The Institutional Background of Spanish American History

by Charles Henry Cunningham

THE INSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND OF SPANISH

AMERICAN HISTORY^[1]

Spain retained and governed her vast colonial empire in America for three centuries. That fact alone is notable. It is generally conceded by historians that there were grave defects in the Spanish system of administration. Nevertheless modern research is constantly more emphatically revealing the fact that, considered from many viewpoints, Spain's colonial government was no less adequate, and, in fact, was much more carefully planned than those of her contemporaries. The chief cause of her decline as a colonial power was actually the universal abandonment of the policy of commercial monopoly and the advent of an era of free trade, which meant the admission of all nations on competitive terms to the colonial markets of the world, and it brought with it new ideas, the fermentation of which meant the intellectual and political awakening of the new world. Spain's failure to learn the lessons which the revolt and loss of England's American colonies taught the latter nation, together with the individual inefficiency of the Spaniard from a mercantile standpoint were important factors which contributed to Spain's decline. Aside from all questions of controversy, two facts stand out most prominently. Spain's rule, however inefficient, continued three centuries, and the political and social structure of present-day Spanish America is largely the outcome of this long period of Spanish administration. The social, cultural and political contributions which Spain made to Hispanic America, her one-time colonies, have not been taken into account sufficiently by those who have attempted to solve the problem of our political and commercial relationship with the nations to the south of us. As a basis for a proper understanding of the fundamental present-day problems arising in Spanish America, it behooves us to examine more closely the basic principles and institutions existing there. Such a study will always lead us back to Spain and the contributions which were made by that nation to her former colonies.

The government which Spain established in America was admirably suited to the problem which confronted her there. It is certain that Spain put into operation within a short time a more finished and successful scheme of government than did any colonizing nation in any other part of the world. This may be accounted for by the fact that, before Spain embarked on a career of colonization, she had developed laws and institutions at home which were suited to the solution of colonial problems and she had no more to do than to inaugurate them in the colonies. The political events and tendencies in Spain from the year 800 onwards, and especially the necessity of governing frontier provinces, developed institutions which were well adapted to colonial rule. The acquisition of over-seas possessions was only a part of Spain's expansion, political and territorial, and their administration presented problems but little different from the government of her own frontier. It will be the main purpose of this paper to attempt a general survey of the institutional background of early Spanish colonial history, and to note briefly the origin and development of the institutions which were put into operation in America in the early period and the circumstances and events which called them into being.

The period from 800 to 1200 in Spanish history witnessed the presence of four important political factors. These were the royal power, the nobility, the municipalities, and the church. Each of these played an important part in the events of this period and in them we may recognize the progenitors of fundamental institutions which were established in America. Characteristic of this period especially was the growth of the royal power in Castile. The authority of the king began as early as the eighth century when he was recognized by his contemporaries as the most powerful noble. By a process of the survival of the fittest and of natural accretion of power, the ruling families of Castile, Leon, Navarre, and Aragon were singled out as the pre-eminent leaders in their particular provinces. Thus the king of Castile, in addition to being recognized by most of the nobles as their overlord, had his own domains (realengas) in which he exercised the same kind of proprietary sovereignty as the nobles on their estates. The outlying royal territories, as they increased in size and number, and as the sovereigns became more sure of their heritage, were divided for administrative purposes into royal districts called mandationes, with a count, appointed by the king, as administrative head of each. These counts were the first officials with administrative, judicial and military functions to represent the king at the head of frontier districts and provinces. Their duties were chiefly military, and these counts were frequently obliged to go beyond their own frontiers in the interest of the extension of the royal power. The great drawback, however, from the viewpoint of the king, consisted of the fact that the only class. from which these officials could be enlisted was the noble class. In fact, they showed themselves to be more faithful to the aristocratic element than to the royal interests, and for this reason the counts were replaced by royal officials called adelantados, who were more completely dependent on the royal power than their predecessors had been. Antequera fails to give the date for the inauguration of this reform, but since the Council of Leon of 1020 defined the jurisdiction of the frontier counts, we know that the adelantados were substituted for these officials at some subsequent date.^[2]

