The name is absent



96


THE MESTA

nor shall the entregadores authorize any such, or confirm any
that may have been given by others, for all persons, assemblies,
or communities who would enjoy that right shall come and ask
for it before us [the crown].”1

All of the evidence on this question of enclosure licenses shows
clearly how the powers of the entregador, so carefully fostered
both by the crown and by the Mesta, had raised that dignitary,
by the opening years of Charles V’s reign — about 1519-25 —
to a position of independence and strength never contemplated
by either his creator—the crown—or his wards—the Mesta
members ; and it was not long before both of these parties were
taking steps to hold the itinerant magistrate in check. From that
time onward he was the object of careful observation, especially
on the part of the Mesta, until finally he became a member of the
regular official staff of that body. This was accomplished in x568
through the purchase from the Count of Buendfa of the proprie-
tary rights over the office. By that time the entregadores had
become far too important to allow their continuance outside the
immediate control of the Mesta. The wisdom of the purchase was
shown by the fact that the price, 750,o∞ maravedis, though re-
garded as excessive at the time, was within a decade equal only to
a fifth or sixth of the income derived each year by the Mesta from
the profits of the office.

In the depression of the economic decay of the seventeenth cen-
tury, the sale of these licenses for enclosures formed a lucrative
source of revenue for the crown and occasionally for unscru-
pulous entregadores. This naturally caused corresponding vexa-
tions to the Mesta members, because of the resulting curtailment
of common lands. At the same time the practice gradually de-
veloped into a regular formula for purchasing exemption from
the visitations of the entregadores, and this practice had much
to do with the decline in the importance of those officials under
the later Hapsburgs.

The once imposing power of the entregadores as arbiters over
the rural lands of the realm slowly crumbled away, as did the

* Nov. Recop., lib. 7, tit. 27, ley 5, cap. 28. Cf. Escolano de Arrieta, Prdctica
del Consejo Real
(Madrid, 1796), i, pp. 248-251.

the Entregador and the towns

97


other elements of the office. From the middle of the seventeenth
century onward, they were less and less a potent factor and more
and more mere meddlers in the administration of the pasture
lands. They complained solemnly of the evil of intemperance,
and cited it as one of the chief arguments against the laying out
and enclosing of vineyards in what were once Mesta pastures.1
They protested feebly against the sale of
raslrojos, or stubble,
“ to which the ancient privileges of the Mesta had given the
flocks free access.” 2 Although theoretically the entregadores
still exercised this function of supervising the pastures of the
transhumantes down to the abolition of the office in 1796, in prac-
tice the various local officials had long since taken over the regula-
tion of all grazing grounds within the jurisdictions of their
separate towns, whether frequented by migratory or local flocks.
One of the arguments most commonly presented in defence of
this step, when such a defence seemed necessary, was that the
Mesta’s prevention of the extension of enclosures into the open
and waste lands had caused the latter to be covered with under-
growth to such an extent that they were not only useless as pas-
turage, but were also a menace to neighboring communities be-
cause of thieves and wolves that were harbored there.3

Throughout the eighteenth century vehement charges were
brought against the Mesta as a hindrance to the extension of
agriculture; and in these charges the entregador continued to be
mentioned. Local authorities had, however, taken over the
functions of the office, and the pastoral reforms and investiga-
tions conducted by Charles III and his ministers touched upon
the entregador only incidentally, to eliminate even a formal
recognition of that officer as a participant in the administration
of pasturage.

1 Arch. Mesta, C-ι, Calahorra, 1650.

2 Ibid., C-4, Capilla Garlitos, 1742. In some parts of Spain today, for example
in southern Aragon, the fields and vineyards are thrown open after the harvest
to passing herds, upon payment of a nominal fee. Cf.
Nov. Recop., lib. 7, tit. 27,
ley 5, cap. 28. See also the ordinances of the town of Baena, 1492, regulating the
use of
rastrojos by the village swine Valverde Perales, Antiguas Ordenanzas de
Baena
(Cordova, 1907), p. 223.

3 Concordia de r7S3, ii, fol. 41.



More intriguing information

1. SOCIOECONOMIC TRENDS CHANGING RURAL AMERICA
2. Disentangling the Sources of Pro-social Behavior in the Workplace: A Field Experiment
3. Optimal Taxation of Capital Income in Models with Endogenous Fertility
4. Strategic Planning on the Local Level As a Factor of Rural Development in the Republic of Serbia
5. Olive Tree Farming in Jaen: Situation With the New Cap and Comparison With the Province Income Per Capita.
6. Modellgestützte Politikberatung im Naturschutz: Zur „optimalen“ Flächennutzung in der Agrarlandschaft des Biosphärenreservates „Mittlere Elbe“
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. Should Local Public Employment Services be Merged with the Local Social Benefit Administrations?
10. The name is absent
11. Robust Econometrics
12. Explaining Growth in Dutch Agriculture: Prices, Public R&D, and Technological Change
13. The name is absent
14. The name is absent
15. A Review of Kuhnian and Lakatosian “Explanations” in Economics
16. The name is absent
17. Behavioural Characteristics and Financial Distress
18. SAEA EDITOR'S REPORT, FEBRUARY 1988
19. The name is absent
20. TINKERING WITH VALUATION ESTIMATES: IS THERE A FUTURE FOR WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT MEASURES?