[130] Historians agree that the voting of taxes was one of the principal functions of the cortes. As royal responsibilities became more complex and more ambitious, and as the standard of living rose, the kings customary revenues proved insufficient to meet his needs. He often had to obtain additional funds by levying extraordinary taxes.⁽¹⁾

Contemporary moralists cautioned kings not to burden their subjects unjustly. Fray Juan Gil de Zamora, tutor to Infante Sancho, warned that royal avarice and unaccustomed exactions could result in the impoverishment of the kingdom. Early in the fourteenth century, Alvaro Pelayo complained that kings "afflict the people of God unduly with tallages and exactions and oppress them in bodies and goods."⁽²⁾

The Principle of Consent

The king could not arbitrarily impose taxes. The principle that he ought not to deprive any man of his property without just cause, and the Roman principle, quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus debet approbari, [131] emphasized that consent was necessary. The Partidas (II.1.8) affirmed that "at those times when there is such great need for the common good of the land, that it cannot be excused," the king was entitled to levy taxes. He should presumably ask the cortes for consent, but whenever that was impossible or particularly difficult, he could have recourse to what was his without doing so. In some cases, he seems to have done just that, while in others, he obtained the consent of individuals or small groups.

The principle of consent was recognized explicitly on several occasions. Assuring the bishops at Valladolid in 1255 that neither he nor his successors would demand a servicio as a matter of law or take it by force, Alfonso X declared that the clergy should pay it only "when you wish to give it according to your pleasure and good will." He also told the cortes of Burgos in 1277 that none of his successors would be entitled "as a matter of right or custom" to the tax then granted. Infante Sancho made a similar pledge on 28 December 1282⁽³⁾, and later promised the cortes of Valladolid 1293 (art. 9 C) that he would ask the cortes for money "whenever we have need." The hermandad of 1295 complained of royal attempts to take forced loans and other illegal tributes, refusing to grant them "at least until it has been agreed upon by the entire hermandad." By arbitrarily levying several servicios in 1306, Fernando IV stirred such a protest that he told the cortes of Valladolid 1307 (art. 6) that "if it should happen that I have need of any tributes, I have to ask for them, and otherwise I will not impose any tributes upon the kingdom." At Palencia in 1311 he also pledged that before taxing the clergy he would summon the prelates and ask their consent; nor would he tax their vassals "without summoning all the prelates personally to our cortes or ayuntamiento, whenever we hoid it, to ask their consent."⁽⁴⁾ In the cortes of Madrid 1329 (art. 68), Alfonso XI expressly stated that he would not "levy any extraordinary tribute, special or general, in the entire realm, without first summoning the cortes." In fact he did not abide by that promise.

In order to gain consent, the king had to justify his need. Alfonso X announced that he required funds for "the affair of the empire" (Valladolid 1258), "the journey to the empire" (Burgos 1274), "the affair of Africa" (Seville 1261), "the affair of the frontier" (Burgos 1269), and the war against Granada and Morocco (Burgos 1277, Seville 1281).⁽⁵⁾ The siege and defense of Tarifa was Sancho IVs principal obligation (Haro 1288, Medina del Campo 129 1291).⁽⁶⁾ Money was needed to defend [132] Fernando IVs rights to the throne (Valladolid 1300, Burgos and Zamora 1301), but once he came of age, his main expenditures concerned the capture of Gibraltar and the siege of Algeciras (Madrid 1309, Valladolid 131 2).⁽⁷⁾ The defense of the frontier continued to be the priority during the minority of Alfonso XI (Valladolid and Medina del Campo 1318); when he came of age, he complained of the sorry state of his finances and declared his need for money to restore law and order (Valladolid 1325) and to finance the wars against the Moors (Madrid 1329).⁽⁸⁾

