[Sidenote: Slavery.]

[Sidenote: The gypsies.]

Although objections were raised to the enslavement of the Indians in the Americas, the inst.i.tution of slavery itself was generally recognized; even charitable and religious establishments possessed slaves. Moslem prisoners and negroes (acquired through war or purchase), together with their children, made up the bulk of this cla.s.s, although there were some slaves of white race. Conversion to Christianity did not procure emanc.i.p.ation, but the slaves were allowed to earn something for themselves with which to purchase their freedom. Certain restrictions--such, for example, as the prohibition against their living in quarters inhabited by newly converted Christians, or against their entering the guilds--were placed upon them once they had become free.

Only a little higher in status than the slaves were the Egipcianos, or gypsies. About the middle of the fifteenth century they had entered Spain for the first time by way of Catalonia, and, thenceforth, groups of them wandered about the peninsula, stealing and telling fortunes for a living, and having a government of their own. A law of 1499 required them to settle down in towns and ply honest trades on pain of expulsion from Spain or of enslavement, but the gypsies neither left Spain nor abandoned their nomadic ways, and they were a continual problem to the kings of the House of Austria. Various royal orders provided that they must take up an occupation, although their choice was virtually limited by law to the cultivation of the soil; they were not to live in the smaller villages, were forbidden to use their native language, dress, or names, or to employ their customs in marriage and other matters, and were prohibited from dwelling in a separate quarter of their own. Fear lest the Christian population become contaminated by gypsy superst.i.tions and a regard for public security were the guiding motives for this legislation. Severe penalties were attached, but the evil was not eradicated; similar laws had to be enacted as late as the eighteenth century.

[Sidenote: Forced conversion of the Mudejares of the kingdom of Aragon.]

After the time of the Catholic Kings there were no free Mudejares in Castile, although there were many Moriscos, but in Aragon, Catalonia, and especially in Valencia the Mudejares were numerous. Many elements, including the majority of the clergy (the officers of the Inquisition in particular), the king, and the Christian ma.s.ses were in favor of their forcible conversion with a view to the establishment of religious unity in the country, although other reasons were alleged as well. The n.o.bles were warmly opposed, mainly on economic grounds because the Mudejares formed the princ.i.p.al element among their agricultural workers. Many of the higher clergy joined with them for the same reason, although some of them voiced their objections on the ground that compulsory baptism would only result in apostasy. During the social war in Valencia early in the reign of Charles I the popular faction had forcibly converted a number of the Mudejares who had fought against them on the side of the lords.

The question arose whether these baptisms were valid. Charles decided that they were, and ordered the children of the Mudejares, who had thus unwillingly become Moriscos, to be baptized also. This provoked a storm of protest on the part of the lords, for the continuance of such a policy might result in emigrations or uprisings, much to their detriment. They cited the royal oath of Ferdinand and of Charles himself to the _Cortes_ of Aragon not to compel the Mudejares to abjure their faith, but this difficulty was easily overcome. The pope was persuaded to absolve Charles from his oath, and gave his consent to the forcible conversion of the free Mudejares, on pain of perpetual enslavement or expulsion from Spain. In 1525 Charles published a decree in accordance with the terms of the papal license. The objections of the n.o.bles and the _Cortes_ were overruled, and several isolated rebellions were put down. While many Mudejares went to Africa, thousands accepted conversion, and, although it was clear that they did not do so of their own free will, were at once made subject to the usual rules applying to converts, including the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. Soon afterward, however, Charles consented to exempt them from religious persecution for a number of years.

[Sidenote: Failure of the attempts to Christianize the Moriscos.]

