Balázs György (szerk.): The abolition of serfdom and its impact on rural culture, Guide to the Exhibition Commemorating the 150th Anniversary of the Revolution and War if Independence of 1848-49 (Budapest-Szentendre, Museum of Hungarian Agriculture-Hungarian Open-Air Museum, 1998.)

hearth-tax each year. They had to contribute also to the expenses of the landlord's wedding and his first mass. Should the landlord have been a dignitary of the Church or an aristocrat (e.g., a baron or a count), even his participation at the Diet had to be partially financed by his serfs. When a serf died or ran away, his possessions descended to the landlord. Also hunting, fowling, fishing, distilling brandy, brewing and selling beer, maintaining mills, meat stalls, and inns, as well as exacting tolls at fords were the landlord's legal due. Finally the Urbarial Patent enumerated the ways and the measure of punishing peasants. It Haymakers regulated the ways of turning to the manorial court, i.e., the court of the landlord, and the county as an organ of jurisdiction, as well as the ways of electing the village mayor, the notary, and the jurors. Royal commissioners were entrusted with putting the Patent into practice. Assignment to the categories mentioned above, i.e., the preparation of urbarial tables, was a matter of central decision after consulting the counties. However, the regulation of urbarial conditions did not take place in Transylvania despite the fact that the province discussed the matter several times. Besides the obligations of the serfs towards their landlords, they had to pay tithe to the Catholic Church, a regular military contribution (contributio) to the state (regularly increasing at times of war), and a county tax for the purposes 8