The need to obtain consent would seem to imply the right to refuse it, but there was no specific instance during this period when a request for taxes was rejected. At Alcalá in 1275, the representatives of Burgos hesitated to consent to a tax granted by the other towns of Castile and Extremadura without first informing their town council. This seems to be an isolated example of reluctance, though not of outright refusal to consent.⁽⁹⁾

Emphasizing the judicial character of consent, Gaines Post points out that just as the king had the primary responsibility to preserve the well-being of the status regni (estado de la tierra), so too the people, when informed that the necessity or utility of the state required a tax, had to respond positively.⁽¹⁰⁾ The question was not whether they would consent, but whether they would agree to the amount requested. They might grumble that they were being reduced to poverty, and they might insist that the king live within his means, but ultimately they would give consent.

Taxation of the Estates

Each of the estates was called on at times to consent to extraordinary taxation. Confirming the exemption of the clergy at Nájera in 1180, Alfonso VIII promised not to take anything from them by force, "but only with their love and good will." Yet when he needed money for the coming campaign of Las Navas de Tolosa, he did not hesitate to ask them, at Toledo in September 1211, to pledge half their yearly income.⁽¹¹⁾ Pope Gregory IX in 1236 instructed the bishops to contribute to Fernando IIIs campaigns, and a decade later Innocent IV authorized the king to take the tercias reales (the third of the tithe destined for the upkeep of churches) for three years for the siege of Seville.⁽¹²⁾

Hoping to dissuade the king from collecting the tercias beyond the designated period, the bishops gained Alfonso Xs promise in the cortes [133] of Seville 1252 that he would deal with the issue as soon as he visited Castile and León. At Valladolid in October 1255, he declared that the tithe not only served the needs of the church but also might be used for "the service of kings, for their benefit and that of their realm when necessary." All men were obliged to pay it, but before any disposition of the harvest was made royal officials would take what pertained to the crown, thereby filling the royal coffers.⁽¹³⁾ In 1265 Clement IV granted Alfonso X a tenth of ecclesiastical income for three years, provided that he abandon the tercias, but Nicholas IIIs remonstrance of 1279 indicates that he did not.⁽¹⁴⁾ Alfonso XI was able to persuade the papacy to grant him the tercias and a tenth of ecclesiastical income in 1329 and 1340 for his wars against the Moors.⁽¹⁵⁾

Kings also obtained the consent of the prelates to extraordinary levies in cortes or assemblies held at Valladolid 1255, Burgos 1276, Medina del Campo 1291, 1316, 1326, and Madrid 1337. The prelates insisted at Peñafiel 1275, Valladolid 1295, Medina del Campo 1302, Palencia 1311, and in their hermandad at Valladolid 1314 that their consent was necessary before any tax could be levied on them or their vassals.⁽¹⁶⁾

The nobility, though exempt from direct taxation, consented in the cortes of Burgos 1269 to a special levy on their vassals. Three years later, again in the cortes of Burgos, they protested this levy, forcing the king to modify the amount at Almagro 1273. Thereafter their consent is recorded only at Carrión 1317 and Valladolid 1336.⁽¹⁷⁾

Most often the burden of taxation fell on the townsmen. At least from the early thirteenth century, the crown demanded forced loans (emprestítos) from certain towns. Fernando III, for example, asked the Galician towns in 1248 to lend him money according to a scale based on individual income. In response to protests, Alfonso X declared at Valladolid 1255 and Segovia 1256 that he would not make similar requests. The hermandad of 1295 insisted that the king seek consent. The practice seems to have been intermittent thereafter, but Alfonso XI demanded forced loans in 1333 and 1337.⁽¹⁸⁾

Moneda Forera

The principal extraordinary taxes were known as moneda forera, ayuda, and servicio. Moneda forera, levied every seven years in return for the kings assurance that he would maintain a stable coinage, [134] can be traced at least to the curia of Benavente 1202 when Alfonso IX sold his coinage in return for a maravedí payable by each non-noble freeman. Alfonso X granted exemptions from moneda forera to cathedral canons at Valladolid 1255 and to the knights of Toledo, Seville, and Córdoba on other occasions.⁽¹⁹⁾