The problem of religious unity was now officially solved; all Spain legally had become Christian. The Moriscos were the subject of grave suspicions, however, as regards their orthodoxy, and with reason, since most of them continued to be Mohammedans in fact. The harsh legislation of other days was resurrected, and was applied with even greater severity. Prohibitions extended to the use of anything reminiscent of their former religion or customs, such as amulets, the Arabic language, Arabic names, their special form of dress, their characteristic songs and dances, and their habit of taking baths. The laws applying to Granada were particularly harsh, provoking the already mentioned war of 1568-1571. After the suppression of that rebellion and the deportation of the Granadine Moriscos to other parts of Castile, steps were taken to prevent their return and to keep them under surveillance. The Moriscos were not allowed to dwell together in a district of their own; they might not stay out overnight, or change their residence without permission; and their children were ordered to be brought up in the homes of Christians of long standing, or at any rate to be sent to Christian schools. Prohibitions against carrying arms and other measures designed to prevent the Moriscos from endangering the peace were general throughout Spain. Gradually the idea arose that the best thing to do would be to get rid of the Moriscos in some way. In the first place the attempt to convert them had been a failure. The Moriscos were not altogether to blame, for no adequate steps had been taken to instruct them in the Christian religion. Orders to do so had been issued, but for many reasons they were difficult to execute. Such a task would have been enormously expensive, and the funds were not at hand; few Christian priests were competent to serve as instructors, since not many of them knew Arabic; there existed the serious obstacle of the hatred of the Moriscos for the Christian religion, due to the bad treatment they had received and their fear of the Inquisition; and the n.o.bles threw the weight of their influence against molesting the Moriscos in this way as in others. In the second place, the very hatred of the Christian ma.s.ses for the Moriscos had rendered their conversion difficult. Some of the charges made against them would seem to indicate that prejudice was the real foundation of this animosity. It was said that the Moriscos ate so little meat and drank so little wine that Christians had to pay nearly all of the _alcabala_, or the tax on their sale; they were denounced because they monopolized the industrial arts and trades, to the disadvantage of Christians; complaints were made that they always married, never becoming monks, wherefore their numbers increased more rapidly than those of the Christian population. Thus their frugality, industry, and domesticity were made the subject of accusations. Naturally there were more serious grounds of complaint than these, such as the inevitable private conflicts of old Christians and Moriscos, but differences in race, religion, and general customs were enough to cause popular hatred in that day, when intolerance was the rule. In the third place, it must be said in measurable justification of Spanish policy that the Moriscos did represent a danger to the state.

They were numerous, and, naturally enough, hostile to the government; time and again they were proved to have fostered or taken part in uprisings and to have worked in conjunction with Moslem pirates; finally, the likelihood of a fresh Moslem descent from Africa, a.s.sisted by Spanish Moriscos, was not to be disregarded.

[Sidenote: Expulsion of the Moriscos.]

The failure of the attempts to convert the Moriscos had long been recognized, and the question arose what to do with them. Some men proposed a general ma.s.sacre, or sending them to sea and scuttling the ships. Others suggested that they be sent to the Americas to work in the mines,--a solution which might have had interesting consequences. From about 1582, however, the idea of expelling them from Spain became more and more general, and was favored by men of the highest character,--for example, by Juan de Ribera, archbishop of Valencia (canonized in the eighteenth century). The expulsion was virtually decided upon as early as 1602, but the decrees were postponed for several years. In September, 1609, the expulsion from Valencia was ordered. All Moriscos except certain specified groups were required to be at various designated ports within three days; they were allowed to carry such movable property as they could, while the rest of their possessions was to go to their lords,--a sop to the n.o.bles, for whom the expulsion meant great economic loss; they were informed that they would be taken to Africa free of charge, but were told to carry as much food as they could. Six per cent of the Morisco men and their families were excepted by the decree, so that they might instruct the laborers who should take the place of the expelled Moriscos. Various other groups, such as slaves, small children (under certain specified conditions), and those whose conversion was regarded as unquestionably sincere, were also exempted. The Moriscos were unwilling to avail themselves of the exceptions in their favor, and a general exodus began. The decree was cruelly executed, despite the government's attempt to prevent it. Murder, robbery, and outrages against women went unpunished; even the soldiers sent to protect the Moriscos were guilty of these abuses. Many Moriscos were sold into slavery, especially children, who were taken from their parents. When news came that the peoples of northern Africa had given a harsh reception to the first of the Moriscos to disembark there, many preferred to take the chances of revolt rather than submit to expulsion, but these uprisings were easily put down. Decrees for the other parts of Spain soon followed; the decree for Castile proper, Extremadura, and La Mancha came in the same year, 1609; for Granada, Andalusia, and Aragon in 1610; and for Catalonia and Murcia in 1611, although the execution of the decree for Murcia was postponed until 1614. The terms of all, while varying in details, resembled that of Valencia. More time was given, usually a month; the permission to carry away personalty was accompanied by a prohibition against the taking of money or precious metals; and in some cases all children under seven were required to remain in Spain when their parents elected to go to Africa. On this account many Moriscos made the voyage to Africa by way of France, on the pretence that they were going to the latter country, thus retaining their children.

