The Convocation of the Cortes

[60] No day-by-day account of the proceedings in the cortes has come down to us, but reports in the chronicles and information drawn from documentary sources make it possible to reach some understanding of this vital aspect of the history of the cortes.

The first step in bringing the cortes to he was the royal summons. The king or the regents determined who should be summoned, as well as the time and place, and the business to be treated. Nonetheless, external forces could compel him to summon the cortes when he did not necessarily wish to do so. The nobles, for example, after negotiating with Alfonso X, asked him to summon the cortes to Burgos in 1272, and his council meeting at Córdoba in August 1281 urged him to convene the cortes to Seville to deal with his finances.⁽¹⁾

Infante Juan and Juan Núñez de Lara, hoping to consolidate their influence over Fernando IV suggested that he summon the cortes to Medina del Campo in 1302. When Infante Juan and Diego López de [61] Haro reached agreement concerning Vizcaya, it was decided to publish it in the cortes of Valladolid 1307. The nobles at Grijota in 1308 insisted that the cortes be convened at Burgos for an accounting of royal revenues. Maria de Molina and Infante Pedro assured the cortes of Palencia 1313 (art. 11 M) that if they failed to summon the cortes every two years, the prelates and other royal councillors would do so. The three regents convoked the cortes of Burgos 1315 so they could announce the unification of the regency. Alfonso XI tells us that he took counsel with the "prelates, magnates, knights, and good men of the towns who were with me in my court," concerning the convocation of the Cortes of Madrid in 1329.⁽²⁾ These instances show that there were times when the king called the cortes because others thought it would serve the interests of the crown (his council) or because it would be to their advantage (the nobles).

The nature of the summons is known not only from the preambles to some of the cuadernos, but also from several surviving letters of summons and occasional descriptions in the chronicles.⁽³⁾ As Alfonso X indicated in Cantiga 386, the summons might be oral or written.⁽⁴⁾ Individual letters of summons were most likely sent to the archbishops, bishops, magnates, masters of the military orders, and abbots of selected monasteries, but if they were resident in the royal court, they were perhaps summoned orally.

It is not at all clear how the infanzones and knights were summoned, but perhaps it was similar to the English practice described by King John (Magna Charta, art. 14) who promised to summon the lesser barons generally through his sheriffs and bailiffs. Perhaps the lesser nobility received a collective summons from royal porteros sent to different regions of the kingdom. Just as no one seems to have been overly troubled if the lesser English barons failed to appear, so it is likely that the absence of individual infanzones and knights was also overlooked. Letters of summons were also sent to cathedral chapters and to towns requiring them to send a specified number of representatives.

The cortes of Palencia 1313 (art. 11 M) made the point that those summoned had to attend, but they might offer a valid excuse of illness, imprisonment, conditions of travel (floods, snow), or other appropriate difficulties. Archbishop Juan of Toledo excused himself from attending the cortes of Valladolid 1321 because of the discomfort that he suffered in excessive heat. Infante Fadrique, master of Santiago, asked Pedro the [62] Cruels permission not to attend the cortes of Valladolid in 1351. If one were unable to attend, one might send a representative, as Gonzalo Pérez Pereira, commander of the Hospital in Spain, did when he appointed Juan Núñez, commander of Consuegra, to attend the cortes of Burgos 1269 in representation of the Priory of Castile and León.⁽⁵⁾ Defiance of the summons was bound to provoke the ira regis and its attendant penalties. According to the Espéculo (III.1.1), a magnate who failed to respond would lose whatever he held from the king, while others of lesser rank would be fined 500 maravedís. The fine for greater towns was set at 1,000 maravedís, but for smaller ones it would be determined according to their means. In Cantiga 386 (line 18) Alfonso X stressed that everyone came to the cortes of Seville 1281 so as not to incur his anger .⁽⁶⁾

Yet when Fernando IV summoned the first cortes of his majority to Medina del Campo in April 1302, most of the towns questioned the influence of Infante Juan and Juan Núñez de Lara and inquired of Maria de Molina whether they should attend. She ordered them to do so, lest their refusal cause her son to lose his kingdom. The citizens of Medina del Campo were also reluctant to open their gates to the king and the cortes, but Maria, realizing that any disobedience would diminish his sovereignty, insisted that they do so.⁽⁷⁾

Some examples of letters of summons will illustrate the process of convoking an assembly. Alfonso X, on 14 December 1255, required Orense to send three good men to "wherever I may be," with a letter sealed with the seal of the municipal council and authorizing them to swear allegiance to his daughter, Berenguela. Required to appear on the first Sunday after receipt of the summons before the feast of Candlemas (2 February), they came to Vitoria early in the new year, though the bishop and chapter of Orense protested on the grounds that the bishop held the town in lordship (31 January 1256). Sánchez Albornoz declared that this was "the first known letter of summons to the cortes in Castile," but there is no indication that the king intended to hold the cortes. The fact that the archbishop and chapter of Santiago pledged homage at San Esteban de Gormaz on 10 February gives added emphasis to this point. Twenty years later (30 April 1276) the king ordered Salamanca to send two good men to Burgos to recognize Sancho as heir to the throne; although this text is no longer extant, it would seem to be the first known letter of summons to a cortes.⁽⁸⁾

Infante Sancho issued several summonses on his fathers behalf in [63] 1279. Although the Castilian towns had been ordered to send their good men to Valladolid on the feast of St. Luke (18 October) concerning matters the papal legate had brought to the kings attention, few townsmen appeared. Those that did so insisted that they could give no reply "at least until the other good men of the towns of Castile were present." Thereupon, on 17 November, Sancho ordered Burgos to send two good men with a carta de personería saying that "you will grant and hold firmly all that they will do with me" at Salamanca on 1 December next, concerning "the very great service of God and the king and myself and the well-being of the land." On 28 November he postponed the meeting until 10 December. As the king had decided to meet the towns at Badajoz, Sancho commanded Burgos to provide its good men with expenses for the journey from Salamanca to Badajoz, and with a carta de personería saying that "you will hold firmly all that they will do with the king and with me, and you will send a blank letter sealed with your pendant seal to affirm all the things that will be done there, and in this you will make no excuse." Later, after the rupture with his father, Sancho ordered the cathedral chapter of León "to choose among yourselves good, sensible men who shall be with me at Palencia . . . with a carta de personería sealed with your seal, so that whatever they do and accord with us in this matter you will hold firmly."⁽⁹⁾

