Even the commanding tone in instructions for sejmiks was not abolished even once when Władysław IV. he put his demands in a somewhat ruthless form, the sejmik complained that the king had deigned to give instructions in harsh words 4). Under King John Casimir, not only were absolute orders no longer abolished, but, as we know, the 1662 sejmik was broken up when the king sent only instructions to Wiśnia, without submitting them through an envoy5). The sejmik was to be sent not by universals, but by an envoy, the king was threatened, although, as the king explained, 6) the customs of the chancellery were not in line with the wishes of the nobility. But the threat of the sejmiks that we will not recognize such private universals and will not attend sejmiks ") testified to the tense relations between the sejmik and the king. But not only for formal reasons was manifested the suffrage of sejmik rights from the king's advantage and dissatisfaction with the king's rule, but also with his orders aimed at strengthening and strengthening the defense. When in 1658 the king sent to the voivodeship commandant of the popular militia, there was an outcry from the local assembly because of "the order issued against the law of the voivodeship, because the castellan is the commander of the common militia" 8). Even in the matter of defense, the king and central authorities did not want to allow interference in the land. In the same way, in 1969, it was stipulated in Wiśni9) that when the łbrtification of Lviv was treated at this assembly, it should not be constituted by any universals.
') Lauda I. No. 20!i art 8. s) Ib. No. 228 art. 62. ') Ib No. 185 art. 1. cf. No. 151 art. 40. No. 184 art. 68; Volume 11. No. 124 art. 129. *) Ib. No. 231 art. 5. ») Landa II. No. 183. °) Ib. No. 2«! art. 6. "and Ib. No. 201, art. 1. •) Ib. No. 144, art. 22. •) Ib. No. 154, art. 15.
XXIII
and that no (provincial) money, neither from the spigot nor from the excise tax, would be allocated for this fortification.
The nobility noticed John Casimir's restoration plans early and, as we will note below, defended themselves against them, especially against the disruption of the assemblies, deliberately carried out!) by the king's supporters. The assembly also defended the liberum veto; it was passed in 1666 to demand a constitution that if, after liberum veto, a deputy leaves the Chamber of Deputies with a protest, he already has omnis actus cessare2). Then, their deputies were so closely associated with the interests of the land or the voivodeship that they wanted a parliamentary resolution requiring each deputy to take an oath to his or her voivodeship, a rota of which was also formulated3), and they also demanded that an envoy should not be elected one sejm after the sejm - of course, in order to make it more difficult for the throne to gain relations among the deputies.
As is known, King John Casimir succumbed in the fight to reform the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, fought between the king and the nobility. The victory of the nobility was marked in the acts of the sejmik with the demand to declare Condeus an enemy of the homeland and to restore Marshal Lubomirski to favor4). Therefore, the royal response given to the envoys of the Ruthenian Voivodeship at the moment when he was going to subdue the Marshal, by virtue of which he renounced the help offered by the Ruthenian Voivodeship against the Marshal, is quite understandable. 5) The Wisze sejmik was in tense relations with the king until the end of John Casimir's reign. They were told to thank the king for the condition of a free election, but at the same time they were ordered to ask him to expel the French envoy in order to expel the scruples ex animis eh/urn. 6). When the news about the king's resignation had already spread throughout the voivodeship, the Wisła sejmik, presenting the council in its own voivodeship and anticipating its resolutions, demanded from its deputies that if the rzpta demanded the king to repeat the oath of super pacia conrenta, the voivodeship deputies were to comply with the consent of all. ") Shortly afterwards, at their sejmik on May 15, 1669 in Sanok, the inhabitants of Sanok ordered their deputies to demand in their instructions8) that the king take an oath that no practices or facts would interfere with or interfere with the chamber of deputies and sejmiks (as well as the senate), neither himself nor through subordinated persons. he brought this one, he will hand him over and judge him, because the Lord God will do more good through the hearts of the people and the people, and that the organization will not be inviolable and that the king and no one in general dare to even think about changes. radical reforms.