The duty to reside: an encomendero had to live in the province, marry and build — and was barred from the Indian towns he held
The third charge of the encomienda was personal residence. A Provisión of Charles V of 13 November 1535, printed verbatim in the standard treatise, forbids an encomendero to leave New Spain without licence on pain of losing his Indians; other orders required him to marry within three years and build in stone. But the residence owed was in the Spanish provincial capital: by cédulas ending in one of 6 June 1609 he was barred from living in, or even entering, the Indian towns he held.
Why this wins its question: The encomienda is almost always described as a grant over a group of Indians, and the description leaves the natural inference that the grantee lived among them and ran the place. The law said the opposite, and this object prints the text that says so: the run of cédulas ending in one of 6 June 1609 by which the encomendero was forbidden to reside in, or even to enter, the towns of his own encomienda except in passing or on an account or a collection, with the reason given — the harm he did living among them — and the fine laid on any governor who licensed the breach; and the editor's digest of leyes 11 to 15 of título 9 libro 6 of the Recopilación closing the evasions, down to the hut claimed as a store, the second night's sleep, and the wife, kin, servants and slaves sent in his place. Around that it sets the positive duty most accounts also omit: the Provisión of Charles V of 13 November 1535, quoted verbatim, which forbids an encomendero to leave New Spain without express licence on pain of losing his Indians and which the city of Mexico itself petitioned for; the orders to marry within three years in the province and to build in stone and plant; the softening of the marriage rule into persuasion and a preference for married men; and the vocabulary the duty produced, in which "Vecino" was the honorific of the encomendero and "Domiciliario" the man without an encomienda. It is a picture of a grant designed as an instrument of Spanish settlement and then progressively fenced away from the people it was drawn on — and the fencing is stated by the crown's own jurist in the same breath as the admission of what it was for.
Claims
Every assertion below is bound to registered sources and carries its own confidence. Weight them; do not treat the page as uniformly authoritative.
The chapter states its subject in its own heading and frames residence as the third of three charges. Libro III, capítulo XXVII of Juan de Solórzano Pereira's Política Indiana is "DE LA CARGA DE RESIDIR, QUE se pone à los Encomenderos, y quando podrán ser privados de las Encomiendas, por no cumplirla? Y qué impedimentos se deben tener por legitimos?" At §1 the encomenderos would poorly have fulfilled the two charges treated in the preceding chapters — to serve personally in the military occasions of their provinces and to look after the conversion and protection of the Indians of their encomiendas — "sino se les pusiera esta tercera, de que aora quiero tratar, que es, que precisamente hayan de estár obligados, à vivir, y residir con casa poblada dentro del Reyno, ò Provincia, donde estuvieren las dichas Encomiendas, y hacer, como dicen, vecindad, y residencia personal en ellas."
The charter document is quoted in full and its reasoning is the crown's own. At §2 the charge, its causes and the penalties of deprivation were laid down "por expressas palabras en una Provision del Señor Emperador Carlos V. dada en Madrid à 13. de Noviembre del año de 1535", which runs: "DON CARLOS, &c. Por quanto Nos somos informados, que por la Poblacion, y Noblecimiento de la Nueva-España, que es en las nuestras Indias, conviene, que ninguna persona, que estuviere fuera de ellas en otras Provincias, y Governaciones, tengan Indios encomendados en aquella tierra, y que los que tuvieren algunos residan à la continua en ella, para los regir, y administrar en las cosas de nuestra Santa Fé Catholica, y para que quando se ofrecieren algunas cosas tocantes à nuestro servicio, y à la pacificacion, y sossiego de los naturales de ella, se hallen presentes, y Nos sirvan como son obligados: porque de su ausencia se han seguido, y podian seguir muchos daños, è inconvenientes, como por experiencia se ha visto." The petition behind it is named: "por quanto assi nos fue suplicado por parte de la Ciudad de Mexico."
The operative clause attaches forfeiture to unlicensed departure and to overstaying. The same Provisión continues: "Mandamos, que agora, ni de aqui adelante, ninguna persona, que tuviere Indios encomendados, pueda salir, ni salga de la dicha Nueva-España, sin tener para ello nuestra licencia expressa, ò del nuestro Virrey, ò del Governador: y que si saliere sin la dicha licencia, ò no volviere dentro de el termino de ella, que por el mismo caso se sean quitados, y se le quiten los dichos Indios, que assi tuviere encomendados, y no goce mas de los tributos, ò provechos de ellos". The 1736 editor's asterisked note places it at ley 25, título 9, libro 6 of the Recopilación, adding that the absence must be short, that an escudero must be left, that it may not be prolonged, that the holder must be back at his residence within four months, and that otherwise the encomiendas are declared vacant and given to men of merit.