[Sidenote: Failure of the expulsions to stamp out the Morisco and Jewish elements in Spanish blood.]

Various estimates have been made as to the number of the expelled Moriscos. It is probable that some half a million were obliged to emigrate. Many remained in Spain, forming outlaw bands in the mountains, or hiding under the protection of their lords, while thousands had long since merged with the Christian population. Almost from the start a current of re-immigration set in, for, after all, the Moriscos had in many respects become Spaniards, and they found that conditions in the lands to which they had gone were far from agreeable. Throughout the seventeenth century laws were enacted against returning Moriscos, but were of such little effect that the government virtually admitted its powerlessness in the matter. Southern Spain and the east coast below Catalonia remained strongly Moslem in blood, and the other provinces of the peninsula were not a little affected as well, but as regards religion the Morisco element was gradually merged, and this matter never became a serious problem again. Similar questions arose over returning Jews, who came back to Spain for much the same reasons the Moriscos did.

They were not nearly so numerous, however, wherefore their return did not represent such a political danger as did that of the Moriscos.

[Sidenote: Influence of Roman principles on the inst.i.tutions of the family and private property.]

The legal status of the family underwent no striking change in this period, except that the victory of Roman principles was more and more confirmed. The decisions of the Council of Trent (1545-1563), a famous general council of the Catholic Church, prohibited divorce, clandestine marriage, and in general any kind of marital union not made according to the solemnities and forms of the church, and these principles became law in Spain, but they represented tendencies which had long before appeared in the _Partidas_ and the _Leyes de Toro_. Unions lacking the sanction of the law did not disappear; rather they were one of the prominent features of the immorality of the times. It was in its economic aspects that the family experienced its most marked change, and this was due to the exceptional favor with which the inst.i.tution of primogeniture had come to be viewed, keeping pace with the vanity and the furor for enn.o.blement of the age. The very extension of the practice was its saving grace, for not only the great n.o.bles but also persons of lesser note, including plebeians with not too vast estates, were wont to leave their properties to the eldest son; thus acc.u.mulation in the hands of a very few was avoided. For the same reason the crown often favored the custom for the smaller holdings, but restricted it in the case of the _latifundia_,--for example, in the prohibition issued against the combining of two such great estates. The individualism and capitalism of the Roman law was most marked of all in matters of property. One interesting attempt was made to get around the laws against usury through the purchase of annuities, the _censo consignativo_. Popular opinion, reinforced by the ideas of the moralists and jurisconsults and even by a bull of the pope, opposed the practice, and it did not survive. Despite the supremacy of the Roman ideas there were many writings of a socialistic character citing the collectivism of the Peruvian Incas or other such states of society as desirable of adoption in Spain. The philosopher Luis Vives, for example, favored a redistribution of natural resources and their equal enjoyment by all.

[Sidenote: Evolution of the guilds.]

