Mr. Stanisław Małachowski, Speaker of the Congress, began with these words:

"In all circumstances, thoughtful consideration is commendable, especially in significant matters such as legislation, which should be forward-looking and not burdensome due to its authority. The essence of good legislation is temperance blended with justice, and when these elements are missing, the law fails to protect property rights, which are essential for citizens' peace of mind. These principles apply to all governments but are particularly enforced in a republican administration that upholds virtue and justice and avoids biased preconceptions. This is the path the Honorable Delegates follow when they consider legislative proposals and strive for a more profound understanding of the issues at hand, weighing the reasons and causes that shape their decisions, which are then transformed into binding laws, respected all the more when they are just. However, while laws are generally applicable, taxation matters pertain to specifics. Therefore, the national government seeks to alleviate taxpayer burdens, ensuring fairness for all. When these taxation conditions are met, citizens find taxes more acceptable because they understand their obligations and are reassured about their payment arrangements. The most challenging aspect is striking the right balance in taxing so it is not onerous for the contributors. Yesterday, a project was presented outlining the key sources of revenues sustaining stable taxation, highlighting several revenue streams and proposing to relieve the Honorable States of this duty, delegating it to the Treasury Commission. This proposal has captivated my thoughts, though I dare not advocate it as strongly as it may deserve due to the risk of improper bias, as my close kinship and shared surname might suggest undue favor. I will thus limit myself to introducing the project proposed by Mr. Jan Łuszczewski, secretary, to our recollection."

The secretary, Mr. Jan Łuszczewski, read the project titled:

Permanent Taxes in the Polish Crown.

Having cautioned previously that we would proceed with permanent taxes after temporary ones were established, we wish to see this law enacted promptly. Thus, We, the King, by universal consent of the Confederated States, decree that our Royal, privileged, and life-held estates, currently paying quarts (a form of tax), will henceforward pay two quarts as per the new survey, those granted for life by the Constitution will pay two and a half quarts upon the termination of the life estate and the privileged Possessors take possession, and those lands granted under emphyteusis will pay three quarts from henceforth. Ecclesiastical estates will contribute twenty per hundred from their revenues, while secular lands will similarly contribute ten per hundred from their net incomes to the treasury. As for quarts from estates secured by enfeoffment or financial commitments, the Crown Treasury Commission will determine any applicable compensation in a fair measure. Estates put up for auction are not subject to surtaxes, as the treasury will regulate these matters. We entrust the task of delineating methods for tax assessment and collections to the Crown Treasury Commission, to which We, the King, will add two senators and six members from the Chivalric State, three from each Province, as delegates. After their work is completed, we reserve the right to approve these matters. If future circumstances show that these taxes exceed or fall short of the Republic's needs, they will be adjusted equitably, either increased or decreased."

After the reading, Mr. Stanisław Kublicki, a representative from Latvia, questioned the content in a preliminary fashion. He praised the intentions of the Sandomierz delegate but sought clarity, wanting to prevent the inclusion of separate issues—such as those requiring only vocal public votes—from being prematurely lumped together with taxation matters suitable for secret voting. Seeking to avoid confusion, he proposed his project focused solely on taxation, which he then proceeded to read and submitted for consideration.

Statements were made by Mr. Adam Rzyszczewski and Senator Adam Rzyszczewski from Lubaczów.

A mere inheritor of ancestral properties, I speak not with the goal of defending Royal estates nor lessening the tax load on landed estates at their expense. Rather, I aim to consider laws affecting estates recently purchased in sizable quantities, where significant resources were invested in what was known as Royal estates, resting on the assurance they would remain undisturbed in perpetuity. I must not remain overly reticent where unequal treatment may infringe upon the fairness that should direct legislative judgment.

Current Republic's urgent financial needs undoubtedly necessitate contributions from private wealth. However, in such contributions, equality, justice, and the commitment not to overly burden a single citizen must guide legislative decisions.

Now, with the distinction being granted, first regard must be given to lands held by right of inheritance, remembering that in our Republican government, all public and unpaid services are already quite a burden on estates. Even a nobleman possessing a small parcel of ancestral land ought to offer both his wealth and life, if necessary, for the country in each event facing the Republic.

