9 This phenomenon took the form of substantive action in the last years of Stanislav August Poniatowski's reign. The construction of a concept related to the nation and an attempt to define it will be indispensable. An example of its use was recorded in the speech of the priest Canon Hajewski in 1790.
Finally, it is necessary to refer to the monarch as the subject of the discussion being analyzed. This theory, opposed to the traditional sovereignty of the monarch, served the movement for the limitation of royal rights. The sovereignty of the republic was therefore to some extent shared between the nobles and the king.
This situation changed with the adoption of the Constitution of 3 May.
The Nation
Introduction
Attempts to limit the rights of the non-proprietary nobility will cause heated debates. For a large majority of writers, the decision-making power rests in the will of the people. As it turns out, even in an open public discussion, the concept of nation will be reduced to only the nobility.
Thoughts on improving the form of government", these words said: "Free government is of such importance that no one but the nation is the heir of the country. Question] Can natural and property laws be changed by the Constitution of the Polish government? Thus, the duty of the Republic was to guarantee freedom and equality to the state of the lesser nobles.
All voices in the parliamentary debate are full of indications that these disputes were led by "the nation". Not the rich, but the virtuous are the glory of the country", said Józef Olizar. The king's words recorded in the spring of 1791 are of a slightly more progressive nature, i.e.
He believed that it was not enough for townspeople to have the right to transmit. During the discussions in May, doubts about the legitimacy of the Grand Parliament to pass the constitution returned. Again, a broader reference or modern understanding of the term “nation” is lacking.
The military is nothing but a defensive and decent force that comes from the overall strength of the nation. The said nation was still divided into classes, which was reflected in the structure of the constitution.
- Introduction
- The Monarch in the Debate of Public Media
- The Monarch in the Parliamentary Debate
- The Monarch in the Constitutional Acts
146 At the same time, it was reluctantly admitted that the king was a stabilizing element in the political system. Rules for the Improvement of the Form of Government” in December 1789, followed by the ongoing debates in the autumn of 1790 on a draft of the Cardinal Laws and then on the Proclamation to the Nation. The main stage of discussions in the free media about the role of the monarch was the dispute between the protagonists and antagonists of the royal succession.
It will be noted, however, that the votes in favor of the abolition of the monarchy in the system of government were very rare. As noted, it was very easy for Parliament to become a place to discuss the duties of the King and the manner of his appointment. 166 Unfortunately, this is not the place to discuss the process of creating the final text of the Constitution and mutual chases between the King and Ignacy Potocki.
In the course of it, members of the reform camp spoke out, arguing for succession and trying to assuage the king's theatrically expressed but justified concerns. 169 The latter's representative, member Chomiński from Oszmiana, argued that such a large group of antagonists of the Constitution means that the nation does not release the king from the pacta conventa oath. The Rules for the Improvement of the Form of Government" ( Zasady do poprawy formy rądądu ) from December 1789 almost ignored the issues of the King's legal status.
Defining, above all, the powers of the nobility, the stipulated principles determined the election of the King of the Roman Catholic religion. The King was devoted only to Article VII of the Constitution of the 3rd of May ("The King, the executive power. The person of the King was to be "holy and safe from all things." "To do nothing alone, cannot respond on the nation in relation to any matter”.
Therefore, there was talk of the creation of "something like the king's institution within the guard", whereas Bogusław Leśnodorski even considered a possible analogy with the presidential system in the United States. Feliks Oraczewski, an envoy in Paris, maintained a negative image of the revolution in the king's perspective. It can be assumed that, contrary to numerous antagonists, it would not have come to a strong consolidation of the royal power at the expense of the noble parliamentary representation.
In none of the feudal countries did the parliament play such a polymorphous role as in Poland, nor was it so strongly connected with the history of the nation and the state, nor did it have such a great influence on history. The sources analyzed show that modern Western political doctrines were familiar to protagonists of the era of the Great Parliament. At the same time, however, they were subject to a specific new interpretation and to some extent also functioned as a tool for petrifying the existing system.
As Bogusław Leśnodorski rightly pointed out, “natural law”, “sovereignty of the nation”, “separation of powers” – all these terms had a specific meaning for us. At the same time, attention must be paid to a certain myth-creating role of the political thought of the First Republic. The traditional Polish idea of the "noble nation", and therefore the idea of defending the noble freedom, transformed into the principle of defense of national.
