Secularization is a legal change of the property related depreciation and circulating free passes.
The sale was upheld by the learned to remove the related assets or property held in dead "and revive the economy. The main confiscations were developed by the progressive liberals.
The sale is made in two phases:
1) by the state seizure of assets from "dead hand" that become national assets.
The first agricultural measures are initiated in the reign of Charles III and continue to Godoy in the reign of Charles IV. Faced with the approach of the enlightened (disentail to reform, although slightly agricultural economics), arises from Godoy disentail to improve public finances.
Disentailed decrees were raised in the Cortes of Cadiz and developed during the Liberal Triennium, but the first major confiscation was not until the rise to power Mendizabal.
The secularization of Mendizabal
- The rise to power of progressivism (See book page. 154).
- The progressive reforms (book pp. 154-156).
The first concern of Mendizabal, since it came to government in 1835, was the financial problem. The state coffers were empty, public debt had reached gigantic proportions and the government had to face a costly civil war that had completely disrupted the administration, so it proceeded to a settlement of the debt by selling to large scale domestic goods.
Before coming to power had already passed two decrees that were suppressed the Inquisition and the Jesuits, who had been restored, targeting their property to the extinction of the public debt. That same year, 1835, by another decree, also suppressed religious convents and monasteries that did not have a minimum of twelve men professed their property apply to the same end.
The first law disentailment: in 1836 he approved the sale of real estate (land and buildings) that had belonged to corporations and religious communities (regular clergy), fewer goods to public services or national monuments. It accounted for the severance of diplomatic relations with the Vatican.
The second law disentailment: Mendizabal hopes of cleaning up public finances were not fulfilled, so in 1837 enacted a second law disentailment, conceived more as a tax reform. It removed the tithe and were declared national property subject to transfer almost all the secular clergy (clergy who belonged to religious orders or convents). But the practical application of this law was negligible, since the transfer should not begin until 1840 and this year was repealed section regarding such disposal.
The opposition to Mendizabal
Among the rare voices of the progressives who opposed Florez Mendizabal said of Estrada. In an article published in The Spanish, in February 1836, declared himself in favor of the confiscation, but unlike the system proposed by the Minister of Finance.
His concern was primarily social reformer. He admitted the confiscation order to improve the condition of the rural classes and was concerned about promoting the agricultural proletariat. Flórez Estrada returned to bind to the spirit of the Enlightenment: disentail to reform the agrarian structure.
His proposal was to lease the "long lease" for 50 years that the settlers themselves were working for the Church, with the possibility of renewing the contract on expiry of that period.
This proposal was advantageous to the State, which lost the property of "national assets" and could invest the amount of income in payment of debts. He also warned that sales to all classes of society would be harmed and would win just speculators.
Results of the seizure of Mendizábal
Not being designed secularization as agrarian reform, the regions of small and medium land subsisted on the same structure, but in regions where the geographical and historical conditions favoring the cultivation and large-scale property, the property was to focus even more, this was the case of southern Spain.
The large landowners and members of the bourgeoisie, holders of public debt securities with which you could also buy the auctioned property-were those most likely to be sold with the farms.
However, the secularization contributed to increased rural productivity, the increase in cultivated areas, to cope with the increasing costs of war and ensure a regular income in subsequent years.
Secularization of Madoz (See: progressive biennium 1854-1856)
The alienation of the lands of peoples' own was something that was brewing since the days moderate. No wonder liberals came to power with the revolution of 1854, they set off. The circumstances were different from those of 1836, as there was no civil war and budgets were being hedged.
The Act of 1855 by Pascual Madoz was addressed to the general confiscation of church property, the State, municipalities and other "dead hand" minor. There was resistance to this law. The queen would not sign for the damage caused to the Church. The law, by violating the provisions of the Concordat of 1851, meant that diplomatic relations between Spain and the Vatican to become cloudy. The amount of sales would be used to level the budget, to repay domestic debt and to finance public works. But the money was used largely to subsidize the railway companies.
The government led by Narváez stayed the execution of the law of Madoz in 1856, O'Donnell returned to the government but in 1858 it again to restore, but excluding church property. The law of 1860 the Spanish government promised the Vatican not to forward unilaterally in any sale of church property and declaring the law repealed Madoz as opposed to the text of the agreement.
Analysis and Valuation
The importance of measures disentailment is debatable, not just for the money they contributed to the State, or by surface disentailed, but because it was a measure that affected other aspects of social and economic life of the country.
Secularization was a great missed opportunity to distribute land to peasants and transform the very foundations of the Spanish agriculture. Although it passed the ownership of land a hand to another because the peasants could not buy them. In Catalonia, on the other hand, some farmers were able to buy it.
The need for the confiscation of money raised so beneficial to those who could afford to buy, what it meant to order the dispossession of the peasants, as it alienated much of their lands.
For the historian Vicens Vives "might be for real reform" but it was a move that benefited the economically powerful classes. ToRaymond Carr the sale of the commons "was a social disaster." Instead Fontana, versus those who see the confiscation as a great missed opportunity to distribute land to peasants, believes that the confiscation for "Spanish liberals of the nineteenth century was essentially a measure of Finance". To the question "What helped the confiscation? Mendizabal responds to winning the civil war and emerge from bankruptcy and the Madoz to finance the railway.
A final conclusion can be drawn the following consequences of the confiscation:
- Landlordism is emphasized.
- Surge landowning bourgeoisie.
- Does not improve the situation of the peasantry even worse.
- Increase production by the increase of cultivated land, not by technical improvements.