Serving by escudero: only the King could licence an encomendero out of the Indies, and whoever named a substitute answered for what that substitute did to the Indians
Spanish colonial law would not let an encomendero discharge his obligations by deputy as of right. Licence to leave for Spain belonged to the King alone, the cédulas of 1570 and 1571 barring viceroys from granting it; the reason given for refusing substitution was that a hired deputy would be a new scourge of the Indians; and where a substitute was allowed, the crown's jurist holds the encomendero surety for the extortions that deputy committed, with the Twelve Tables cited for the rule.
Why this wins its question: Accounts of the encomienda in general circulation treat it as a revenue right, and a revenue right is exactly the kind of thing one collects through an agent. This object prints the pages where the law refuses that, and the refusal is argued on grounds a modern reader does not expect. The sworn content of the grant is said to be the defence of the Indians and of their provinces, so the service is classed with the obligations that no deputy may discharge; the reason given for the refusal is that a man who farms other people's Indians will treat them worse than one who holds them as his own; the faculty to licence an absence to Spain is pulled back from the viceroys to the crown by cédulas of 1570 and 1571 and by ley 27 título 9 libro 6; and, where a substitute was allowed at all, the encomendero chose him, the viceroy alone approved him, the encomendero paid his salary, and the encomendero stood surety for the damages, grievances and extortions the deputy committed against the Indians, on the analogy of the Twelve Tables. Around that the object keeps the two admissions a defensive account would cut: that this whole prohibition was by then being dispensed wholesale in favour of great men in Spain, and that a residence obligation with no exit at all is called, by the jurist defending it, keeping men captive and in servitude.
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's own author opens the question by admitting that the rule was being widely dispensed, and names who was getting the dispensations. At §11 of libro III, capítulo XXVII of Juan de Solórzano Pereira's Política Indiana, "aunque oy se ha abierto gran puerta à estas dispensaciones por las muchas, y gruessas Encomiendas, que se han mandado dàr à Señores de España, como yà lo toqué en el Cap. III. de este Libro, siempre he reconocido, y representado los graves daños, è incovenientes, que de ellas se siguen, siguiendo las pisadas de Acosta, y Matienzo, y de quantos hombres ay bien entendidos de estas materias, y lo mucho, que importa, que personas calificadas, y hacendadas pueblen, è ilustren aquellas Provincias, y que se gaste, y distribuya en ellas, y entre sus moradores, lo que rentan sus Encomiendas." The objection is that the income of an American province should be spent in it.
The compiled law on the point is given in one line by the 1736 editor, and it is a flat prohibition addressed to the men who governed the Indies. The asterisked note printed at §11 reads: "Está prohibido à los Governadores, y Virreyes dàr licencia à los Encomenderos para que vengan à España. L. 27. tit. 9. lib. 6. Recop." These are Francisco Ramiro de Valenzuela's words in the 1736 impression, digesting a law of the Recopilación, not Solórzano's; ley 27 was not opened in the Recopilación itself for this entry.
The treatise gives the same rule with its legislative history and its reason. At §12 "Y en efecto, caso que estas licencias se concedan, solo las puede dàr, y conceder el Rey, como Dueño de todo, como lo muestran las Cedulas Reales, que dexo citadas, y en particular las de los años de 1570. y de 1571. que aun prohiben à los Virreyes, el darlas à los Encomenderos, para hacer ausencias breves, y temporales sin grandes, y urgentes causas, y que entonces sea, poniendoles termino, dentro del qual vuelvan a hacer residencia, y penas; si no lo cumplieren." The faculty is reserved to the crown, the delegated power is conditional, and the condition carries a term and a penalty. Neither cédula was opened in its own register.
The reason given for refusing substitution is stated in three steps, and the third is the one worth quoting whole because it is an argument about the people the encomienda fell on. At §13 practising the contrary "ni es justo, honesto, ni util, y assi se debe escusar segun el consejo, que nos dió el Papa Inocencio III. en una célebre Decretal": the whole harmony of these encomiendas and their intents would be altered; the encomenderos would not fulfil "el juramento, que hacen de servir por sus personas en especifica forma, poniendo otras, que no sean de igual calidad, è idoneidad, que las suyas, lo qual no es permitido en Derecho"; and then, "Y en qualesquier que pusieren, y mudaren, se hallarán nuevos verdugos, y azotes de los Indios: pues si aún los tratan mal, los que los tienen por propios, qué se podrá esperar, de los que los arriendan, ò desfrutan agenos?" The attribution of the decretal to Innocent III is the treatise's; it was not verified here.
