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 opens by fixing the starting point: encomienda suits began in the ordinary jurisdiction. At §1 of libro III, capítulo XXX of the Política Indiana "Visto ya, lo que toca à la creacion, progresso, y resolucion de las Encomiendas, resta que digamos algo de los pleytos, que se suelen mover en razon de ellas, y ante qué Jueces se han de tratar, y seguir. Y lo cierto es, que antiguamente esto era de la jurisdiccion ordinaria: de suerte, que en cada Provincia los Governadores de ella conocian, de los que alli se ofrecian, y de sus sentencias, guardando el orden de el Derecho, se apelaba à las Reales Audiencias, ò Chancillerias de las mismas Indias, como consta de sus Ordenanzas antiguas, y de una Provision del Señor Emperador Carlos V, dada en Monzon de Aragon à 25. de Octubre del año de 1553, dirigida à la Real Audiencia de Mexico, copiada despues para la de Lima el de 1536." This entry is scoped to §§1-12, the jurisdictional history; the questions of practice that follow it are separate entries.
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
The book contradicts itself about the year of that Provisión, within the same chapter, and the contradiction is stated here rather than resolved. §1 on page 405 gives 25 October 1553; §28 on page 410 calls the same document "la Provision antigua, dada en Monzon en 25. de Octubre del año de 1533". Both lines were read here on the page. They cannot both be right, and §1's own following clause — that the Provisión was copied afterwards for the Audiencia of Lima in 1536 — is consistent only with the earlier date, since a document of 1553 cannot have been copied in 1536. No independent printing of the Provisión was opened, so which figure is the compositor's error is not settled here.
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
The same charge was repeated on the Audiencia of Mexico, and the chapter says the arrangement worked. At §2 another Provisión given at Madrid on 14 August 1540 commanded that Audiencia "que conociessen de causas sobre Repartimientos de Indios, sin remitirlas al Consejo, como yá de antes les estaba ordenado, y que de su sentencia, ò sentencias otorgassen la apelacion para él", and at §3 "Y assi vemos, que en ellas se substanciaron, y determinaron muchos pleytos, assi sobre la possession, como sobre la propiedad de estas Encomiendas, como se puede ver por muchas Cedulas, que se refieren, y se hallan recopiladas en el segundo Tomo de las impressas."
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
The reversal came in 1545 and it was total. At §4 "Pero despues, reynando aun el mismo Señor Emperador, se despachó otra Provision en 20. de Octubre de 1545, que por ser su fecha en Malinas, Ciudad de los Estados de Flandes, se llama vulgarmente la ley de Malinas, y refiere ciertos Capitulos de las nuevas leyes, en que se havia ordenado, que ningunas causas tocantes à Encomiendas de Indios, se tratassen ante los Governadores, ni Oidores de las Indias, ni aun tampoco en el Supremo Consejo de ellas, sino que privativamente se llevassen ante su Real, y Cessarea Magestad, para que haviendole hecho relacion de ellas, proveyesse, lo que tuviesse por mas conveniente." Every suit over an encomienda, anywhere in the Indies, was thus to be decided by the emperor in person on a report.
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
That rule did not survive its own first petition, and the body that obtained the change was the procuratorial representation of the Indies. At §4 "Pero, porque de esta Ordenanza se suplicó por los Procuradores de las Indias, expressando los daños, è inconvenientes, que de ella resultaban, reformandola en parte, y confirmandola en parte, concluye, y manda: Que si alguno pretendiere derecho à Indios, que estén en la Corona Real, ò que los possea otro tercero, parezca en la Audiencia, en cuyo distrito estuvieren los tales Indios, y ponga alli la demanda, y el Presidente, y Oydores de la tal Audiencia dén traslado à la otra parte, y dentro de tres meses hagan la probanza, è informacion, que tuvieren, que hacer, hasta doce testigos no mas, y se cierre con esto el processo, y se embie cerrado ante los del Consejo de las Indias sin otra conclusion, ni publicacion alguna, para que en él visto, se provea, lo que convenga, y sea justicia." The Audiencia kept the taking of evidence; the Council kept the decision.
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
The next declaratoria dealt with a problem of notice created by an ocean. At §5 "Pero porque en esta Provision no se decia, como havian de ser citadas las Partes, para que pareciessen en el Consejo à proseguir estos pleytos, se despachó otra Cedula en Valladolid à primero de Septiembre de 1548, que se llama Segunda Declaratoria de la de Malinas, por la qual se manda, que se citen al tiempo, que los processos se embien à España, de suerte, que no sea necessario volver de acá à citarlos, ni interpelarlos de nuevo: Y luego otra el año de 1549, que dispuso esto mismo mas claro." A party in Peru or New Spain was therefore summoned once, before the papers left, to a court he would never see.
