When the President arrived at the Senate, Speaker Stanisław Małachowski began with these words: "If the sincere intention..."

The text of Speaker's address can be found on pages 551-551v.

List:

Representative Jan Krasnodębski of Podlasie took the floor:

List:

Discussing the upcoming Local Congresses, he suggested that legal measures be taken to prevent any irregularities.

Responding to Representative Krasnodębski, Representative Kazimierz Rzewuski of Podolia said: "Moreover, this issue is of national concern and should be swiftly resolved. Since I see no draft addressing these thoughts, we have no choice but to ask the Representative from Podlasie to expedite the proposal and submit it for consideration."

On behalf of Speaker Stanisław Małachowski, Secretary Jan Łuszczewski read yesterday's legislation concerning office holdings.

Then, Representative Tadeusz Kościałkowski of Vilkomierz:

List.

Expressing his frustration over a decision favored by the majority, which he believed was detrimental to the nation as it caused the dismissal of several army regiments and concerned landowners about potentially increased taxation from their office-holding neighbors, he called for an immediate review of estate appraisals to remedy yesterday's losses.

Secretary Jan Łuszczewski read the proposed Constitution from the section "Those concerning the Forests &".

Representative Wojciech Świętosławski of Volhynia spoke, "I explained yesterday why I do not want this term 'half of the tax duty' to be used, as it could harm us and set a poor example to foreigners that we commonly pay half of the due taxes. Therefore, instead of the word 'Tax' we should clarify either 'half' or propose that Starosts negotiate a contract for forest products through a commission."

Speaker Stanisław Małachowski amended the proposal which Secretary Jan Łuszczewski then read as modified.

Representative Tadeusz Kościałkowski of Vilkomierz argued that by placing this term in the proposal, it would contradict itself, as 'offering' means something different from 'duty'.

Senator Franciszek Żeleński from Biecz commented: "There is a clear distinction between what is paid from private lands and from royal ones, but I wonder if inspections would be feasible where a starost, sworn under oath, claims no reductions in income – leading me to think it implies false oaths."

Representative Stanisław Kublicki of Latvia responded, "I am confident about the Starosts since they also hold land properties and honest oaths mean no false inspection results."

Again, Senator Franciszek Żeleński from Biecz: "Instead of the oath's term 'I give real income,' it’s better to say 'I present,' thus resolving issues."

Representative Tadeusz Kościałkowski of Vilkomierz stated, "Starosts' oaths should not restrict the auditors, for auditors might need to adjust the income wherever possible, for instance among peasants who have settled on new lands exempt from the common dues. Such cases should be covered under the new appraisal, since I believe that if the inspection is not thorough, we cannot expect any auctions for the lands, nor can we ensure a reliable source for financing a 100,000-strong army if the Treasury is short on funds."

Representative Mateusz Butrymowicz from Pinsk commented, “If we run out of funds, we'll turn again to royal lands, which should satisfy us."

After repeating the point on forests, Speaker Stanisław Małachowski asked for consent on the proposal. Representative Józef Wołłowicz from Ciechanów objected, noting the potential inappropriateness arising from this and withdrew his proposal, reaching unanimous consent on the point.

Secretary Jan Łuszczewski continued reading about the taxes that shall be paid from the offices to the Treasury.

Representative Mateusz Butrymowicz from Pinsk said, “I see my prior session amendment will not be considered; thus, I request a resolution now."

After several supported his request, Secretary Jan Łuszczewski read the proposal from Mateusz Butrymowicz from Pinsk on excluding certain appraisals if no changes were made to the properties by the constitution's nature.

Several representatives called for a more explicit explanation of this additional provision.

Mateusz Butrymowicz from Pinsk explained:

Having realized my proposal has been misunderstood and doesn't seem to support the Treasury – when it actually does – I owe a clarification. As a delegate examining the Treasury Commission of Lithuania-Belarus, I found certain details necessary to highlight. I learned that some properties had changed their nature, meaning their taxes due to the Treasury disappeared. One starost was only paying a small fraction for a substantial office holding; he found a way to cut this further. After buying an estate next to the royal land, he sued himself in court arguing for separations from that estate. Though the judgment was for the case to be inspected by a panel, a corrupt officer inspected it alone, resulting in half the property being deceptively recognized as hereditary land, reducing the tax burden for the starost. Even though the Treasury imposed an auditor and cut the tax payment, we're still at loss. Thus, by presenting these details, I aim to secure no further harm and possible recovery for our nation's Treasury.