The obligation is classed as one of those that cannot be performed by another at all, and the classification is drawn from the ordinary European law of feudal and beneficial service. At §14 "En todos los quales casos nunca se admite, que el que está obligado à servir por sí, cumpla con poner sobstituto, y en particular en el que prometió de assistir à la defensa de otro por su persona, como lo hacen los Encomenderos, jurando la de los Indios, y sus Provincias, segun se podrá vér, de lo que en terminos de semejantes servicios en materias Feudales, y Beneficiales, y otras muy parecidas à la nuestra, juntan copiosamente los DD. à cada passo." The defence of the Indians and of their provinces is treated as the sworn content of the grant.
The counterweight is stated in the next paragraph and it is a limit on the crown, not on the encomendero. At §15, although viceroys and governors cannot dispense with personal service, the cited cédulas do let them licence brief absences for just causes "y por dos años para venir à los Reynos de España, si tuvieren que negociar en ello: lo qual se dispuso con mucha razon: porque lo contrario fuera como tenerlos cautivos, y en servidumbre, que por tal reputa el Derecho, no poder salir nunca de un lugar." Naples is given as a parallel on the authority of Vincencio de Franchis, and prelates are said to licence beneficiaries in the same way. A duty of residence with no exit at all is here called servitude by the jurist defending the duty.
Where a substitute was allowed, the choice and the approval were split between the encomendero and the viceroy, and the audiencias were shut out. At §16 a cédula of 1540, with others of 1571 and 1578 inserted in it, speaking with the Viceroy of Peru, is quoted in italic: "Que en los casos, que, ò por el tiempo de estas ausencias, ò por tener los Encomenderos dispensacion Real para ello huvieren de poner sobstituto, y servir por Escudero, sea suya libremente la eleccion, del que quisieren escoger, y al Virrey le toque privativamente el aprobar la persona, del que pusieren, sin que se entrometan en esto las Reales Audiencias." The encomendero names, the viceroy vets, and neither may be displaced by the court.
The compiled law added a term the treatise does not mention, and it puts the cost of the substitute where the benefit was. The asterisked note at §16 reads: "Está recopilada en la ley 6. tit. 9. lib. 6. donde se añade, que el Virrey, ò Governador le señalará salario, que lo ha de pagar el Encomendero." The salary is fixed by the authority that approves the man and paid by the holder who is being relieved. These are the 1736 editor's words digesting the Recopilación; ley 6 was not opened in its own text.
The paragraph that gives this chapter its edge is the one that says who pays when the deputy turns out to be what §13 predicted. At §17 "Con lo qual vienen los Encomenderos à quedar como por fiadores, ò abonadores de estos sus sobstitutos, en tal forma, que si no tuvieren con que pagar, y satisfacer los daños, agravios, y extorsiones, que hicieren à los Indios, y las penas, y condenaciones, en que por causa de esto fueren condenados; lo han de lastar los que los nombraron, como en semejantes casos está dispuesto en Derecho, donde los Nominadores se tienen como por Fiadores, ò Subvades, que es el vocablo, que les dió la ley de las Doce Tablas." The liability is secondary and it runs to the damages, grievances and extortions done to the Indians as well as to the fines. The word is printed in italic as Subvades and is quoted here as printed.
The scope of the passage read for this entry should be stated, because the chapter turns at once to a different kind of material. §18 opens "Todo lo qual assi dicho, y supuesto, llegando aora à tratar de algunas questiones, que pueden, y suelen ofrecerse en esta materia", and the questions that follow, on whether deprivation for absence runs automatically and on what impediments excuse, are treated in a separate entry of this corpus. Nothing here rests on them.
What this entry establishes and what it does not. It establishes that in Spanish colonial law the encomienda was framed as a personally owed service that could not be performed by a hired deputy as of right; that licence to leave the Indies for Spain was reserved to the crown by cédulas of 1570 and 1571 and by ley 27 título 9 libro 6 of the Recopilación, which forbade viceroys and governors to grant it; that the reason recorded for refusing substitution was, in terms, that substitutes would be new scourges of the Indians; that when a substitute was permitted the encomendero chose him, the viceroy alone approved him, and the compiled law made the encomendero pay his salary; and that the crown's own jurist held the encomendero surety for the damages and extortions his substitute inflicted on the Indians. It establishes nothing about enforcement. No prosecution, no surety actually called on, and no named substitute appears in these paragraphs; the author himself records at §11 that the prohibition was by then being dispensed freely in favour of great men in Spain; not one of the cédulas was opened in its own register; and the whole account comes from a minister of the Council of the Indies expounding the law of the government he served.