II2
THE MESTA
to check the obnoxious arrogance of the entregadores during the
absolutism of the Hapsburgs.
The origin of the first of the two chancillerias, that at Valla-
dolid, goes back to the appellate court, organized by Henry II in
1371, which John I made into a quarter-sessions court in 1387,
with Madrid, Olmedo, Medina del Campo, and Alcala de Henares
as its itinerary.ι It was the successor of this body, the chancil-
lerfa,which became fixed at Valladolid, in 1442, was remodelled
by the Catholic Kings in 1489, and came to be one of the two
regular courts for appeals from the decisions of the entregadores.
The companion court to this was the chancillerfa which was
established at Ciudad Real in 1494 and transferred to Granada
in 1505.2 Although Iegallyentitled ‘audiencias’ as well as ‘chan-
cillerias,’ contemporaries usually designated these two by the
latter title,in order to distinguish them from the lesser audiencias;
which, though not subordinate to them, were smaller and partook
more of a local nature.
In 1532 we find the first interest expressed by the Cortes in the
reform of the methods of appeal from the decisions of entrega-
dores. The deputies asked that cases involving less than six
thousand maravedis be carried to the town assembly (concejo) of
the place where the decision was rendered, instead of to the Royal
ɪ See Merriman, Spanish Empire, i, pp. 230 f.; ii, pp. 121-124; and the schol-
arly “ Investigaciones acerca del Origen, Historia, y 0rganizaci6n de la Real
Chancilleria de Valladolid,” by Mendizâbal, in the Revista de Archivas, Bibliotecas,
y Museos, January-July, 1914. Brief notes are also given in Colmeiro, Derecho
Politico, pp. 563-564; Antequera, Hist, de la LegislaMn Espanola (1895), p. 394;
Sempere, Derecho Espanol (1894), pp. 390-398; Marichalar and Manrique, Hist, de
la Legislacibn, iii, p. 329, Altamira, Hist, de Espana, ii (ed. of 1913), pp. 47-48.
These citations cover the development of the Castilian audiencia and chancillerfa.
The general topic of appeals in the Castilian judicial system is outlined from the
codes in Asso and Manuel, Instituciones del Derecho Civil de Caslilla (ed. of 1792),
pp∙ ʒɪs-ʒʧ-
2 They divided the realm between them roughly at the Tagus, but as the differ-
ent audiencias were created — Seville, Estremadura, Burgos, etc. — the chancil-
lerfas’ jurisdictions were greatly cut down. The audiencia of Seville was not al-
lowed to hear appeals from entregadores’ decisions (Quad. 1731, pt. 2, p. 266,1562) ;
and on the other hand, practically all efforts of the entregadores to hear cases within
the jurisdiction of the city of Seville were frustrated by the city officials. Arch.
Mesta, A-6, Algarrobo, r68o; C-ю, Cumbres, 1560; and Prov. iv, 23.
the Entregador and the towns i i 3
Council, or to the chancillerias, which were at that time well under
the control of the monarch and his council. The crown treated
this petition with the same impatience and disregard which
characterized the royal replies to the many previous requests of
the assembly for Mesta reforms.1 By an interesting coincidence,
the year after this attempt by the Cortes to thwart the chancil-
Ierfas, namely 1533, brought the first decisions of a chancillerfa
against an entregador and the Mesta. In that year the towns of
Belalcfizar and Fuerte Escusa (near Cuenca) won appeals in the
chancillerfa at Granada, in cases involving the taxation of migra-
tory flocks which violated local ordinances regarding trespasses
in fields adjoining the canadas.2 A few years later, in 1546, the
same court again rendered a decision hostile to the Mesta and
its judiciary. On that occasion the chancellerfa supported a local
officer, the subordinate of the corregidor in the town of Avila, in
his contention that the entregador had no right to interfere with
him.3 In the meantime, the city of Murcia had gained a chancil-
lerfa verdict against an entregador, and the court at Valladolid
had refused the Mesta and its judges permission to lay out a new
canada within the jurisdiction of Segovia.4 Shortly before the
accession of Philip II, there came another decision of the Granada
court against the Mesta, but this was altered at a rehearing.5
The above instances are given as illustrations of a significant
change which was just becoming noticeable in the attitude of the
two chancillerias. Throughout the reign of Charles V these high
courts were handing down six or seven decisions each year on
’ Cories, Segovia, 1532, pet. 53. This was repeated in 1537 (pet. 29) and in 1538
(pet. 81), with the same result. Nov. Recop., lib. 7, tit. 27, ley 5, cap. τ4, enforces
this restriction of appeals from entregadores to the chancillerias, instead of to the
local bodies.
a Arch. Osuna, Béjar, caj. 6, nos. 53, 59; and Arch. Mesta, F-2, Fuerte Escusa,
ɪsɜɜ-
3 Arch. Mesta, A-9, Avila, 1546.
4 Ibid., S~5, Segovia, r537. This case is further interesting because it is one of
the few occasions when the chancillerfa acts as a court of first instance instead of
appeal. Others are to be found in C-2, Camarena, 1523; F-2, Fuente el Sauco,
ɪʒɪɪ; F-2, Fuerte Escusa1 1533; G-r, Granada, 1547; M-2, Majambrez (To-
ledo), r543; T-4, Toro, τ524; and Z-ι, Zaias, 1519-24.
, Arch. Mesta, A-7, Almod6var, 1559: a case tried during 1555-56.