Spanish confiscation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The '''Spanish confiscation''' was a long historical, economic and social process, which began in the late 18th century with the so-called "Confiscation of Godoy" (1798), although there was a precedent in the reign of [[Charles III of Spain]], and ended well into the 20th century (16 December 1924). It consisted of putting on the market, previous forced expropriation and through a public auction, the lands and properties (including landmarks) that previously could not alienate (sell, mortgage or lease) and were in the hands of the called "[[mortmain]]s" ie, the [[Catholic Church]] and the [[religious Order|religious orders]] which had accumulated as usual beneficiaries of grants, [[will]]s and [[intestate]]s, and the called 'without use solars' (baldíos) and [[Commons|communal lands]] of the municipalities, which served as a complement to the fragile economy of the peasants. In the words of [[Francisco Tomás y Valiente]], the Spanish confiscation presented "the following features: appropriation by the State and by its unilateral decision of real estate properties belonging to "mortmains", selling them and assignment of the obtained ammount proceeds with the sells to the amortization of debt securities".<ref name=valiente44>{{cite book |name = Francisco Tomás y Valiente| author - link = Thomas | year = 1972 | pages = 44 |quote=}}</ref> |
The '''Spanish confiscation''' was a long historical, economic and social process, which began in the late 18th century with the so-called "Confiscation of Godoy" (1798), although there was a precedent in the reign of [[Charles III of Spain]], and ended well into the 20th century (16 December 1924). It consisted of putting on the market, previous forced expropriation and through a public auction, the lands and properties (including landmarks) that previously could not alienate (sell, mortgage or lease) and were in the hands of the called "[[mortmain]]s" ie, the [[Catholic Church]] and the [[religious Order|religious orders]] which had accumulated as usual beneficiaries of grants, [[will]]s and [[intestate]]s, and the called 'without use solars' (baldíos) and [[Commons|communal lands]] of the municipalities, which served as a complement to the fragile economy of the peasants. In the words of [[Francisco Tomás y Valiente]], the Spanish confiscation presented "the following features: appropriation by the State and by its unilateral decision of real estate properties belonging to "mortmains", selling them and assignment of the obtained ammount proceeds with the sells to the amortization of debt securities".<ref name=valiente44>{{cite book |name = Francisco Tomás y Valiente| author - link = Thomas | year = 1972 | pages = 44 |quote=}}</ref> |
||
In other countries (as Mexico) there occured a phenomenon of more or less similar characteristics.<ref group='note'> For example, in [[Mexico]] the nicknamed the Lerdo Law, the '' |
In other countries (as Mexico) there occured a phenomenon of more or less similar characteristics.<ref group='note'> For example, in [[Mexico]] the nicknamed the Lerdo Law, the ''Law of confiscation of the rural and urban properties of the civil and religious corporations of Mexico'', was issued on 25 June 1856 by President [[Ignacio Comonfort]]. [http://www.biblioteca.tv/artman2/publish/1856_149/Ley_Lerdo_Ley_de_desamortizaci_n_de_bienes_de_la_i_247.shtml] 500 years of Mexico in documents: Lerdo Law. Law of confiscation of properties of the church and corporations]</ref> The priority aim of the confiscation taken in Spain was to get extra income to pay off the [[public debt]] securities -singularly [[Vale real|vales reales]]- that issued the State to finance itself, or extinguish it because on some occasion also be admitted as payment in auctions. It also chased increase the national wealth and create a [[bourgeoisie]] and middle class of farmers who were owners of the plots they cultivated and create capitalist conditions (privatization, strong financial system) so that the State could raise more and better taxes. |
||
The confiscation was one of the political weapons with which the [[liberalism|liberal]]s modified the system of ownership of [[Ancien Régime|Old Regime]] to implement the new Liberal state during the first half of the 19th century. |
The confiscation was one of the political weapons with which the [[liberalism|liberal]]s modified the system of ownership of [[Ancien Régime|Old Regime]] to implement the new Liberal state during the first half of the 19th century. |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
=== The proposals of the enlighteneds === |
=== The proposals of the enlighteneds === |
||
[[File:Pablo Olavide.jpg|thumb| Portrait of [[Pablo de Olavide]], by Juan Moreno Tejada before 1805.]] |
[[File:Pablo Olavide.jpg|thumb| Portrait of [[Pablo de Olavide]], by Juan Moreno Tejada before 1805.]] |