The 1535 Provisión was not the first and did not stand alone; the chain is given with dates. At §3 an earlier provision to the same effect had been ordered by a cédula of the same Emperor given at Valladolid on 16 May 1527, and by another Provisión given at Toledo on 21 May 1534, which is inserted and renewed in a cédula of Philip II given at Madrid on 27 February 1575; "Y esta fue una de las leyes de las Indias, que llamaron Nuevas del año de 1543. cuyo cumplimiento con rigurosa execucion se encargó despues al Virrey del Perú Don Francisco de Toledo, por lo tocante à los Encomenderos de aquel Reyno por otra Cedula del año de 1573". Residence is therefore one of the provisions of the New Laws rather than a late refinement. Not one of these documents was opened in its own printing for this entry.
Two further requirements are attached to the same purpose, and they show what kind of settlement the crown was buying with the grant. At §4 the same laws order the encomenderos "que dentro de tres años se casen en la Provincia donde tuvieren las Encomiendas, pena de perderlas, y que edifiquen casas de piedra, y planten arboles, y hagan otras obras semejantes, que ennoblezcan la Provincia, y descubran, que ellos tienen animo de permanecer, y echar raices en ella." The encomienda is here an instrument of Spanish settlement as much as a reward, and the treatise says so without embarrassment.
The marriage requirement was softened in the compiled law, and the editor's digest of that softening is worth quoting because it turns compulsion into persuasion and preference. The asterisked note at §4 reports that ley 36, título 9, libro 6 of the Recopilación, after ordering that encomenderos marry within three years, goes on: "Y porque no es nuestra voluntad hacerles apremio, ni vexacion, encargamos al Prelado de la Provincia, y ordenamos al Governador, que si haviendolo examinado no hallaren impedimento, tengan cuidado de les persuadir, y amonestar, à que tomen estado de matrimonio, especialmente si vieren, que tienen calidades para ello, y los Governadores en la Provisión de las Encomiendas prefieran los casados à los que no lo fueren". A second note refers the obligation to keep houses to ley 10 of the same título. These are the 1736 editor's digests of the compiled law, not Solórzano's text, and are quoted here as such.
The residence duty generated a vocabulary, and the distinction it drew is a useful key to colonial documents. At §6 Matienzo and Acosta are cited for the intention of imitating the Romans in the new colonies they founded and prolonged, "y que de aqui se ha introducido en las Indias, el llamar Vecinos à los Encomenderos, y tenerse entre ellos este nombre por honorifico, con que se distinguen de los que no tienen Encomiendas, que se llaman Domiciliarios". Matienzo is reported as raising the question "si será oy conveniente, que todos los que se hallan poblados en las Ciudades, y Lugares de las Indias, se llamen Vecinos?" In this usage vecino is a title of the encomendero class, not a synonym for resident.
The most consequential paragraph in the chapter reverses the picture a modern reader is likely to bring to it, and it should be quoted at length. At §7 "Pero debese advertir, que no es preciso, que residan, y hagan esta vecindad en los Lugares de los Indios, que les están repartidos; sino en las Ciudades, que fueren cabeza de las Provincias de ellos, como las mismas Cedulas lo deciden expressamente. Y antes por otras mas nuevas de los años 1555. 1559. 1563. 1569. y por otra mas moderna, dada en Madrid à 6. de Junio del año de 1609. se prohibe apretadamente à los mismos Encomenderos, que no puedan residir, ni residan en los Pueblos, y Repartimientos de los Indios, ni aun entrar en ellos (si no fuere muy de passo, ò alguna cuenta, ò cobranza) por los graves daños, y molestias, que les solian hacer viviendo entre ellos, que siempre se han experimentado en el mundo, donde quiera que viven juntos los pobres, y humildes con los ricos, y poderosos, como lo dice bien Matheo de Afflictis." The grantee of an Indian town was forbidden to live in it or to enter it except in passing or on an account or a collection.
