Izabela Lewandowska-Malec

The trade contacts between the Kingdom of England and the Polish Commonwealth in the 17th c. were very lively. The commodity which was in particularly high demand in Poland was the English cloth. It was the English Trading Company with its seat in Elbląg that had the privilege for its supply. Yet political problems had exerted a negative impact on a harmonious economic cooperation. During the so called “Prussian” war of 1626, Gdańsk had retained its allegiance to the Polish Commonwealth, whereas Elbląg surrendered to the Swedes. In retaliation, at a Parliamentary session of 1628, Gdańsk had been granted compensation for the losses caused by the war and subsequently, due to the empty state treasury, it was granted the right to charge stamp duty on the cloth that was obligatorily transported through the Gdańsk port. Finally, the Trading Company had been deprived of its seat in Elbląg. The efforts of the Company agents, who also enjoyed the status of royal envoys, aimed at establishing the company’s seat in Gdańsk and ultimately liquidating the Gdańsk duty stamp. An example of the activities undertaken by the Company was the diplomatic mission of Francis Gordon at the Polish Seym in 1637. His legation had been received and heard by the deputies of the Polish Diet on 18 February; Gordon had read the letter of king Charles I Stuart pointing to the dangers and losses which resulted from stamping English cloth by the Gdańsk port authorities. Yet Gordon’s mission did not achieve anything as the Seym’s session ended ineffectively and no resolutions were passed. The battle for the liquidation of the stamp continued. At a successive Seym session in 1638, a resolution concerning a temporary suspension of the Gdańsk privilege had been reached; it was even debated whether the privilege is at all in accord with the law of the Polish Commonwealth, if it constituted a restriction of the freedom of trade. Finally at a Seym session in 1647, it was decided that the stamp should not be withdrawn, but that other port cities should also have a right to use it.

The review’s author regards the reviewed book as an important attempt to study the senators of the Crown as a ‘sejmujący’ class. The monograph presents a large quantity of details about the senators’ participation in the parliament’s works. However, Korytko focusses much more on the senators’ political activities than on their legislative undertakings e. g. the author devotes much consideration to the problems of the senators’ participation during the parliamentary and local assemblies’ sessions. One would expect to pay much more attention to the role of the senators in the procedure of convening the General Sejm by deliberatoria and in the legislative and control functions of the Polish-Lithuanian parliament.

When viewed from the perspective of the hitherto made research, the royal legacja and royal proposal are regarded as the manifestation of the monarch’s right to introduce bill. If that opinion were true the subject of debate held in the General Seym of the Crown should be the preliminary bills as contained in these two undertakings: the one made in writing (legacja), the other articulated by the words of mouth (proposal). These preliminary bills should be also reflected in the content of statutory law as adopted on their basis. Yet when thoroughly read, the texts of preserved legacjas and proposals, dating back to the reign of Sigismund III, do not seem to support that opinion. In fact the legacjas and proposals contained no – even those preliminarily formulated – bills. The legacjas and proposals may only fall under the category of programs of sessions of the Seyms that were planned to be convened.

These were first of all the deputies who had the right to introduce bills. It was therefore in the lower house that, as a result of debates, the bills were formed. The concepts of such bills, when unanimously adopted by lower house deputies, were subsequently subjected to conclusive acceptance in the Senate, the acceptance being made in the presence of three debating estates

The Archbishop of Gniezno who was the first senator of the Polish‐Lithuanian Republic, played one of the most significant roles in the State. His significance was due to this rights of vicarii regis that were granted to him as early as during the reign of Władysław Jagiełło. These rights were however not precisely formulated. The Archbishop of Gniezno performed the function of vicarious regis only sporadically, when this was indispensable. His position in this respect was subjected to legal regulations during the elective King’s era. The emergencies of the hour lead to the regulation of the Archbishop’s competence on occasion of Sigismund III’s trip abroad. Archbishop as Primate of Poland was authorized to call the Senate (but not the Seym) in order to receive the legations arriving in Poland (but only those arriving from Turkey, Tartar State or Muscovy). Also, if the State was threatened by an unexpected attack of the enemy the Archbishop could call the Senators to facilitate their joint proclaiming the third summons to arms addressed to levy in mass. According to the common belief, Primate Stanislaw Karnkowski exceeded his competence. Therefore in 1598, before the next trip of the monarch there was a tendency toward limiting his power to take the decisions unipersonally. The Archbishop however decidedly oppose the idea of limiting the power that he exercised in the King’s absence. The developments of the 1590s (organization of the assemblies of the nobles who protested against the poll‐tax) as well as those of 1593–94 and of 1598–99, testify to the emancipating efforts as made by the Primate in order to arrive at the specific political goals.