||
The enlightened showed a great concern for the backwardness of the Spanish agriculture and virtually all who dealt with the issue agreed that one of the main causes of it was the huge expanse that reached in Spain the [[Mortmain|amortized]] property held by the "mortmains" -the Church and the municipalities, primarily- because the lands that held were generally poorly cultivated, in addition to remaining outside the market because these could not alienate, nor |
The enlightened showed a great concern for the backwardness of the Spanish agriculture and virtually all who dealt with the issue agreed that one of the main causes of it was the huge expanse that reached in Spain the [[Mortmain|amortized]] property held by the "mortmains" -the Church and the municipalities, primarily- because the lands that held were generally poorly cultivated, in addition to remaining outside the market because these could not alienate, nor sold, nor mortgaged or budge, with the consequent increase in the price of the "free" land, and not taxed at the Royal Finance by the [[privilege]]s of its owners <ref>{{quote book | name = Tomás y Valiente, Francisco | enlaceautor = Tomás | year = 1972 | pages = 12-15 | quote =}}</ref> The [[José Moñino, 1st Count of Floridablanca|Count of Floridablanca]], Minister of [[Charles III of Spain|Charles III]], in his famous reserved ''Report'' of 1787 he complained of "major damages of the amortization".<ref>{{cite book | name =Francisco Tomás y Valiente | author - link = Tomás | year = 1972 | pages = 15 | quote =}}</ref> |
||
{{Quote|The less hassle, although not be small, is that such [amortizated] properties it evade to the taxes; for there are other two major, which are recharge to other subjects and get the amortized properties liable to deteriorate and lose after then the holders can not cultivate or are disengaged or poors, as it experience and seen with pain everywhere, for not there land, houses or real estate more abandoned and destroyed than the [[chaplain]] sites and other perpetual foundations, with immeasurable injury against the State.}} |
{{Quote|The less hassle, although not be small, is that such [amortizated] properties it evade to the taxes; for there are other two major, which are recharge to other subjects and get the amortized properties liable to deteriorate and lose after then the holders can not cultivate or are disengaged or poors, as it experience and seen with pain everywhere, for not there land, houses or real estate more abandoned and destroyed than the [[chaplain]] sites and other perpetual foundations, with immeasurable injury against the State.}} |
||
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
As highlighted [[Francisco Tomás y Valiente]], with the "confiscation of Godoy", it give a turning point in linking the confiscation to the problems of public debt, unlike what happened with the confiscation measures of Charles III that seeking, although occurs of a very limited extent, the reform of the agrarian economy. The liberal confiscations of the 19th century continue the approach of the "confiscation of Godoy" and not of the measures of Charles III.<ref>{{cite book| name=Francisco Tomás y Valiente | author - link = | year = 1972 | pages = 46-47 | quote =}}</ref> |
As highlighted [[Francisco Tomás y Valiente]], with the "confiscation of Godoy", it give a turning point in linking the confiscation to the problems of public debt, unlike what happened with the confiscation measures of Charles III that seeking, although occurs of a very limited extent, the reform of the agrarian economy. The liberal confiscations of the 19th century continue the approach of the "confiscation of Godoy" and not of the measures of Charles III.<ref>{{cite book| name=Francisco Tomás y Valiente | author - link = | year = 1972 | pages = 46-47 | quote =}}</ref> |
||
== The liberal confiscations of the 19th century == |
|||
=== The reign of Joseph Bonaparte (1808-1813) === |
|||
[[Joseph Bonaparte]] decreed on August 18, 1809 the removal of "all [[clergy|regular]], monastic, [[Mendicant orders|mendicant]] and clerical Orders"(sic), whose assets would automatically belong to the nation. So "many religious institutions were dissolved in fact (regardless of any [[canon law|canon]] legal consideration). The mechanic of the war also produced frequently identical effects in many [[convent]]s, [[monastery]]s and "houses of religious" <ref> {{cite Book | name =Francisco Tomás y Valiente | autor - link = Tomás | year = 1972 | pages = 64 | quote =}}</ref> |
|||
[[Joseph Bonaparte]] also made a small confiscation that did not imply the removal of the property, but the confiscation of its income for the fueling and war expenditure of the French troops, so they were returned in 1814.<ref name=C>Tomás, F. y Valiente, J. Donézar, G. Rueda, J. M. Moro: ''La desamortización''. Cuadernos historia 16, nº8, 1985, ISBN 84-85229-76-2.</ref> |
