However, the evolution of the council's growth was not correct. The frequent break-ups of the sejmiks were a symptom of the disease of the sejmik, just as the break-up of the sejmiks was a symptom of the Council's weakness. We will only give the most outstanding examples of this breaking of assemblies. And so, in 1661, the voivodeship had no deputies at the Sejm for the broken sejmik3). And the next year, the pre-sejm assembly in Wiśnia was disrupted only because the king did not send a special representative to the assembly4). Exceptionally, the king appointed a second sejmik, and when in September of the same year the sejmik was dissolved, he allowed a second sejmik to be convened at the end of the month for the purpose of issuing tax petitions. a bunch of taxes.
This tearing up of the sejmiks was an episode of the struggle between the king, who was striving for reforms in the system of the Polish government, and the nobility, who pushed back these aspirations. The nobility also noticed that the tearing was taking place ex industria practicabili, and that in this way the war
') No. 224 art. 51. {' No. 293 art. 11. ') No. 172 art. 2. ł) No. 183 art. 1. *) No. 191 art. 1. •) No. 205. ') No. 807.
XXVIII
the chiefdoms were removed from the Sejm.. To prevent this, the Wisła sejmik gives instructions to its deputies elected in Wiśnia on September 28, 1666, that if there are no deputies in any voivodeship, they are not to proceed to the sejm conclusions, but ia vim praeparationis, until the sejmiks are dissolved by another universal of J. kr. Mci were not summarized and the members of the accersiti. They add, however, that if the universal were to be denied, then the first senator or succedaneus should have the power to assemble the sejmik, as well as the successor chamberlain and the officials succeeding him. The nobility's project did not come to fruition, but it nevertheless bears witness to their aspirations.
And the next year, attempts were made to break up the Wisze sejmik *), and the pre-sejm sejmik of November 14, 1667 was broken up2). When the Sejm and the regional council were dissolved in 1668, the camp assembly near Lviv, as we already know, decided to pay the banners. The assembly of October 15, appointed by the Primate, was also canceled; it is true - it should be added - that despite this, the necessary ordinances were passed at the Hood Courts on October 22, and as a Hood Laudum, this resolution was ordered to be submitted to the Convocation Sejm for approval. This sejmik was dissolved and reconvened twice 4). And in 1669 they complained in Wiśnia on February 4 that the sejmik had been broken and they decided to hold a congress in Lviv in order to adopt taxes 5), which sejmik took place, where a decree was also passed near Lviv, and at a similar sejmik near Przemyśl, the Przemyśl nobility decided on May 15 to allocate the spigot in the event of a future rupture. regional council. Let us add that in 1672 the sejmik of April 27, as well as the May sejmik, were broken6), and we will have a picture of a chronic disease of the sejmik, a disease which, as we see, was also the source of the misfortune of the expansion of the sejmik's power, because the broken sejm established congresses, which became sejmiks, and thus contributed to the acquisition of the prerogatives of the sejm and royal rights for the sejmik, namely the right to convene the sejmik. This right to convene a sejmik - as we see - actually began to belong to the sejmik, while the sejmik was properly appointed from the sejm, or it was convened by his universal authority by the king and in his stead by the voivode. brought accusations of illegality against these assemblies - and in this illegality lay the source of danger for the council itself, which clearly turned out after the first Tarnogród Confederation.
It is also worth mentioning one way in which the nobility dealt with the shortcomings of the assemblies. Due to the increasing number of land matters, the disruption of the sejmiks, the lack of a full number of nobility, the fear of breaking up the sejmik, and other circumstances, necessary resolutions were postponed until the immediately following first meeting of the nobility. ^The usual practice was followed here, because the salaries taken from the Sejm to the brothers were adopted at the first such meeting, or even at court hearings, and also
') No. 237 art. 2 and 3 J) Ob. No. 277 art. 1. 3) Ob. No. 241 art. 3. *, Ob. No. 246 art. 1. cl'. No. 215 art. 1. ') No. 252. artl. cf. No. 256 art. 1. •) cf. No. 294 note. ') Ob. protestation of October 16, 165 under No. 88
XXIX