Senator Franciszek Żeleński from Biecz replied:

Although this case presents a concerning act of a starost reducing due taxes to the Treasury via questionable legal maneuvers, it demonstrates the importance of ensuring full and fair appraisals of ruling estates. We must prevent such abuses of power and ensure these lands contribute rightfully to the national finances.

Representative Stanisław Kublicki from Latvia added further comment:

While I support taking measures to ensure the Treasury isn't shortchanged, I also remember that 300,000 annually goes missing from the Treasury of Lithuania-Belarus, highlighting a significant issue. As for the Tatars being granted offices, does this truly satisfy our standards?

Antoni Dziekoński, Under Secretary of Treasury for Lithuania-Belarus:

The Treasury Commission of Lithuania-Belarus has provided a thorough account of its activities; not expecting to be questioned in this manner, I must defend it. Recalling a particular case involving Mr. Manutzy and the Uhor Estate, I remember there were two distinct rulings. In one, part of the property was acknowledged as hereditary; in another, a commission was appointed for a land dispute. Based on a court decree, Mr. Manutzy approached the Treasury demanding an auditor, showcasing that part of the Uhor estate was declared hereditary. The Treasury Commission, examining the court's decree, assigned an auditor to segregate the tax from that recognized as hereditary land. For the second aspect that highlights public Treasury's interest, I attest that the Treasury Commission wasn't motivated by favoritism but justice when assigning alternative royal lands to compensate Tatars for estates granted to them by the country's agreement, hence no guilt or expectation lies on the Commission regarding the Treasury's reduced income.

Mateusz Butrymowicz from Pinsk responded:

If it was only about a small portion of the Opesky Office Land, I would not raise the matter as trivial in front of the deliberating Union. However, seeing almost half the quarter's value was lost, anyone can see a significant reduction. Exploring the origins of this mishap, I found the case was reverted by another ruling from the Lithuanian assessors, which not only saved the office but also fined Mr. Manutzy for deception. Citing the ruling, I still expect no accusation of slandering the Treasury. Talking about the other mentioned estates, which didn't pay their quarter to the Treasury, I prove it with the records from our examination of the Treasury Commission, showing that it's not about insignificant properties, as the loss to the Treasury was substantial. This addition I proposed may prevent harm not only now but also in the future, and potentially recover the lost quarter.

Representative Stanisław Kublicki from Latvia stated:

I'm not aiming to accuse, but must note that I've been informed there's consistently a significant loss in the Lithuanian Treasury, which needs attention. Furthermore, Tatars were expelled instead of being granted those offices they were promised.

Antoni Dziekoński, Under Secretary of Treasury for Lithuania-Belarus:

Regarding the loss claimed by the Representative from Pinsk, the Treasury Commission of Lithuania-Belarus is unwarranted. The audit procedures were legally conducted, and no wrongdoing was apparent. Concerning Tatars, it is unclear what grievances they might present. I'm aware of many Tatar properties within the economies of the states of Brześć and Grodno, hence their situation needs no redress on our part.

Mateusz Butrymowicz again:

The Tatars might justly compensate for the vast quarter lost from the Treasury, but there's still uncertainty about the income from the offices granted to them. Again, I stress that clarity is needed, as the assessors dictated the quarter from these offices should be paid, but to whom?

Kazimierz Sapieha, Speaker of the Confederacy of Lithuania:

Addressing the matter concerning the properties and revenues of the clergy—whether the funds were properly designated for the treasury or the fortification of Czestochowa, the will of the country must prevail. No individual institution can obstruct the national interest. Regarding the project in question, it might be premature and insufficient without thorough assessment and adherence to the country's laws. The right course of action would embrace a fair evaluation of the resources allocated to the military and the fort, free from any individual bias. The prosperity both the nation and the clergy could flourish with the recovered funds directed towards the right cause.

Wojciech Suchodolski:

The intricate dealings that have led some offices to withhold due payment from the Treasury call for a resolute investigation and requisition of the funds from the Pauline monastery. These funds, illicitly withheld or perhaps even squandered, belong to the nation, not the order; it is imperative that the country seeks restitution. The suggested amendment, urgently attributing this matter to the Treasury Commission, is a step towards securing what is rightfully the country's domain. The past cannot be undone, but the future can be safeguarded with proper governance and accountability.

Seweryn Potocki:

The 1775 Constitution, while containing some harmful provisions for the country, also established a practice that some officers and public office holders benefited greatly from at the expense of the nation's wealth. The newly proposed exhaustive review and categorization of office holdings can help in safeguarding these assets for the public treasury. It's time to seek records and statements from the guardians of the Jasna Góra Monastery to account for lost wealth and evaluate its proper use, which is of significant national interest.