183 Joachim Lelewel would soon announce that the principle of the noble nation's sovereignty was an embryonic form of the principle of the people's sovereignty. Finally, it is worth giving the floor to the author of the Catechism who underlined the fact that in Poland accidents rarely come from nature - no earthquakes or famines are known and the plagues are rare. One can only consider whether it could follow the same path as Britain, moving into the modern era of the rule of law without episodes of absolute rule.
Polska ma swoje własne nieszczęścia, „oddzielone od innych narodów”, czyli międzyrządy, konfederacje, wybory, korupcję wyborów, amnestie i „przez te ustalenia jej rządu republika będzie tak udręczona i osłabiona”, że wystarczy, aby wyprosić „wszystkie konsekwencje katastrofalnej wojny”. Były to słowa niezwykle prorocze, gdyż niedługo potem Polska utraciła suwerenność na ponad 100 lat, a Konstytucja 3 Maja i dalsze plany posłów Wielkiego Sejmu pozostały jedynie reformą na papierze. Ograniczonym kwerendą objęto także źródła archiwalne z zakresu notatek i korespondencji prywatnej głównych bohaterów procesów politycznych (dotychczas Ignacy Potocki, Kołłątaj, wybrane zespoły zachowanych pism o Stanisławie Augustie). Dotychczasowe wyniki trudno ocenić jako zadowalające, a ta kategoria zasobów niewątpliwie wymaga pogłębionej analizy.
Zwracamy uwagę na fakt, że suwerenność utożsamiana jest z niezależnością od sąsiednich mocarstw i bezpieczeństwem wewnętrznym, co jest w sposób naturalny wynikiem działania państwa w sytuacjach nadzwyczajnych – w okresie po pierwszym rozbiorze Polski, w okresie prób samowyzwolenia . spod protektoratu Rosji w przejściowej, sprzyjającej sytuacji geopolitycznej. Sprawowanie władzy suwerennej powierzono posłom zgromadzonym w sejmie (cecha ta nie była bezpośrednio przypisywana mianowanym członkom Senatu; oczywiście zmiana nastąpiłaby, gdyby procedury wyboru senatorów przez następców Stanisława sierpnia z dwóch kandydatów wszedł w życie i nieco zdemokratyzował kwestię). Nie można zapominać, że więź posła ze społecznością lokalną była traktowana poważnie – poseł był formalnie związany instrukcjami, na jarmarkach informował o wnioskach z jarmarku, a oni ostatecznie zakończyli proces uchwalania konstytucji - jarmarki zebrały się jesienią 1792 r.
Jednocześnie nie ulega wątpliwości, że naród polityczny ograniczał się jedynie do szlachty, choć trzeba też wziąć pod uwagę fakt jego znacznego odsetka w ogólnej populacji (ok. 8%), który dawał prawa wyborcze większej liczbie osób konto. . liczbę wyborców niż wiele XIX-wiecznych konstytucji opartych na kryteriach majątkowych. Posłowie podeszli do sprawy znacznie ostrożniej niż publicyści, upatrując w działalności ruchu burżuazyjnego i wydarzeniach „czarnej procesji” rodzaj szantażu, groźby rewolucji społecznej i „franchizmu”. Choć polski porządek polityczny nie daje prawa do stawiania tezy o suwerennej władzy króla, mimo że formuła konstytucji została zatwierdzona wolą króla, niezwykle ważne jest, aby obraz dopełnić sprawa budząca duże emocje polityczne. .
Open Access This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, a link to the Creative Commons license is provided and any changes made are indicated. The images or other third-party material in this chapter are included in the work's Creative Commons license, unless otherwise indicated in the credit line; if such material is not included in the work's Creative Commons license and the respective action is not permitted by statutory regulation, users will need to obtain permission from the licensee to duplicate, adapt or reproduce the material.
Tak naprawdę w debacie parlamentarnej nie odważono się podnieść tej kontrowersyjnej kwestii, a samo przyjęcie w Ustawie Rządowej regulacji dotyczącej wyboru dynastii, a właściwie sukcesji na tron, było w oczach „republikanów ", swój grzech śmiertelny. Materiały konferencji naukowej zorganizowanej przez Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Instytut Historii Uniwersytetu Pedagogicznego w Krakowie w dniach 2-5 kwietnia 2001 r., red. Misja Feliksa Oraczewskiego do Paryża w latach Sejmu Wielkiego w świetle jego korespondencji ze Stanisławem Augustem Poniatowskim i Joachimem Chreptiowiczem.
