Land Ownership Transformation in 19th-Century Spain
This period represented a fundamental change in the system of ownership and land tenure in Spain. Understanding the seizure involves government confiscation of real estate under collective ownership, either ecclesiastical or civil. After nationalization and subsequent sale at auction, these properties became new, private entities with full freedom of use and disposal. They now had the status of privately owned assets, free of ordinary encumbrances.
Background
First, during the reign of Charles III, the enlightened reformers of the 18th century had suggested the need to change the manorial system of land ownership. In the Old Regime, a large part of the land was considered “dead hands” (manos muertas), i.e., monastic lands or domains related to municipalities. In addition to not paying taxes, they could not be sold by their owners, were out of the market, and therefore could not be capitalized or improved. If land reform was to be promoted, it was necessary for these lands to become private property subject to technical improvements.
Subsequently, under Godoy (1798-1808), growth in public debt forced the launch of a confiscation of city and church property. Permission was obtained from the Holy See to seize and sell assets of the Jesuits and charitable works. The restoration of absolutism in 1814 meant the cancellation of exclaustrations and the return of goods sold to the monks. Finally, in the Liberal Triennium, the decisions of the Cortes of Cadiz came back into force. However, in 1823, the absolutist regime returned, and Ferdinand VII was forced to return the goods sold.
Confiscation of Mendizábal
Indeed, during the regency of Maria Cristina (1833-1840), the truly progressive liberal revolution began. Tax reform, and above all, the main cause of ecclesiastical confiscation, was the most important law approved in Spain. It was an indispensable legal framework to tackle the “land reform” that liberals wanted.
Political Objective: To increase the number of supporters of liberalism, creating a sector of owners who felt attached to the Elizabethan liberal regime. Property buyers of disentailed lands would link their fate to the victory of the liberal faction in the Carlist War.
On October 11, 1835, Mendizábal promulgated a decree that suppressed religious orders and justified the measure, considering their property disproportionate to the means of the nation at the time. Another decree, issued on February 19, 1836, put on sale all the assets of the extinct communities and religious corporations, as well as those that had already passed to the consideration of national assets or would be acquired in the future.
The February 1836 decree established the principles and mechanisms of the seizure. Any property that qualified as national was declared for sale. Among other things, the decree fixed in Article 3 the public auction as the standard for sales, with pre-appraisal, and in Article 10, it allowed payment in cash or debt securities for their full nominal value.
In an article published in “El Español” in February 1836, the author declared in favor of the confiscation but differed from the system proposed by the Minister of Finance. He admitted the seizure to improve the condition of the rural classes and was concerned about promoting the agricultural proletariat.
Although moderates paralyzed the decree of confiscation during the decade in which they ruled alone (1844-1854), there was actually very little church property left to nationalize.
Second Great Confiscation
The Second Great Confiscation was initiated again with the progressives in power (1854-1856), who had accessed it again through a military coup. There was talk of “general confiscation” because it now included not just the Church’s goods but all those redeemed, i.e., those belonging to the state and municipalities, as well as the common and waste lands of municipalities, and, in general, all assets that remained unamortized.
This time, there appears to be no concern on the part of the progressives for access to land by the dispossessed. Assets freed would become the property of those most able to pay for them. On the other hand, the confiscation of Church property included in this law forced a rethinking, four years after the signing of the Concordat, of relations with the Holy See.
Consequences of the Confiscation
- Thirdly, the confiscation did not solve the debt problem but did contribute to its attenuation.
- Fourthly, the seizure did not produce an increase in agricultural production, contrary to what its promoters intended.
- Fifthly, the confiscation was a great loss and plunder of cultural property in the ancient monasteries, mostly. Many architectural works were ruined, and property (paintings, libraries, equipment) was sold at ridiculous prices and largely went to other countries.
- Sixthly, the seizure led to a strengthening of the structure of land ownership, emphasizing landlordism.
The seizure was not intended, nor did it seek, a distribution of land or land reform. Those who benefited, like Mendizábal, belonged to the financial and commercial elite and sought to consolidate their economic prosperity with the purchase of real estate.
Agrarian Changes
From the standpoint of agricultural transformations, we can say that all changes introduced from the legal point of view throughout the first half of the 19th century did not lead to innovations in farming techniques. The new owners preferred to keep operating systems rather than investing in improvements. So, land yield did not increase, and production only increased due to the cultivation of more land after the Civil War.
The confiscation and the liberal revolution also marked the decline of the herds, in part because many of the lands that had served as pastures were cultivated, but also because more profitable woolen species and more competitive textile products were introduced.
For their part, the moderate governments, especially defending the interests of landowners, made a protectionist trade policy precisely to secure the sale of production at high prices, thus reserving the national market. The result is that, in years of good harvests, prices remained relatively high in the absence of foreign competition and a domestic market sufficiently articulated (good communication between different parts of the country), whereas in years of poor crops, prices soared.