Fernando IV stated that he had commanded the men of Avilés to send two good men with a carta de personería to the cortes of Medina del Campo 1305, to discuss "many things that are to the service of God and myself, and to the benefit of all the realm." Alfonso XI told Murcia on 15 August 1325 to send its procurators with credentials and full power (poder complido) to Valladolid without delay "to agree and to ordain and to do with me all those things that will be to my service, the safeguarding of my sovereignty and the well-being of my kingdom." A similar letter was sent to Murcia on 15 August 1328, convoking the cortes to Burgos on 30 September, but it did not meet. Finally, on 25 October 1347 the king summoned the city of Santiago to send two good men with full powers to Alcalá de Henares where he planned to hold the cortes in mid-December, "to do and to grant all those things that we will determine there for our service and advantage and for the protection of the realm."⁽¹⁰⁾

Technically only the last three documents of Alfonso XI were letters of summons to the cortes, but there is no reason to doubt that the form [64] was essentially the same, whether the meeting was a cortes or another type of assembly. The differences between Infante Sanchos summonses and those of Alfonso XI are not substantial. The summons ordered the designation of representatives to be present at the place of meeting at an appointed time, bearing a letter of procuration giving them full power to act and to bind their constituents. The business to be transacted was usually described only in very general terms, such as the service of God, the king, and the kingdom. That did not allow the towns, unless they had information from unofficial sources, to plan their response in advance. In effect, they had to depend upon the good judgment of their representatives.

These few examples do not permit a definitive judgment as to the notice given to the towns prior to the opening of the cortes. When Infante Sancho summoned Burgos on 17 November to be at Salamanca on 1 December, the advance notice was about two weeks. His summons to the chapter of León on 12 October 1283 to appear at Palencia on 1 November also allowed two weeks. Burgos and León were close to the central part of the kingdom where assemblies were normally held, and two weeks was evidently deemed adequate for the selection of representatives and the journey to Salamanca or Palencia. Alfonso XI, on the other hand, gave Murcia about a month and a halfs advance notice from his summons of 15 August 1328 to 30 September when the cortes was to begin. His summons to Santiago on 26 October 1347 also allowed about a month and a half for the city to choose its representatives and send them to Alcalá by mid-December. Both Murcia and Santiago were at the extremes of the kingdom and would need a longer preparation time.

Once the participants assembled in the cortes, it is probable that they had to present their letters of summons and procurations to the chancery officials for verification. The only documentary indication of this is a stipulation of the cortes of Valladolid 1312 (art. 8) forbidding royal scribes to exact any fees for "recording personerías."

Frequency, Location, and Duration

The cortes was convened with a high degree of frequency, a sign of its importance in the public life of the realm. While meetings were often held at critical times, some kings felt strong enough to ignore the cortes. Fernando IIIs cortes of Seville 1250 was intended to [65] resolve many issues left in abeyance during the siege of Seville. Alfonso X, in a reign of thirty-two years, summoned the plenary cortes at least thirteen times, while Sancho IV convened five plenary cortes in eleven years, four of which were held in the first four years of his reign. In the seventeen-year reign of Fernando IV, the cortes met in plenary session nine times and five times in regional cortes. The cortes met almost every year during his reign, the longest interval between meetings occurring from 1309 to 1312. In the cortes of Palencia 1313 (art. 11, 16 M) Maria de Molina and Infante Pedro pledged to summon the cortes every two years to report on their conduct as regents. For the thirty-eight years of Alfonso XIs reign, eight plenary and two regional cortes were convened, though nineteen years elapsed between the cortes of Madrid 1329 and Alcalá 1348. Thus in the century from the cortes of Seville 1250 to the death of Alfonso XI, the cortes was convoked in plenary or regional sessions forty-two times, or on the average of one every 2.8 years.

Sessions were held at sites easily accessible to the great towns. Indeed, Maria de Molina and Infante Pedro promised at Palencia 1313 (art. 11 M) to hold the cortes in "a convenient place." The cortes of Medina del Campo 1318 (art. 1) stipulated that it should be wherever the king was. Most assemblies were held in the towns of Old Castile and Extremadura, but Seville, especially in the reign of Alfonso X, was occasionally host to the cortes. No assemblies were convoked for Asturias, Galicia, or other remote regions. The customary sites were Valladolid (14 times), Burgos (11), Seville (3), Medina del Campo (3), Toledo (2), Palencia (2), Madrid (2), and once each in Segovia, Haro, Cuéllar, Zamora, and Alcalá de Henares. Besides the cortes, other assemblies were held in many of these towns, as well as in Jerez, Peñafiel, Ávila, Almagro, León, and Llerena.

The royal palace, cathedral, or monastic cloister usually served as the place of assembly. In 1272, for example, Alfonso X agreed to the demand of the nobility that the cortes meet in the Hospital of Burgos, adjacent to the monastery of Las Huelgas just outside the city walls. Bishops Fernando of Burgos and Juan of Palencia testified that the deposition of Alfonso X took place in the royal palace of Valladolid in 1282. In the cortes of Palencia 1313 the supporters of Infante Juan gathered in the monastery of San Pablo, while those favoring Maria de Molina and Infante Pedro met in the monastery of San Francisco.⁽¹¹⁾ It is difficult to determine the length of the sessions of the cortes.[66] The usual dates for convocation were probably on or about the principal festivals of the year--Michaelmas (29 September), Martinmas (11 November), Christmas, the Circumcision (1 January), Epiphany (6 January), Candlemas (2 February), Easter, Pentecost, St. Johns Day (24 June), and the Assumption (15 August). In only a few instances is there mention of a specific date of convocation. The cuadernos, though they were not necessarily dated on the final day of the assembly, give some indication when the essential business of the cortes was concluded.

