The Ecclesiastical Confiscation of Mendizabal (1836-37)
5th Confiscation Text
a) Historical Context
This text is an exposition by Regent Maria Cristina and Juan Alvarez Mendizabal (1790-1853) on the liberal disentailment laws, specifically the 1836 exhibition. This exhibition was supplemented by other operative laws that ordered the disentailment process. Mendizabal was born into a family of merchants in Cadiz and worked as a bank clerk and officer of the military administration of Cadiz. In 1819-20, he helped prepare the lifting of Irrigation. Between 1823 and 1833, he lived in exile in England, where he made a fortune through regular trade. He returned to Spain in 1834 and was elected attorney general. Between September 1835 and May 1836, he was head of government and began the famous ecclesiastical confiscation. Between August 1836 and August 1837, he served as finance minister in the Calatrava government, completing the disentailment work. He eventually became one of the most remarkable figures of Spanish liberalism.
b) Justification for Confiscation
Mendizábal justified the need for confiscation of property “that have become state property,” referring to the wealth of the regular orders, which were nationalized by the state in October 1835. This act declared the convents “useless and harmful” under the Enlightenment concept of the “dead hand,” an idea espoused by early authors like Olavide and Jovellanos. Mendizabal applied the utilitarian concept of wealth to the new law, believing that placing a significant portion of land on the Spanish market would allow for more wealth production. This, in turn, would result in the transfer of that wealth to other forms of production, “unblocking the channels of industry.” However, the reality was not so optimistic. A significant portion of sales continued to generate income for the new owners, who then invested in speculative businesses. This did not directly benefit the secondary sector, especially given the large capital outlay in the confiscation, which made it impossible to stop the industrial stagnation.
Another economic goal was to “reduce the large sum of public debt,” which ultimately became the clearer purpose of the disentailment process. The aim was to significantly reduce the abundance of state debt, estimated at over 5000 billion reais and amplified by the costs of the Carlist wars. Maintaining a small deficit would be covered by loans (loans to the state). However, the long continuation of the Carlist war and the inability to reform the treasury made the debt reduction much more modest than originally claimed.
Along with these economic objectives, a political goal was to “create new and strong links” with the liberal system by establishing a new layer of owners whose new acquisitions were tied to the final outcome of the war. Studies conducted at local levels on buyers during the confiscation revealed that in the north and some central peninsular cases, buyers were often middle-class property owners. This strengthened their status as rural bourgeoisie. In the south, planters dominated, strengthening the estate system. In any case, there were many urban buyers: business bourgeoisie and professionals who saw land acquisition as a suggestive business (especially if they were holders of public debt). Some contemporaries, like Florez Estrada, criticized the use of confiscation for not favoring small property ownership more clearly.
c) Character, Principles, and Development
The confiscation of Mendizabal represents changes in land ownership in the nineteenth century, dealing with aspects such as the separation of estates, the abolition of primogeniture, inheritance, transfers, and purchases. The confiscation is arguably the most important transformation of rural Spanish property.
The Illustrated first, and then the Liberals, criticized the irrational exploitation of land in the AR. These farms were considered “dead hands,” leading to a process of transferring the land to other owners willing to make more profits. Except for the nobility, the other landowners involved suffered during the nineteenth century due to the nationalization of their land and its sale to new owners.
The reality is that the debt did not disappear but rather increased. The disentailment process ultimately led to the triumph of liberal capitalist property. An additional aspect of the seizure was that not only the property was sold off, but also the confiscation of rents. This was also decisive in urban areas, where convent buildings in cities were converted into barracks and public buildings.
The seizure must be understood as a whole historical process, from the reign of Charles IV to the second half of the nineteenth century. During the reign of José I, in the Cortes of Cadiz and the Triennium, various mechanisms were put in place to liberalize and sell at public auction property belonging to civil and ecclesiastical institutions. However, we should attribute particular importance to the Mendizabal stage, not only for its volume and the speed with which it took place, but because from that moment on, the seizure was irreversible.
The Confiscation of Mendizabal (1836-37)
Before Mendizabal took his disentailment measures, specific provisions were advertised. These provisions included the sale of goods by the Inquisition and the return to private property obtained in the Triennium.
The ecclesiastical confiscation itself is reflected in two provisions. The first, in February 1836, involved the suppression of religious orders and the nationalization of their assets. The second involved the sales system of nationalized property. The law stated that convents “were useless and harmful” according to the utilitarian mentality of liberalism. Although the act states its objective as “to create an abundant family of owners,” the root cause turned out to be the creation of public credit and debt elimination. The law was more tortuous for the secular clergy, but in 1837, their properties were declared national property, though the sale did not begin until 1851. The disentailment laws remained valid until 1844, with the decree issued by the moderate Alejandro Mon.
The sale of the freed assets (land and census) was made at public auction, after an official appraisal. All bidders had to pay a portion of the amount in cash. If they paid in full, they had a period of 16 years, while those who paid in debt had to do so in just 8 years.
Many of the purchases were made by wealthy farmers or ranchers, landowners, and the business bourgeoisie or civil servants. Small farmers only bought small amounts of soil to complete their heritage.
Thus, the seizure was not a reform, as it failed to significantly increase the number of landowners.
Pascual Madoz’s provisions relating to the nationalization and sale of property doubled in volume compared to Mendizabal’s confiscation, and they released more land assets.