the Confiscation
The confiscation should be considered as a process, ranging from Carlos IV to the mid-nineteenth century [1] . The land in the first half of the nineteenth century was in the same hands that in the Old Regime, the Church (especially the religious orders), the rentier nobility, the state or municipalities (own and communal property). They are trying various Liberal governments is to get the property free, absolute and individual. The opposite would be a very rational exploitation are dead hands, that is, were canceled, without being able to enter the market, unable to dispose of them. Thus those who achieve a land use will accumulate to buy from whom they have not taken advantage. By the way culture gets better also increase agricultural production and end the shortage.
The property is sacred, a natural right, support for happiness is the lifeline of the wealth of nations. The State must ensure that property that gives freedom, and intervene as little as possible. This is to provide the necessary conditions to increase the number of owners and the implementation of its work on such property, personal happiness grew, and with it the national wealth.
1. BACKGROUND. GODOY the Confiscation of the Courts of Cadiz and the Liberal Triennium.
situation Finance desperate for the old regime, especially in the court of Charles IV, was to attack the base of the regime. On the advice of Soler, secretary of the treasury, the king decided in September 1789 to conduct a confiscation order to meet the most pressing needs of the Royal Treasury, especially the war against France, and to help remove the attachment of property.
goods to dispose of were those of the public charitable institutions (hospitals, schools ...) governed by ecclesiastical institutions. The proceeds of sales would be placed in a royal box Amortization of 3% annually. The property was sold at public auction, after appraisal trying to divide the property owners for greater leverage.
goods also joined the Society of Jesus and the Residence Halls. Granted to holders of property entailed the possibility of selling them, as long as they impose their product in the Royal Box Amortization.
Pope was asked to accept him. He did a brief Vatican in 1805. They failed
these measures.
During the War of Independence also paying back the commons from municipalities and property of the Inquisition, the Jesuits and orders canceled. The same shall repossessing land during the Liberal Triennium., For example of the assets of the Inquisition, and the return of property acquired during the constitutional triennium. abolishing the feudal courts. Some are deleted mayorazgos not removed in the 1 st confiscation, sold vacant land and municipalities, municipal property .. ie, it will affect personal property of monasteries, convents and schools and also to goods of the aristocracy. The novelty of this confiscation is that goods can be paid with real worth. Parallel to this process, requires a reduction in the tithe of the church, which is replaced by a new contribution (more caudal to the state). The vouchers allow real problem was eventually sold goods 1000 million, but only enter a box 100. With the restoration of the ancien regime to sort return property to former owners, no refund.
2. Mendizabal ecclesiastical confiscation.
The confiscation of Mendizabal was the fastest, largest and irreversible. Any confiscation is carried out in two phases:
- 1 nationalization of assets. Nationalizing means that the government buys the goods, ie the owners are forced to sell these goods to the State for a specified price.
- 2 º privatization of property. Means that the State is left with the goods but offers them for sale, in this case through a public auction.
Mendizábal The confiscation of church property affected, mainly from religious orders. It must fit within the liberal anti-clericalism, and because he had less political cost, ie there was no political groups involved (no nobility or bourgeoisie ...). In fact marked a break in diplomatic relations with the Vatican
When Mendizábal came from London to preside over government in 1835, he was concerned to ensure the throne to Elizabeth II as needed win the Carlist War. This should be done by reducing the public debt. The provisions concerning were: 1 Suppression of religious orders (October 1835) and 2nd system sales of nationalized (February 1836).
The aims are explicit in the same decree of confiscation which is presented to the Queen, is to create a "family-owned heavy," "create and establish the public credit as amazing strength and magical power which must be considered in the opulent free England. " Here is noted the interest shown by England, the cradle of liberalism. We can also observe that considers the convents' useless and prejudicial "in the most enlightened and liberal anticlerical English.
goods concerned are of the regular clergy (religious orders) and secular ("cures"). Not only land, but houses, monasteries, convents, and their belongings, including works of art and books. In July of 1837 affected the female orders and regular clergy. The second law of confiscation of 1837 abolished the tithes and the application was almost nil, but was carried out years later, in 1841 under the regency of Espartero.
