92
THE MESTA
Although this interference with the jurisdiction and profits of
the local judiciary was regarded as a serious grievance, the pro-
tests against it were by no means so widespread nor so vehement
as those directed against the most important phase of the entre-
gador’s activities, namely his supervision of the pastures used by
the Mesta flocks. The canadas were clearly defined and of ancient
origin. They were, therefore, as a rule accepted by the towns
without protest, and the entregadores exercised their jurisdiction
over the many minor encroachments on them with little difficulty.
When, however, the question came up of the Mesta’s access to
commons, fallow strips adjoining tilled fields, and other lands
which were always open to townspeople but only occasionally to
strangers, there arose a serious conflict.
The jurisdiction of the entregador over questions of pasturage
was limited to the important matter of enclosures. He had
nothing to do with such topics, for example, as the enforcement of
the notorious measures of Philip II and his successors, fixing the
prices of pasturage in favor of the Mesta. Furthermore, he was
prohibited by royal decree from passing judgment upon the
equally odious laws of posesiðn, which established the Mesta’s
perpetual title to tenancy in all fields leased by its members.1 It
was, however, the duty of the itinerant magistrate to make care-
ful observations of all public lands to which the Mesta claimed
access, and to prevent any enclosures of them either for agricul-
tural purposes or for the benefit of local, non-migratory flocks
(estantes) .2
These lands included the bosques, or unclaimed wooded areas,
and the baldios, or waste sections.3 The earlier royal charters of
the Mesta opened all such regions to the transhumantes and in-
structed the entregadores to see that the flocks were not debarred
from the lands in question. During the Middle Ages the pastes
comunes, or town commons, and the rastrojos, or grain stubble on
1 See below, p. 322.
3 His compensation for this service was one-third ol the fine levied, the re-
mainder being divided between the Mesta and its prosecuting attorney who ac-
companied the entregador. Quad. 1731, pt. 2, p. 289.
s Jordana y Morera, Algunas voces Forestales (Madrid, 1900), discusses these
terms; also see below, pp. 301 ff.
the Entregador and the towns
93
private fields, were usually recognized as being exclusively for the
use of local cattle. It was not until the absolutism of the first
Hapsburgs had made the Mesta much bolder and the entrega-
dores more arrogant that the local commons were invaded by the
migrants. A similar fate was suffered by various town pastures
and enclosures of a special nature: the corroies de mostrencos, for
the detention of strays; the Sanjuaniegos for horse-breeding pur-
poses; the dehesas boyales for oxen; the muladares for refuse
heaps; the colmenares for bee-hives; and the Carniceros for meat
dealers’ animals. There had been some litigation on the question
of the access of migratory flocks to these fields, but the towns had
generally been able to establish their rights.1
During the sixteenth century, however, the Mesta profited to
the fullest extent by the growing power of its ally, the crown, and
broke down any effective resistance to its judges. As a result, we
find the entregadores encroaching upon distinctly local jurisdic-
tion and restricting, under heavy penalties, the enclosure of town
commons either for arable or for any of the above named special
purposes. Although this was in direct violation of their letters of
appointment, the Mesta magistrates continued their excesses in
spite of frequent protests from the Cortes.2
As is usually the case, such aggressions were not legalized until
the practice had been common among entregadores for some
decades. It was not until 1621 that the Royal Council, the un-
failing friend of the Mesta, recognized the right of the Mesta
judiciary to try cases involving the enclosure of parts of town
ɪ Bib. Nac. Madrid, Ms. 430, fols. 45-48: an exemption granted to Câceres in
1341, covering its pastures of the above named types. Madrid was able to go even
further and to establish the jurisdiction of one of its judges over neighboring baldios
which were usually regarded as coming under the supervision of the crown, and,
therefore, of the entregador: Arch. Ayunt. Madrid, sec. 2, leg. 303, no. ι. On the
Mesta’s access to baldios see also Concoraia de 1783, ii, fols. 308 v, 316 v.
, Corles de Castilla, v (adic.), pp. 552-553 (1576); ix, pp. 261-265 (1587);
xiii, pp. 261-262 (1594); xiv, pp. 446-455 (1596); xix, p. 547 (1600). These refer-
ences contain certain lengthy discussions of the various types of distinctly local
pastures which should be subject to the jurisdiction of the town justices and not
to the entregadores. Arch. Mesta, B-2, Baraona, 1774, presents a typical instance
of the Mesta and its judiciary claiming access to the pasto comun of the town on the
ground that its very name implied that it was common to all sheep, including
transhumantes.