The same paragraph gives the administrative reason the bar became possible and states that it was enforced against the officials who could defeat it. §7 continues: "Y porque haviendoseles dado yà à los Indios, Curas, y Corregidores, como lo déxo dicho en el Capitulo passado, no les hacia falta la assistencia de sus Encomenderos. Y esto se guarda oy assi con pena de 10U. pesos de oro à los Governadores, que dieren licencia para lo contrario." The sum is printed with the calderón that customarily marks thousands, and is read here as ten thousand pesos de oro; the figure is given as the page prints it and this entry does not rest anything on its magnitude. The penalty falls on the governor who licenses the breach, not on the encomendero who commits it.
The compiled law behind that bar is digested in the editor's asterisked note, and it closes the obvious evasions one by one. Ley 11, título 9, libro 6 of the Recopilación is given as: "Los Encomenderos no han de poder hacer, ni tener en los Pueblos de sus Encomiendas Casa, ni Bugio, aunque digan, que no es para su vivienda; sino para Bodega, ò Grangeria, y que la darán despues de sus dias, ò desde luego à los Indios, pena de perdimiento de lo fabricado, que aplicamos à los Indios con otro tanto de su justo valor para nuestra Camara: Y assimismo prohibimos, que los Encomenderos puedan dormir en sus Pueblos mas de una noche, pena de 20. pesos cada vez, que contraviniere". Ley 13 forbids governors to licence it; ley 14 extends the prohibition to the encomendero's wife, parents, children, kin, servants, guests, mestizos, mulattoes and free or enslaved black people on pain of 50 pesos; ley 15 is cited as forbidding the communication of the encomenderos' black dependants with the Indians. The forfeited building goes to the Indians, with its value again to the treasury.
The justification offered for making residence a condition of tenure is drawn from ordinary European law rather than from any colonial exception, which is what allows the sanction to be so severe. At §8 Antonio de León is cited to the same effect, and the residence in the head town of the province is confirmed "con el exemplo de los Beneficios, y de los Feudos, que por las mismas requieren la misma residencia con pena de privacion: por ser tan conforme à reglas de Derecho Divino, Natural, Canonico, y Civil, las quales no permiten, que quien desampara su Oficio, goce su Beneficio", with the Roman colonies and the feudatories who could not desert them given as the models. At §9 the inference is drawn that even if the encomiendas had at first been granted without this charge, the penalty of deprivation could have been imposed afterwards, since the positive law here is "no nueva; sino por declaratoria, y excitativa de la antigua".
The chapter then refuses the argument that would have hollowed the duty out, and names the practice it was aimed at. At §10 "Y no deben ser oidos los que, ò sienten, ò pretenden, que se pudo, y puede escusar esta carga de residencia personal à nuestros Encomenderos: pues el oficio, y servicio, que ellos hacen, ò deben hacer, se puede cumplir, y exercer con igual suficiencia por qualquiera sustituto, que pongan en lugar suyo, que es lo que vulgarmente decimos: Poner Escudero, ò servir por Escudero." The chapter's printed SUMARIO shows that the argument was not disposed of here so much as postponed: heads 10 to 46 catalogue the cases in which an escudero was allowed, the absences permitted for study, for soldiering, for a marriage contracted in Spain, and for councillors of the Indies, and the rule that no licence at all was given to an encomendero to come to Spain. Those paragraphs were not read for this entry and nothing here rests on them.
What this entry establishes and what it does not. It establishes that personal residence with a settled house in the province of the encomienda was a condition of tenure in Spanish colonial law from a Provisión of Charles V of 13 November 1535, obtained on the petition of the city of Mexico and renewed through the New Laws and a cédula of 1573 to Viceroy Toledo; that unlicensed departure or overstaying a licence carried automatic forfeiture; that marriage within three years in the province and the building of a stone house were attached to the same purpose, with the compiled law later turning the marriage rule into persuasion plus a preference for married men in new grants; that the residence owed was in the Spanish city that headed the province; and that a series of cédulas ending in one of 6 June 1609, digested in leyes 11 to 15 of título 9 libro 6 of the Recopilación, forbade the encomendero to live in the towns of his encomienda, to keep any house or hut there under any pretext, to sleep there more than one night, or to send his household in his place. It establishes nothing about compliance. No prosecution, forfeiture or fine under any of these rules is named in the pages read, not one of the cédulas was opened in its own register, and the whole account comes from a minister of the government whose law he is expounding.