The nobles of Asturias, Leon, and Castile sought as best they could to maintain their independence of the king in the early centuries of Spanish history. The relations of these nobles to the monarch were semi-feudal.^[3] They were necessary to the king for the defense of his domains against the encroachments of the Moors, and the king had to concede extensive powders to them in exchange for their support and allegiance. They were practically supreme within their own dominions: they collected tribute, accepted personal service, and administered justice, aided the king in war and were subject to forfeiture of estate only in case of treason or rebellion. They were practically absolute over their vassals, but the king, even in this early period, preserved the fight to judge in cases of dispute between them. In 1020, at the Council of Leon, the monarch recognized the right of the nobles to administer justice in their own domains, but this was in the nature of a royal concession and was not recognized as an inherent right of the nobles themselves.

The ecclesiastical organization was already well developed at the beginning of the period under discussion. The bishops and abbots exercised a feudal tenure on their estates, exercising there temporal as well as spiritual jurisdiction. The ecclesiastical dignitaries ruled within their dominions with the same degree of absolutism as that of. the nobles on their feudal lands, collecting tribute and administering justice. In return for the feudal privileges which were conferred upon them, the bishops sent their vassals to war and they themselves often rode at the head of their troops in the battles against the infidels. There was little or no royal interference with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but there existed, nevertheless, the nominal condition of the king's headship of the church which set the precedent for, and doubtless contributed later to, the status known as the royal ecclesiastical patronage.

The fourth power, against which the royal authority was obliged to make headway, and that which contributed most to the development of local governmental and judicial institutions was the villa. The villas were towns organized as checks to the rival power of the nobles, founded by persons who wished to escape the exactions of the latter. They were given charters by the king, and these charters varied according to local needs and conditions. These were the early Spanish municipalities. Each had an assembly with legislative, judicial, and administrative faculties. The citizens of these towns elected judicial officials whom they designated as jueces or alcaldes. The municipalities were not always favorable to the royal power and they were kept in direct relationship with the court by the visit of a royal official whose duty it was to correct abuses and hear cases of appeal in the name of the king. When the Spaniards conquered Cuba, Mexico, Peru, and the Philippines, municipalities were established there with all the offices and characteristics of Spanish municipalities of the pre-colonial period. Likewise, as we shall see, the inspectors who visited the municipalities in the royal name coincided in all ways with the visitors or royal inspectors in the colonies.

It was during the great Christian conquests of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, that a definite judiciary culminating in a royal audiencia was perfected. This was a period of royal consolidation and centralization. The nobles conceded the majority of their governmental prerogatives to the increasing royal authority, and the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was confined, in theory at least, to spiritual matters. The municipalities developed a system by which they regularly elected their regidores (councillors) and their alcaldes, with judicial, legislative, and executive attributes, submitting at the same time to the inspection of the king's visitor.^[4] It is clear, therefore, that the royal jurisdiction was recognized during this period, with the king at the head of the judicial and administrative system.

The statement was made above that some time after the Council of Leon, the frontier counts were replaced by royal governors who were known as adelantados. The earliest regulations which apply to these officials were the "Laws of the Adelantados Mayores" of 1255 and 1274.^[5] These enactments defined the duties of no less than three types of adelantados. The frontier adelantado has been noticed in this paper already. The provincial adelantado was mentioned in the law referred to as having been in charge of the larger and nearer provinces of Castile, Leon, Navarre, and Galicia. He was at the same time provincial governor, judge, and captain-general. Possibly the most far-reaching and charteristic feature of this office was the requirement that the adelantado should be accompanied on his tours of inspection by letrados or asesores—men of legal training, who should advise him in all questions of law, and assume responsibility for all his official acts of an administrative or judicial character. The adelantados were not trained lawyers or administrators, but soldiers—the predecessors of the colonial captains-general. They were empowered, however, to render legal opinions and dispense justice on the advice of, and by the assistance of the letrados. The asesor or teniente letrado played an important rôle subsequently in the administration of justice in the colonies. Supported and accompanied by one of these lawyers, a governor, a captain-general, a viceroy, an intendant, or an alcalde mayor who was not familiar with the law or with legal procedure, rendered decisions in cases wherein affairs of momentous import were involved. He acted without responsibility, entirely on the authority of his legal assistant, who had to answer in the residencia for all administrative acts or judicial decisions made in pursuance to the advice given.^[6]

