324
THE MESTA
their landowners, against this astonishing pronouncement, ‘ the
like of which this realm of Castile had never before seen.’ If the
Mesta chose to restrain its own members by ordinances such as
those of 1492, well and good; but the decree of 1501 was now
being applied to despoil landowners of their property and to
coerce local non-migratory herdsmen into obedience to Mesta
laws, with which they had nothing whatever to do. “ Such
things can not be called just or legal or even honest, since they
are not for the public good, but for the private interests of a
favored few.” 1 In a word, the crux of the whole matter lay not
so much in the monopoly intentions of the Mesta, to which the
mediaevalism of Castilian economic life did not offer serious
protest, as it did in the efforts of these northern intruders to
meddle with the pastoral affairs of the southern towns. A test
case was immediately begun before the Royal Council by the city
of Caceres; but the monarchs and their councillors acquiesced
fully in the pleas of Jorge Mexfa and the other Mesta attorneys,
that, unless the posesiðn edict was strictly enforced, the bids
(j>ujas) of sheep owners against each other would place them at
the mercy of the landowners, with disastrous results to the pas-
toral industry and to the highly important wool trade.
Thereafter, a few years of strenuous litigation served to satisfy
the opponents of the Mesta that the monarchs were determined
to support the extravagant contentions of the sheep owners
against all southern and western landowners, whether towns,
ecclesiastics, military orders, or private individuals.2 In order
to avoid complications with the church, a law of 1499 was re*
newed, which stipulated that any religious establishment claim-
ing rights, as sheep owner or landowner, under the law of pose-
siôn, must first renounce all ecclesiastical immunities and subject
itself entirely to Mesta laws before Mesta members would be
allowed to deal with it. The newly created office of President of
the Mesta, held by the senior member of the Royal Council,
proved useful in this as in other matters involving the exploita-
ɪ Arch. Mesta, C-ι, Ciceres, 1501.
2 Arch. Mesta, C-2, Calatrava, 1505 ff.: court decisions applying the new pas-
turage edict to the lands of military orders. On other phases of the regulation of
these lands by the crown, see Bull. Ord. Milit. Alcant., pp. 316, 319, 503.
PASTURAGE PRIVILEGES OF THE MESTA
З25
tion of the Mesta by the autocracy. Furthermore, new edicts
were soon issued, punishing with heavy fines the speculation in
pasturage or the subletting of leases; in fact, no one was to take
over any pasturage unless he was actually a sheep owner and pro-
posed to use the land in question for his flocks.1 These purposes
were further confirmed by no less than thirty-eight pasturage
clauses in the second code of Mesta ordinances. This document
was drawn up in 1511 by the famous councillor, Dr. Palacios
Rubios, who was for twelve years (1510-22) the President of the
Mesta and the leading expert legal adviser of the Spanish mon-
archy.2 Finally, in further evidence of the complete subjection
of agriculture to large scale pasturage, the celebrated Leyes de
Того were promulgated in 1505. These provided for the per-
petuation of large entailed estates (mayorazgos), and thereby
gave full legal recognition to one of the worst obstacles to the
development of arable land in Castile.3
All of these measures had their desired effects. They gave
extraordinary powers to the sheep owners and the Mesta ; they
made the pastoral industry unquestionably supreme over all
other forms of rural life throughout the realm. The first decades
of the sixteenth century saw the Spanish wool trade at the zenith
of its activity. Within ten years after the death of Ferdinand,
the Mesta had added almost ι,000,000 sheep to its already
numerous flocks, so that by 1526 nearly 3,500,000 merinos4 were
availing themselves of the liberal privileges accorded to them by
the monarchy. This was the heritage of the agrarian policy of
Ferdinand and Isabella. Eminently successful in the accom-
plishment of its immediate object, it expanded the pastoral in-
dustry out of all proportion to the other productive activities of
1 Arch. Mesta, Prov. i, 42, 44 (1503). The same rule was applied to agricul-
ture in 1307, when peasants were forbidden to lease more land than they could
cultivate themselves. Cdrdenas1 ii, p. 303.
2 Concordia de 1783, i, fols. 198-252; especially fols. 233-239, 240. If any shep-
herd ventured to disgrace the Mesta by cultivating a part of his pasture, the direst
penalties were meted out to the offender (fol. 240).
, On the baneful effects of the Leyes de Toro, especially their ley xxvii. upon
agriculture, see Colmeiro, ii, pp. 137-138, and Ansiaux, of>. cit., in Revue d’économie
politique, June, 1893.
4 See above, p. 27.