While the law frowned upon the spirit of a.s.sociation, even prohibiting the founding of new _cofradias_, the guilds enjoyed their greatest era of prosperity. This was due in part to the intervention of the state, which supplanted the munic.i.p.alities in control of the inst.i.tution. State regulation, even in technical matters, went further than it had in the fifteenth century. Despite government interest, as evidenced by the according of numerous privileges, the germs of the decline of the guilds were already apparent at the close of the seventeenth century. The exclusive spirit of the guilds whereby they endeavored to keep trade in the hands of their own members and their families, without admitting others who were competent to belong, was one cause of this decline, while their loss of liberty (due to government intervention) and the strife within and without the guild were contributing factors. One novelty of the era was the growing distinction between the manual arts and the liberal professions, the latter of which rose to a higher consideration. Thus lawyers, notaries, and doctors were rated above those engaged in manual labors, while there was also a recognized hierarchy among the last-named, from the workers in gold, silver, jewelry, and rich cloths down to the drivers of mules. The great a.s.sociation of the _Mesta_ still enjoyed wide powers, as did also that of the carriers.

[Sidenote: Low moral tone of the era.]

In laxness of morals and in luxury this period was much like the two preceding. It seems worse, but this may be due to the greater variety of materials at hand for study, such as books of travel, novels, plays, satires, letters, laws, and the frequently appearing "relations of events," which in that day took the place occupied by the modern newspaper. A Spanish writer has characterized the practices of the time in the following language: "The ideal of an exaggerated sense of honor, chivalric quixotism, religious fanaticism, and the exalted predominance of form over the essence of things ruled Spanish society of the seventeenth century, absolutely and tyrannically. Duels and stabbings at every moment to sustain the least question of etiquette or courtesy; scandalous conflicts of jurisdiction between the highest tribunals of state; absurd and ridiculous projects to make silver without silver, fomented by the leading ministers; extremely costly and showy feasts to solemnize ordinary events, while cities, islands, provinces, and even kingdoms were being lost through bad government and worse administration; frequent and pompous public processions; blind belief in the miraculous virtue of some medal, stamp, or old rag of Mother Luisa or some other impostor; politico-religious sermons within and without the royal palace; the most abominable and nefarious sins scattered to an almost unbelievable extent among all cla.s.ses of Madrid society; the vice of gambling converted into a profession by many persons; and, in fine, the censure of our court, by those who formed part of it and by those who did not, for its astonishing abundance and its depraved life of strumpets and wenches.... It is true that there were men of high degree who preferred the coa.r.s.e sackcloth of the religious to the rich clothing of brocade and gold, and military leaders who exchanged the sword for the monkish girdle, but these were exceptions, which by the very fewness of their numbers stand out the more strongly from the general stock of that society, so accustomed to laziness, hypocrisy, routine, and external practices as it was, removed from the true paths of virtue, wisdom, and progress." If to these characteristics there are added those of the misery and ignorance of the common people, and if an exception is made of the men devoted to intellectual pursuits, the above is fairly representative of Spanish society in this period. Loose practices were prevalent in excessive degree at Madrid, which had become the capital in the time of Philip II. While such a state of affairs is not unusual in all great capitals, immorality infected all cla.s.ses of society in Madrid, and little if any stigma attached in the matter. Philip IV had thirty-two illegitimate children, and Charles I and even the somewhat sombre Philip II were not without reproach. Much that is unspeakable was prevalent, and gambling was generally indulged in. Lack of discipline also manifested itself in frequent duelling, despite prohibitive laws, and in the turbulence of the people on different occasions; university students were somewhat notorious in this respect, indulging in riots which were not free from incidents of an unsavory character. Other cities were little better than Madrid, and those of the south and east, where Moslem blood had been most plentiful, especially Seville and Valencia, had a yet worse reputation; Valencia had even a European notoriety for its licentious customs. These practices pa.s.sed over into the Americas in an exaggerated form. The Andalusian blood of the conquerors and their adventurous life amidst subject races were not conducive to self-restraint. These evils were not to be without effect in the moulding of the Spanish American peoples. In the smaller Spanish towns and villages there was probably less vice, but there was more ignorance and greater lack of public security. Bands of robbers infested the country.