The date of the earliest cuaderno of the cortes of Seville 1252 is 6 October; thus it is possible that it was convoked at Michaelmas. The January dates of the cuadernos of the cortes of Valladolid 1258 and Seville 1261 suggest convocation at Christmas, the Circumcision, or the Epiphany. The cortes of Burgos 1272 was convened at Michaelmas and perhaps concluded its business at Martinmas. The cortes of Seville 1281 was to meet at Martinmas; Infante Sanchos appearance at Córdoba on 27 December indicates that the meeting was over by that time.⁽¹²⁾ The hermandad meeting at Medina del Campo in September 1284 expected Sancho IV to call the cortes to Valladolid at Martinmas; a royal charter issued on 5 December during the cortes suggests that he did so.⁽¹³⁾ The 2 December date of the cuaderno of Palencia 1286 implies that the cortes was also convened at Martinmas. The cortes of Haro 1288, held while the king was besieging Haro from 2O June to 2 August, may have been summoned for St. Johns Day; the cuaderno was dated 13 August.

The convocation of the cortes of Valladolid 1295 was set for St. J ohns Day and the cuaderno was dated 7 August. The regents and Fernando IV, when he came of age, seem to have favored spring convocation around Easter and Pentecost. According to the royal chronicle, the cortes of Valladolid 1299 and 1300, Burgos 1301, Medina del Campo 1302, and Valladolid 1307 and 1312 were all summoned in April.⁽¹⁴⁾

Although Maria de Molina and Infante Pedro promised to convene the cortes every two years between Michaelmas and All Saints (Palencia 1313, art. 11 M), the cortes held during the minority of Alfonso XI seem to have been summoned around Easter or St. Johns Day.⁽¹⁵⁾ When he reached his majority, he complained on 15 August 1325 that "a very great time" had passed since the date when the cortes of Valladolid was supposed to begin. His summons may have been misinterpreted [67] because Juan Manuel expected to give up the regency at Michaelmas. That date may mark the beginning of the cortes of Valladolid, as the cuadernos were dated 12 December. The king summoned the cortes of Alcalá 1348 for mid-December 1347, but his presence there is documented only from late January. The Ordinance is dated 28 February and the cuadernos 8 March.⁽¹⁶⁾

These dates suggest that the cortes lasted for only a few days (e.g., from 29 September to 6 October 1252), or for several weeks (29 September to 11 November 1272), or for several months (29 September to 12 December 1325, or 25 January to 8 March 1348), depending on the extent of the business to be transacted.

At best, one can only estimate the duration of any given cortes and suggest the season when it was likely to have been summoned to meet in plenary session. The most popular period for convocation was the Easter season, from the beginning of Lent until Pentecost, when the cortes met nineteen times.⁽¹⁷⁾ Next were St. Johns Day (six times), Circumcision/Epiphany (five times), Martinmas (four times),⁽¹⁸⁾ twice each at Pentecost, Michaelmas, and Candlemas, and once each at the Assumption and Christmas.⁽¹⁹⁾

Plenary sessions attended by prelates, magnates, and townsmen probably lasted several days, during which the petitions and responses were prepared and taxes were voted. That done, this phase of the cortes was finished, and most of the townsmen departed for home, except for those who wished to present petitions on behalf of individual towns or respond to litigation. Towns were not likely to subsidize their procurators to remain at the cortes for months at a time, nor would the procurators, who had personal affairs to attend to, wish to absent themselves from home for extended periods. In sum, the principal business of the cortes was probably settled in several days or a week, while other related matters were resolved in the weeks following dissolution of the assembly.

Lodging and Security

The difficulty of providing suitable lodgings for the comparatively large numbers of people attending the cortes was serious and probably aroused the ill will of the citizens of the town where the meeting was held. The royal lodging master apparently requisitioned rooms [68] from canons, monks, and townspeople, who often did not welcome the intrusion.

Alfonso X declared that the prelates, abbots, magnates, knights, and townsmen attending the cortes of Toledo 1259 should have good lodgings and commanded the knights and good men of the city to provide the best that they had. Once the cortes was over, he assured the citizenry on 6 February 1260 that in the future nothing would be done contrary to their fueros, which stated that they did not have to lodge anyone without their consent. He had already given such guarantees to the canons of Toledo on 29 December 1259. Following the cortes of Seville (1261, 1281), Jerez (1268), and Burgos (1272), similar pledges were made to the people of Seville (24 March 1261), the canons of Córdoba (30 May 1261), the people of Jerez (28 June 1268) and Burgos (27 September 1273), and the canons of Seville (22 August 1284). Lodgers were expected to pay rent and were forbidden to steal clothing or other goods from householders.⁽²⁰⁾

In every instance, the promise was given after the fact, so that it would seem that the people of the city where the cortes was held had to make room and endure the inevitable inconveniences. Fernando IV pledged in the cortes of Medina del Campo 1302 (art. 7 E, 9 L) to provide good lodgings, and at Valladolid 1312 (art. 37) he assured townsmen coming to his court that they would be suitably housed.