From time to time the cortes granted this tax. Alfonso Xs exemption of the canons of Toledo in February 1253 indicates that it was being collected and that the cortes of Seville 1252 may have given consent to it. The cortes of Valladolid 1258 authorized a double moneda for "the affair of the empire"--one due later that year, the other an exceptional levy. The nobles demanded at Toledo 1273 that moneda be collected only every seven years, an implied charge that it had been exacted on other occasions. Infante Sancho pledged to maintain his grandfathers sound coinage in the assembly of Valladolid 1282 and received a moneda even though it was not then due.⁽²⁰⁾

Sancho IV also obtained a moneda at his accession, and a second one in 1288, but he agreed not to request another for the next ten years, and not more than one every seven years after that. However, there is no sign that he asked the consent of the cortes in either 1284 or 1288. Nevertheless, in the cortes of Palencia 1286 (art. 3) and Haro 1288 (art. 19), he pledged to preserve the coinage intact without reference to moneda.⁽²¹⁾

The cortes of Valladolid 1295 granted Fernando IV a moneda although seven years had not elapsed, and he obtained another from the cortes of Valladolid 1312. Alfonso XI received moneda from the cortes of Valladolid in 1318 and 1325, according to the seven-year schedule. The concession by the cortes of Madrid 1329 was exceptional in that it fell within the seven-year period, but thereafter authorization was given regularly by the assemblies of Burgos, Zamora, and León in 1336, and by the townsmen gathered for the siege of Algeciras in 1343. In the last case, the grant was made in return for his pledge to maintain the coinage. In the summer of 1344 an exceptional moneda was approved.⁽²²⁾

On the basis of the documentation one cannot determine whether the king summoned an assembly every seven years to obtain consent. Probably moneda became a customary tax that could be collected every seven years without formal consent. It appears to have been recorded when it was an exceptional grant made outside the usual time frame. Moneda was also conceded to a new monarch at the beginning of his reign (for example, when the cortes of Valladolid 1295 granted it to [135] Fernando IV), and a new seven-year period would be calculated from then on. Moneda forera was considered a sign of royal sovereignty that could not be alienated, and exemptions were granted only rarely.⁽²³⁾

Servicios

Servicio was the term most commonly used to refer to taxes voted by the cortes. When stated as equivalent to moneda forera, it was a capitation tax, but otherwise it was a tax on movable property. Occasionally a certain number of servicios (or monedas) were described as an aid (ayuda).

The word servicio in the sense of a money grant appeared for the first time when the prelates at Valladolid in 1255 gave it to Alfonso X, who acknowledged that it was a matter of grace, rather than fulfillment of a legal obligation.⁽²⁴⁾ In the cortes of Burgos 1269 the nobles agreed that six servicios, each equivalent to a moneda, could be levied on their vassals. Two years later they consented to an additional servicio for that year. The kings letter to Burgos on 27 December 1271 suggests that the towns had also granted a servicio, perhaps in the cortes of Burgos 1269, on the condition that he lift restrictions on wages and prices and improve the coinage. In the cortes of Burgos 1272 the nobles demanded that the king cease collecting the six servicios and give written guarantees that they were not due as a matter of right; but at Almagro 1273 he agreed to cancel only two of the six.⁽²⁵⁾

The towns and monasteries in the cortes of Burgos 1272, apparently in exchange for the restoration of their fueros, consented to an annual servicio (the equivalent of a moneda) for as long as Alfonso X thought necessary. Encouraged by his compromise with the nobility, the towns in the cortes of Burgos 1274 persuaded him to collect two servicios in the current year to finance his journey to the empire and to relinquish his right to an annual servicio thereafter.⁽²⁶⁾