[Sidenote: Royal extravagance.]

In luxury as in immorality the example was set by the kings themselves.

Some of its manifestations were meritorious (except that expenditures were out of proportion to the resources and needs of the state), especially the encouragement of art through the purchase of paintings and the construction of palaces. But if Charles I and Philip II were lavish, Philip III and Philip IV were extravagant. Both of these kings, in addition to their fondness for the theatre, bull-fighting, dancing, and hunting, were responsible for the most ostentatious display on occasions of court celebrations. When Philip III went to San Sebastian in 1615 to attend the double wedding which was to bind together the houses of Austria and Bourbon, he was accompanied by a train of 74 carriages, 174 litters, 190 state coaches, 2750 saddle mules, 374 beasts of burden (of which 128 had coverings embroidered with the royal coat of arms), 1750 mules with silver bells, and 6500 persons, besides an escort of 4000 Guipuzcoans. Equal pomp and extravagance marked the reception to the Archd.u.c.h.ess Maria Ana of Austria when she came to Spain as the fiancee of Philip IV; similarly, the entertainment accorded the Prince of Wales (the later Charles I of England) and the Duke of Buckingham when they visited Spain early in the reign of Philip IV; and likewise the various masquerades during the period of Olivares, one of which is said to have cost over 300,000 ducats (nearly $5,000,000). It would seem that war was not alone responsible for the drains on the Spanish treasury. There was a decline in expenditures in the reign of Charles II, due princ.i.p.ally to the fact that there was little left to spend.

[Sidenote: Luxury in general.]

[Sidenote: Dress.]

Private individuals could not equal the kings in extravagance, but they did the best they could. Houses often lacked comforts in the way of furniture, but made a brave showing in tapestries and paintings.

Naturally, great attention was paid to dress. Under Charles I, just as in art, so also in dress, clothing was in a stage which may be called the transition from the "plateresque" to the "Spanish Renaissance." For example, influenced by German and Swiss fashions, men wore puffs on their forearm or between the waist and hips, variegated oblong pieces in their jackets, bright colors generally, and a tall conical hat. In keeping with the greater sobriety of Philip II, styles became "Herreran"

in that the puffs were abandoned, obscure colors replaced gay, and a cap superseded its more pretentious predecessor. Philip III inaugurated the "baroque" in dress with a return to the styles of Charles I, but in an exaggerated form.

[Sidenote: Sports and amus.e.m.e.nts.]

[Sidenote: General social customs.]

Men were much given to sports and outings. The duel as a sport pa.s.sed out at the beginning of the era, and jousts and tourneys lost their vogue by the end of the sixteenth century, but a host of new games took their place, such as equestrian contests of skill in the use of reed spears, lances, or pikes, but, more than all, the game which has ever since gripped Spanish interest, the bull-fight. Dances, parties, excursions, picnics, and masquerades were also in high favor. Dancing on the stage had a tendency to be indecent,--so much so, that it had to be prohibited. Tobacco was introduced from America at this time. Bathing was unpopular, partly because of the stigma attaching to that hygienic practice as a result of Moslem indulgence therein, but it was also the subject of attacks by writers on ethics, who complained of the immoral uses to which bath-houses were put. Public celebrations of feast days and carnivals were characterized by exhibitions of rough horse-play which were far removed from modern refinement. People considered it amusing to empty tiny baskets of ashes on one another, to trip up pa.s.sers-by with a rope across the street, to put a lighted rag or a piece of punk in a horse's ear, to pin an animal's tail or some other unseemly object on a woman's dress, to loose harmless snakes or rats in a crowd, to drop filthy waters on pa.s.sers-by in the streets below, and to hurl egg-sh.e.l.ls full of odorous essences at one another, varying the last-named missile with what the present-day American school-boy knows as the "spitball." These were not the acts of children, but of ladies and gentlemen! Nevertheless, there was a beginning of refinement in table manners. Napkins were introduced, first as an unnecessary luxury, and later more generally,--replacing the use of the table cloth! It also became a polite custom to wash one's hands before eating. The same progress is to be noted in another respect; Charles I indulged in the somewhat "plateresque" custom of kissing all ladies who were presented to him at court; Philip II in true "Herreran" style gave it up.

