Suchergebnisse

During the Saxon period (1697–1763) the Sejm of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth experienced an extremely serious crisis. The latter, however, did not come into being in 1697, but was a continuum of the inferior functioning of the Polish Parliament already during the previous years. In the course of the Saxon era this crisis grew more grievous as demonstrated by the intervention of foreign states (Russia, Prussia, the Empire, France, and partly Sweden) into the functioning of the Polish Parliament. The outcome assumed the form of a paralysis of the legislature, making it impossible to carry out indispensable reforms within the state. At the time of Augustus II the Strong (1697–1733) the Sejms partly fulfilled their function and were even capable of introducing order into the legal treasury system in Poland (e.g. the Silent Sejm in 1717), but during the reign of Augustus III (1734–63) the Sejm became the sole arena of the political struggle waged by the royal court and magnate factions, often supported by neighbouring countries. The symbol of the role played by this particular monarch was the solitary Sejm held at the time, which ended with the passage of a constitution (the pacification Sejm of 1736). Despite its decline the Sejm remained of considerable importance for the nobility of the modern era. Conceived as a symbol of the functioning of the state it was treated as pupilla libertatis, a personification of the sovereign existence of the state and an institution indispensable for reforming and modernising the country.

The purpose of Stanisław Chomentowski's mission as the Grand Ambassador to the Sublime Porte in 1712–1714 was to confirm the terms of the Treaty of Karlowitz, signed in 1699, and to reduce the political tension between the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Turkey, which in late 1712 and throughout almost entire 1713 even threatened to erupt in an armed conflict between the two states. Considering the course of the mission, the difficulties in completing it, and even the temporary restriction of the Polish diplomat's freedom on the territory of the Ottoman state, its results should be regarded as definitely positive. Chomentowski's visit to Turkey, where he was supported by Augustus II's other diplomats, Franciszek Goltz (starosta of Śrem) and Jan Spiegel, resulted in averting the Turkish threat and renewing the terms of the Treaty of Karlowitz. The three missions, conducted by Chomentowski, Spiegel and Goltz, should be studied in the context of Augustus II's one large-scale diplomatic action, which ended successfully. It also proves that the work of the Polish diplomatic service in the times of the kings from the House of Wettin, about which historians, paradoxically, do not have a very high opinion to this day, was actually quite effective.

".OUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN SPOILED, IT REQUIRES IMPROVEMENT AND NOT ALTERATION." JÓZEF ANDRZEJ ZAŁUSKI'S CONCEPT OF THE FUNCTIONING OF CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF THE NOBILIARY REPUBLIC Józef Andrzej Załuski, bishop of Kiev and the alleged author of Opisanie krótkie niektórych interessów wewnętrznych Najjaśniejszej Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w roku 1762 (Brief description of some internal interests of the Eminent Polish Nobiliary Republic in 1762), tried to survey a series of opinions and reflections on the constitutional system of Poland at the decline of the reign of August III of Vettin dynasty and the beginning of reign of Stanisław August Poniatowski. The major element of Załuski's analysis is his attitude toward liberum veto which was one of the most crucial elements of the Polish constitutional system. While perceiving the negative aspect of the abuse arising from the liberum veto, Załuski considered the latter to be the immanent part of the Polish constitution. He therefore regarded the liberum veto as something unavoidable and as something what produced a counterbalance vis-à-vis the voting by majority, the latter being applied in England, Sweden and Denmark. It is easy to observe that Załuski was a firm opponent of the majority vote system. What – in his opinion - was detrimental to the Polish Republic was the absence of the effective implementation of good laws. As a result he did not see any need for the introduction of new constitutional devices. The volume published by the bishop of Kiev assumed, to a large extent, also the shape of polemics conducted by him with Stanisław Konarski and with the treaty of the latter On the Effective Advice.