The principle that all those who came to the kings court should enjoy his protection was stated in the Espéculo (II.14.2-3), the Fuero real (II.3.8), and the Siete Partidas (II.16.1-4). This guarantee extended to the journey to and from the royal court. That the principIe also applied to those attending the cortes is self-evident. When Alfonso X convoked the cortes of Burgos 1272, the nobles, expressing fear for their safety, refused to enter the city unless he granted them a truce and allowed them to bear arms. He declared that this was "quite contrary to reason, since all men were secure in his court and had no need for a truce nor to bear arms"; but as they persisted, he and "all the men of the realm" went to meet the magnates at the Hospital of Burgos outside the walls.⁽²¹⁾

The hermandad of 1295 (art. 16 L, 14 E) guaranteed the security of those attending its meetings, including the three weeks before and after. Fernando IV confirmed this principle, which was repeated by the hermandad of Carrión 1317 (art. 56). Because the security of those coming to the cortes had been threatened during the recent civil wars, the [69] king assured the cortes of Valladolid 1300 (art. 22) and Medina del Campo 1302 (art. 7 E, 9 L) that he would uphold it. The cortes of Medina del Campo 1305 (art. 2 E, 5 C, 6 L) asked him to impose the penalties of death, confiscation, and disinheritance on anyone who killed another person attending the cortes.⁽²²⁾

When Infantes Juan and Pedro came to the cortes of Palencia 1313, each brought a large body of troops to intimidate his opposition. In order to allow the prelates and procurators of the towns the freedom to choose a regent, Maria de Molina proposed that all the contenders should withdraw to the surrounding suburbs. The memory of such disorders prompted Alfonso XI, when he came of age, to enact an ordinance at Medina del Campo (October 1328) guaranteeing the security of every man "while the cortes that the king now commands to assemble, is assembling, and is concluded"; anyone found guilty of murder, robbery, or theft would suifer the death penalty. This was repeated in the cortes of Madrid 1329 (art. 10).⁽²³⁾

The Speech From the Throne

Once the participants were assembled, the king mct with them in a plenary session to discuss the reasons for convocation. In Cantiga 386, Alfonso X related that after convening the cortes of Seville 1281, he "told them why he had caused them to come by word and by writ." As the royal chronicle elaborated, he requested funds for the war with the Moors, pointing to his treasury depleted by the conquest of Murcia, the Moroccan invasion, and the debasement of the coinage. Justifying her sons rights to the throne, Maria dc Molina reminded the cortes of Valladolid 1295 that he bore the name of his great-grandfather, Fernando III, whom all knew to have been a good king. Similarly, Alfonso XI announced to the cortes of Valladolid 1325 that, having terminated his minority and dismissed his regents, he was now assuming responsibility for directing his own affairs.⁽²⁴⁾

In the speech from the throne the king or regent discussed "the estate of the realm," "the improvement of the estate of the realm," or the necessity to do those things that would redound to the service of God, the king, and the well-being of the realm. In the preamble to the cuadernos of Valladolid 1295, Fernando IV, no doubt echoing remarks made by his mother to the entire cortes, expressed the desire to show favor to [70] his people because "we know that it is to the service of God and ourselves and to the very great benefit of all our kingdoms and to the improvement of the estate of all our realms." Similar sentiments were voiced on many other occasions.⁽²⁵⁾

In more specific terms the king might refer to projects that were especially dear to him, for example, "the affair of the empire" (Toledo 1259, Burgos 1272, 1274), "the affair of Africa" (Seville 1261), the administration and defense of the frontier (Burgos 1269, 1277), or preparations for war against the Moors (Burgos 1276, Seville 1281, Madrid 1309, Valladolid 1312).⁽²⁶⁾ In other instances, the theme was the duty to render homage to the heir to the throne (Toledo 1254, Burgos 1276, Segovia 1278) or the shortage of goods and the high cost of living (Jerez 1268).⁽²⁷⁾ Most often the king acknowledged the need to correct abuses. In the cortes of Seville 1252, Alfonso X admitted that certain agreements made by his predecessors had not been observed due to the pressure of war, and he declared that he was now prepared to confirm them. Sancho IV similarly informed the cortes of Valladolid 1293 of his desire to reward his people for previous services and asked to hear their grievances. In the cortes of Madrid 1329, Alfonso XI announced that he wished to do justice to all, to improve the estate of his household and of his realms, and to correct the many abuses that had occurred since the death of his father.⁽²⁸⁾

The Response of the Estates

Whether each of the estates made an immediate response to the royal discourse is uncertain, though it seems highly probable. As primate of Spain, the archbishop of Toledo was the logical spokesman for the clergy. Archbishop Gonzalos protest in the cortes of Valladolid 1295 that he had not been called to council to discuss "the affairs of the realm" indicates that he had expected to play that role. In the cortes of Medina del Campo 1302, the archbishop protested any attempt to tax ecclesiastical vassals.⁽²⁹⁾

The lord of Lara came to be acknowledged as the respondent for the nobility. When Alfonso X requested advice concerning the disposition of the Algarbe, Nuño González de Lara was the first member of his council to reply. Juan Núñez de Lara had a preeminent position among the nobility during the reigns of Sancho IV and Fernando IV, but there [71] is no evidence from this period that affirms positively that the house of Lara had the prerogative of responding to the king on behalf of the nobles. In 1373, however, Maria de Lara, sister of Juan Núñez, lord of Vizcaya, reminded Enrique II of the familys traditional right, stating that "the lord of Lara always speaks in the cortes for the nobles of Castile." The precedent for that right was apparently of long standing.⁽³⁰⁾

Evidence that a speaker was designated to respond in the name of the towns comes from a dispute between Burgos and Toledo in the cortes of Alcalá de Henares 1348. Pedro López de Ayala related that a similar controversy arose in the cortes of Valladolid 1351, and that King Pedro the Cruel, on taking counsel, discovered that the issue had been debated three years before. At that time Juan Núñez de Lara upheld the right of the procurators of Burgos to speak first because "it is the head of Castile." Juan Manuel, on the contrary, supported Toledos claims as "the head of Spain." The division among the magnates brought the business of the cortes to a halt until Alfonso XI resolved the argument by declaring that "the men of Toledo will do all that I command them, and so I speak for them; therefore, let Burgos speak." This was probably a traditional prerogative of Burgos, but Toledo, mindful of its ancient status as the seat of the Visigothic monarchy, apparently decided to make a bid for supremacy. It is unknown who spoke for the Leonese and Extremadurans when they met, but it is likely that León claimed that right in a Leonese cortes. Alfonso XI, in reply to the demands of the assembly of León 1345 (art. 5, 32), promised to give León precedence over Toledo in the royal intitulation in charters addressed to León.⁽³¹⁾