The third type of adelantado specified in the ordinance of 1274 was the adelantado mayor. This magistrate, in contradistinction to the provincial adelantado, was a lawyer, and his activities were confined exclusively to the exercise of judicial functions. He was not accompanied, therefore, by an asesor. He was a peregrinating magistrate, holding court in different parts of the kingdom. Finally, he was frequently designated for special service as adelantado mayor from a higher tribunal of which he was a magistrate, and this tribunal was called the curia, or cort del rey, which was the forerunner of the royal audiencia. Cases appealed from the provincial adelantados were tried by the adelantado mayor, and from him they could be carried still higher to the tribunal just mentioned, at the head of which sat the king. The position of the adelantado mayor was that of an intermediary between the provincial and municipal judges and the king. As long as the latter had to give his personal attention to the hearing of appeals, it was imperative that some limitation should be placed on the number of cases coming before him. This was the function of the adelantado mayor. This magistrate was in reality a judge of the first royal audiencia of Castile, and his designation to try cases in the provinces was identical in character with the subsequent designation of magistrates of colonial audiencias to try cases and conduct special investigations.

This tribunal was called an audiencia because the king gave audience therein, and from it and around it developed the centralized system which was later to administer justice in Spain and in the colonies. It first exercised jurisdiction in Castile and Leon, and later in Audalucia. The king gave three days a week of his personal attention to this tribunal at first. It was the royal audiencia. The time soon arrived, however, when he could not devote so much of his time to matters of individual justice, and in proportion as this was the case did the powers and importance of the judges who composed this court increase. Ferdinand VI. and Alfonso XI. were only able to give one day a week to the audiencia, in 1307 and 1329 respectively.

The creation and growth of judicial and administrative institutions in Catalonia were parallel with those of Castile. The eleventh century saw audiencias, municipalities, and above all, a powerful nobility, but this province was independent of Castile during a period of four centuries. The audiencias of Catalonia were composed of ecclesiastical and secular judges appointed by the counts of Barcelona, and authorized by them to render sentence. Without going into further detail with regard to matters of provincial administration, in Spain, it is sufficient to say that certain institutions of justice and administration developed in common throughout the Peninsula, and that by the end of the thirteenth century political and judicial administration had come to be controlled by a central authority whether in Castile or in Catalonia. In the Ordinance of Toro, in 1369, we find mention of four grades or instances for the administration of justice in Spain. The lowest category was occupied by the alcaldes ordinarios of the municipalities. We have noted already that these were local judges, with original jurisdiction, and dependent on the municipal councils. The merinos ^[7] exercised royal and original jurisdiction in certain feudal districts and provinces where there were no municipalities. The adelantados heard appeals from the merinos and alcaldes mayores. These officials, it must be remembered, exercised administrative functions as well as judicial authority, and for the latter work they were accompanied by asesores, or legal assistants. The next step in the hierarchy of justice and administration was occupied by the adelantados mayores, who stood between the adelantados, on the one hand, and the king's tribunal on the other. The king and royal audiencia constituted the final court of appeal.

Before passing to a consideration of the institutions of the later periods, it is fitting to note the existence at the close of the fourteenth century (1369) of four officials who assumed a prominent part in Spanish domestic and colonial administration. The alcalde mayor appears first in 1371, as a royal municipal judge ^[8]. He differed from the ordinary alcalde in that he derived his power from the king instead of the municipality. The corregidor appears at the same time as a royal judge, unassigned to any particular province, but empowered to make reforms and correct abuses in the name of the king. As is well known, both these offices were carried to the colonies, both being agents of centralization, though in the colonies the alcalde mayor was a provincial official and not municipal. Another official of importance whom we note with well defined powers in the fourteenth century was the pesquisidor.^[9] He was a royal investigator, usually of higher rank than the corregidor and delegated from some higher tribunal. This official may be considered as the forerunner of the pesquisidor of the colonial era. Lastly, the oidor (hearer) or judge-letrado of the audiencia should be noted as a product of the fourteenth century. He was a trained magistrate and for the exercise of his office the highest qualifications were necessary. He was a permanent member of the tribunal and he left it only when delegated to go on a tour of inspection with a special commission as pesquisidor or visitor of the provinces in the king's name.

