Source catalogue

The delegates confirm receipt of the letter from the Lwów magistrate with Sejm projects. They declare their respect for its will but do not understand the reasons for the decision provided in the letter. They announce their further journey. A dense postscript contains additional instructions, largely unreadable.

The presidents of the Lwów council assure sub-judge Łoś that in the case of the Osmulska tenement house initiated by the Kaniów starosta, they will not allow any prejudice to his rights. They promise treatment in accordance with justice and the dignity of the addressee; the letter does not contain a resolution of the dispute.

The authors write from Zamość to the Lwów magistrate about the difficulties of the journey. Before departure, the axle of the luggage wagon broke; reloading items and obtaining parts for the carriage delayed the trip. They set off in the evening for Janów, leaving the driver with the belongings, and the next day they waited for him until noon. Further on, the carriage kept breaking down. The final part of the report is missing.

The councilors of Przemyśl postpone all lawsuits with Lwów before the royal relational and assessor courts until March 6, 1595, in the hope of a settlement and with the preservation of the parties' rights. They mention a similar commitment from the people of Lwów.

The councilors of Przemyśl declare the suspension of municipal, private, and guild cases against the people of Lwów until three weeks have passed since the start of the next Sejm. The goal is to enable a settlement; Lwów was to make a similar commitment.

The councilors describe the decline of cities, the killing of one mayor and the dragging of another to the castle, the reduction of jurisdiction and lands, and trade difficulties. They call on Lwów to act together before the Sejm and announce a meeting on December 29. The allegations are presented as the authors' claims.

The councilors send back to Lwów correspondence received from the treasurer, intended for the municipal authorities and two officials. They explain that the mayor accidentally took out and opened one of the letters. They ask not to treat this as an intentional breach of secrecy.

The authorities of Przemyśl ask for transcripts from the Lwów books regarding royal resolutions in the dispute between the magistrate and the commoners: exemption from all contributions and an assessment of the community's charges against the magistrate. They are interested in records relating to the authority of the municipal office. They promise gratitude and later payment to the scribe for his work.

The Przemyśl magistrate accuses the Lwów authorities of hiring their municipal master (executioner) without a testimonium. According to the senders, he left without notifying the office, leaving behind his wife and children. They demand a refusal of employment and that he be sent back on the same cart with the same driver, as they have several prisoners. The letter does not describe their cases or sentences.

Poznań responds to the news received by mail from Lwów about Becal, whom the senders accuse of oppressing Christian merchants under the pretext of a new constitution. The letter expresses fear that similar actions will also affect Poznań. It announces the presentation of the matter to persons inclined to intervene so that it reaches the king and the Crown Treasurer.

Poznań expresses sympathy for the injury of the president and the entire Lwów magistrate, suffered according to the letter on January 5, 1738. It declares a joint defense of municipal rights and the sending of news to the chancellor and the royal court, asks for further information, and wishes the president a recovery. The original does not mention the perpetrators or the exact course of the event.

Ratno received from a Lwów messenger a royal universal ordering the transfer of a donation to Lwów by October 15. The authors state that the universal arrived on that very day, and they immediately, working day and night, sent the payment through their neighbor. They ask for a favorable reception and confirmation of receipt; they explain the delay by the late delivery of the universal, not by negligence.

The mayor and councilors of Rohatyn confirm receipt of the royal universal forwarded by the Lwów councilors regarding the donation. The preserved short fragment about money and its dispatch is difficult to read; the amount or stage of payment has not been determined with certainty.

The Rohatyn magistrate sends representatives to the Sejm in Kraków, asking Wojciech Zimnicki for support in confirming old privileges and exemption from tolls in the Crown. It allows for limiting the scope of the relief if a general exemption proves impossible. It promises compensation for work and reimbursement of costs.

The Rohatyn scribe supports the delegates' request for the confirmation of privileges. He assures that the city will cover the expenses and compensate Zimnicki for his work. Privately, he asks for advice regarding an apartment, as he does not have money for the annual rent.

The magistrate confirms receipt of the call for the donation enacted in Toruń and asks Lwów to intervene to exempt Rohatyn. It argues the decline of trade: it rhetorically asks about even one ox sold in Jarosław, a piece of cloth, or a sack of pepper; a small peddler was supposed to bring barely one stone of pepper. It also points to the burdens caused by the army.

The mayors and council of Świecie complain about the almost daily passage of soldiers and the announced arrival of dragoons numbering 90 horses, coming from Hungary for winter maintenance by order of the Inowrocław voivode. They refer to the news from the lessee and an earlier payment, the verb of which remains unread. They ask Jan Jabłonowski for help in the face of the city's impending ruin and the destitution of the inhabitants.