The sale is by auction, after an official appraisal. There are two methods of payment. A portion is paid in cash and the rest Cash can be paid in 16 years, and the other paid with public debt in 8 years. Sales volume was between 3500-4000 million reais from 1830-50. In 1835 to 50,000 affected religious, 23,000 and 3,000 religious convents. This represents 12-15% of the property.
The worst affected provinces were Seville, Cordoba, the rest of the Guadalquivir Valley, Salamanca, Zaragoza, Toledo, Valencia and to a lesser extent, Cáceres, Badajoz, Barcelona, \u200b\u200bValladolid ... had less impact in Galicia and across the northern
the sales garnered much of the business bourgeoisie Madrid, especially a comprador bourgeoisie land, former tenants and many civil and military officials
With the confiscation of Mendizabal sought to achieve several objectives: to raise funds to win the Carlist War, reduce public debt (to offer the possibility to be paid in securities issued by state ) attracted to the Liberal ranks the emerging bourgeoisie to seek new loans (to be more healthy the Treasury) and change the structure of church property, which would be amortized and collective and individual to be free. What I served was to download the State in some of its financial obligations, especially the First Carlist War. Confiscation
Madoz.
was performed during the Progressive Biennium, the "General Confiscation Act" in May 1855. Called "General" because they put on sale all common property: the municipalities and the church that had not been sold in the previous stage. Affected the city-owned property and proper and common, that is, collective-owned land or community. They also sell previously nationalized property were of religious origin (which represents the rupture of the Concordat with the Holy See).
The aim was to level the budget, paying off debt and fund public works (railways). Doubled in size to that of Mendizabal, but according Tusell was not so important.
Payment was made only in cash (Mendizabal learned), with discounts for shorter settlement. Only in exceptional cases could be made on debt payment, but according to their price, not the nominal value. Also gave facilities for the redemption of censuses.
The councils put on sale the land and gave the money to the Administration, but not all, was used to clean up public works and municipal accounts. It is unclear whether the absentee take advantage of Madrid, but not to small farmers, although some authors think so. It is clear the purpose typically liberal "to enjoy the quiet of property insurance to enjoy what is ours, for it is constituted society" (Claudio Moyano).
This law was in force until 1924. Narváez left off in 1856, but restored O'Donnell but not affecting the church property.
In this case, the most affected provinces were again Sevilla, Madrid, Toledo, Cadiz, Ciudad Real, Valencia, Ávila, Badajoz, and the less the north of the peninsula.
CONSEQUENCES
a) Economic
The social impact was important, but it was an agrarian reform. Some believe that Mendizabal not tried it, and also the levers of power were weak. Did not change the ownership structure (J. Tusell) or increase the smallholder or the estate. May increase the number of landowners and some increased their properties.
"Increased agricultural production?. That was the idea of \u200b\u200bliberals, but there was, it was necessary to improve techniques. Increased production of marginal land.
The economic power of the Church suffered a transfer to the bourgeoisie. The pope broke off relations with Spain. Addition lost much of its artistic and cultural heritage.
As for the Treasury, the results were lower than expected, not because the prices at auctions are low, but because they are paid on public debt (lower price). Public debt increased at this time, maybe it was in spite of the confiscation, which increased expenses by civil war, which was not enough ... Detour "the confiscation of funds that could have been used in industrialization? Maybe, because the railroads were French (Trojan says yes, Tussell not).
was liberal capitalist property, disappeared and the feudal primogeniture courts. Rents are paying back, and updated. Rose as the leases. Gone were the restrictions on the use of forests, the grazing of cattle and medieval privileges. This was also an ecological disaster
b) Policies
The political consequences were significant consolidated the liberal regime. Buyers will be always in favor of liberalism, but conservative, not progressive. Especially since there was no land reform.
c) social renters
owners, but of bourgeois origin, assimilated into the nobility (unlike in England). In Barcelona, \u200b\u200bthe Basque Country and Madrid (such as Ibarra). Social reform was not possible, they realized at the time. For example, you could have tried, instead of the auction, the census long lease, ie transfer it to the peasants who had a very long time (25-50 years) to pay down the census and thus the property passed (proposed by Flórez Estrada).