The speakers probably thanked the king, promising to weigh his remarks carefully and to return with a more specific reply to his proposals. When Alfonso X requested counsel concerning the projected African crusade, the cortes of Seville 1261 responded well and loyally, like true vassals. So, too, the cortes of Valladolid 1325 expressed its pleasure that Alfonso XI had come of age and intended to do justice and defend his realm against the Moors.⁽³²⁾

While there is no speciflc evidence of any curtailment of freedom of speech in the cortes, both the Espéculo (II.1.10, II.2.1-6) and the Partidas (II.13.17-18) prescribed the decorum that ought to prevail in the royal court. No one should contradict the king, but if he was in error he should be informed discreetly so that he could make the necessary [72] correction. When the prelates in the cortes of Burgos 1272 made demands "such as were not accustomed to be granted by other kings," Alfonso X became so angry that he threatened to expel them from the realm. In Cantiga 386 he remarked that after he had finished speaking to the cortes of Seville 1281, all present strongly approved and cursed anyone who went contrary to his command. He then granted the petitions that were rightfully presented, noting that "it is a strange thing for one to demand something wrongfully from his lord." The royal chronicle related, however, that the cortes was intimidated and responded to his proposals "more out of fear than love," telling him that he should do what he thought best. Not daring to speak their minds, the townsmen then appealed to Infante Sancho to intercede for them.⁽³³⁾

The Presentation of Petitions

Once the opening formalities were concluded, the cortes got down to the business at hand. Brief comments in the preambles to the cuadernos and in the chronicles encapsulate the course of the proceedings but do not describe them in detail. Without being bound to a rigid procedure, the cortes accomplished its work in several ways, depending on the issues at hand. In some instances, debate seems to have taken place in a general session. In the cortes of Burgos 1276, called to resolve the dispute over the succession, Juan Núñez de Lara and his brother Nuño upheld the claims of Alfonso de la Cerda, while Infante Fadrique and Lope Díaz de Haro defended Sanchos rights. Some of the prelates and townsmen may also have expressed their views.⁽³⁴⁾

Most often each estate assembled separately to consider matters that directly affected its interests. The cuadernos for the reign of Alfonso X do not distinguish the role of individual estates in this respect. The agreement embodied in the cuaderno of the cortes of Seville 1252 was likely prepared by his council, but it is not clear whether the estates were consulted individually or in a general session. The king acknowledged the initiative of the estates in the cortes of Valladolid 1258, when he approved "what they set down." In a like manner, the cortes of Seville 1261 "reached agreement" concerning the need for redress. The detailed list of wages and prices enacted at Jerez 1268 could only have been drawn up by a committee, perhaps consisting of merchants and members of the council who then presented their work to the entire assembly.⁽³⁵⁾

[73] Sancho IV stated that he asked the townsmen to tell him their grievances, but the presentation of petitions asking for redress presupposes that they first consulted among themselves. Thus in the cortes of Palencia 1286 they "took counsel and showed me those things about which they agreed to ask my favor." At Valladolid 1293 "they all came to agreement among themselves" and presented their grievances. In at least one instance, the townsmen received unexpected assistance in the preparation of their petitions. Maria de Molina, fearing that the towns in the cortes of Valladolid 1307 might undermine her sons already weak position, offered to help them draft petitions that would further "the service of God, the king, and the well-being of the entire realm." Recognizing "that she was the one who sought the good of the whole realm," they acquiesced.⁽³⁶⁾

The repetition of articles found in earlier cuademos, often in precisely the same words, demonstrates that the townsmen consulted the records of previous cortes in preparing their petitions. In those instances when separate cuademos were drawn up for the different realms (Valladolid 1293 and Medina del Campo 1305), it is apparent that representatives from each kingdom met separately to draft their proposals; but the similarities of their respective texts reveal that they also communicated with one another. There is little evidence, on the other hand, of consultation with the nobility or the prelates.⁽³⁷⁾

Once drafted, the petitions were presented to the king, who sought advice before responding. Thus Alfonso X consulted with the archbishop of Seville, the bishops, magnates, masters, and other men of the orders who were with him at Seville in 1264. Four years later at Jerez he took counsel with infantes, prelates, magnates, merchants, and other good men. In the cortes of Burgos 1272, however, he appointed a committee consisting of Queen Violante, Infante Fadrique, six magnates, four knights, four bishops, four clerics, five Franciscans and Dominicans, and seventeen townsmen to attend to the petitions of the nobles and prelates (and perhaps of the towns as well).⁽³⁸⁾

Maria de Molina's exclusion of Archbishop Gonzalo of Toledo and the magnates from consideration of the petitions presented by the towns in Valladolid 1295 drew forth a strong protest from the primate, and Juan Núñez de Lara left the cortes in anger. Maria personally heard the petitions of the towns from morning until mid-afternoon, eliciting praise for her diligence. She was equally assiduous in the cortes of Cuéllar 1297. Together with Infante Juan and other good men [74] appointed by Femando IV in the cortes of Valladolid 1307, she attended to petitions for several days in the chapel in the houses of the Magdalena.⁽³⁹⁾

The ordinary procedure probably required the submission of petitions to those designated to receive them. A committee such as those headed by Queen Violante in 1272 and by Maria de Molina in 1307 likely was given the responsibility of preparing an appropriate response on the kings behalf. The cortes of Valladolid 1295 determined that general affairs should be considered first and granted to all in common, and then the petitions of individual towns would be considered. General and special petitions were also treated separately by the cortes of Medina del Campo 1305. Whether this procedure was always followed is unknown, but it emphasizes that the townsmen, besides presenting general petitions for the good of the whole, also took advantage of their attendance at the cortes to transact business primarily of beneflt to their own towns. They might seek confirmation of privileges or represent their towns in litigation before the royal court. Much of this business was probably resolved after the plenary sessions were concluded and most of the participants had departed.⁽⁴⁰⁾