It is wellknown that the period from the eleventh to the fifteenth century was an important one in the formulation of Spanish law as well as in the development of institutions of government. First there were the Visigothic codes, whose significance as the basis of Spanish law is well known. Various important contributions were made by the Council of Leon in 1020, and by the numerous fueros which were issued subsequently, especially the municipal fueros, in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Of great significance, also were the other enactments of the thirteenth century, especially the Fuero Real of 1255 and the Siete Partidas whose codification was begun the following year, and finished in 1265. Most important among the subsequent decisions and enactments incorporated into the body of Spanish law, were those of the Cortes of Zamora in 1274, the Cortes of Segovia in 1347, the Ordinance of Alcala in 1348 and those of Toro of 1369. The outcome of all these, together with subsequent royal decrees and judicial decisions of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries was the Recopilación of Castile, which was published first by Philip II. in 1567. This code constituted the basis of colonial law for a century and a half. The Code of the Indies was brought together in 1680, embodying royal decrees, judicial decisions, and autos acordados in regulation of colonial affairs for a period of a hundred and fifty years. Notwithstanding the promulgation of these special laws, the Code of Castile remained the foundation of legal procedure for the colonies until the end of Spain's rule.

The most notable institutional development in the fourteenth century was the growth of the institution of the audiencia. Enrique II. increased the number of letrados in the tribunal of Castile, and added seven alcaldes with criminal jurisdiction. These latter did not have the rank and status of oidores, and were without jurisdiction over civil suits or questions of the interpretation of the law. This same king, by the Ordinance of Toro, raised the audiencia to the rank of a chancery, that is, a superior tribunal of appeals, with the arms and seal of the king. Enrique sought to expedite the administration of justice and to improve the territorial arrangement by ordaining that the audiencia should hold sessions at Segovia and Seville, respectively. This was to be accomplished by dividing the tribunal into two sections. In 1383, Juan I. added the important office of fiscal procurador to the personnel of the audiencia of Castile. It was the function of this offcial to prosecute cases in behalf of the crown before the audiencia. Though he was subordinate in rank to the oidores, the diversity of the duties thrust upon the fiscal from time to time made him the most versatile, if not most important, official in the judicial system. In 1383 the monarch was excused from the obligation of affixing his signature to the provisions of the audiencia, and he was also relieved at this time of the necessity of personally attending the sessions of the tribunal. The signing of decisions thereafter devolved upon the oidores, hence the necessity for the retention of the royal seal by the tribunal. The matter of residence was again altered in 1387, when it was arranged that the tribunal should hold sessions three months a year in each of the following towns: Medina del Campo, Olmedo, Madrid and Alcala de Henares. Two years later, noting the evil effects of the peregrinations of the audiencia, Juan I. decreed that its residence should be fixed at Segovia, and thereafter it was a territorial tribunal, attached to one city and province. In 1442, the audiencia of Castile was ordered to hold its sessions in the city of Valladolid, which was thereafter the capital city of Spain, the jurisdiction of the court ultimately being limited to Castile.

Other tribunals were created for the administration of justice in the remaining provinces as need arose. The sixteenth century saw tribunals functioning in Valladolid and Granada. These had the rank of chanceries (chancillerías) ^[10]. There were audiencias in Galicia (Coruna, 1563), Seville, the Canaries and Mallorca ^[11]. These latter tribunals were territorial and were co-equal in rank and authority, with appeal to the Council of Castile or to the appropriate chancery ^[12]. During this same century, colonial audiencias were established in Santo Domingo, Mexico, Peru, Panama, Santa Fe, and Guadalajara, and these occupied the same relation to the Council of the Indies as the peninsular audiencias bore to the Council of Castile.