|||
=== The Cortes de Cádiz (1810-1814) === |
|||
[[File:José Canga.jpg|thumb|200px|[[José Canga Argüelles]], portrayed by Vicente Arbiol Rodríguez.]] |
|||
After an intense debate that took place in March 1811, the deputies of the [[Cádiz Cortes|Cortes de Cádiz]] recognized the huge debt accumulated in the form of [[vale real|vales reales]] during the reign of [[Charles IV of Spain|Charles IV]] and that the acting Secretary of Treasury [[José Canga Argüelles]] estimated in 7000 million reales. After rejectthat the vales reales only to be recognized for its market value, well below of its [[Real versus nominal value (economics)|nominal value]] -which would have meant the ruin of its holders and the inability to obtain new loans- Is approved the "Memory" presented by Canga Argüelles that proposing confiscate certain goods of "[[mortmain]]s" that is put on sale. In the auctions the amount of the two thirds of the hammer price must paid in "the national debt securities" -which included the vales reales of the previous reign and the new "notes of liquidated credit" that were issued from 1808 to defray the expenses of the [[Peninsular War|War of Spanish Independence]]-. The cash obtained in the auctions also be dedicated to the payment of interest and the capital of the "national debt".<ref>{{cite book | name = Tomas y Valiente, Francisco | author - link = Tomás | year = 1972 | pages = 48-52 | quote =}}</ref> |
|||
==Notes== |
==Notes== |
||
Revision as of 23:29, 19 January 2016
The Spanish confiscation was a long historical, economic and social process, which began in the late 18th century with the so-called "Confiscation of Godoy" (1798), although there was a precedent in the reign of Charles III of Spain, and ended well into the 20th century (16 December 1924). It consisted of putting on the market, previous forced expropriation and through a public auction, the lands and properties (including landmarks) that previously could not alienate (sell, mortgage or lease) and were in the hands of the called "mortmains" ie, the Catholic Church and the religious orders which had accumulated as usual beneficiaries of grants, wills and intestates, and the called 'without use solars' (baldíos) and communal lands of the municipalities, which served as a complement to the fragile economy of the peasants. In the words of Francisco Tomás y Valiente, the Spanish confiscation presented "the following features: appropriation by the State and by its unilateral decision of real estate properties belonging to "mortmains", selling them and assignment of the obtained ammount proceeds with the sells to the amortization of debt securities".[1]
In other countries (as Mexico) there occured a phenomenon of more or less similar characteristics.[note 1] The priority aim of the confiscation taken in Spain was to get extra income to pay off the public debt securities -singularly vales reales- that issued the State to finance itself, or extinguish it because on some occasion also be admitted as payment in auctions. It also chased increase the national wealth and create a bourgeoisie and middle class of farmers who were owners of the plots they cultivated and create capitalist conditions (privatization, strong financial system) so that the State could raise more and better taxes.
The confiscation was one of the political weapons with which the liberals modified the system of ownership of Old Regime to implement the new Liberal state during the first half of the 19th century.
The confiscation during the Old Regime
The proposals of the enlighteneds
The enlightened showed a great concern for the backwardness of the Spanish agriculture and virtually all who dealt with the issue agreed that one of the main causes of it was the huge expanse that reached in Spain the amortized property held by the "mortmains" -the Church and the municipalities, primarily- because the lands that held were generally poorly cultivated, in addition to remaining outside the market because these could not alienate, nor sold, nor mortgaged or budge, with the consequent increase in the price of the "free" land, and not taxed at the Royal Finance by the privileges of its owners [2] The Count of Floridablanca, Minister of Charles III, in his famous reserved Report of 1787 he complained of "major damages of the amortization".[3]
The less hassle, although not be small, is that such [amortizated] properties it evade to the taxes; for there are other two major, which are recharge to other subjects and get the amortized properties liable to deteriorate and lose after then the holders can not cultivate or are disengaged or poors, as it experience and seen with pain everywhere, for not there land, houses or real estate more abandoned and destroyed than the chaplain sites and other perpetual foundations, with immeasurable injury against the State.
