Two discordant sources of law, or between canon and state laws. The case of tithe in the 16-17th century Poland

The controversies about the tithe ("a tenth part" - contribution paid to a Church of land owner's confession) had been recurring since thirteenth century when it was introduced in Poland. The nobility concluded many settlements with the Catholic clergy from thirteenth to sixteenth centuries in this matter. They mainly concerned a form of the tithe (in the 16th century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were three forms of the tithe: in cereal, in grains and in money) and also lands that was subjected to this benefit. Consequently, many legal sources (not always clear) were operative and to make matters worse, they belonged to two legal systems (either canon law or Polish common law, or both as that settlements). All that disputes accelerated due to the expansion of the Reformation in Poland and provoked major conflict between the nobility and the clergy. The end of them occurred in 1635. Two legal acts made it possible in the sphere of tithe: the breve of Pope Urbanus the Eight from 1634 and Polish Parliament’s Act (Sejm) from 1635. First document was one of the fruits of diplomatic activity. Polish diplomacy looked for a solution of many controversies between the Catholic clergy and the nobility (also over the tithe) and then a permanent agreement between them (in Latin: compositio inter status). Since the Polish bishops took a stand on tithe that without any papal consent they could not make any concessions on the issue of tithe. This breve was included detailed rules for changing the tithe from the cereal to the money. The Sejm’s act from 1635 declared that it was in accord with the papal breve. Therefore this new agreement rested on two interacting acts. Actually the state law contained some extra regulations. The most important of them was the rule that the nobility’s courts were legitimate to judge cases about the tithe. Naturally this act informed of its compatibility with the papal approval. The clergy sharply but unsuccessfully protested against this law. Consequently, to the end of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth two incompatible with themselves acts was in force. It was well-known that the Sejm’s regulation had gone beyond the papal breve and some authors proposed ways of changing this vexed situation but their activity was unsuccessful. On the other hand, the nobility were often complaining about the abuses and the ecclesial courts violated the law from 1635. But my survey indicates that permanent settlements established by papal breve and Sejm’s act were entered sporadically and private agreements (concordiae) between the clergymen and noblemen dominated. However, both abovementioned sources of law were presented during the trials over the tithe and everyone wanted to indicate that he had acted according to the law. In conclusion, papal breve and Sejm’s act that were the fruits of political competition between the Catholic clergy and the nobility were lasting for dozens of years even though due to contradictions between them they were not always respected.