Świecie renews the complaint about the soldiers and states the city's losses at five hundred zlotys, and the president's at 58 zlotys 20 groszy in taken goods. It asks Jan Jabłonowski to lead to the consideration and deduction of losses when paying the army at the general Lwów commission. Separately, it asks for a receipt allowing to receive wood from the Świecie starosta's forest for a bridge threatened with destruction by ice after a hard winter; the lessee does not accept earlier receipts.

The authorities of Świecie ask their starosta for protection against the military execution of services, also dependent on the lessee's decision. They assure that they previously used his protection, apologize for an unspecified offense, and send representatives who are to explain the expenses, difficulties, and damages related to the dams, heads, and banks of the Vistula.

The Śniatyn office certifies the testimony of the bailiff about the public announcement of the king's confirmation of the Lwów right of staple at the Piotrków Sejm. It warns against bypassing the staple city and looking for another route. It anticipates the detention of the merchant along with oxen and other goods. The testimony was entered into the records and confirmed with a seal; it is not a report of a completed seizure of goods.

At the request of Krzysztof, a glazier and Lwów burgher acting as a proxy for the Lwów councilors and commoners, the bailiff's testimony about announcing the sub-starosta's order to arriving merchants was recorded. The announcement cites the royal mandate, the Crown constitution, and the universal regarding Lwów trade. It prohibits buying goods and oxen in violation of the regulations and bypassing the usual Lwów road, under penalty of confiscation of goods, half for the king and half for Lwów.

The magistrate of Stara Sól asks the President of Lwów to send an executioner to carry out a sentence on an unnamed convict. Piotr Staromiejski, the former mayor, is left in Lwów as a guarantor until the executioner returns. The letter assures payment, safety, and the health of the residents of Stara Sól and the Russian military posts. The planned arrival is to take place on Thursday, the execution on Saturday, and the return for the holidays; the letter does not confirm the realization of these intentions.

The councilors of Stryj certify that on April 9 they received a royal universal and a reminder from the Lwów magistrate regarding a donation of 100,000 zlotys. As a merchant city, Stryj is allocated 200 zlotys, which are to be sent to Lwów by May 15. They confirm announcing the obligation to the residents, but not its payment.

The councilors of Chełm confirm receipt of the treasury universal regarding the donation and declare obedience to the king despite low income. They emphasize that the shipment was delivered only on October 10; they provide the messenger with a written receipt. A damaged fragment concerning the deadline and rigors remains uncertain.

The mayor and councilors of Jaworów ask the councilors of Lwów to send a ruling in an appeal case between Grzegorz Bobolowicz [spelling of the surname uncertain], the plaintiff, and Marek Woskobujnik, a cooper, the defendant — if the case has already been resolved.

The mayor and councilors of Jaworów certify receipt from the Lwów authorities of a royal universal from Warsaw, dated March 20, 1629, ordering the transfer of a local amount tentatively read as 500 zlotys for the donation. The total sum enacted by the Sejm for the Crown cities is 100,000 zlotys. The document does not certify that the payment was made.

The authorities of Jazłowiec certify complaints from Eastern merchants regarding the burdens imposed by Lwów translators. According to the merchants, the fees exceed the customs duties entered in the register, and the inspection is repeated. The Jazłowiec magistrate asks the Lwów authorities to stop the abuses, arguing that they also harm the city itself, and confirms the letter with a seal and signatures.

In the records of the Jarosław bench court, a bailiff's report was recorded regarding the announcement at the four corners of the market square of an order to bring goods via regular routes to Lwów and to respect the staple right. The order was announced during a fair at the request of the Lwów authorities, with the authorization of the Crown estates and Mikołaj Herburt of Fulsztyn. It provides for the detention of persons bypassing the law and the seizure of their goods.

The mayor and councilors of Jarosław ask the Lwów council to announce to merchants that the upcoming Jarosław fair will take place at the usual time. They refer to the will and authority of the Marshal and Grand Crown Hetman and their benefactress, and encourage them to arrive with goods without fear of hostile actions. This is an assurance and invitation from the senders, not a confirmation of the fair's progress.

The authorities of Jarosław respond to a letter from Lwów regarding merchant attendance at the fair. They inform that on that day they instructed the bailiff to announce during the market an invitation for safe arrival, without fear of extraordinary extortions. They refer to the promised protection of the Marshal and Grand Crown Hetman and offer New Year's greetings.

Jarosław responds to Lwów's request by sending an executioner. It demands his quick return after the execution, with a certificate and on a good wagon. A Lwów burgher remains in Jarosław as a guarantee of return.

Aloy thanks for the Lenten victuals and encourages the recipients to submit requests that would allow him to reciprocate.

