If it follows from the above that, as it were, the general assembly itself had the seeds of decentralization, that the general assembly held separate meetings and adopted separate resolutions for each of the three lands in matters of taxation and defense, then it should be added that this decentralization was not very useful for the state, its unity and cohesion, as it brought some disarray and confusion inside the state. A visible example of such confusion can be seen at the sejmik meeting after the defeat at Batoh in Wiśnia on June 11, 1652. It involves the separation of the discordant sejmik and secession. Przemyślnie stays in Wiśnia and elects envoys under their marshal1), the rest of the voivodeship, under the guidance of Bazyl Ustrzycki, elects other envoys in the field on the Rako River 2) - the inhabitants of Sanok agree to elect those elected at Wiśnia, but they do not agree to conscription, and they also organize a protest against it 3). There is therefore confusion regarding resolutions. It should be added that, as the people of Przemyśl reveal themselves in their manifestation 4), they did not want a general assembly at all and even before the assembly they communicated in letters that, both because of the air and constant fears, each land would have a separate assembly.
It is easy to understand that the king canceled the resolutions of both circles as invalid 5) and that he appointed another sejmik, which was also held. The same deputies were elected at this second sejmik who were previously elected in one of the groups on June 11, and the conscription resolution was abolished and other taxes were adopted, but those who issued a conscription according to the canceled resolution were ordered to deduct it from the newly adopted taxes.
In this way, the king corrected the mistakes of decentralization of the sejmik. However, if he prevented the confusion that originated from decentralization, on the other hand, it should be added that sometimes he himself caused it. We have proof of this in the separate assembly for the landowners of Przemyśl and Sanok established by the king on January 19, 1767 in Przemyśl. The king's omission of the general assembly and the breakdown of the assembly's unity could not have pleased the inhabitants of Lviv. This conclusion stems from the fact that when it was passed in Przemyśl that if any landowner of the voivodeship, in the district or in the land, fulfilled the obligation of war service in person or with an expedition, he would also fulfill the provisions of the expedition and costs in the Przemyśl region, the inhabitants of Lviv immediately protested at their assembly against the adopted resolution. The landowners of Przemyśl and Sanok were similarly dissatisfied when, in 1662, the king, in order to speed up the payment of taxes, organized a sejmik for the Lviv land in Lviv6); they considered such separation of the Lviv land as a injustice and the king was forced to organize a joint assembly in Wiśnia for all three lands. It's October 26 there
') Lauda II. No. 48. *) Ib. No. 49. "») No. 62. *) No. 51. 5) No. 53, No. 65, art. 14 and 16. «) No. 195 cf. No. 196, art. 1.
XVI
the Lviv laudum was canceled and the nobility of all three lands promised each other with a brotherly word that they would not organize any separations or separate assemblies *).
Is. It was a characteristic moment in the life of the sejmik that only at the sight of the king intervening due to the chaos in the centralized sejmik did the nobility wake up and look for ways to prevent decentralization that was dissolving the sejmik and progressing in its development by force of facts. The consequence of this development was, as already mentioned, the decline of the importance of the general assembly outside.