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
The first hole in the reservation was opened because the rule was being used as cover for seizures. At §6 "Y porque algunos despojaban à otros injustamente de sus Indios, y con esto sacaban provecho de su delito por mucho tiempo, por averse de traer sus pleytos de este genero à España, con que los despojados llegaban tarde à conseguir el remedio de sus agravios, estatuyó, que de estos despojos conociessen breve, y sumariamente las Audiencias de las Indias, y para lo demás, assi en possession, como en propiedad, remitiessen las Partes al Consejo", and the cédula's own words are then printed, ordering that where anyone has dared to dispossess another of such Indians by his own authority, "en tal caso, quitando la fuerza, y despojo, lo tornen al punto, y estado, en que estaba antes, que el despojo se hiciesse, reservando à cada una de las partes su derecho à salvo, assi en possession, como en propriedad."
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
That opening was then narrowed, at the complaint of the crown's own lawyer. At §7 "Y como por ocasion de esta Cedula sucediesse, que las Audiencias con pretexto de los dichos despojos se intrometian en muchas causas, que concernian à la possession, y propriedad de las Encomiendas, y de esto se quexasse el Fiscal en el Supremo Consejo de las Indias, fue necessario despachar otra Provision, por el Señor Rey D. Phelipe II, dada en Monzon à 11. de Octubre de 1563, la qual llaman la quarta Declaratoria de la ley de Malinas. Y por ella se dispuso: Que si no es en caso de despojo de parte à parte, y hecho con violencia, y por su propria autoridad, no se entrometan las Audiencias à conocer con manera alguna, aunque sea sobre la possession de los Indios."
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
Narrowing the remedy produced a second abuse, and the chapter names it as such. At §8 "Pero tambien de lo dispuesto por esta Provision, se ocasionò luego otro fraude, y fue, que como por ella se decia, que las Audiencias se inhibiessen de conocer, y juzgar de possession de Indios, dadas por qualesquier Justicias, y Governadores, algunos de estos fueron faciles en despojar à los verdaderos, y legitimos posseedores, y dar à otros la investidura de sus possessiones por solo su antojo, y voluntad: y los assi despojados, pareciendoles, que llegaria tarde el remedio, pues solo podian esperarle de España, dexaban de seguir su derecho." The answer was a cédula given at Madrid on 30 December 1571, which prohibited particular judges thenceforth from giving possession of Indians to anyone without title, made void what was done against it, and ordered the Reales Audiencias to revoke it and repel it as an atentado.
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
Two further adjustments are recorded, both answering complaints from the Indies. At §9 it was written from Lima that the three months allowed by the ley de Malinas were often not enough to make the probanzas, and by letter of 1554 the Audiencias were answered that they might prorogue the term when necessary, a rule then commanded precisely in a capítulo of their Ordenanzas of 1563. At §10, when some of them put the whole arrangement in doubt on the strength of a cédula of 1580 about whether a grandson was preferred to an uncle in the succession of an encomienda, another was despatched at Monte-Mayor on 20 February 1583 "que declaró, que no fue, ni era de la Real voluntad, que por semejantes dudas se frustrasse, ni alterasse en cosa alguna lo proveido por la ley de Malinas, y sus Declaratorias, y vuelve de nuevo à mandar, que se guarden."
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
The reservation was finally undone in 1610, and the reasons given are economic and practical rather than constitutional. At §11 "Pero finalmente, porque las Encomiendas, que antiguamente solian ser ricas, y gruessas, vinieron à extenuarse mucho en algunas partes, y la experiencia fue descubriendo los muchos daños, gastos, y otros inconvenientes, que se ofrecian, en que se huviessen de embiar al Consejo todos los pleytos de Encomiendas de Indios, para obviar estos daños, y encaminar su breve despacho à el mayor util de los Vassallos, emanó otra nueva Provision en tiempo del señor Rey Don Phelipe III. dada en San Martin de Rubiales à 17. de Abril del año de 1610", ordering that the ley de Malinas be tempered and moderated so that it should be kept only in encomiendas above a thousand ducados of rent. Its words are printed: that of suits "assi en possession, como en propiedad sobre Encomiendas, y Repartimientos de Indios, Pensiones, ò Situaciones sobre ellas hechas, que fueren de valor, y renta de mil ducados abaxo, conforme à las tassas de los tributos, que estuvieren hechas, sin deducion de cargas, ni gastos, puedan conocer, y conozcan las dichas mis Audiencias Reales de las Indias, cada una en su distrito, como de los demás pleytos, y negocios, de que pueden, y deben conocer."
