lauds relating to this siege under Nos. 122-124, we have a source indication that Marshal Lubomirski also distinguished himself during the first and second siege, during the Swedish siege of 1656, he came to the relief in large regiments of people, he eliminated the city, and during Rákóczi's incursion, he early sent several hundred people to all the units to defend the fortress at his own expense. given to them by Mr. Giza, who sent his inn to Przemyśl, against this enemy he honored 1). This assistance, of course, increased the expenses of the city and the land, so the council decided to allocate one collection in the Przemyśl land for this purpose and, moreover, impose a contribution on each of the current defenders of the city, of course on the nobility, which was immediately paid 2). The fact that the city was also asked to provide accounts of the defense expenses used is not surprising, considering that a penny was contributed to the city's defense, that the king also sent ashes and cannon, and that the land was responsible for ensuring that its money was used only for fortification purposes3). According to the laudum of 1657, the townspeople of Przemyśl were to make an account and use the gunpowder and cannon sent to prove themselves to the Przemyśl town office at future querels. We also learn that the fortification of the city of Przemyśl was started by Andrzej Maxymilian Fredro, known in the native literature4), that in 1658 separate consultations were held regarding this fortification5), that in 1667 the fiscal court in Przemyśl ordered the fortification of the city, giving notice of the fortress to Marcin Madaleński, the local starosta6) and also Żurowski as seperintendent of the fortress. In fact, on October 1, the nobility at the regional council in Przemyśl decided to spend certain sums on recruiting infantry to defend the city, and other decisions were made aimed at defending the capital of the Przemyśl land. On April 16, 1668, he was sent back
Within a year, Godlewski was dismissed and on December 12, the king appointed Franciszek Dubrawski as the city commander (C. Pr. 384, p. 120) and submitted an assembly to the Przemyśl nobility on January 19 in Przemyśl, in order to devise the best possible defense for both the city and the city of Krosno, supplying people and preparing provisions. Franciszek Dubrawski, chamberlain of Przemyśl, was not a friend of the military, he did not tolerate stations or hibernation on noble estates as a right defender of noble freedoms, (G. Pr. 384 p. 8) but, as can be seen from the resolutions of the local councils, he energetically continued Godlewski's work. (No. 115) A presidential banner was erected and the command was given to Kasper Wojakowski, and a tax on this banner was passed, as a new danger hung over the city. Rakoczy lured the nobility to his obedience with universals and was approaching Przemyśl with a large army. Only on January 19, 1657, the nobility confirmed Dubrawski as the commander of Przemyśl and approved infantry for defense (No. 117), and already on January 23, Dubrawski called on the nobility to defend the city (C. Pr. 384 p. 94). Even though there was enough of it, and even though the townspeople were willing to defend themselves just like last year, the defense itself was not as efficient as last year. At No. 122, we quote the laudum of March 3, 1657, during the siege of Transylvania, under which it was decided to pay a ransom to liberate the city from the enemy, and for this purpose certain sums were deposited among the nobility, including an additional 12,000 zlotys. p. from the staroste of Nowy Targ, Mikołaj Ossoliński, and a ransom was collected. (C. Pr. 384 p. 323) We know that the middle class also belonged to the contribution and in the archives of the city of Przemyśl we have evidence that several years later the above-mentioned merchant Abraham Krownicki demanded the return of PLN 4,530 in Warsaw. p., issued for ransom (Arch. m. Prz. f. 409. No. 38). In the archive there is a list of the terms of withdrawal from the city, given by Rakoczy, but apparently not accepted by the city, the act has neither date nor signatures. In any case, the files show a significant difference in the defense of the city ordered by Godlewski from that ordered a year later by the chamberlain of Przemyśl. ») No. 144 art. 47. laudum of 1658 2) No. 1*6 art. 2 and 3! 3) See the laudum from 1657, Xr. 115 art. 7. «) No. 149 art. 11. ') No. 144. art. 71. «) Xr. 230,
XXXIII