Chapter IV (2)

Thus spurred on by his friends, Orzechowski took courage, renounced his clerical vows, and entered the state of matrimony. Bishop Dziaduski, struck with consternation, did not at first know what to do, but in the end resolved to carry out his threat, On April 8, 1551, he issued his verdict against Orzechowski, annulling his marriage and excommunicating him. On presentation of the case by the primate to the king, Sigismund Augustus confirmed the episcopal verdict in accordance with his pledge given the Polish bishops in December, 1550,[453] and instructed Peter Kmita, starosta of Przemyśl, to execute it. At the same time the king issued an order to all the starostas to execute the verdicts of episcopal courts in all cases of condemned and excommunicated heretics. Excommunicated by the church, Orzechowski was deprived of honor and property, exiled from the country, and in danger of being put to death, if caught.[454]

The news of Orzechowski’s excommunication by Bishop Dziaduski and of the royal confirmation of the episcopal verdict without a trial came like a lightning stroke from the clear sky. Orzechowski’s case was the first instance in the history of the Polish Commonwealth of a noble deprived of honor and of his hereditary possessions and condemned to exile and death as a result of episcopal excommunication, without due trial, according to law, guaranteed the Polish nobility by the Charter of Jedlnia (1483). Immediately the nobles, not only of Orzechowski’s province, but of the whole of Poland, rose as one man against this high-handed attack on their liberties both by the clergy and by the king. Orzechowski’s neighbors were ready to defend him in case the starosta tried to execute the verdict; but Peter Kmita neither dared, nor wanted to execute it. He preferred to wait and see what the Diet of 1552 was going to do about the whole matter.[455]

The local diets of 1551, at which the szlachta elected the deputies to the General Diet of 1552, fairly seethed with the indignation of the Polish nobility. The clergy, on the other hand, greatly elated over their apparent victory and pleased with the king’s stand regarding the Orzechowski affair, called a synod at Piotrków, at which they decided to bind the king still closer to their cause by offering him the estates of all condemned heretics; and to frighten the nobility into submission they excommunicated at this synod Stadnicki and Lasocki, two very influential and popular heretics in their respective palatinates. The excommunicated magnates went from one local diet to another, informed the szlachta of the ecclesiastical verdicts, reported the resolutions of the synod, and read the king’s pledge given the bishops secretly in 1550 in exchange for their consent to Queen Barbara’s coronation, and which had been secured and made public by Nicholas Lutomirski, castellan of Zawichow. They called upon the szlachta to defend their lives and property.[456]

The indignation and anger of the nobility of Little Poland rose so high that it almost reached the point of massacring the clergy and of bringing in Protestant ministers from abroad to take their places. As deputies to the Diet of 1552 they chose the most decided opponents of the clergy, and instructed them to take up no measures until the king defined episcopal authority and invalidated the above mentioned verdicts of episcopal courts.[457]

The Diet of 1552 convened at Piotrków. The secular nobility, both the senators and the deputies, were in a most hostile frame of mind toward the clergy. Even as faithful a Catholic as Hetman Jan Tarnowski refused to shake hands with Bishop Dziaduski of Przemyśl, turning away from him, when the latter came to the hetman’s house to greet him.[458] Raphael Leszczyński, president of the Chamber of Deputies, stood with his head covered during the celebration of the opening mass. When the diet had been duly opened, the Chamber, under the leadership of Leszczyński, unequivocally demanded the abolition of episcopal jurisdiction, stating that no other measure would be considered until that demand was complied with. The secular portion of the Senate, under the leadership of Jan Tarnowski, did not go quite so far, but it seconded the Chamber’s demand to this extent, that it, too, called for bringing ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the limits of law.[459] The Polish nobility stood firm by their demand for the abolition of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The bishops, on the other hand, were equally determined not to surrender it. The decision rested finally with the king. After a bitter struggle of two months, due partly to the royal vacillation, the king at last handed a decision that in all cases of heresy the bishops have jurisdiction. The verdict created no small consternation among the secular senators as well as among the deputies. But, though apparently fully victorious, the bishops, sensing the feeling against them and taking counsel of wisdom in time, consented to suspension of their jurisdiction for one year until at the next diet or at a national synod the country’s laws and the church’s canons could be harmonized, provided the nobles agreed to continue the payment of tithes.[460]

This concession on the part of the Polish episcopate, did not, however, conciliate the Polish nobility. The nobles felt that their rights and liberties had been outraged and were in danger of being completely violated. The turn of events in 1552 made them only all the more determined to fight. In great numbers they came out now for the Reformation. Inside of one year nearly all the Polish nobility, according to Dr. Kubala, left the Roman Catholic Church and embraced the faith of the Reformation. The speed with which the Polish nobles tried to change their form of worship had no parallel. They invited reformers from abroad; they converted their manor houses into places of worship; they built hospitals, schools, and homes of refuge for persecuted dissidents; and the new doctrines were preached through the whole length and breadth of the country.[461] Great Poland, where the influence of Hussitism still survived, accepted, under the leadership of James Ostrorog, the tenets of faith and form of worship of the Bohemian Brethren. By 1557 there were thirty Bohemian Brethren churches in Great Poland, and all the leading aristocratic families, the Ostrorogs, the Leszczyńskis, the Tomickis, the Krotowskis, and the Opalińskis, turned Protestant.[462] Little Poland, under the leadership of the Zborowskis, Nicholas Oleśnicki, and Stanislaus Stadnicki, became Calvinistic. In “terra Sandeceniensis,” the home province of Orzechowski, all the nobility became Protestant by 1554; and by 1560, according to a letter of Bishop Przyrębski to Bishop Kamerini, one hundred and sixty churches in Little Poland broke away from the jurisdiction of the Church of Rome.[463] In Lithuania, under the leadership of Nicholas Radziwill, the foremost aristocratic families accepted Calvinism. They were the Radziwills, the Kiszkas, the Chlebowiczes, the Sapiehas, the Słuźkis, the Zawiszes, the Wiśniowieckis, the Wojnas, the Paces, the Abramowiczes, the Wołowiczes, the Ogińskis, the Zienowiczes, the Pruńskis, the Naruszewiczes, the Talwoczes, the Drohostajskis, the Puzynas, the Szemiotas, the Gruźewskis, the Góreckis, and others. By 1559 the Catholics in Lithuania constituted only one-thousandth part of the population.[464] So strong was the sentiment now against the Church of Rome that men well known for their antagonism to Rome, like James Uchański and Andrew Frycz Modrzewski, were selected and sent as Poland’s delegates to the Council of Trent.[465] In 1535 at the Diet at Piotrków the calling of a National Synod to adjust the existing differences and difficulties was agreed upon, and a delegation was dispatched to Rome by the king with a request for the Pope’s sanction of that plan as well as of a number of practical reforms. Needless to say, the desired papal sanction was not granted. On the contrary, the Pope immediately sent a legate to Poland in the person of Alois Lippomano, bishop of Verona, to stave off any such possibilities. In his first interview with the king Lippomano advised the Polish monarch, for the sake of an example and a warning, to execute twenty leading dissidents. Owing to his harshness and lack of tact, this papal nuncio became so unpopular in Poland, that when in 1556 he entered the Diet Chamber, the deputies shouted: “Salve, progenies viperarum!”[466] At the Diet of 1557 security and freedom were guaranteed all foreign Reformed ministers.[467]

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).

[359] See Appendix, No. 1.

[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.