[Sidenote: Bad care of cities.]

Cities were badly cared for. Barcelona, Madrid, and Seville were alone in being paved. Uncleanly human practices, despite efforts to check them, led to the acc.u.mulation of filth and odors in the streets, and this condition was not remedied, although there were officials charged with the duty of street-cleaning. No city had a lighting system worthy of the name; in Madrid the only street lights were the faintly glimmering candles or lamps which were placed before sacred images. All Europe exhibited the same social defects as those which have just been detailed, but Spain seemed reduced more than other countries to a state of poverty and misery, displaying every manifestation of mortal decay.

CHAPTER XXVI

POLITICAL INSt.i.tUTIONS, 1516-1700

[Sidenote: The establishment of absolutism.]

Two outstanding features marked the history of Spanish political inst.i.tutions in the era of the House of Hapsburg, or Austria: the absolutism of the kings; and the development of a modern bureaucratic machinery. The Hapsburgs did not introduce absolutism into Spain, but, rather, succeeded to a system which the efforts of their predecessors, especially the Catholic Kings, had made possible. Nevertheless, it was in this period that the kings, aided by greater resources than former Spanish monarchs had possessed, by the prestige of ruling the most extensive and powerful dominions in the world, and by the predominantly royalist ideas of the age, including the theory of divine right, were able for the first time to direct the affairs of state much as they chose. To be sure, they were still supposed to respect the laws and to rule for the good of their subjects, but in practice it was left to them to interpret their own conduct. Instances have already been given of Charles I's infringements of the law,--for example, in his employment of Flemish favorites. He also introduced a system of personal rule, making himself the head and centre of all governmental action. It was Philip II, however, who carried the ideal of personal rule to the greatest extreme. Suspicion and direct intervention in state affairs were the basic principles of his government, wherefore he gave no man his full confidence, but tried to do as much as he could himself. If the methods of Philip II, the most bureaucratic king in history, often had unfortunate results,--for example, in the case of preparing the famous Armada,--those of his successors were far more disastrous. Under Philip III and Philip IV the royal authority was granted to favorites, while the power of Charles II had necessarily to be exercised most of the time by some other than the feeble-minded king himself. Thus these reigns were a period of continual intriguing by different factions for the king's confidence, in order that the victors might rule Spain for their own enrichment.

[Sidenote: Tendencies toward centralization.]

At first sight it would seem that the kings were not successful in their policy of centralization. It was hardly to be expected that the dominions outside the peninsula could be brought under the same system of law and custom as governed in Castile, and the case was much the same as regards Portugal when that kingdom was added to the monarchy. With respect to the rest of the peninsula, however, Olivares expressed what was at least a desirable ideal, when he wished to bring about an amalgamation on the Castilian pattern, both in law and in common sentiment, of the dominions of the crown. Some changes were in fact made which tended to promote legal unification, but in essentials the ancient customs of Navarre, Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and the Basque provinces were left undisturbed. It is possible that the merger might have been attempted with safety at almost any time before 1640, when Olivares tried it,--quite probably so in the sixteenth century. That it was not undertaken may have been due to the attention given to foreign wars, but in any event the autonomy of the non-Castilian kingdoms of the monarchy was more apparent than real. The n.o.bility and many of the people were intensely royalist, and even when they were not so in principle they supported the kings because, like them, they were profoundly Catholic. Furthermore, the organization representing the old regime had declined internally to such an extent that it was a mere shadow of its former self. Centralization had in fact been going on without process of law, and for that very reason it was easy in the next period to make it legally effective.

