4

In this way the Spanish rulers were able to turn aside the thunderbolts of the French emperor, but these loans did not satisfy domestic needs. Disentail was the only sure resource. Since it had proved so successful in Spain, the king and his counselors decided to extend it to the Indies. In November 1804 Carlos IV issued a decree that expressed his satisfaction at the advantages that desamortización had brought to the obras pías of Spain. "I have decided for all these reasons and because of the special care and esteem that my [subjects] of America deserve, to allow them to partake of equal benefits." He ordered the sale of the properties of their obras pías "and that the product and [the capital] of the censos and existing funds that belong to them be placed in my Royal Amortization Fund" (so it said, but it meant the Consolidation Fund). The decree, very lengthy, provided necessary details on the manner to vend the prop-

[54] RC, 15 Oct. 1806, AHN, CCR, no. 1689; Fugier, Napoléon et l'Espagne 2 : 77; Buist, Hope and Co., 335.

[55] Godoy, Memorias 2 : 130–31, gives this figure and is supported by ANP, AF IV, 1608 , 2 : 96, f. 13v. Buist, Hope and Co., 336, says Spain got only 10 million florins net.

[56] ANP, AF IV, 1608 , 2 : 41, f. 20r.

[57] Ibid., f. 19v., and 2 : 96, ff. 12–13.

[58] Ibid., 2 : 66, states that in 1808 the Consolidation Fund recognized as its debt to Holland: loan of 1805, 85 million reales; loan of 1807 [sic ], 233 million reales. In 1821 the Spanish government and the Dutch bankers reached an agreement to recognize the debt as 31,135,000 florins (249 million reales) (Dirección General de la Deuda Pública, Colección legislativa 7 : 286–92).

[59] ANP, AF IV, 1608 , 2 : 96, ff. 12–13.

erties.^[60] In Spain the desamortización declared the redemption of censos to be voluntary on the part of the debtor. In America the redemption of censos and deposit of the capital in the Consolidation Fund was to be obligatory. For debtors, the difference was profound. The decree caused considerable alarm in the Indies, especially among the clergy and upper classes of Mexico, and produced some income, but the money could not be shipped to Spain and served only to meet the notes that the king gave to his foreign bankers drawn on his treasuries in the Indies.^[61] In the end it was highly counterproductive, because it added to the growing estrangement of the king's American subjects without bringing the king much financial return.

The possibilities were more favorable at home. The instruction of January 1799 on disentail had ordered the king's officials not to proceed with the sale of the properties of hospitals, poorhouses, old-age asylums, orphanages, and similar charitable institutions, until those of obras pías, memorias, confraternities, lay patronatos, and others of this type were liquidated. A circular of September 1805 now explained that the sale of the latter properties had produced "its effect" and that "the urgent needs of the kingdom, arising as an inevitable consequence of the unfortunate events that have afflicted it in recent years and of the present war" required the disposal of all the properties included in the decree of September 1798.^[62]

The disentail had slowed down since the bad harvest of 1803 and 1804 and the accompanying famine, and this decision gave it new impetus. In 1803, 1804, and 1805 López Fando recorded deeds amounting to 84, 123, and 106 million, respectively. In 1806 the figure rose to 136 million, and in 1807, 208 million.^[63] The last figure represented sales concluded approximately through May 1807, because of López Fando's slowness in delivering the deeds of deposit. We have estimated that another 169 million's worth was sold in the remainder of 1807, and 80 million in the first months of 1808.^[64] In other words almost 600 million's worth was auctioned off after the order of September 1805, 36 percent of all the sales. Much of this represented properties of hospitals and other charitable foundations.^[65]

[60] RD, 28 Nov. 1804, AHN, Hac., libro 6012.

[61] See Flores Caballero, Contrarevolución, 28–65; and Hamnett, "Appropriation."

[62] Circular, 30 Sept. 1805, AHN, Hac., libro 8057, no. 6716.

[63] See Appendix F.

[64] See Herr, "Hacia el derrumbe del Antiguo Régimen," 63–65.

[65] For example, the properties of the Madrid poorhouse (Callahan, Santa y Real Hermandad, 151–56).

