Procedure in Polish-Lithuanian parliaments from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries

Abstract

SUMMARY In the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries the parliamentarianism of Poland-Lithuania was reflective of certain unique, self-governmental features that characterized the entire Polish-Lithuanian state. Unlike other European countries of the time which drifted toward absolutism, Poland-Lithuania evolved into a democracy of nobles with a king whose position resembled rather that of a president for life. His power was considerably limited. He was left with the business of implementing laws and only a slight share in creating them. In addition, he could be impeached and dethroned if he did something contra legem, the nobility in such cases having the right to organize an armed league or konfederacja and take the government into their hands. It is also worthwhile noting that the Polish-Lithuanian nobility, organized upon remarkably egalitarian principles, were succesfully protected against the arbitrary power of state agencies. They could not be detained or imprisoned without due process of law. Applying the due process of the law was also indispensable for depriving them of their landed estates. In addition, the nobles enjoyed religious toleration and, generally, had a large share in the government of the country. The legislative power in Poland-Lithuania was vested in a parliament of two houses (Conventio Magna, in Polish: Seym). Kazimierz Baran places much emphasis on the functioning of the Seymik or local assembly of the nobility because this assembly was integrally bound up with the functioning of the central legislative body and with an effective implementation of the idea of direct democracy. In some of the around seventy provinces of the Respublica, the Seymik participants might occasionally reach the number of 1,200 (theoretically many thousand could turn up) and had therefore to meet outdoors. The major function of the Seymik was to elect a deputy to the lower house of the Seym and provide him with instructions for the Seym debates. At certain periods, when the Conventio Magna was in crisis, the competence of the Seymik extended to such fields as the economy, collecting taxes and the recruitment of soldiers. At the central level the unique feature of Polish-Lithuanian parliamentarianism was demonstrated by the principle of unanimous consent applied while adopting laws in the lower house of the Seym. Until the mid-seventeenth century both the high patriotic spirit and the political morale of the mass of gentry, as well as certain specific mechanisms like the ‘dispersed-lower-house’ device, prevented the parliamentary sessions from being broken off irrevocably by an individual deputy who claimed the so-called liberum veto in the name of the nobles of his province. Later, matters deteriorated considerably, forcing the patriotic nobles to resort to the idea of confederacy and convene the parliaments under its slogan. The confederated Seym could not be broken off by an individual negative vote. It was thanks to one such parliament that, in 1791, the principle of majority vote was eventually introduced in the lower house.