Spanish Disentailment: Mendizábal and Madoz Reforms

Historical Context of Spanish Disentailment

Disentailment had been occurring since the Middle Ages, mainly through concessions to the nobility, the church, and the municipalities. Since the 18th century, disentailment measures were taken, and the Cortes of Cádiz acted in the same line. The seizure led to the conversion of 'dead hands' goods into private property.

The Two Phases Under Isabella II

In the times of Isabella II, the disentailment was faced in two phases:

Phase One: Ecclesiastical Disentailment

This was ordered by Álvarez Mendizábal (1836) regarding the assets of the regular clergy and Espartero (1841), which extended to the secular clergy. With this dual operation, a very important lot of farmsteads and urban properties passed into private hands as "national assets," leaving the church only an economic organization to offset the secular clergy of the parishes for their loss, following a payment agreement (earnings call) with the Pope for bankruptcy in 1851.

Auctioning National Assets

The properties offered for sale were appraised, a public auction was held, and each property was assigned to the highest bidder. The objectives pursued were the application of economic liberalism (the abolition of the Old Regime) and raising funds to meet debts. Mendizábal, the liberal minister, found himself trapped by the Treasury's (farm's) desperate financial situation at a time when it was necessary to maintain an army to confront the rebellious Carlists. However, the sale of national assets was not the financial manna expected, but rather a desperate attempt to meet the costs of the Carlist War and pay off some debt.

Phase Two: Civil Disentailment

The General Disentailment Law (1855) was carried out by Pascual Madoz during the Progressive Biennium. This also concerned ecclesiastical goods, but especially targeted municipal and community assets (state, county, and military orders). This law required municipalities to sell their own assets, even with compensation, but not communal lands, which were used freely by all neighbors. In practice, this distinction was not always easy to make, and large masses of land were put up for sale. The objective was to provide agricultural land to those capable of cultivating it.

Consequences and Social Impact

The consequences of disentailment were very important. While it questioned aspects of the social and economic fields and reported some fiscal benefits, it did not achieve its main objective of creating a more equitable and fair distribution of property.