One of the proposals that made the enlightenments, especially Pablo de Olavide and Gaspar Melchor de Jovellanos, was put for sale the properties called without use solars. It was uncultivated and uninhabited lands belonging "in any way" to the city halls and was generally used to assign to pasture for cattle. For Olavide the protection that had been given until then to livestock was one of the causes of agricultural backwardness, which advocated that "all the lands should be reduced to work" and therefore without use solars would to be sold first to the "particular richs" because they have the means to cultivate, although some should be reserved to the farmers who had two pairs of oxen. With the money obtained would will established a "Provincial caja" (provincial saving bank) that would serve for the construction of public works -roads, canals, bridges...-. Thus will be achieved "useful, rooted and taxpayers neighbors, while achieving the extension of tillage, the increase of the population and the abundance of the produces".[4]
.jpg?lang=en)
.
The Jovellanos's proposal regarding the properties of the city halls was much more radical, because unlike Olavide that only proposed the sale of without use solars thereby respecting the most important part of the resources of the city halls, this also included the privatization of the "council lands", so it is understood that also include the properties of the city halls that give taxes, which were the lands sought more income to municipal funds. Jovellanos, a fervent supporter of the economic liberalism -"the job of the laws... should not be excite or direct, but only protect the interests of its agents naturally active and well run to its goal" he affirmed-, defended the "free and absolute" sale of these properties, without making distinctions between the potential buyers -he not worried as Olavide that these lands passed into the hands of a few magnates- because, as noted by Francisco Tomás y Valiente, for Jovellanos "the liberation of without use solars and and council lands is a good in itself, for at stop being such lands amortized, become dependent for the "individual interest" and can be immediately placed in crop". Jovellanos's ideas influence notably in the liberals who launched the confiscations of the 19th century thanks to the enormous spread that had its Report on the agrarian law, published in 1795, much higher than the "Plan" of Olavide, which was only partially known in the "Adjusted memorial" in 1784. [5]
As for the lands of the Church, the enlightenments did not defend the confiscation of their lands, but advocated that be limit, by "sweet and peaceful" means in the words of the Count of Floridablanca, the acquisition of more land for the ecclesiastical institutions, although this proposal as moderate was rejected by the Church and by most members of the Royal Council when was put to vote in June 1766. The two leaflets where was argued the proposal were included in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum of the Inquisition: the Treaty of the royalty payment of Amortization by Pedro Rodríguez, Count of Campomanes, published in 1765, and the Report about the agrarian law of Jovellanos, published in 1795. "The moderation of the enlightened reformism becomes very clearly shown at this point [that only defend the limitation or stoppage in the future of the ecclesiastical amortization] and the resistance of the Church of make concessions in the economic sphere -announce its attitude in times to come- and then is very firm".[6]
The confiscation measures of Charles III
The Confiscation timid measures agreed during the reign of Charles III have to be seen in the context of the riots that occurred in the spring of 1766 and that are known by the name of Esquilache Riots. The most important measure was an initiative of the corregidor-intendente of Badajoz that to quell the revolt ordened deliver in renting the city hall lands to the "needy neighbors, attending first to the senareros and day labors that themselves or with wages can work it, and after of them who have a load of donkeys, and farmers of a yoke, and in this order to the two yokes in preference to the three, and so respectively". The 10th Count of Aranda, the newly appointed minister by Charles III, immediately extended the measure to all Extremadura by royal decree of May 2, 1766, and the following year to the whole kingdom. In an order of 1768 that it developed, explained that the measure was intended to serve the poorest farmers and laborers, looking for the "common good" [7]
However, this measure, -which is not really a confiscation because the lands were leased and remained the property of the municipalities- was in effect just three years, it was repealed on 26 May 1770. In the royal decree that replaced it prioritized in leases "to the laborers of one, two and three yokes", so that the initial social purpose disappeared. To justify it alluded the "problems that have followed in the practice of the various provisions issued earlier about distribution of lands", referring to that many laborers and poor peasants who had received plots of lands, not had been able to cultivate properly -failing to pay the censuses- because lacked of the means to do so, since the concessions were not accompanied of loans to enable them to acquire. The consequence of all this was that the lands of city halls became to the oligarchies of the municipalities, these "individual richs" of which it spoke in the "Plan" of Olavide, who had openly criticized the first measures because it believed that the braceros lacked the means to put into full use the lands that deliver, when the Olavide self direct the project of New Populations of Andalusia and Sierra Morena the settlers receive the minimum necessary to begin to cultivate the land that it had been granted, together with the exemption of pay taxes and censuses in the early years - [8]