[Sidenote: Submissiveness of the Castilian _Cortes_.]

[Sidenote: Comparative independence of the other _Cortes_.]

Nowhere was the absolutism of the kings more manifest than in their dealings with the Castilian _Cortes_. The princ.i.p.al functions of this body had always been to grant or withhold subsidies and to make pet.i.tions, which the kings might, or might not, enact into law. In this period the deputies were so submissive that they never failed to grant the required subsidy, despite the exhaustion of the country, while their pet.i.tions received scant attention. Under the circ.u.mstances, since the grant of a subsidy by the representatives of the towns was now the only reason for calling a _Cortes_, the n.o.bles and the clergy were not always summoned. Charles I encountered some resistance of the _Cortes_ in the early part of his reign, but in later years the kings experienced no serious difficulty. The deputies themselves lost interest, and not infrequently sold their privilege of attendance to some individual who might even be a non-resident of the town he was to represent. The kings procured the right to appoint many of the deputies, or else issued orders to the towns, directing them how to instruct their delegates, and also gave pensions to the deputies, thus insuring the expression of their own will in the meetings of the _Cortes_. It is not strange that the _Cortes_ was called frequently,--forty-four times down to 1665. In 1665 the function of granting subsidies was given directly to the towns,--with the result that no _Cortes_ was held in the entire reign of Charles II. The various other _Cortes_ of the peninsula were more fortunate than that of Castile. Those of the kingdom of Aragon (Aragon proper, Catalonia, and Valencia) had always partic.i.p.ated more than that of Castile in legislation, and had been more p.r.o.ne to voice their grievances. The calling of a _Cortes_ in these regions involved difficulties, especially in Valencia, where the king was obliged to be present, in order to const.i.tute a legal meeting. The need for funds was such, however, that a number of _Cortes_ were summoned,--seventeen in Aragon, thirteen in Catalonia, fourteen in Valencia, and seventy-three in Navarre,--but the kings did not obtain a great deal from them. Often the delegates refused to make a grant, or else gave so little that it hardly covered the expenses of the king's journey to the place of meeting. No effort was made to join these bodies with that of Castile to form a national _Cortes_; the force of particularism was as yet too strong to attempt it.

[Sidenote: Subservience of the towns to the royal will.]

Just as in the case of the Castilian _Cortes_, so also in that of the towns, the absolutism of the kings made itself felt to a marked degree, for the way had been prepared in previous reigns, and in this instance the royal authority was equally as noteworthy in Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and Majorca as in Castile. This was brought about princ.i.p.ally through the decline of the towns in political spirit, a movement which had been going on since the fourteenth century. As a result the _ayuntamientos_ had usurped the powers which formerly belonged to the general a.s.sembly of citizens, and now their functions became absorbed more and more by the kings through their officials in the towns, such as the _corregidores_ and others. So great was the authority of the kings that they were able to make a profit for the treasury by the sale in perpetuity of local offices, and when the evils which resulted became too p.r.o.nounced they gave orders abolishing all such positions acquired before 1630. Furthermore, all local legislation of an important character had to receive the sanction of the _Consejo Real_. Much the same local officials as in the past administered the affairs of the munic.i.p.alities, and the methods of their acquisition of office continued to be diverse, being in some towns by election, in others by lot, in still others by inheritance, and in yet others by royal appointment; but in all of the large royal towns (_realengos_) the king's authority was paramount. In fine, local autonomy was virtually dead, although the forms of the period when the towns were a virile political factor still persisted. In two cla.s.ses of munic.i.p.alities the royal victory was not complete. One was that of the small villages, where the system of the medieval _villa_, or _concejo_, obtained, but since these units were of small consequence the retention of their earlier liberties had little or no effect on the general situation. The other was that of the seigniorial towns, most of them in Aragon, Catalonia, and Navarre, where the struggles of past eras, of the citizens against the lords, were repeated in this.