At times the nobles and prelates also presented petitions. Whether the demands put forward by the nobility in the cortes of Burgos 1272 were in written or oral form is uncertain, but the king chose to respond orally. He conducted himself so well in his point-by-point discussion that "all those present realized that he was in the right and in accord with law" and that the nobles were "making an uproar without reason." The committee headed by Queen Violante delivered a report (the text in the royal chronicle beginning "estas son las cosas") concerning these demands after the cortes had been dissolved. Although Alfonso X accepted the committees recommendations, the nobles were dissatisfled and gave a written statement to Infante Manuel to present to the king. Alfonso X was loath to accept it, but on the urging of his council he eventually did. After a meeting with the magnates at Almagro, a final resolution of the dispute was recorded at Toledo on 28 March 1273. In this instance the initial demands were made in the cortes, but the subsequent debate and presentation of additional demands took place after the dissolution of the cortes.⁽⁴¹⁾

The nobles also challenged Femando IV in a meeting at Palencia in 1311, making "very strong demands upon him." The agreement reached [75] on 28 October was later incorporated into the ordinance promulgated in the cortes of Valladolid 1312. The kings council no doubt consulted the nobles assembled at Burgos before preparing the ordinance that Alfonso XI enacted in May 1338, and later included in the Ordinance of Alcalá 1348 (XXIX-XXXI).⁽⁴²⁾

Queen Violante and her committee were also charged with the duty of replying to the demands made by the prelates in the cortes of Burgos 1272, but a definitive response was not forthcoming until Infante Femandos assembly at Peñafiel in 1275. The prelates also presented petitions in the cortes of Valladolid 1295, 1307, 1325, and Burgos 1315. In the cortes of Burgos 1315 (art. 1 P), Alfonso XI confirmed the pact concluded by the bishops and Femando IV at Palencia in March 1311. Alfonso XI also responded to ecclesiastical petitions at Valladolid 1325 and met the bishops again at Medina del Campo inJuly 1326 to resolve unfinished business.⁽⁴³⁾

Thus it would seem that while the petitions of the towns were usually considered in the cortes, those of the nobles and prelates might be presented in the cortes, but settled later, or a resolution might be reached outside the cortes, and then confirmed during the next cortes.

The Voting of Taxes

The townsmen (and sometimes the prelates) also had to determine their reply to the kings request for taxes. Although Roger Merriman states that the towns never made the voting of taxes dependent on redress of grievances, there is good reason to doubt that this was true.⁽⁴⁴⁾ Both the townsmen and the prelates had ample opportunity to discover that they could demand a quid pro quo from the king. When Alfonso X pressed the cortes of Seville 1261 for the means to carry out his proposed expedition to Africa, he was asked to correct abuses. The cortes may have consented to a tax levy, but the evidence is not explicit. Moreover, the concession of a tax in the cortes of Burgos 1272 to enable Alfonso to make his joumey to the empire probably was given in retum for his confirmation of the traditional fueros. In the cortes of Seville 1281 he apparently agreed to abandon the practice of conducting inquests into taxes past due, in retum for consent to his proposal conceming the coinage.⁽⁴⁵⁾ Given Maria de Molinas favorable response to their petitions, the towns in the cortes of Valladolid 1295 agreed to a [76] moneda forera, even though a full seven years had not elapsed since the previous grant. In a like manner, once the petitions had been heard, the cortes of Cuéllar 1297 consented to a tax. The order of business described by the royal chronicle also implies that the cortes of Valladolid 1307 agreed to a subsidy after the king responded to petitions.⁽⁴⁶⁾ This may not always have been the case, but considering that a recurrent theme in the cuadernos of the royal minorities was the need to restore justice and prosperity to an impoverished kingdom, it would seem that the cortes insisted often enough that reforms and consent to a subsidy were mutually dependent. Unless the king or the regents promised to govern rightly, they could not expect the cortes to agree blindly to a levy of taxes.

The Conclusion of the Cortes

Consent to taxes probably was given in a plenary session when ordinances were also promulgated. Appearing in the royal palace before the cortes of Valladolid 1307, Femando IV, with the "counsel of the queen his mother, the infantes, prelates, magnates, masters, infanzones, and knights," announced his reply to the petitions. The text of the cuademo embodying the petitions and responses was read to the assembly.⁽⁴⁷⁾ Copies of the cuadernos, dated when each one was finished, rather than on the day of the final session, were prepared by chancery clerks for distribution to towns, monasteries, bishops, and nobles. The king usually agreed that the cuadernos should be issued without payment of a chancery fee.⁽⁴⁸⁾

In Cantiga 386, Alfonso X tells us that while charters were being drawn up during the cortes of Seville 1281, he invited the entire assembly to a banquet. Seeing the multitudes who were there, the royal stewards worried that there would not be enough fish to feed them all. Undaunted, the king told them to place their hopes in the Virgin Mary, and to go to the royal canals, where they found four ships loaded with fish. Consequently all were fed in abundance to the great joy of the king, who praised the Virgin who had again shown her favor to him.⁽⁴⁹⁾

Alfonso X's successors perhaps did not imitate this extravagance, but they surely convened final plenary sessions not only for official purposes, but also to thank the assembly for its labors. That done, permission was granted for all to withdraw; without it, no one was free to [77] leave. While many then set out on the homeward journey, others probably remained to take care of private business.

