IOO
THE MESTA
decision, though there are instances of his having expressed in
writing his dissenting views in certain litigations. The entregador
usually sat in the town hall in the court-room of the alcalde, and
the presence of the latter on the bench with the visitor was appar-
ently intended to hold the Mesta magistrate in check to some
extent. The alcalde was particularly zealous in advising the
entregador of local privileges and interests quite as ancient and
revered as those of the Mesta.
In the earlier centuries this arrangement for cooperation be-
tween Mesta judiciary and town officers was more of a reality.
Close association with the alcaldes was regarded by the entrega-
dores as one of their first duties, particularly in the determination
of the boundaries of the canadas. As the Mesta became stronger
and its alliance with the crown grew closer, this procedure of
recognizing the importance of local dignitaries and their privileges
came inevitably to be regarded more and more as a formality of
no real consequence. During the sixteenth century the com-
plaints in the Cortes against this growing laxity on the part of the
entregadores became more frequent. By the time the following
century was well under way, however, it was apparent to the
towns that the entregadores were losing strength and were vulner-
able to attack and even disarmament by exemptions purchased
from the crown, and especially by appeals to the chancilleπas.
Thus the practice of having local officials accompany the visiting
justices fell into disuse.
Having in mind these dominant features of the relations be-
tween entregadores and alcaldes, we may turn to a brief examina-
tion of some of the more important episodes and details in the
history of those relations. Perhaps the earliest instance of fric-
tion occurred in 1292, when the citizens of Alcocer made a formal
complaint regarding the numerous unjust charges brought against
them before the entregador, and the hardship wrought by the
sentences of the latter. In answer to their petition, the king
ordered that all such cases should be heard “ before one of the
entregadores with an alcalde of Toledo.” 1 This was probably the
ɪ Arch. Osuna, Béjar Ms., caj. ι, no. 5: cédula of Sancho IV, 24 Nov., 1292.
Alcocer lay within the diocese of Toledo.
the Entregador and the towns
ɪoɪ
first occasion when a local official exercised authority in the court
of an itinerant magistrate. The original Mesta privileges make
no such provision; nor do the recurrent complaints of the Cortes
record any such safeguard until the following year, 1293, when the
deputies asked that “ the alcaldes of the towns be present to pass
upon cases with the entregadores.” 1 Not only was this granted,
but in addition it was ordered that the Mesta judges should sup-
ply the various localities on their itineraries with copies of their
commissions “ so that if the entregadores are inclined to exceed
their powers, they shall not be allowed to do so.” The latter
clause indicates the function of the local alcalde in this connection :
he served, not as a companion judge, but as a check upon the
entregador to prevent any illegal extensions of his powers.2
One of the frequent and obvious sources of difficulty was the
entregador’s effort to exercise jurisdiction over cases between
citizens of the town where he happened to be sitting. He did
this on the theory that the matters in question involved the rights
of the Mesta; but the local authorities were nearly always able to
check such encroachments by citing the specific limitations of the
visitor’s letters of appointment, which restricted him to litigation
between the migratory shepherds and the occupants of the land.3
Many towns enjoyed such royal protection as that given to
Cuenca by Ferdinand IV in 1306, when the entregadores visiting
that section were ordered “ not to hear any complaints made
by one vezino (of Cuenca) against another ; said complaints are
to be heard by the officials of Cuenca only.” 4 It was clearly
l Cortes, Valladolid, 1293, pet. 7. See a similar provision in a privilégia to Pla-
sencia, 1293, in Acad. Hist., Ms. τ2-19-3∕38, fol. 50.
2 There are instances where sentences were drawn up as coming from the two
jointly, but these were confined to cases where the town belonged to some powerful
noble or military order; cf. Acad. Hist., Ms. Salazar, I-4r, fol. 89: a case between
the town of Miguel Tierra, of the Order of Calatrava, and the Mesta, dated r308.
Similarly there was a contrata between Câceres and the Mesta, made in 1378, pro-
viding for joint sitting of the entregadores and the town alcaldes: Bib. Nac. Madrid,
Ms. 430, fols. 103-108.
3 See above, p. 80.
4 Arch. Ayunt. Cuenca, leg. 3, no. 19, 20 April 1306. The definition of vezino
given in the fuero of Soria (1190-1214; Acad. Hist., Ms. 12-19-2/36, par. 277)
conforms in substance with that given in otheι instruments of the lime, and may
be taken as the usually accepted one: “ Vezino de Soria es el que ha raiz [stock] en