The History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella the Catholic — Volume 3

by William Hickling Prescott

It is certain, however, that, while in all her acts she confessed the influence of religion, she took more effectual means than any of her predecessors, to circumscribe the temporal powers of the clergy. [14] The volume of her pragmáticas is filled with laws designed to limit their jurisdiction, and restrain their encroachments on the secular authorities. [15] Towards the Roman See, she maintained, as we have often had occasion to notice, the same independent attitude. By the celebrated concordat made with Sixtus the Fourth, in 1482, the pope conceded to the sovereigns the right of nominating to the higher dignities of the church. [16] The Holy See, however, still assumed the collation to inferior benefices, which were too often lavished on non-residents, and otherwise unsuitable persons. The queen sometimes extorted a papal indulgence granting the right of presentation, for a limited time; on which occasions she showed such alacrity, that she is known to have disposed, in a single day, of more than twenty prebends and inferior dignities. At other times, when the nomination made by his Holiness, as not unfrequently happened, was distasteful to her, she would take care to defeat it, by forbidding the bull to be published until laid before the privy council; at the same time sequestrating the revenues of the vacant benefice, till her own requisitions were complied with. [17]

She was equally solicitous in watching over the morals of the clergy, inculcating on the higher prelates to hold frequent pastoral communication with their suffragans, and to report to her such as were delinquent. [18] By these vigilant measures, she succeeded in restoring the ancient discipline of the church, and weeding out the sensuality and indolence, which had so long defiled it; while she had the inexpressible satisfaction to see the principal places, long before her death, occupied by prelates, whose learning and religious principle gave the best assurance of the stability of the reformation. [19] Few of the Castilian monarchs have been brought more frequently into collision, or pursued a bolder policy, with the court of Rome. Still fewer have extorted from it such important graces and concessions; a circumstance, which can only be imputed, says a Castilian writer, "to singular good fortune and consummate prudence;" [20] to that deep conviction of the queen's integrity, we may also add, which disarmed resistance, even in her enemies.

The condition of the commons under this reign was probably, on the whole, more prosperous than in any other period of the Spanish history. New avenues to wealth and honors were opened to them; and persons and property were alike protected under the fearless and impartial administration of the law. "Such was the justice dispensed to every one under this auspicious reign," exclaims Marineo, "that nobles and cavaliers, citizens and laborers, rich and poor, masters and servants, all equally partook of it." [21] We find no complaints of arbitrary imprisonment, and no attempts, so frequent both in earlier and later times, at illegal taxation. In this particular, indeed, Isabella manifested the greatest tenderness for her people. By her commutation of the capricious tax of the alcavala for a determinate one, and still more by transferring its collection from the revenue officers to the citizens themselves, she greatly relieved her subjects. [22]

Finally, notwithstanding the perpetual call for troops for the military operations in which the government was constantly engaged, and notwithstanding the example of neighboring countries, there was no attempt to establish that iron bulwark of despotism, a standing army; at least, none nearer than that of the voluntary levies of the hermandad, raised and paid by the people. The queen never admitted the arbitrary maxims of Ximenes in regard to the foundation of government. Hers was essentially one of opinion, not force. [23] Had it rested on any other than the broad basis of public opinion, it could not have withstood a day the violent shocks, to which it was early exposed, nor have achieved the important revolution that it finally did, both in the domestic and foreign concerns of the country.

The condition of the kingdom, on Isabella's accession, necessarily gave the commons unwonted consideration. In the tottering state of her affairs, she was obliged to rest on their strong arm for support. It did not fail her. Three sessions of the legislature, or rather the popular branch of it, were held during the two first years of her reign. It was in these early assemblies, that the commons bore an active part in concocting the wholesome system of laws, which restored vitality and vigor to the exhausted republic. [24]

After this good work was achieved, the sessions of that body became more rare. There was less occasion for them, indeed, during the existence of the hermandad, which was, of itself, an ample representation of the Castilian commons, and which, by enforcing obedience to the law at home, and by liberal supplies for foreign war, superseded, in a great degree, the call for more regular meetings of cortes. [25] The habitual economy, too, not to say frugality, which regulated the public, as well as private expenditure of the sovereigns, enabled them, after this period, with occasional exceptions, to dispense with other aid than that drawn from the regular revenues of the crown.

There is every ground for believing that the political franchises of the people, as then understood, were uniformly respected. The number of cities summoned to cortes, which had so often varied according to the caprices of princes, never fell short of that prescribed by long usage. On the contrary, an addition was made by the conquest of Granada, and, in a cortes held soon after the queen's death, we find a most narrow and impolitic remonstrance of the legislature itself, against the alleged unauthorized extension of the privilege of representation. [26]

In one remarkable particular, which may be thought to form a material exception to the last observations, the conduct of the crown deserves to be noticed. This was, the promulgation of pragmáticas, or royal ordinances, and that to a greater extent, probably, than under any other reign, before or since. This important prerogative was claimed and exercised, more or less freely, by most European sovereigns in ancient times. Nothing could be more natural, than that the prince should assume such authority, or that the people, blind to the ultimate consequences, and impatient of long or frequent sessions of the legislature, should acquiesce in the temperate use of it. As far as these ordinances were of an executive character, or designed as supplementary to parliamentary enactments, or in obedience to previous suggestions of cortes, they appear to lie open to no constitutional objections in Castile. [27] But it was not likely that limits, somewhat loosely defined, would be very nicely observed; and under preceding reigns this branch of prerogative had been most intolerably abused. [28]

A large proportion of these laws are of an economical character, designed to foster trade and manufactures, and to secure fairness in commercial dealings. [29] Many are directed against the growing spirit of luxury, and many more occupied with the organization of the public tribunals. Whatever be thought of their wisdom in some cases, it will not be easy to detect any attempt to innovate on the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, or on those regulating the transfer of property. When these were to be discussed, the sovereigns were careful to call in the aid of the legislature; an example which found little favor with their successors. [30] It is good evidence of the public confidence in the government, and the generally beneficial scope of these laws, that, although of such unprecedented frequency, they should have escaped parliamentary animadversion. [31] But, however patriotic the intentions of the Catholic sovereigns, and however safe, or even salutary, the power intrusted to such hands, it was a fatal precedent, and under the Austrian dynasty became the most effectual lever for overturning the liberties of the nation.

The preceding remarks on the policy observed towards the commons in this reign must be further understood as applying with far less qualification to the queen, than to her husband. The latter, owing perhaps to the lessons which he had derived from his own subjects of Aragon, "who never abated one jot of their constitutional rights," says Martyr, "at the command of a king," [32] and whose meetings generally brought fewer supplies to the royal coffers, than grievances to redress, seems to have had little relish for popular assemblies. He convened them as rarely as possible in Aragon, [33] and when he did, omitted no effort to influence their deliberations. [34] He anticipated, perhaps, similar difficulties in Castile, after his second marriage had lost him the affections of the people. At any rate, he evaded calling them together on more than one occasion imperiously demanded by the constitution; [35] and, when he did so, he invaded their privileges, [36] and announced principles of government, [37] which formed a discreditable, and, it must be admitted, rare exception to the usual tenor of his administration. Indeed, the most honorable testimony is borne to its general equity and patriotism, by a cortes convened soon after the queen's death, when the tribute, as far as she was concerned, still more unequivocally, must have been sincere. [38] A similar testimony is afforded by the panegyrics and the practice of the more liberal Castilian writers, who freely resort to this reign, as the great fountain of constitutional precedent. [39]