Yet equal consideration is due to Royal estates' proprietors, who, no less devoted citizens than others, are just as ready to risk their lives for their country while shouldering public duties. Having acquired significant stewardships or placed their worth in these estates since the year 1775, they have imposed significant burdens on their private fortunes, converting them in nature solely to Royal properties, based on the secure belief they would continue to enjoy them for life.

Noble Confederated States, the more I sense compelling reasons to advocate for the defense of landed estates against onerous taxes, the less I can concede the appropriateness of neglecting those who purchased stewardships in recent years, potentially threatening their assets' integrity and incurring public disapproval. To impose heavier taxation on such stewards, effectively punishing them for not foreseeing future national events or for trusting solemn declarations, would be unjust. They placed their inherited wealth in the trust of Royal domains, relying upon the verdicts of prior Congresses, which they were rightfully bound to believe and trust.

Properties are indeed sacred, and even in dire national emergencies, they must be approached with utmost caution. It is generally favorable to safeguard them, as most of the nation desires. While I myself hold no stewardship, such protection imparted does not justify completely ignoring the equitable consideration due.

Indeed, where I see a citizen burdened with loftier stewardship fees based on personal or inherited effort and contribution, simply because the capital was injected into a Royal domain, I cannot perceive justice in depriving him of his property. In the indiscriminate imposition of increased fees on each Royal domain holder, it is not the Royal estates, the true Republic's patrimony, that are taxed but rather the private wealth of our fellow citizens, doomed to be burdened, destroyed, and depleted.

Forgetting that many hold these domains not through kings' lavish grants but by their own funds, enforcing an equal new tax burden on all stewards equates to erasing considerable disparities between gratuitous recipients and purchasing owners—differences that determine a citizen's fortune and familial state and even the testimony of the nation's history.

Without a doubt, private estates are inviolable. To interfere, even during moments of national crisis, requires the greatest circumspection. By sparing them, one upholds the national wish, and I vigorously support this sentiment. Yet it is not powerful enough to suppress my consideration for the fair treatment deserved. I do not recognize justice when a citizen, burdened with heightened duties from their domain, must sacrifice a considerable inheritance either self-earned or ancestral, merely because it was invested in a Royal estate.

In this unreservedly imposed heavier duty on each Royal domain holder without distinction, it is not the Royal properties or that invaluable national heritage taxed—rather, it takes aim at the private estates of our peers, designed to be taxed, undermined, and extinguished.

The profound significance of private estates, the sheer iniquity of arbitrary levies placed upon Royal domain holders, regardless of their nature, is evident. Our actions not only impact one citizen, one segment of the populace, but a condition that shapes the entire nation. To legislate indiscriminately, without clear delineation, exhibits neither justice nor compassion; instead, it leaves an impression of arbitrariness that belongs solely to despotic realms.

Therefore, our administration, known for moderation and clemency, must consider even the situation of a single burdened citizen, more so the collective plight of numerous countrymen now holding newly acquired Royal estates. It is not appropriate to multiply and magnify uncertainties surrounding their holdings through impartial and indistinct taxes. It is unseemly, so to speak, to crush them without fault, hastening their downfall.

The enlightened judgment of men comprising this assembly, their sentiments ever attuned to justice, the very principles of humanity so inherent in this congregation—all echo in support of these stewards.

I am not advocating for the complete exemption of Royal estates in our immediate national exigencies; they too must bear a higher levy, as mentioned earlier. Every citizen class should contribute from their private shares to enrich the public coffers. Furthermore, I advocate not against the newly instituted inventory of Royal estates. Nor do I oppose a fair, righteous, and suitable imposition of taxation. Yet, I demand a just and equitable consideration, particularly for those who recently positioned their wealth in these stewardships. Such public trust is sacred and must not be violated. Members of our united citizenry, a bond we must mutually uphold, also speak out. That internal voice of righteousness, based firmly upon the most endearing principle, demands we do unto others only as we would have done unto ourselves.

It now rests upon the illustrious states' judgment, always led by the wisdom of enlightened, sensitive, and fair-minded guidance, to moderate this matter. Let the specifics, though substantial, not cause significant harm to the whole, yet may the whole, untouched, suffer no injustice from them.