Onufry Morski:

Reflecting on the privileges and revenues of state offices, urging for a conclusive review and proper remittance to the national treasury asserts the need for judicial examination and authenticity concerning the administration of properties. The substantial portion of office revenues is essential to the country's financial stability and must be reclaimed from those who have usurped or mismanaged them.

Wojciech Suchodolski:

The significant loss of revenue from certain properties requires urgent review to ensure the national treasury is properly replenished, and those responsible for the misappropriation are held to account. The amendment I propose is crucial to addressing these discrepancies and reinforces the need for stern consequences and thorough appraisal.

Seweryn Potocki:

In advocating for the proper handling of state properties and their contributions to the public treasury, it is imperative for a transparent examination and rectification of any mismanagement that may have occurred. Highlighting the need for adequate documentation and penalty for any misconduct aligns with preserving the integrity and finances of the nation.

Topics: Sejm session; Speech by Sejm Marshal Stanisław Małachowski; Issues concerning deputies' sejmiks (local assemblies); Postulate to reform law regarding sejmiks; Matters of the starostas (administrative office) and their management; Statements by deputy Tadeusz Kościałkowski about starostas; Mismanagement of forests; Position of deputy Wojciech Świętosławski on forestry taxes; Review of legislation and decisions related to taxes; Issue of raising taxes for dissenters; Defense of the necessity for religious tolerance and equal treatment of all denominations; Discussion on the state treasury revenue and the necessity to secure it; Payment of the Częstochowa garrison and maintenance of fortifications; Speeches regarding complaints from the garrison and church interests; Proposals for the inspection of church properties; Drafts of resolutions and their analysis; Presentation of foreign interests by the delegation; Debate on the health of King Stanisław August Poniatowski and the need to adjourn or continue the Sejm session.;

The Case of Adam Poniński

In today's Congressional scoop, we're covering some hot gossip mixed with legal drama straight from the Union! Prince Adam Poniński, once the high-flying Secretary of the Treasury for Poland-Ukraine, was just hit with some serious charges. This guy allegedly went rogue, pulling some shady moves like claiming to be Speaker of Congress without legit backing and getting on foreign payroll—which is a big no-no, serving interests that could hurt the Union.

But it gets wilder—he's accused of selling government decisions. Yep, you heard it right. He was literally dealing laws and sanctions for his own benefit between 1773 and 1775. Now, our lawmakers are all about keeping things tight, so they're not letting this slide.

The Congress, not wanting to pause their other big-deal Union matters, appointed a line-up of judges slated to handle the Poniński case like pros. This bunch needs to set up court schedule, kick off the trial, and keep at it until a final verdict is out.

Because these allegations are unprecedented in the Union and they're screaming for justice, they're mandating Poniński to show up in court. The goal here is to make sure he doesn't dodge facing the law.

Finally, the scandal has earned Poniński some unwanted special attention, given his present lack of real estate, zeroing in on him for the Union-wide judicial showdown. To keep the trial laser-focused, the judges ruled that any accusations not personally linked to this case are off-limits. Stay tuned for the courtroom fireworks!

Topics: Adam Poniński Case; Accusations against the Republic; Improper Exercise of Marshal Office; Foreign Pensions and Detrimental Actions Against the State; Sale of Constitutions and Sanctions; Court Proceedings; Military Commission; Law Enforcement Effectiveness; Personal Court Appearance; Sejm Court;

Appointment of Mr. Marcin Świejkowski, Castellan Senator of Kamianets-Podilskyi, to Facilitate Export of Russian Military Stores

In the latest Congressional move reported this Friday, June 19, 1789, The Union has officially assigned Mr. Marcin Świejkowski, a high-ranking senator from Kamianets-Podilskyi, to oversee the export of Russian military provisions remaining in the region. Following repeated requests to the Empress of Russia for the withdrawal of her troops and supplies from The Union's territory and leveraging the support of The President of Prussia, the Empress required a trustworthy individual to ensure smooth exportation. The President, in agreement with the Houses of Congress, complied with this request and thereby appointed Mr. Świejkowski, entrusting him with the necessary instructions for this mission, under the supervision of the Congressional Speakers.

Topics: Marcin Świejkowski; export of warehouses; Russia; Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth; King of Prussia; instructions; marshals; evacuation of troops; Kamieniec Podolski; confederation;