Even this did not satisfy the desperate rulers. They began to cast their eyes on the other wealth of the church, hitherto not affected by the disentail.^[66] This time they decided to take more precautions. Carlos IV had issued the decrees of 1798 motu propio, without admitting any other competence, and as has been seen, his act aroused resentment and opposition among many clergymen. With the conscious intent of avoiding a similar backlash, while recognizing the accepted privileges of the church, this time he appealed to the pope.^[67] Pius VII responded sympathetically to the misfortunes of the Spanish monarchy with a breve of June 1805 that proclaimed, "With the fullness of apostolic authority we grant the Catholic king the faculty to alienate in his dominions as much ecclesiastical property as produces an annual net income of two hundred thousand gold ducats, and no more." The resulting capital would be used to retire the vales but also, this time, more realistically, "to alleviate the most serious and urgent needs of the kingdom itself." The pope declared such sales licit and ordered the clergy not to molest the buyers.^[68] The arrangements were not so advantageous to the crown as the disentail of 1798, because they did not specify which properties were to be sold to make up the stipulated amount and because the king had to take possession of them and begin paying interest to their former owners before announcing them for auction.

The king published this breve in October 1805, together with instructions on its execution. Experience soon showed that the procedure was not efficient, and the king obtained a second breve in December 1806 replacing the previous one. This time the pope gave the king the right to sell one-seventh of all the real properties belonging to the church, including the religious and military orders, with the single exception of the endowments of parish churches destined for the maintenance of the curates (the congrua ). Following the procedure agreed on in the breve of 1805, the Consolidation Fund would assume ownership of all these properties prior to disposing of them and would pay the former owners the equivalent of the income from them, averaged over the previous five-year period. The proceeds of their eventual sale were earmarked for ex-

[66] On 25 Feb. 1805, Carlos IV abolished ecclesiastical señoríos and compensated their former holders with deposits on the Consolidation Fund equivalent in annual return at 3 percent to the amounts they received from their señoríos (Domínguez Ortiz, Sociedad y estado, 450–53). Moxó, Disolución, 12, states that the measure did not apply to all ecclesiastical señoríos and as a consequence had a very limited impact.

[67] ANP, AF IV, 1608 , 2 : 30.

[68] Papal breve of 14 June 1805, quoted in RC, 15 Oct. 1805, AHN, CCR, no. 1644.

tinguishing the vales and for the other needs of the crown, with special mention made of supplies for the navy.^[69]

The procedure remained cumbersome, for the seventh part of the properties of an ecclesiastical institution could obviously not be sold until there had been a review of its property and an agreement reached on what represented the seventh to be sold. However, the breve also conceded the king a measure of immediate importance. It authorized the sale of all real properties of capellanías colativas, that is, benefices whose holders were appointed by prelates of the church. These were juicy plums, which the decree of 1798 had invited the bishops to put up for sale, without great success. Henceforth no episcopal approval was needed, and as in the decree of 1798, sales could proceed at once, with the deed of deposit that assigned 3-percent return on the sale price to the benefice coming only later, vastly hastening the process. In February 1807 the king published the breve with accompanying instructions.^[70] A circular letter to the commissioners of the Consolidation Fund in March 1807 ordered them to proceed at once to the sale of the properties of benefices, while awaiting determination of the seventh of the properties of the various ecclesiastical units.^[71]

On the whole, the government was unable to profit from the apostolic breves. Among the deeds of deposit through 1807, there are only sixty-two in 1806 and thirty-five in 1807 resulting from the breve of 1805. Their total amount was 476,983 reales and produced an annual interest of 14,309 reales, less than 1 percent of the amount authorized by the breve.^[72] Since the deeds of deposit had to be granted before the properties were sold, we do not know how many of these properties were disposed of at this time. The deeds of deposit made as a result of the breve of 1806 are all in one volume of the records of Feliciano del Corral.^[73] It has 291 documents, dated from 30 June 1807 to 7 November 1808. Only the first 12 are dated 1807, and they were written out in longhand until number 21, of 11 March 1808. These 291 deeds of deposit refer to sales concluded before the end of November 1807 and all involve the properties of capellanías colativas, although the printed form was worded to cover also the seventh part of other ecclesiastical properties. They represent approximately 6.5 million reales. I estimate that an

[69] Papal breve of 12 Dec. 1806, quoted in RC, 21 Feb. 1807, ibid., no. 1702.

[70] Ibid.

[71] Circular, 3 Mar. 1807, AHN, Hac., libro 8058, no. 6871.

[72] They are found in AHPM, López Fando, protocolos 22153–60 (June–Dec. 1806) and 22162–64 (Jan.–Mar. 1807). They can be recognized by their different format.

[73] Ibid., protocolo 23679.

equal amount was sold between November 1807 and April 1808, whose deeds of deposit were never recorded. This would be a total of 13 million, an insignificant sum in comparison with the 1,650 million deposited under the decrees of 1798.^[74]