Mr. Teofil Załuski, a senator from Busk, had his say, maintaining that stewards should not be burdened with additional taxes and should be upheld in their rights.

Prince Adam Czartoryski, a representative from Lublin, stated:

"When I find myself speaking on a matter where eager citizens see the main fiscal yield for the public good, I must express that no one is more attached to public opinion or more eager to please fellow citizens than myself. Yet this desire for personal agendas should step aside for official duties. I have not been chosen by my brethren to gain personal popularity, but to serve effectively as a deputy and citizen, to address whatever harmful aspects I notice. To maintain popularity, I must tread along the path trodden by the once-famous countryman John Tarnowski, who Orzechowski writes, preferred to risk public displeasure rather than act improperly towards the nation for mere affection. Every society, by establishing a government, entrusts it with the protection of individual liberty and property; nonetheless, no government could or should assume the power to tamper with these two fundamental tenets supporting all other national affairs. Once it does, despotism occurs even within democracy or aristocracy, contrary to the nature and establishment of society. After all, the general happiness of any nation rests on nothing so much as the prosperity of each individual citizen. The current deliberation demands utmost maturity. I do not delve into the initial sources from which grants flowed, creating the lands now termed Royal Estates. They were once appropriated for special purposes, historically known as Panis bene morientium. Not denying that stewardships belong to the Republic's dominion, I rather believe the Republic holds only the title to inheritance, just as any private heir operates with a leaseholder by a mutual agreement. How much weight shall we place on this public promise if it can be altered any moment? I argue not that stewards should contribute no more than others nor do I make light of the noble standing. Let the Distinguished States themselves consider how painful it would be for stewards to be seen as outside the Knightly Estate.

Justice and proportional measurement in taxation should direct the States' decision. Perhaps amidst passionate thoughts, the notion arose to convert stewardships to treasury property, but careful reflection must have dispelled this from their intentions. There is due gratitude to those who opposed the new lavish expenditures in 1775 and even resigned from the positions granted. However, since their honest intent could not prevent ill acts, and these legal provisions have taken execution for over 14 years, it rules out the possibility of tarnishing public peace. To cancel them now with an abrupt overturn of authority would be unsettling. Finally, political considerations should give pause before making such a precipitous move. Bearing the heaviest yoke forced upon us by foreign invasion, everyone's thoughts are on liberation means; we should bind every citizen class closer to upholding the statutes of this renowned congress, not give them cause for grievance or thoughts of breaking the burdened law, therein allowing external forces to assist them out of this morass. The fear that touching one part might collapse the entire structure is legitimate. We have acted gravely, earnestly in our legislative engagements so far. Let’s be wary that our future actions do not sow discord, leaving seeds of strife that may employ perilous country methods to elevate themselves, resembling the carpenter Horace speaks of, who made individual parts well but failed to assemble a complete device, Infelix operis sui etc. I conclude my statement with this: every government must honor public faith. Failing in this, burdening citizens with unequal taxation, it commits an injustice. Mr. Małachowski’s project accounts for justice and opens a fruitful source from which the nation may extract revenue. Thus, I implore we proceed to vote, either to accept or reject the proposal."

After a lively debate, the congressmen decided to postpone the voting on the matter, seeking to clarify certain aspects of the proposals regarding taxes and the status of estates. The discussion was particularly focused on the equal responsibility of all states, including the Polish-Ukrainian and Lithuanian-Belarussian states, to contribute to the national treasury. The complexity of the historical and legal context of stewardships, expectations, and other feudal arrangements was recognized, with several delegates advocating caution and seeking to ensure fairness and avoid exacerbating divisions within the society.

In the end, while recognizing the need for immediate financial resources to support the military and maintain the Union’s stability, the delegates could not come to a conclusion on that day. The session was then adjourned with plans to reconvene the following Tuesday.

Topics: Debate on tax proposals related to the taxation of royal lands, privileged in lifetime tenure; Consideration of quota amounts and tax payments required from holders of starosties (estates) and emphyteuses; Objections and amendments submitted to tax projects; Discussion of potential implications of imposing taxes on different classes of landholders; Presentation of individual deputies' stances in the context of the tax proposal; Votes on projects and propositions pertaining to taxation;