The name is absent

THE MESTA

calmly disregarded all threats and extended their jurisdiction
whenever and wherever they chose. In a similar manner they
ignored the long standing and well recognized functions of the
council of the royal exchequer, which was another branch of the
Royal Council.* The President of the Mesta frequently called
upon his fellow councillors for aid in the protection of the entre-
gadores against such systematic transgressions.² These appeals
were, however, of no avail, for the high courts and the towns
easily found means of securing the desired restrictions upon the
Mesta and its judiciary. This happened most frequently during
and after the Portuguese wars, when the crown found it expedient
to be liberal with exemptions from the entregador’s visitations.³

The activity of the Chancillerias continued unabated. “ In
spite of the oft repeated decrees of the Council and the protests
of the President,” complained the Mesta, in 1694, “ the courts at
Valladolid and Granada continue to harass the ancient assembly
of sheep owners by nullifying the sentences of their protecting
entregadores.” ⁴ The exasperated President was even able at
times to rouse his associates of the Royal Council to such out-
bursts as “ the local alcaldes are to obey the entregadores in all
matters,” ⁶ or “ the chancillerias’ rulings in no way affect the
entregadores.” ⁶ The efforts of President and Council, however,
were alike futile.

The Mesta was being reduced steadily to further extremities.
Early in the reign of Charles II it began to have recourse to the
help of another organization, which was closely allied to the Royal

¹ Arch. Mesta₁ B-2, Benadalid, 1628.

^s Ibid., Prov. i, 105 61621); C-4, Carcabuey, τ630.

³ Ibid., Prov. ii, 37 (1647); 4i (1632); 12 (1654); 53 (1655); B-4, Bureba,
1648; C-2, Calahorra, 1650; A-8, Arnedo, 1650. Prov. iv, 30, is a document of
forty-five manuscript folios, dated 1763, in which is given an exhaustive review of
local exemptions from Mesta laws and entregador’s visitations in all parts of Castile,
with special reference to those granted in the seventeenth century. By it the Mesta
and its President, under whose direction the data for the document were gathered,
attempted to prove the widespread violations of its privileges through the unlawful
extension and perpetuation of these exemptions.

^, Ibid., Prov. iii, 17.

^s Ibid., B-ι, Ballecas, 1683.

• Ibid., Prov. iii, 21 (1699). The decrees immediately following this one are
liberally sprinkled with many such outbursts.

DECLINE OF THE ENTREGADOR

Council, namely the Sala de Mil y Quinientas. This was a special
court of last appeal, which had jurisdiction over matters of gravest
importance. Its distinctive feature was the deposit of “ mil y
quinientas (1500) doblas de oro cabeza ” ¹ which was made by the
appellant as evidence of the good faith of his appeal. The sum
was forfeited in the event of an adverse decision. The origins of
this court go back to the famous ‘ law of Segovia ’ of 1390, by
which John I decreed that “ in cases which are very grave or of
serious importance, parties who wish to ask for a rehearing shall
give security to the amount of 15∞ doblas, which shall be forfeited
if the appeal is found groundless.” ² Mendez de Silva and other
authorities have accepted this as the origin of the Sala de Mil y
Quinientas.³ Whether the Sala was organized at that early period
or not until the edicts of 1502, 1532, and 1565, is not important
for our present purpose. The significant point is, that although
this high court had been open to the Mesta for many decades, the
latter did not turn to it until the darkest days of its long history.
The value of the lands involved in the litigations between the
sheep owners and the cities, bishoprics, and military orders was
frequently large enough to warrant appeals to the Sala. However,
it was not until every other haven had proved of no avail against
the stormy attacks of the Cortes, the chancillerfas, and the other
defenders of the towns, that the Mesta finally turned to this court
as the last and highest sanctuary to protect the dignity of its
entregadores.

The earliest important edict of the Sala concerning the Mesta
was issued in 1642. It confirmed with considerable emphasis the
sentence of an entregador regarding the right of access of the
herdsmen to certain lands in the bishopric of Cuenca.⁴ During
the succeeding generation the Mesta did not appeal again to the
Sala, but intrusted its forlorn hopes to the Royal Council. Un-

* This kind of dobla was valued at 51 reales, which would make the total deposit
equal to about 19,500 francs. Cf. Pedro de Cantos Benitez, Escrntinio de Marave-
dises y Monedas de Oro Antiguas (Madrid, 1763), cap. 15, no. 20.

³ Nueva Recop., lib. 4, tit. 20, ley ɪ.

³ Catdlogo Real y Genealdgico (Madrid, 1656), fol. 112. See also Escolano de
Arrieta, Prdclica del Consejo Real (Madrid, 1796), ii, p. in.

⁴ Arch. Mesta, C-ю, Cuenca, 1647.

<<   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   >>

More intriguing information