[Sidenote: Importance of the bureaucracy.]

With the advance both in royal authority and in the scope and extension of government it was inevitable that the new bureaucracy, which had made its appearance in the modern sense under the Catholic Kings, should increase in the number of its officials and in power until it absorbed a great part of the functions which the kings themselves had formerly exercised in person. Aside from the royal secretaries, the governor-generals (during the absence of the king), regents, and members of the various administrative groups there were often individuals without portfolios who exercised great power as private counselors of the king. Some of the members of the _Consejo Real_ were also prominent in this extra-official way. The importance of the royal secretaries, of whom there were always more than one, was notably great in this period.

Whenever one of them became the favorite, the others were nevertheless retained, grouping themselves around the one who had the ear of the king. The office of the latter became a universal bureau and secretariat of state (_Secretaria de Estado y del Des.p.a.cho Universal_), presiding over the others.

[Sidenote: Power of the _Consejo Real_.]

Meanwhile, the _Consejo Real_ advanced in power, and new councils were added. The most notable reform in the _Consejo Real_ was its division in 1608 into four sections, or _salas_, respectively of government (_Gobierno_), justice (_Justicia_), "fifteen hundred" (_Mil y quinientos_), and the provinces (_Provincia_). The last three had to do with affairs of justice, while the _Sala de Gobierno_, the most important of the four, was supposed to concern itself mainly with politics and administration. Nevertheless, the variety of functions which had always characterized the _Consejo_ as a whole applied in like manner to each of the _salas_. Thus the _Sala de Gobierno_ handled such widely divergent matters as the extirpation of vice and sin, the economic development of the country, the decision in cases of conflict of laws or jurisdictions, cases of recourse of _fuerza_, the cleaning and improvement of Madrid, questions of peace and war, together with a great number of others. Moreover, many of its functions were judicial in character. Important affairs, especially those on which the king requested advice, were taken up by the _Consejo_ in full (_en pleno_),--that is, by a joint meeting of the four _salas_. While the _Consejo_ had been in origin a purely consultive body, it now acquired the privilege of making suggestions to the king of its own volition and of indicating its objections to any measures he might have taken. It was natural that the decisions, or _autos_, of the _Consejo_ should have great weight, both as affecting matters of justice, and as concerned government and administration in general, since the _Consejo_ might make new laws and annul or dispense with old ones, although of course consulting with the king before publishing its decision. The _autos_ of the _Consejo_ became, therefore, an important source of legislation, and in 1552 it was decided that they should have the same force as the laws of the king himself. Late in the sixteenth century it became customary to call the _Consejo_ the _Consejo de Castilla_ (Council of Castile), by which name, henceforth, it was more generally known.

[Sidenote: Importance of the Camara.]

In like manner other councils were formed (in addition to those dating from the era of the Catholic Kings) which relieved the monarch of many of his responsibilities. The most important was the _Consejo de la Real Camara_ (Council of the Royal Chamber), more often called the _Camara de Castilla_, or simply the _Camara_. This was founded by Philip II in 1588 to a.s.sist him in handling such matters as the kings had always retained for themselves, apart from the _Consejo Real_, such as questions arising in connection with the _patronato real_, or royal patronage, of the church and appointments generally to the various councils, _audiencias_, and other important posts in Castilian administration. Men of the highest character were chosen to compose the _Camara_, and secrecy as to their discussions was imposed upon them. In 1616 the _Camara_ advanced a step further, in that certain affairs--such as pardons for crime, authorizations for entailing estates in primogeniture, the naturalization of foreigners, and the removal of civil and political disabilities from individuals subject to them--were left for it to resolve without consulting the king. The king still intervened in the more important matters. Among the new councils of the era were those of finance (_Hacienda_), war (_Guerra_), and indulgences (_Cruzada_), all of Castilian origin.