 174.
[474] Compare, for instance, this special privilege given by Sigismund Augustus to Martin Cromer, canon of Cracow and the king’s secretary. “Sigismundus Augustus etc. Planum, testamentumque facimus universis, quorum interest, quia contributionem, in proxima Piothrocoviensi synodo decretam et laudatam, ven. Martino Cromero, canonico Cracoviensi, secretario nostro, ex omnibus sacerdotiis in diocesi Cracoviensi remisimus, remittimusque praesentibus litteris, ac de ea ipsum quietamus ac liberamus, volentes omnio, ut contributionis eius nomine nihil ab eo per collectores illius exigatur. In cuius rei fidem manu nostra praesentibus subscripsimus et sigillum nostrum imprimi fecimus. Datum Gostinii, 20 mai anno Dni 1552.” T. Wierzbowski, Materials for a History of Polish Writings (Materyały do Piśmiennictwa Polskiego), Warsaw, 1904, vol. ii, p. 7, No. 15. This is a sample of many similar exemptions given the clergy.
[475] Note Charters of 1422, 1433, 1454, and 1505.
[476] Balzar, Corpus juris polonici, vol. iii, No. 261, pars. 7, 8, 10.
[477] Ibid., No. 69, pars. 16, 19.
[478] See above, p. 60.
[479] See above, pp. 60-61.
[480] Vol. leg., vol. ii, fol. 625, pars. 68, 74, 692; cf. above, pp. 60, 134.