A European Perspective

Evidence from France and England as well as other peninsular realms reveals certain similarities in the processes of convening parliamentary assemblies. Edward I of England, for example, required the sheriffs to cause the election of two knights from each shire and two citizens from each city to come, with "full and sufficient" authority, to the parliament of 1295, "to do whatever in the aforesaid matters may be F ordained by common counsel." Jaime II summoned Huesca in 1301 to send "your syndics and procurators . . . with full authority and free power" to the cortes of Zaragoza, "to treat, consent, do, and confirm each and every thing that will be ordained in the said cortes."⁽⁵⁰⁾

The idea of frequent convocation was also emphasized. Pedro III, meeting with the estates in Aragón, Valencia, and Catalonia in 1283, promised to convene the cortes annually. Four years later Alfonso III reiterated this pledge in the Aragonese cortes of Zaragoza. Finding it difficult to observe these promises, Jaime II informed the corts of Barcelona (and Valencia) in 1301 that he would hold the assembly every three years. In 1307 he told the Aragonese cortes of Alagón that he would convoke them every two years where it was convenient, rather than in Zaragoza, as his predecessors had promised. In the course of his reign of twenty-seven years he held the Catalan corts eleven times and the Aragonese nearly as often. Pedro IV convened the Catalans thirty times in fifty-one years.⁽⁵¹⁾

The Portuguese cortes, on the other hand, met rather infrequently. In the century from 1248 to 1357 Afonso III held only three cortes, Dinis, five or six, and Afonso IV only four. Not until 1385 did the Portuguese request an annual cortes. The French estates were not organized strongly enough to ask for an annual convocation, but in England the demand was put forward in the Ordinances of 1311 and in the parliament of 1330. Perhaps due to his continual need for money, Edward III summoned forty-eight parliaments in fifty years.

1. Piskorski, no. 1, pp. 196-197; Loaysa, Crónica, 19-21, pp. 90-91; CAX, 67-68, p. 53; CLC, I, 64.

2. CFIV, 8-10, 14-15, pp. 121-125, 150, 156-159; CAXI, 6-7, p. 178; GCAXI, 7-8, vol. I, pp. 291-293; CLC, I,401.

3. CAX, 24-25, 50, 59, 67, 75, pp. 21, 37, 47, 53, 59; CFIV, I, 3,6-7,10, 12, 14,16,19, pp. 94, 111, 117, 119, 123, 137, 150, 162, 169; CAXI, 1-3, 7-8, 12, 27, 38, 80, pp. 175, 178, 182, 191, 198, 222; CLC, I,140 (Valladolid 1299), 169 (Medina del Campo 1305), 185 (Valladolid 1307), 372 (1325), 401 (Madrid 1329).

4. Cantigas, vol. II, p. 339, stanza 20.

5. Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, no. 368, pp. 496-498; Pedro López de Ayala, Crónica de Pedro I, 1351, 2, RAE, LXVI, 412; Madrid, AHN Uclés, carpeta 153, no. 1.

6. Fuero real, I.4.1; Pérez Prendes, Cortes, 68; Hilda Grassotti, "La ira regia en León y Castilla," CHE 37-38 (1965): 5-135; Piskorski, 68-70; Colmeiro, I, 17.

7. CFIV, 10, pp. 123-125.

8. Sánchez Albornoz, "Señoríos y ciudades: Dos diplomas para el estudio de sus reciprocas relaciones," AHDE 6 (1929): 456-459; López Ferreiro, Historia, VI, no. 31, pp. 91-93; Julián Sánchez Ruano, El Fuero de Salamanca (Salamanca 1870), xxiv; Procter, Curia, 139-140.

9. González Diez, Burgos, nos. 96, 98-99, pp. 179, 181-183.

10. CLC, I, 169; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, nos. 386, 472, pp. 509-510, 573-574; López Ferreiro, Fueros, 597.

11. CAX, 28, p. 24; MHE, II, no. 198, pp. 59-63; Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1254-1293,no. 173, pp. 237-241; CAXI, 3, pp. 175-176; CLC, I, 221.

12. CAX, 24, 75, pp. 21, 59; Fuero viejo, prologue, pp. 1-3; Palacios, Madrid, 1,113-117; González Diez, Burgos, nos. 112-113, pp. 199-201.

13. Martín, Salamanca, no. 395, pp. 494-496.

14. CFIV, 1,3-8,10,12-16, pp. 94, 114, 117, 119, 123, 136-137, 150, 169.

15. CAXI, 3, 6-8, 12, pp. 175-176, 178-179, 182; GCAXI, 37, vol. I, p. 350, and 35, vol. II, pp. 473-475.

16. Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, nos. 385-386, pp. 506-510, 512-513; López Ferreiro, Fueros, 597.

17. Burgos 1274, 1276, 1277, Valladolid 1282, Burgos 1287, Valladolid 1293, 1299, 1300, Burgos 1301,Medina del Campo 1302, Burgos 1304, Medina del Campo 1305, Valladolid 1307, Burgos 1308, Valladolid 1312, Palencia 1313, Valladolid 1321, 1322, Madrid 1329.

18. St. Johns: Segovia 1278, Haro 1288, Valladolid 1295, Zamora 1301, Burgos 1302, 1315. Circumcision/Epiphany: Valladolid 1258, Seville 1261, Jerez 1268, Madrid 1309, Alcalá 1348. Martinmas: Burgos 1254, Seville 1281, Valladolid 1284, Palencia 1286.

19. Pentecost: Burgos 1287, Valladolid 1314, 1318. Michaelmas: Seville 1252, Burgos 1272. Candlemas: Cuéllar 1297, Valladolid 1298. Assumption: Medina del Campo 1318. Christmas: Toledo 1259.

20. Ballesteros, El Itinerario de Alfonso el Sabio (Madrid 1935), p. 228, n. 2, and "Burgos y la rebelión del Infante Don Sancho," 114; MHE, I, nos. 71, 84-85, pp. 154-155, 181-183; Menéndez Pidal, Documentos, no. 353, p. 467; Nilda Guglielrni, "Posada y Yantar," Hispania 26 (1966): 5-29.