After visiting the pope, Alfonso X asked the towns of Castile and Extremadura for an aid (ayuda) amounting to a moneda each year for three years, to defend the frontier (December 1275). In the cortes of Burgos 1276, the prelates agreed to a levy of three aids (ayudas) payable by their vassals, again with the kings pledge not to demand a servicio without their consent.⁽²⁷⁾ As his financial needs continued to mount, he contracted with Jewish tax farmers in October 1276 to recover taxes owed at least since 1261.⁽²⁸⁾ When this evoked protest, Alfonso X [136] exempted the townsmen in the cortes of Burgos 1277 from arrears, in return for a servicio equal to a moneda forera of 5 1/3 maravedís payable each year for the rest of his life. None of his successors would be entitled to this tax as a matter of right or custom.⁽²⁹⁾ The towns, arguing that they would be able to pay their taxes more easily, also asked him to issue a cheaper coinage, but Alfonso X would not until the pope released him from his pledge (perhaps given at Jerez 1268) to maintain the coinage without alteration. The cortes then sent a petition to Rome; its outcome, however, is unknown.⁽³⁰⁾ The cortes of Segovia 1278 apparently agreed to an additional servicio for the blockade of Algeciras, but continued fiscal deficiencies compelled Alfonso X to lift the siege in July l279.⁽³¹⁾

Objections to the rising tide of taxation were reflected in the failure of towns to keep up their payments, as Alfonso Xs and Sanchos letters to Burgos in 1279 reveal.⁽³²⁾ The general feeling was expressed clearly in the cortes of Seville 1281 when the townsmen complained that they were "very poor and the tributes great." But when Alfonso X proposed debasing the coinage rather than imposing a new tax, they responded, "more out of fear than love," that he should do what he thought best.⁽³³⁾

Reacting against this, Sancho, in return for moneda, promised the assembly of Valladolid 1282 that he would maintain sound money.⁽³⁴⁾ Later that year the towns gave him an ayuda, equal to a moneda, but this was not to be taken as matter of right or custom. Both the hermandad of León and Galicia at Toro (July 1283) and the assembly at Palencia in November granted him a servicio.⁽³⁵⁾

Bound by the same financial constraints as his father, Sancho IV resorted to similar measures to overcome them, causing Jofre de Loaysa to remark that be imposed greater tributes than his father ever had. After Sancho IVs coronation, he sent to towns and monasteries asking for an ayuda for his journey to the frontier.⁽³⁶⁾ Determined to collect every penny owed the crown, he concluded a contract in March 1285 with Abrabam el Barchilón, authorizing him to collect all revenues and past debts dating back to 1273.⁽³⁷⁾ The royal accounts for 1285 indicate that the king was promised servicios at Burgos and two servicios at Seville for the relief of Jerez, but it is not known whether the cortes gave consent.⁽³⁸⁾ The fact that the rate of taxation was set in the cortes of Palencia 1286 (art. 10) seems to imply that a tax was also granted, but there is no direct evidence to support this idea.

[137] An outcry against the royal financial policies and their architect, Lope Díaz de Haro, resulted in his downfall in June 1288. Reclaiming his authority, Sancho IV cancelled all arrears of taxes in the cortes at Haro in return for an annual servicio for the next ten years (art. 1-3), and he promised not to alter the new coinage he had minted in 1286 (art. 19). Thus assured of a regular income for the next decade, and seemingly free of the necessity of summoning the cortes to consent to new taxes, he could feel reasonably satisfied that he had discovered a solution to the age-old problem of making ends meet.⁽³⁹⁾

The renewal of warfare with Morocco, however, made it clear that be would require much more. In 1291 he asked the prelates at Medina del Campo (who probably had not voted to tax themselves at Haro) to consent to a servicio and an ayuda of 1,400,000 maravedís for the siege of Algeciras. In the next spring, apparently without convening the cortes, he sent to the men of the realm asking for three servicios to maintain the siege. The royal chronicles assertion that the townspeople paid easily seems astonishing, because these new levies seem to have been in addition to the tax granted at Haro. The Moroccan threat, however, was very real, so it would have been difficult to raise strenuous objections. The kings demand was justified, at any rate, by the conquest of Tarifa in October 1292.⁽⁴⁰⁾