The predecessor of the Council of Castile, which came to be the high court of appeal in Spain, with jurisdiction over all the audiencias, was created in 1367^[13]. It was first known as the Consejo Real (Royal Council) and was composed of the king's confidential ministers who sat in session with the monarch himself. The jurisdiction of this council, as first established, was limited to administrative matters, while the curia or audiencia of 1274 exercised the supreme judicial authority. Juan II. increased the membership of the Royal Council, and divided it into two salas, one sala being for the determination of administrative matters, and the other, with sixteen members, for the trial of judicial cases appealed from the audiencias. The tendency and temperament of this tribunal, however, seem to have been aristocratic rather than juristic, and in order to remedy this defect the Catholic Monarchs added more lawyers (togados) in 1480 and relegated most of the nobles to the category of military and honorary members (de capa y espada). The council participated in both administrative and legal matters. The monarch nominally gave one day a week to personal attendance on the sessions of this tribunal. After 1480, the Council met in various sections or salas, one for the consideration of general administrative affairs, one for judicial matters, another for provincial administration, and one for financial affairs. Another tribunal of importance which was founded during this epoch was the Supreme Council of the Inquisition, and this came to have jurisdiction ultimately over subordinate commissaries and tribunals both in Spain and in the Indies. The Royal Council continued, as reformed by Ferdinand and Isabella, until 1586, when it was modified by Philip II., who raised the legal requirements for membership and added as an adjunct to the tribunal in 1588, the important Cámara of Castile. ^[14] This was "a special Council of persons of whose zeal and Christianity there is much satisfaction", who were to have special jurisdiction over judicial and ecclesiastical affairs. In the words of the royal decree, this council was given authority over "all the affairs pertaining to my royal patronage of the church, in these my royal dominions of Castile, and in the kingdom of Navarre and the Canaries, of whatsoever character they may be, matters of justice as well as of grace, and also that which pertains to the provision and nomination of persons for the places of my councils, of the chanceries and other audiencias of these dominions and of their functions of justice". The Cámara was empowered to intervene and suspend the trial of a case before the audiencia, a thing which it rarely did, and it exercised jurisdiction over recursos de fuerza against ecclesiastical judges; it had the right of trying cases appealed from audiencias, it settled conflicts of jurisdiction and boundaries between provinces, had charge of appointments to offices and it examined and passed finally upon the autos de residencia of corregidores, alcaldes mayores and of other royal officials. Aside from its judicial functions, the principal attributes of the Cámara of Castile were ecclesiastical. As a government agency it had to procure for the observance of all the rulings of the Council of Trent, it exercised supervision over the settlement and administration of the estates of prelates, the retention of bulls and apostolic briefs, the occupation of ecclesiastical benefices, banishment, the extirpation of vice, the punishment of crimes, and over all questions imvolving the moral uplift of the religious orders. The cámara was empowered to enact such measures as would assist the provincials and prelates in the fulfillment of their ecclesiastical obligations, it exercised authority over all questions of the extension of the ecclesiastical influence, the occupation of new provinces by the orders, and the transfer to the secular church of districts formerly occupied by the missionary orders. In a word, the Cámara of Castile was the tribunal through which Spain exercised temporal jurisdiction over the church. This body constituted, in fact, the most important organ of the Council of Castile, and the relations of this section of the supreme tribunal to the audiencias of Spain formed the precedent for the relationship of the Cámara of the Council of the Indies to the colonial audiencias.

The latter tribunal for supervision over colonial affairs was in a sense an outgrowth of the Casa de Contratación (House of Trade) which was originally entrusted with the administration of political as well as commercial affairs in the Indies, subordinate to the Council of Castile but the duties of this office were rapidly seen to be too extensive for this commercial tribunal. So in 1524 the Council of the Indies was created,^[15] as the law of establishment stated, on the model of the Council of Castile, and later (1600) the Cámara de Indias was organized with the Cámara of Castile as a pattern.^[16] While the sala de gobierno of the Council of the Indies attended to administrative, military and financial matters, through its respective committees (of government, war and finance) the Cámara of the Indies heard all legal cases appealed from the colonial audiencias and made decisions largely in pursuance to the advice of the fiscal, whose office was patterned after that of the fiscal of Castile. Like the Cámara of Castile, that of the Indies exercised decisive authority in matters of appointment, and had cognizance, generally, over ecclesiastical affairs.