21. CAX, 25, p.21.

22. MFIV, II, no. 4, p. 12; Valdeavellano, "Carta de hermandad," 73.

23. CAXI, 3, pp. 175-176; GCAXI, 4-5, vol. I, pp. 280-285; Madrid, BN 1270, fol. 8r- l5r (ordinance of 1328); Martínez Marina, Teoría, BAE, CCXX,252-253.

24. Cantigas, II, 3 39-340; CAX, 25, pp. 21-22; CFIV, 1, p. 95; CAXI, 40, p. 199; CLC, I,372.

25. CLC, I,55 (Valladolid 1258), 131 (1295), 137 (1298), 140, 142 (1299), 145-146(Burgos 1301), 151 (Zamora 1301), 166 (Burgos 1302), 169 (Medina del Campo 1305), 184-185 (Valladolid 1307), 222, 234, (Palencia 1313), 300 (Carrión 1317), 370 (Valladolid 1322), 372 (1325), 401 (Madrid 1329); Ballesteros, "Las cortes de 1252," 122; Rodríguez Díez, Astorga, 715 (Seville 1261); CAX , 25, 75, pp. 22, 59 (Burgos 1272, Seville 1281).

26. MHE, I, no. 71, pp. 154- 155; CAX, 24-25, 75, pp. 22-23, 59; Fernández del Pulgar, Palencia, III, 344-345; Rodríguez Diez, Astorga, 715; CLC, I, 85-86; Escudero de la Pena, "Súplica," 58-59; Menéndez Pidal, Documentos, no. 201, p. 257; CFIV, 16, 20, pp. 162-169.

27. Piskorski, no. 1, pp. 196-197; Loaysa, Crónica, 19-21, pp. 90-91; CAX, 67-68, p. 53; CLC, I, 64.

28. Ballesteros, "Las cortes de 1252," 122; CLC, I,106,117,401.

29. MFIV, II, nos. 22, 200, pp. 40, 283; Martínez Marina, Teoría, BAE, CCXIX, 88-89.

30. CAX, 19, p. 14; Pedro López de Ayala, Crónica de Enrique II, 1373, ch. 10, BAE, LXVIII, 20.

31. Pedro López de Ayala, Crónica de Don Pedro I, 1351, ch. 15-17, BAE, LXVI, 419, and n. 1 (charter to Toledo, 9 November 1351); Eloy Benito Ruano, La prelación ciudadana: Las disputas por la precedencia entre las ciudades de la corona de Castilla (Toledo 1972).

32. Rodríguez Díez, Astorga, 715; CAXI, 40, p. 199.

33. CAX, 26, 75, pp. 59-60; Castigas, II, 339-340.

34. Loaysa, Crónica, 20-21, pp. 90-91.

35. Ballesteros, "Las cortes de 1252," 122; CLC, I,54, 64; Rodríguez Díez, Astorga, 715.

36. CLC, I, 95 (1286), 106, 117 (1293), 184-185 (1307); CFIV, 15, pp. 150-151.

37. CLC, I, 106-117 (1293, Castile), 117-130 (1293, León), 169-172 (1305, León), 172-179 (1305, Castile), 179- 184 (1305, Extremadura); Palacio, Madrid, I,139-150 (1293, Extremadura); CODOM, IV, no. 153, pp. 135-143 (1293, Murcia); Nieto Cumplido, Regionalismo, no. 20, pp. 155-166 (1293, Andalusia).

38. Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 21, p. 60; CLC, I, 64, CAX, 26, p. 23.

39. CFIV, 1-2, 15, pp. 96, 107-108, 151-152; MFIV, II, no. 22, p. 40; Loaysa, Crónica, 60-61, pp. 153-154.

40. CFIV, 1, p. 96; CLC, I, 170.

41. CFIV, 25-26, 39-40, 44, 47, pp. 22-23, 30-32,34-35; CLC, I,85-86.

42. CFIV, 19, pp. 168-169; MFIV, II, nos. 510, 560, pp. 736-737, 822- 823; CLC, I, 207 (1312), 443-456 (1338); CAXI, 186, pp. 292-293.

43. CAX, 26, p. 23(1272); Menéndez Pidal, Documentos, no. 229, pp. 300- 302 (1275); CLC, I,133-135 (1295), 193-199 (1315), 389-400 (1325); MFIV, II, nos. 385 (1307), 541, 543, 546 (1311), pp.565-566, 789-791, 793-805; González Mínguez, Fernando IV, no. 23, p. 374 (1307); López Ferreiro, Historia, no. 61, pp. 175-178 (1316), and VI, nos. 14-15, pp. 61-72 (1326).

44. Roger B. Merriman, "The Cortes of the Spanish Kingdoms in the Later Middle Ages," AHR 16(1911): 484.

45. Rodríguez Díez, Astorga, 715-720; MHE, I, no. 140, pp. 309-324; CAX, 18, 47, 75, pp. 13, 35, 59-60; Cantigas, no. 386, vol. II, pp. 339-340; OCallaghan, "Cortes and Royal Taxation," 386-389.

46. CFIV, 1-2, l5, pp. 96,108, l50-l51; Loaysa, Crónica, 60-61, pp. 152- 154.

47. CFIV, 15, pp.l50-151.

48. Burgos 1301, art. 14; Zamora 1301, art. 27; Medina del Campo 1302, art. 14; 1305, art. 13 E, 14 C; Valladolid 1307, art. 35; 1312, art. 103; Palencia 1313, art. 49 M; Burgos 1315, art. 55; Carrión 1317, art. 73; Valladolid 1322, art. 105; 1325, art. 42; Madrid 1329, art. 89; 1339, art. 24; Alcalá 1345; Burgos 1345; León 1345, art. 31; Alcalá 1348, art. 53.

49. Cantigas, II, 339-341.

50. Francis Palgrave, Parliamentary Writs (London 1827-1834), I, 30; Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de Aragón, Register 332, fol. 202v.

51. García Gallo, Manual, II, nos. 1072,1095, 1111-1116, pp. 899, 933, 952 -955.