A major consequence was the proletarianization of peasants, farmers increased the number of employees, previously as settlers (the old servants of the monastic estates.) This involved a series of protests in Spain. It also liberalized leases: born agricultural proletariat. In short it was an economic failure, financial and social support for the rural lower classes, who had to pay more taxes, so they became anti-liberal (the world we lost)
d) Cultural
In the cultural and urban convents became public buildings (eg, Museo de Bellas Artes de Sevilla), buildings were destroyed and dispersed equity (sculptures, pictures, files ...)
e) Religious
broke with the Church. It weakened his power. Above all we must bear in mind that the Church supported the Carlist. They lost a tenth in 1837. It was noted in the number of components and their livelihoods.
VALUATION.
- Vicens Vives was not a reform, but merely to be a transfer of church property to the strong classes: large landowners, aristocrats, bourgeois ...
- R. Carr: the sale of community property was a social disaster, because the marginal population snatched their livelihood. So organized riots. He was also a natural disaster (deforestation and erosion). This view is partner to Regeneration. Sales hurt small towns, because that money was paid to the doctor or teacher.
- J. Fontana talks about land reform frustrated. For liberals was a measure of wealth and land to deliver the most active owners and entrepreneurs. But they took away the land to the peasants.
- Tomás y Valiente, was an economic and social, but it should have been done with other media. For example. Santillán, understood in the Treasury, was with Mendizabal, he saw no viable proposal Flórez Estrada.
In general, we can say that Mendizabal paid the Carlist war and saved from bankruptcy and paid Madoz rail. Encouraged both landlordism.
agricultural transformations.
liberal agrarian reform is part of the process of replacing the old regime by capitalist society. Throughout the first half of the nineteenth century produced in Spain a number of legislative changes that will impact on the structure of land ownership. In general we can say that consist of removing the legal obstacles to property liberal: freedom, individual and absolute. Disappear, since the forms of shared ownership. During
Cortes of Cadiz, abolished the feudal regime, the manors passed to be considered as property, and the courts should be integrated in the nation. There is also a law of specific and common distributions.
The Liberal Triennium, during the reign of Fernando VII (1820-1823), jumped off of primogeniture and allowed the closure of farms. The abolition privileges of the Mesta also paved this road. Also allowed the freedom of agricultural leases, free pricing and storage, as well as domestic trade. This will allow the exclusive use of agricultural properties from the individual. This law will be removed during the decade ominous to be replaced during the regencies. Finally released the lands of assets linked and their owners can sell without hindrance. Huge tracts of land left to free market to be bought by the highest bidder, theoretically those most capable and efficient.
addition, as they are dissolved the religious orders spend their heritage properties real. Finally, the abolition of tithes completed the necessary legal framework for property liberal.
A crucial point was the confiscation of Mendizabal and Madoz. Working from then, we can say that the old gentleman became the new owner agriculture.
However, what is found is only a legal, rather than a genuine agrarian reform. The passage of more than 10 million hectares, half of the arable land of dead hands (Church, municipalities), to private landowners should have boosted the growth of production, but it seems that it was not.
The situation in the countryside in the early nineteenth century was very bad. A rural world anchored in the past. It was the base of the economy, since there had been the industrial revolution. The most common words to describe the situation in the countryside are "backward" or "failure." Primarily by natural factors (topography, poor soils ...), but also for socio-political factors: inequality in land ownership (large estates and small farms). With regard to technical changes were slow, we can say that the old regime lasted until 1866. A poor harvest meant a typical mortality crisis AR. As no transport were developed could not send food. The losers were the poorest. The owners are benefiting from rising prices. The laborers or laborers were less wages. Smallholders had to go to loans. In addition we must add the impact of the war of independence, breaking with the Indies and the Carlist Wars. Production levels until 1820 did not begin to recover.
is true that there were changes in the first half of the nineteenth century
-
joint market - opening up: Galicia cattle exported to England and the former colonies
- Specialization and crop adaptation (to the peculiarities land): corn and potatoes to the north, Andalucia and Castilla cereals, vineyards on the Mediterranean coast.
- Increased production, increased crop area (confiscation) and adaptation, not technical improvements: 50% in wheat, 3 times more vid ... This impacted on the best of English food.
could even talk about some land reform had abolished the manorial system had been abolished primogeniture and had been sold off. This was coupled with a liberalization of the land that removed barriers since the development of capitalism
_________________
[1] spoken to untie when talking about real secular (non-clergy), such as primogeniture, and paying back to the church
0 comments:
Post a Comment