Still, the irregularity of the proceedings was noted in the cortes of Valladolid 1293. Reminding the Castilians that they had guaranteed that he would "have our taxes fully," Sancho IV promised "whenever we have need of them," he would ask for their help (art. 9 C). He also indicated that he would continue collecting the sixth of the servicios granted at Haro and the three servicios granted for the siege of Tarifa (art. 14M, 15 LE, 24 A).⁽⁴¹⁾

While allaying complaints about his previous fiscal activities, Sancho IV evidently enacted an ordinance in the cortes of Valladolid 1293 concerning a novel tax. Known as the sisa, it was a levy of one percent on all sales transactions except those of the clergy, knights, and their families, who were exempt. While it was being collected, the king promised not to ask for any other servicios (save those currently due), moneda forera, or fonsadera.⁽⁴²⁾ Yet when the Moroccans besieged Tarifa in 1294, he demanded aid from the clergy, apparently without convening the prelates to obtain consent.⁽⁴³⁾

The sisa, meantime, had become an irritant. After Sancho IVs [138] death the Leonese hermandad of 1295 charged that he had imposed the sisa and other taxes "without reason and without law." All the hermandades denounced forced loans, declaring that no tribute should be levied without consent. Aware of the unpopularity of the sisa, Maria de Molina announced its abolition. The cortes of Valladolid 1295 granted Fernando IV moneda forera as a sign of sovereignty, but it is unlikely that it also consented to a servicio. The prelates, moreover, were assured that the king would not demand any tribute from them in the future that was contrary to the liberties of the church.⁽⁴⁴⁾

Thereafter servicios were granted regularly and in increasing amounts, chiefly for the suppression of the rebels. The cortes of Cuéllar 1297 granted one servicio, Valladolid 1298 agreed to two, and Valladolid 1299 to three. The cortes of Valladolid 1300 authorized four, adding a fifth to pay for papal bulls legitimating the king; but as the fifth was turned over instead to Infante Juan who renounced his claims to the throne, the intention of the cortes was thwarted. The cortes of Burgos (Castile) and Zamora (León-Extremadura) 1301 (art. 15) complained about this diversion of funds, but Maria de Molina argued that, as the king would soon come of age, it was imperative that he be legitimated and that a dispensation for his marriage be obtained. Thus four servicios were approved to pay the stipends of the nobles and a fifth for the papal bulls, which were granted in September 130l.⁽⁴⁵⁾

Jofre de Loaysas comment that Fernando IV burdened the kingdom with greater taxes than either his father or his grandfather should not be understood to mean that he was more extravagant; rather, the cost of living and the expenses of warfare and administration were constantly rising. During Fernando IVs majority, he often asked for funds for the war against the Moors. Both the cortes of Medina del Campo and Burgos 1302 acceded to his request for five servicios, one for his needs and the other four to pay the stipends of the nobility.⁽⁴⁶⁾

After the Council of Peñafiel publicized Boniface VIIIs bull, Clericis laicos, forbidding taxation of the clergy, Archbishop Gonzalo of Toledo protested in the cortes of Medina del Campo any attempt to tax ecclesiastical vassals. The king, pointing to the need to defend archiepiscopal lands exposed to Muslim attack, overcame the archbishops opposition by offering him half the servicios collected from his vassals. Other bishops were similarly placated.⁽⁴⁷⁾

Returning from the frontier in 1303, the king received five servicios [139] from the Extremaduran towns at Olmedo. In the next year Castilian and Extremaduran towns at Burgos granted an ayuda (amounting to a moneda forera of eight maravedís payable by each taxpayer) in exchange for his promise not to demand an accounting of past tributes, except for those owed since the cortes of Medina del Campo 1302.⁽⁴⁸⁾