In conclusion, as noted Francisco Tomás y Valiente, the politicians of Charles III "acted moved more by economic reasons (put in farming uncultivated lands) than by other social, that or do not appear in their plans and the legal precepts, or when arose in they were suppressed first by the lack of adequate resources for its effective implementation, and secondly (as it saw Cárdenas and Joaquín Costa) by the resistance that the "provincial plutocracy" opposed to any social reform... However... the confiscation measures of Charles III and even the correlative plans of who then it occupied of this issue have in common an important and positive feature: its connection with the wider plan of reform or regulation of the agricultural economy".[9]
The "confiscation of Godoy"
During the reign of Charles IV took place the called "Confiscation of Godoy", although who launched in September 1798 was Mariano Luis de Urquijo together with the Secretary of the Treasury, Miguel Cayetano Soler, who had held that position during the government of Manuel Godoy I -removed from power six months before-[10]
It was started in 1798 when Carlos IV obtained permission from the Vatican to expropriate the properties of the Jesuits and of pious works that, on the whole, came to be one-sixth part of the Church properties. In it was disentailed goods of the Society of Jesus, of hospitals, hospices, Houses of Mercy and of University residential colleges and also included un-operated goods of particulars [11]
As highlighted Francisco Tomás y Valiente, with the "confiscation of Godoy", it give a turning point in linking the confiscation to the problems of public debt, unlike what happened with the confiscation measures of Charles III that seeking, although occurs of a very limited extent, the reform of the agrarian economy. The liberal confiscations of the 19th century continue the approach of the "confiscation of Godoy" and not of the measures of Charles III.[12]
The liberal confiscations of the 19th century
The reign of Joseph Bonaparte (1808-1813)
Joseph Bonaparte decreed on August 18, 1809 the removal of "all regular, monastic, mendicant and clerical Orders"(sic), whose assets would automatically belong to the nation. So "many religious institutions were dissolved in fact (regardless of any canon legal consideration). The mechanic of the war also produced frequently identical effects in many convents, monasterys and "houses of religious" [13]
Joseph Bonaparte also made a small confiscation that did not imply the removal of the property, but the confiscation of its income for the fueling and war expenditure of the French troops, so they were returned in 1814.[14]
The Cortes de Cádiz (1810-1814)
After an intense debate that took place in March 1811, the deputies of the Cortes de Cádiz recognized the huge debt accumulated in the form of vales reales during the reign of Charles IV and that the acting Secretary of Treasury José Canga Argüelles estimated in 7000 million reales. After rejectthat the vales reales only to be recognized for its market value, well below of its nominal value -which would have meant the ruin of its holders and the inability to obtain new loans- Is approved the "Memory" presented by Canga Argüelles that proposing confiscate certain goods of "mortmains" that is put on sale. In the auctions the amount of the two thirds of the hammer price must paid in "the national debt securities" -which included the vales reales of the previous reign and the new "notes of liquidated credit" that were issued from 1808 to defray the expenses of the War of Spanish Independence-. The cash obtained in the auctions also be dedicated to the payment of interest and the capital of the "national debt".[15]
Notes
- ^ For example, in Mexico the nicknamed the Lerdo Law, the Law of confiscation of the rural and urban properties of the civil and religious corporations of Mexico, was issued on 25 June 1856 by President Ignacio Comonfort. [1] 500 years of Mexico in documents: Lerdo Law. Law of confiscation of properties of the church and corporations]
References
- ^ . 1972. p. 44.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|author - link=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ . 1972. pp. 12–15.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|enlaceautor=ignored (|author-link=suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ . 1972. p. 15.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|author - link=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ . 1972. pp. 16–18.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|author - link=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ . 1972. pp. 20–23.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|author - link=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ . 1972. pp. 23–31.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|author - link=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ . 1972. pp. 31–32.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|author - link=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ . 1972. pp. 34–36.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|author - link=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ . 1972. pp. 36–37.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|author - link=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ Template:Cite book.
- ^ José Antonio Escudero: Curso de historia del derecho. Madrid, 1995.
- ^ . 1972. pp. 46–47.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|author - link=(help); Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ . 1972. p. 64.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|autor - link=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help) - ^ Tomás, F. y Valiente, J. Donézar, G. Rueda, J. M. Moro: La desamortización. Cuadernos historia 16, nº8, 1985, ISBN 84-85229-76-2.
- ^ . 1972. pp. 48–52.
{{cite book}}: Missing or empty|title=(help); Unknown parameter|author - link=ignored (help); Unknown parameter|name=ignored (help)