An important power which was exercised by the Council of Castile in the sixteenth century and assumed by the Council of the Indies immediately on its establishment (semi-legislative), was that of enacting autos acordados. These were enactments of a semi-administrative, semi-legislative character, similar in many regards to the décrets issued subsequently by French administrative councils and executives. It is notable, too, that this power of legislation was exercised by the colonial audiencias, but never by those of Spain, the jurisdiction of the latter tribunals being confined only to affairs of justice. Solórzano, in his Política Indiana, devotes a chapter to showing the differences between the powers of the audiencias of Spain and those of the colonies.^[17] The latter had the fight of intervention in ecclesiastical and military affairs, finance, commercial and political administration, and even at times, they succeeded to the government on the death or absence of the governor or captain-general. A number of reasons existed for this disparity of power: from the very beginning, and certainly before the audiencias were established in Spain, the municipalities and the nobles exercised powers of local legislation. Subsequently the various councils and the cortés itself legislated for the king. With legislative and administrative bodies, local and provincial, already established, there was little opportunity and no real need for these judicial tribunals to assume the powers of legislation. But in the colonies it was otherwise. There were few towns, and those were widely separated; the audiencias were the sole institutions whose members had the requisite experience and ability to advise the governor in administrative affairs, or to assume the government in case of a vacancy. Once assumed, this power was not willingly ceded, especially when this well-selected and administratively efficient body of magistrates managed affairs better than a governor, captain-general, or viceroy, whose only preparation for office was military training and experience. So it came about that from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century a large number of extraordinary and unforeseen duties, governmental, administrative, and ecclesiastical, came to be the concern of the colonial audiencias, owing largely to the impossibility of referring matters to Spain and because the audiencias themselves were royal tribunals, composed of magistrates of rank, talent, education, administrative ability, and experience, who were better fitted to assume control than other authorities. this particular, it cannot be said that the colonial institutions were influenced by those of Spain.

The commercial machinery which Spain inaugurated in her colonies was never so successful as her political institutions. While preparing herself for colonial empire, in the period from 800 to 1500, she did not make corresponding progress economically. During the centuries of warfare against the Moors, Spain grew to honor the knight and the missionary and to scorn the merchant and the worker. Commerce, banking, and industry were left to the Jews, the Moors, and the Moriscoes. When these classes were expelled, the Spaniards remained practically without commercial experience, and they were unprepared to take the places of those driven out, either in trade or in production. It resulted, therefore, that their inaptitude in commercial matters had to be bolstered up and protected by a system of government monopoly, which could only thrive on a non-competitive basis, and which left the individual merchant as helpless in the eighteenth century as he had been in the sixteenth. But the bars had to be let down ultimately, and an age of free trade was ushered in. Spain could not compete with the merchants of Holland, England, and France, whose superiority consisted in individual efficiency and co-operative organizing-power. Spain adhered to her antiquated commercial laws and practices, because they had succeeded in a former age. She was incapable of readjusting her system and this unprogressiveness and its consequences cost her an empire.

The period from the eighth to the sixteenth century may be considered, therefore, as the schooling time of Spain in colonial administration. It was during this epoch that she received the training which fitted her to assume within a short space of time the management and government of a vast colonial empire. The problem of controlling her frontier provinces prepared her to govern exterior possessions and though the latter were actually further away than her own frontiers, the problem of government was but little different, and the matter of readjustment was a comparatively easy one. The adelantados became colonial governors and captains-general; municipalities were established in the distant colonies; subsequently the institution of the audiencia was transferred to the colonies with powers adjusted to the new problems; the ecclesiastical machinery was also transplanted, with the same relationship prevailing between it and the civil government as had existed in Spain. Above and over all, the Council of the Indies exercised supreme jurisdiction, and all the powers of civil and ecclesiastical administration were centered in this tribunal.

Charles H. Cunningham.

