Spanish Land Reform: Impact on 19th Century Society
The Transformation of Land Ownership in 19th Century Spain
There was a chain of changes in legislation and the socio-political life of Spain that ultimately established a bourgeois society. This was a society of classes, ordered by wealth and not by birth, replacing the old system of estates. Wealth was defined by the ownership of land; those who owned land were the ruling class, and those who did not were the working class. The liberal revolution, therefore, had a dual purpose: to establish and consolidate private property and to form a ruling class that included former feudal lords and new capitalist masters. The marginalization of Spain’s industrialization process can be explained by the limited development of the agricultural sector, which was due to the poor quality of the land and partly to adverse climatic conditions.
The liberal land reform was part of the process of substituting the old regime with a capitalist society in Spain during the first half of the 19th century. During this process, feudal and jurisdictional rights were abolished, properties were detached, and most of the land belonging to the Church and councils was sold off. One of the reforms undertaken to eliminate the old regime was the attempted confiscation and seizure by the state of common property, either civil or ecclesiastical. Following a nationalization and subsequent auction, this property entered into new private ownership, transforming the land so that it could be bought and sold freely. Thus, private ownership of land was sealed, and forms of ownership inconsistent with modern economic growth disappeared. The aim of the confiscation was to obtain money to finance and reform land ownership.
The first proposal for confiscation was made by Jovellanos in his “Report on the Agrarian Law Record,” which contains a clear vision of the problems of Spanish agriculture in the 18th century. Carlos IV, in 1798, conducted a confiscation order to cover the cost of the war against England. Later, another attempt was made during the liberal triennium of Fernando VII. With these precedents, in 1833, the process was repeated for the following reasons:
- Carlist wars, which forced the state to obtain resources
- The spread of anti-clerical sentiment throughout Spain
Mendizabal’s Disentailment Law of 1836
Due to this situation, the first of two disentailment laws was published in 1836 by Mendizabal. This law declared any property of the regular clergy for sale, earmarking the funds raised for the public debt. The confiscation decree was part of a program that sought to win the war, restore confidence in the state, and, in the long term, allow for land reform. In addition, Mendizabal set out the following objectives:
- Grant access to property for the bourgeois sectors, which would improve production and create a social sector of new owners linked to the regime and the Cristino side.
- Encourage the development of the economy through public works and railway construction.
Consequences of the Disentailment
With few exceptions, those who bought land were those who already had it and those with resources to obtain it. In many areas, farmers were not the direct buyers. Officials, merchants, and soldiers formed the bulk of the beneficiaries of the disentailment. The fact that, in general, the buyers did not cultivate the land themselves means we can consider the seizure as one of the great missed opportunities for reform. A reform that addressed property ownership could have allowed for an increase in agricultural production and promoted its expansion.
The disentailment has been criticized by Deputy Estrada Flor. The consequences of the seizure were several:
- It meant the almost complete dismantling of Church property and sources of wealth, and the tithe was abolished in 1837. A contribution for the clergy’s cult was established. The Church was no longer the privileged class but still monopolized education.
- The confiscation did not solve the debt problem, although it contributed to reducing the huge number of properties that had been exempt from paying taxes. Since then, these properties began to pay, increasing Hacienda’s revenues.
- The confiscation did not produce an increase in agricultural production. The new owners were generally limited to continuing to collect debts, which increased by substituting manorial rights and tithes for new contracts and leases. In addition, new land under cultivation was of low quality, which caused average productivity to fall and brought about a process of deforestation.
- The process provoked a strengthening of the structure of land ownership, with large estates in Andalusia and Extremadura and smallholdings in the north. Lands went to the old local landowners and the urban bourgeoisie.
- As most properties were in the middle of cities, the middle classes were confined to the old houses, and workers to the periphery.