250
THE MESTA
From the point of view of local taxes, the Mesta’s experience
under the Bourbons was as unhappy as it had been under the
last Hapsburgs. The complaints which its attorneys at court
had already begun to make in the seventeenth century regarding
its eslado miserable 1 were multiplied many times in the eigh-
teenth. The wars under Charles II and Philip V had played
havoc with the canadas and with the flocks themselves; and to
make matters worse, the heavy taxes which had been levied
upon the towns by the central government were speedily passed
on in the shape of new exactions on the migratory flocks.
Two important documents show the condition of the Mesta’s
fiscal relations with the towns during the last eighty years of its
existence. In 1758, at the urgent request of the Mesta, an ex-
haustive examination was made of all local sheep taxes, with a
view toward eliminating any that might be illegal or excessive.2
It was found that three hundred and twenty-one such imposts
were being collected from the passing flocks by nearly as many
different towns, individuals, and churches, scattered along all of
the sheep highways from the mountains of Asturias and Navarre
to the plains of Estremadura, Murcia, and the lower Guadal-
quivir. It is interesting to note that this figure corresponds al-
most exactly with that of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella,
when the suits brought by Mesta attorneys against local tax
collectors show that three hundred and twenty sheep taxes were
being assessed during the period of 1474-1504 by almost as
many towns and property owners. In other words, the local
fiscal obligations of the transhumantes had changed but little
either in number or character or even in rates after some three
hundred years of tempestuous history. The names of the im-
posts had been somewhat changed. The ancient and once all
pervasive montazgos had almost entirely disappeared,3 and in
their stead the largest single group of tolls revealed in this survey
were some seventy-eight called pasos, Irawsios, and pasajes.
1 Arch. Mesta, Prov. iɪ, 52 (1656); iii, 15 (1682).
2 Escolano de Arrieta, Prdetica del Consejo Real (Madrid, i"96, 2 vois.), ii, PP∙
117-118; Arch. Mesta, Prov. iv, 26.
a They were still being collected at Alcdntara, Manzanares, Villa Nueva de Ios
Infantes, and Barco de Avila.
TAXES UNDER THE HAPSBURGS AND BOURBONS 2$I
These were levied for passage over local or private pasturage,
and therefore corresponded roughly to the mediaeval montazgos.
The portazgos, or octroi on wool and animals en route to market,
were collected at forty-three points, the ponlazgos or bridge tolls
at thirty-five, and 6αrcαjes or ferry tolls at only two. There were
seven collections of the castilleria, one of the most ancient of all
Castilian sheep taxes, which was originally levied for the support
of castles and watch towers during the Moorish wars. Some of
the remaining hundred and fifty-six taxes bore other ancient
names,1 but by far the greater part of them were nameless tolls
arbitrarily collected without reference to any traditional origin,
or to any fictitious or actual service rendered. It is clear, then,
that at the accession of Charles III in 1759 the assessment of
tolls upon passing flocks still continued to be an accepted local
privilege throughout the greater part of the peninsula. The
practice was, in fact, quite as prevalent as it had been at any
time since the centralizing reforms of Ferdinand and Isabella
had swept aside the flagrant accumulations of illegal local taxes.2
Charles III was too much occupied with the task of preparing
the way for the abolition of the Mesta to pay attention to the
pleadings of that decrepit body for local sheep tax reforms. In
fact, practically nothing was done on the part of the crown to
relieve the sheep owners from the costly annoyances of local tax
collectors; and although the seventy years that followed the
above survey of 1758 saw many radical changes, reforms, and
reactions in Spain, the local tax problem still depressed the Mesta.
A perfunctory summons was issued by the Royal Council in 1762
commanding certain towns to show their tax privileges.3 Vari-
ous grandees were gently admonished to i treat Mesta charters
and concordias with respect.’4 Corregidores and other royal
officers were advised with frequency, but apparently without
ɪ Cf. Glossary, pp. 423-428.
2 This investigation was not followed up with any aggressive measures. The
Sala de Mil y Quinienlas (see above, p. 129) was instructed ‘ to hear any cases which
might arise.’ Cf. Matfas Brieva, Colecc. de Leyes . . . de Mesta (Madrid, 1828),
p. 128.
8 Brieva, Coleccidn, p. 132.
* Ibid., p. 203, decree of 1780; cf. also Nov. Recop., lib. 6, tit. 20, ley 14.