Aloy could not personally help the envoy in Warsaw because he was in Dresden. However, he assures that he recommended the magistrate to an unnamed dignitary, who accepted the Lenten gift. The delivery of the gift is not described in detail.

Confirmation of receipt of the Lenten gift and a request to indicate an opportunity to do a favor for the magistrate.

The author informs that he intervened according to the standard-bearer's order regarding the Magierów leaseholder and his father-in-law. He speaks of satisfying the claim, obligations entered into the books in Jarosław, and a receipt for money signed by the queen. In the second part, he conveys news about the Swedish and Muscovite armies and the king's departure to Lithuania; these are epistolary reports.

Anikini questions the fines imposed by Lorendowicz on Szmuklerz and the second accused in the case of the alleged pregnancy of the former's daughter by his cousin. He claims that the pregnant woman's account points to another man and asks the voivode to mitigate the proceedings. He explains that he restrained those interested from immediately appealing to the recipient.

Bałaban assures that he defended the councilors before the Voivode of Kraków against the opposing report of Mr. Tarnawski. He advises preparing for the commission in Lwów, which is to investigate the matter.

Bałaban informs that the Voivode of Kraków will not come to Lwów due to poor health; he intended to participate in a funeral ceremony. He advises not to delay necessary actions.

Bałaban reports on his efforts on behalf of the Lwów envoys to the Hetman, despite the opposition of the Voivode of Kraków. He mentions universal letters and private correspondence; details of the decisions and the postponement of matters remain uncertain.

Bałaban's intervention was unsuccessful. The Voivode of Kraków became angry that the councilors were communicating by letter instead of in person regarding an important matter.

Baranowski assures the Lviv authorities that allowing the castle office to participate in the case of a Jew was not intended to infringe upon their rights. He explains it by the absence of the Ruthenian Voivode, who was responsible for judging Jews. Due to the advanced stage of the proceedings, he recommends finishing the case together, while pointing out the royal admonition that the castle office should not abuse its admission to it.

Baranowski reports that he tried to obtain royal approval for a will sent by Lviv, but the king refused, fearing fraudulent entries that could harm his right to escheats. The writer also points to the earlier granting of a specific escheat to Lviv for the construction of a school and recalls that he sought it after receiving a letter from the archbishop and requests. Details of the previous applicant and one clause remain uncertain.

The author refutes allegations regarding his conduct toward the townspeople and cites the freedoms promised to them. He writes about credit, debt, collateral, and attempts by some members of the magistrate to violate statutory rights. He points to pledged property and protests against its sale or further encumbrance.

Bell informs Forbes about presenting the queen's privilege to the city authorities. According to the author, the magistrate has reservations and is delaying a full response; Bell links the procrastination to financial matters. This is his account of the negotiations, not a confirmation of the magistrate's decision or the content of the privilege.

Bell responds to Forbes's letter, discusses the matter of mutual receivables or promised profit, and asks for further news. At the end, he commends the addressee to God's care. Details of the settlement require re-reading.

Bem complains about the lack of payment and a final response regarding the agreement concluded with the city. He demands 200 zlotys owed to him for lodging or a written resolution, announcing further pursuit of the debt; he appeals to the President of Lwów.

The prior acknowledges the obligation to appear before the assessor's court, but asks for the case to be resolved by the city council court to avoid costs. He wants commissioners appointed to view documents concerning the monastery's lands. Due to a recent urgent departure, he asks for a week to return, exemption from assessor deadlines, and consent for further construction until an amicable resolution, with the buildings to go to whoever is awarded the land.

The author responds to the Lwów magistrate's request regarding a matter he calls just, and writes about reaching mutual satisfaction. He assures of his favor toward the city and hopes for reciprocation. The key phrase defining the procedure, perhaps with the participation of syndics, requires re-reading; the letter does not indicate that a settlement has been concluded.

The author notifies the magistrate that a complaint has been filed before the Crown Tribunal in Lublin against the Lwów city authorities in connection with the imprisonment of a person of noble status. He claims that incarceration in a prison intended for thieves violates noble status and announces further legal steps; he asks for a response. These are the allegations of the letter's author, not a confirmed court finding.

The author presents grievances resulting from a dispute with the Lwów magistrate and asks the vice-senior to use his influence to settle the matter. He mentions actions against him in Warsaw and Lwów and paradoxically describes his status as both a councilor and a juror, as well as a person deprived of these functions. He asks for a clear response from the magistrate and the addressee, announcing that little time remains to make a decision. If the case goes to court, he reserves the importance of this letter. A later cover links the dispute to Secretary Czechowicz; the text of the letter itself does not allow for a certain determination of his role here.