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
The author then states the resulting rule in his own compendium, and it is the operative summary of the whole run of laws. At §12 "De todo lo qual, reduciendolo à compendio, se saca, que segun el tiempo presente, en las Audiencias de las Indias no se puede conocer de pleytos, ni causas de Encomiendas, Pensiones, ni Situaciones sobre ellas puestas, en possession, ni en propiedad, en passando de mil ducados de renta. Pero de los despojos de todas pueden conocer. Y las causas, que passaren de mil ducados, solamente las han de substanciar dentro de seis meses; y despues de conclusas remitirlas, citadas las Partes, à el Real Consejo de las Indias, para que alli se vean, y determinen." He adds that Juan de Matienzo made some mention of the ley de Malinas and its older declaratorias, and the Licenciado Antonio de León of these and the newer ones in his treatise on royal confirmations; neither was opened here.
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
The Recopilación numbering for these laws is supplied by the 1736 edition and not by Solórzano, and it is uneven. Asterisked paragraphs inserted between the sections give the Malines provision as ley 123 of título 15, libro 2, the declaratorias of 1548 and 1549 as "Dicha ley 123", the despojo cédula as ley 125, the Madrid cédula of 1571 as "Dicha ley 126", the prorogation of the term as ley 124 — "se manda, que este termino lo pueda prorrogar la Real Audiencia hasta seis meses" — the Monte-Mayor cédula of 1583 as ley 128 and the provision of 1610 as ley 129. But the note after §7 prints "En la ley 26. tit. 15. lib. 2. de la Recop. se dispone, que las Reales Audiencias conozcan assi de los despojos, que se hicieren de parte à parte, como de los que hicieren las Justicias de hecho, y sin guardar la forma del Derecho", a two-digit figure in the same título where every other citation in this chapter is in the hundred-and-twenties. this run, so whether the shorter figure is the compiler's or the compositor's is not settled here; this claim carries a lower confidence for that reason.
confidence 0.8Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary
What this entry establishes and what it does not. It establishes that between 1545 and 1610 the Spanish crown moved the forum for encomienda litigation three times — from the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors with appeal to the Audiencias, to the king in person, to the Council of the Indies with the Audiencias taking evidence only, and back to the Audiencias for everything under a thousand ducados of rent — and that each move is recorded with its date, its place of issue and, in the two central cases, its own words. It establishes that the corrections ran in both directions: the reservation was breached in 1545 because dispossessors were profiting from the delay, narrowed in 1563 because the Audiencias were using the breach to take back the whole subject, and breached again in 1571 because local judges were handing possession to favourites. It establishes nothing about how any of this worked in practice: not one suit is named in these twelve paragraphs, no outcome is reported, and no figure is given for how many causes crossed the Atlantic or how long they took. It establishes nothing about the Indians of these encomiendas, who appear in these pages only as the object of the grant being litigated; the forum rules described here are about who decides between claimants to their tribute and labour, and the same book's treatment of whether they had to be cited at all is a separate entry in this corpus.
confidence 0.9Política Indiana, libro III, capítulo XXX, §§1-12 — where a suit over an encomienda had to be tried, and the sixty-five years of provisions that moved the answer: the ordinary jurisdiction of the governors of each province with appeal to the Reales Audiencias under the old ordenanzas and a Provisión of the Emperor Charles V given at Monzón de Aragón and directed to the Audiencia of Mexico; the same charged again on that Audiencia by another given at Madrid on 14 August 1540; the Provisión despatched at Malines on 20 October 1545, called vulgarly la ley de Malinas, ordering that no cause touching encomiendas of Indians be tried before the governors, nor the oidores, nor even the Supreme Council, but privatively before His Majesty; the reform obtained on the petition of the Procuradores of the Indies, by which the claimant appears in the Audiencia of the district where the Indians are, the demand is served on the other side, the probanza is made within three months and twelve witnesses and no more, and the process is closed and sent sealed to the Council without publication or conclusion; the second declaratoria of Valladolid of 1 September 1548 and another of 1549 on citing the parties before the process leaves the Indies; the statute giving the Audiencias brief and summary cognizance of despojos, quoted in the cédula's own words, because those dispossessed of their Indians profited from the delict while the remedy had to be sought in Spain; the fourth declaratoria of Philip II given at Monzón on 11 October 1563 confining that cognizance to a despojo de parte à parte done with violence and by a party's own authority; the cédula of Madrid of 30 December 1571 forbidding particular judges to give possession of Indians without title and making what they did void and revocable by atentado; the letter of 1554 permitting the three-month term to be prorogued; the cédula of Monte-Mayor of 20 February 1583 declaring that no doubt was to frustrate or alter the ley de Malinas; the Provisión of Philip III given at San Martín de Rubiales on 17 April 1610, quoted at length, which returned to the Audiencias of the Indies every suit over encomiendas, pensiones and situaciones of a thousand ducados of rent or less and left the rest to be substantiated within six months and sent to the Council; and the author's own compendium of the resulting rule · primary