34°
THE MESTA
‘ El Grande ’ upon Philip, but this in no way checked the denun-
ciation and ridicule which were directed at his “ preposterous
affront to the agricultural and pastoral rights of the towns.” 1
The towns were quite able to take care of themselves, so far as
they wished to be taken care of, which, most unfortunately for the
economic advancement of Castile, was not far. Nothing that the
Mesta and its royal charters did, or could do, had any serious
effect, either favorable or otherwise, upon the agrarian situation.
In the course of the first generation of this century, in spite of its
being the ‘ century of decadence,’ there were hopeful evidences of
an increased agricultural activity in various parts of the realm.
The requests of the impoverished crown for new votes of the
millones subsidy from the Cortes were met with demands for
more licenses not simply to enclose, but to cultivate pasturage.2
These permissions were granted, and as a further guarantee to
the towns against molestation, the entregadores were forbidden to
hear cases involving enclosures of vineyards. They were soon
ordered to refrain from hearing cases involving any question of
enclosure or cultivation.3 The Mesta protested with solemnity
against the “ immorality ” of wine-growing. It warned the
crown of the rapid disappearance of royal revenues from the wool
trade.4 The sovereign, however, was more interested in the
Cortes’ votes of the millones subsidies than in the desirability of
temperance or in a waning income from wool tariffs. His Maj-
esty’s Council was quite ready to comply with the request of its
senior member, the President of the Mesta, and to issue broadly
worded pragmâticas ‘ protecting ’ the pasturage of the Mesta.
* Arch. Hist. Nac., Consejo Expedientes, leg. 48, 1633: a denunciation of this
edict by the Duke of Béjar on behalf of the cities and towns of Estremadura.
2 Arch. Hist. Nac., Consejo Exped., leg. 48, 1627: a discussion by Antonio del
Rfo of the marked increase in agriculture as a result of the millones concessions
favoring enclosures in 1609 and after.
’ Nueva Recop., lib. 3, tit. 14, ley ult., cap. 12; Arch. Mesta, A-6, Almazan,
1636. See also the very rare volume by Collantes y Avellaneda, Commentariorum
Pragmalicae in Javorem rei Jrumentariae Iibri 1res (Madrid, x614), upon the spread
of agriculture as the result of these millones concessions of 1601 and 1604.
4 Arch. Mesta, A-9, Avila, 1657; Bib. Nac. Madrid, Ms. no. 2350 (1619): a
memorial to the crown complaining of the widespread extension of enclosures and
the disastrous effects of the millones concessions.
COLLAPSE OF THE PASTURAGE PRIVILEGES 34!
Nevertheless the constituents of the Cortes deputies also must
be satisfied with enclosure licenses and limitations upon pasturage
for migratory flocks. The outcome was a steady succession of
contradictory edicts, licenses, and privileges, the real value of
which was entirely dependent upon the ability of the recipients
to protect their interests and enforce their concessions.
It should not be presumed that the enclosures mentioned were
invariably for agricultural purposes, though a considerable por-
tion of them were intended for vineyards. The rise of the migra-
tory pastoral industry in the course of the sixteenth century had
been viewed with undisguised envy by the non-migratory local
sheep owners. The success of the pastoral legislation of the
Catholic Kings and the Emperor Charles had fired the ambi-
tions of sedentary herdsmen; as soon as the closing decades of
Philip Il’s reign brought increased confidence to the towns in their
conflict with the Mesta, the non-migratory riberiegos and es-
tantes became more conspicuous. Claims were entered in the
Cortes in behalf of the sedentary flocks; the Fuggers were leas-
ing large wooded areas of crown lands to them 1 and the havoc
of deforestation was thus given a new impetus. In Baeza (near
Cordova) alone, there were some 78,000 estantes in 1639, the
greater part of the number having come during the previous five
years; and other Andalusian and Estremaduran towns were
similarly interested in the industry.2 In view of this development
of the non-migratory pastoral activities, it is not surprising that
the Mesta made every effort to bring the riberiegos and other
local herdsmen under its control. Some of the provisions of the
pragmaticas of 1609 and 1633 were intended to accomplish this,
but proved quite ineffective.
The Mesta was further distressed by the Portuguese wars of
1640-41, which badly disrupted its operations by driving the
migrants from their accustomed canadas and pastures. What few
vestiges of respect for the fiction of posesiðn were still remaining
ɪ Acad. Hist., Salazar Mss., X-ι, fols. 16 and 352 ff.: a memorial on the pastur-
age situation in part of Estremadura in ιδo2. On the relations between the crown
and the Fuggers, see above, p. 282.
2 Arch. Mesta, B-ι, Baeza, 1639: data presented in court by local authorities.