In addition to these general confederations concluded by the voivodeship for the duration of the interregnum, three particular associations of the nobility, i.e. confederations, appeared within a short period of years, dating back to Zebrzydowski's rebellion. A lawsuit from these unions was concluded against Sienieński in Przerayśhł in 1607; dragi in 1610 established in Wiśnia due to the invasion of Transylvania, the third one in 1611 in Lviv established due to the recklessness of soldiers.
In each of these associations, landowners take on enforcement power to support public safety, replacing the authorities who are no longer able to cope with the task. As for the relationships during the interregnum, it should be noted that according to the concepts of the time, the source of power, which was the king, ceased to exist with his death - power passed into the hands of the landowners, who exercised both the administration and the judiciary. They form the government based on the general confederation, but they form their own government in the voivodeship, as well as their own hood court; power is transferred "together", there are as many governments in the Republic of Poland as there are voivodeships. The highest positions are filled by the Confederate assembly; Hieronim Sieniawski, voivode of Ruthenia, was a nominee of the nobility. The sejmik, although in the interregnum, becomes a power.
It was unfortunate that the development of parliamentarism during the interregnum was strongly influenced by dissidentism, which was still very strong and numerous throughout the Crown. Under the influence of this dissident trend that emerged immediately in the first interregnum, the very basis of the confederation was distorted, because "referring as the basis of one's own existence to the confederation established in 1438, against Hussitism and its principles, a principle was introduced under this cover, which was the opposite of de dissidentibus, which immediately had to be reflected in the entire direction of government. And so for example, this new direction is visible in the slogans about the exclusion of electors from the Habsburg house, in the increasingly more precisely formulated principle that the deputies are mandate holders of the estate's interests, to such an extent that, as we have evidence, they were entrusted with all
XIII
private cases to be defended in the Sejm court 1). It is true that the desire to extend the hood courts to all states proves the desire for unity in terms of law and justice, but here too these aspirations are accompanied by the interest of the estates, so why is the city of Lviv, although invited to all confederations, evading the benefits of the hood courts and establishing a firm protest against the hood courts? each voivodeship, is communicated to the entire Republic of Poland in such a way that the institutions established by these voivodeships, with minor changes, are one and the same throughout the Republic of Poland, and thus, despite particular differences, the Republic of Poland has a strong state, able to maintain state unity, at least in the name of its own state interests, even during the interregnum.
Drawing abundantly from numerous sources of growth in parliamentary life, using each landowner's meeting to increase its seriousness and importance, the landowners ensured that the assembly had to grow and the number of meetings had to multiply. Indeed, during the times of Stephen Batory and Sigismund III, there was an increase in the types of sejmiks. As already mentioned, in addition to the elective sejmiks convened by the voivode, there was a pre-sejm sejmik, convened by the king or by virtue of a resolution of the Sejm, during which the elective committees of the deputies were elected, who were provided with instructions regarding their activities at the Sejm, and for this purpose instructions were written down for them. From the date of foundation of the Lublin tribunal, i.e. from 1578, there was an electoral sejmik of deputies, then from 1591 a relational sejmik, initially held together with the deputies' sejmik3), and later on separate dates, during which the deputies reported on their parliamentary activities.