1. Read before the American Historical Association, at Philadelphia, December 29, 1917.
2. Antequera, Historia de la legislación española (2d ed., Madrid, 1884, pp. 128-131. Pérez y López, Teatro de la legislación de España y Indias (Madrid, 1791-1798, 28 vols.)., II. 248.
3. Professor Altamira points out that there never developed a hierarchical feudal organization in Spain such as existed in Germany and France. In Aragon and Catalonia a certain type of feudalism prevailed which resembled in many respects that which obtained in other parts of Europe, but the king was unable to exercise authority there until after the age of feudalism had passed away. See Altamira, Historia de la civilización española (Madrid, 1861-1872), I. 314-315.
4. The Council of Leon gave the king the right to name royal judges in the municipalities, but at the same time the municipalities were conceded the right to exercise judicial and legislative functions and the right to elect their own magistrates. The royal municipal judges were doubtless the forerunners of the Alcaldes Mayores (see Desdevises du Dezert, L'Espagne de l'ancien régime—les institutions, pp. 151-154). It was always with great reluctance that these fueros were conceded (Antequera, pp. 128-129; Danvila y Collado, El poder civil en España, I. 169-176, 263-265.
5. Antequera, page 246 (and 1st ed., p. 203). The Ordenamiento Real and subsequent laws treating of the adelantado may be noted in Pérez y López, Teatro, pp. 249-258; see also Antequera, pp. 216-217.
6. Novissima Recopilación de las Leyes de España, Lib. 11, tit. 16, ley 9. See also Escriche, Diccionario razonado de legislación y jurisprudencia (3d. ed., Madrid, 1847, 2 vols.), I. 352.
7. See Escriche, Diccionario, II. 583.
8. Altamira, II. 47; Desdevises du Dezert, pp. 151-154. There appears to have been little or no difference between the alcades mayores of the fourteenth century and the royal judges of the towns recognized in the Council of Leon in 1020. It appears that the idea was the same, namely, to conserve and represent the royal authority in the municipalities.
9. Novissima Recopilación, lib. 12, tit. 24, leyes 1 and 2 were a part of the Fuero Real of 1255. This would show, of course, that the pesquisidor' antedated the fourteenth century. Leyes 3 and 4 of the same title were promulgated in 1325 and 1369 respectively, and they outline with considerable detail the method of conducting pesquisas.
10. Novissima Recopilación, lib. 5, tit. 1, ley 1
11. Novissima Recopilación, lib. 5, tits. 2, 3, 4, 5. The Recopilación gives only the date of the re-establishment of the Audiencia of Mallorca.
12. Novissima Recopilación, lib. 5, tit. 1, leyes 8 to 32, tit. 38, 42; lib. 5, tit. 5, ley 1.
13. Ibid., lib. 4, tit. 3, ley. 1. See Desdevises du Dezert, Espagne de l'ancien régime—les institutions, pp. 59-60. The last mentioned authority gives the year 1385 as the date of its establishment, citing Antequera (Historia de la legislación, p. 344).
14. Novissima Recopilación, lib. 4, tit. 4, ley 1.
15. Recopilación de leyes de los reinos de las Indias, lib. 2, tit. 2, leyes 1 to 4, 13 (that the laws of the Indies conform to those of Castile). Relative to the date of the establishment of the Council of the Indies there has been some conflict of opinion, and concerning this Bancroft (History of Central America, I. 280) has this to say in a note: "Prescott (Ferdinand and Isabella, III. 452) says, copying Robertson (History of America, II. 358) that the Council of the Indies was first established by Ferdinand in 1511. Helps (Spanish Conquest, II. 28), drawing a false inference drawn by Herrera, ii, ii (sic), xx, who makes the date 1517, goes on to describe a council for Indian affairs, dating its organization 1518, and of which Fonseca was president and Vega, Zapata, Peter Martyr and Padilla were members." Escriche, Diccionario, I. 578, says that this "had its beginning" in 1511. It is nevertheless certain hat the first step toward the establishment of the Council of the Indies was taken in 1511 when a separate committee of the Council of Castile was designated to supervise the lminiStration of colonial affairs.
16. Solórzano, Política Indiana. II. 270-283.
17. If is of course unnecessary to add that there were factors other than the commercial operative in the downfall of Spain's colonial empire. The fundamental defect was the projection of the narrow spirit of monopoly and unprogressivehess, which were the keynotes of her commercial system, into cultural, political and religious life.