The cortes of Medina del Campo 1305 authorized five servicios-- four for noble stipends and the fifth for the king, but as that was insufficient Fernando IV collected another later in the year. In April 1306 he levied four servicios, and in June he collected a fifth.⁽⁴⁹⁾ This imposition of taxes without consent provoked the cortes of Valladolid 1307 to demand that the king live within the limits of his ordinary revenues so he would not have to levy servicios. Not only did he agree, but he also pledged to ask consent for further taxes if he needed them (art. 6). He also assured the bishops that, without first asking their consent, he would not impose any tributes on their vassals. Perhaps taking into account the six servicios levied without consent since the cortes of Medina del Campo 1305, the cortes of Valladolid now approved only three.⁽⁵⁰⁾

Fernando IV's ordinance enacted in the cortes of Valladolid 1307, in Colmeiros view, set down as a matter of written law the principle that the king had to obtain consent to extraordinary taxes. From that day on, Colmeiro concludes, "the cortes was a necessary institution for the monarchy." González Mínguez attempts to distinguish between ordinary servicios that the cortes regularly approved, and extraordinary ones that the king often imposed without consulting the cortes, but the distinction is invalid. Servicios by their very nature were extraordinary taxes requiring the consent of the taxpayers. The imposition of servicios (or taxes not spelled out in the fueros) without consent was the reason the cortes of Valladolid 1307 insisted that the king live off his customary revenues and that he promise not to levy extraordinary taxes unless approved by the cortes.⁽⁵¹⁾

The value of these promises was soon to be tested. The kings collection without consent of five servicios in the fall of 1307, for the purpose of paying noble stipends for three months, resulted in a demand for an accounting of revenues and expenses in the cortes of Burgos 1308. To no ones surprise, a deficit was revealed. Hoping to avoid a confrontation with the cortes, Infante Juan proposed collecting all overdue taxes, but Maria de Molina, recalling the controversies that had arisen when Alfonso X and Sancho IV had attempted to do the same, [140] urged that a servicio would be less objectionable. Fernando IV acknowledged the wisdom of Marias views, but bowed to Infante Juans insistence. The ordinance enacted at this time indicates, however, that only a limited effort was made to recover outstanding tributes.⁽⁵²⁾

The reluctance of the cortes to consent to new taxes was noted by Jaime II of Aragón, who heard that the cortes of Madrid 1309, alleging the poverty of the realm, "did not wish to give him [Fernando IV] anything until he told them why." Even so, the cortes authorized five servicios for that year and three for each of the next three years, so that Fernando IV could take the offensive against Granada.⁽⁵³⁾ Lulled by his promise to pay noble stipends from his ordinary revenues (art. 83), and persuaded by the fall of Gibraltar that the money voted three years before was well spent, the cortes of Valladolid 1312 approved five servicios and a moneda. Finding that insufficient, the king asked the towns of the archbishopric of Toledo for another servicio for a fleet to defend Tarifa and Gibraltar.⁽⁵⁴⁾

As his needs escalated and extraordinary grants proved inadequate, tensions heightened, producing a negative reaction during the minority of Alfonso XI. Protesting the excessive tributes imposed "without reason and without law" since Alfonso Xs time, the Leonese hermandad at Benavente in 1313 insisted that anyone aspiring to act as regent should pledge not to levy any illegal tributes. In the cortes of Palencia 1313 Infante Juan, Maria de Molina, and Infante Pedro declared that they would govern within the limits of the ordinary revenues of the crown (art. 4 J, 10 M). There is no indication that any servicios were authorized; given the mood of the cortes, it would seem unlikely. Nor is there any mention of moneda forera, though the king could have claimed it as a sign of sovereignty.⁽⁵⁵⁾

The hermandad of bishops at Valladolid in 1314 reaffirmed the principle of consent, declaring that they would not agree to any tax until, after consulting their chapters, they met to consider the needs of the kingdom and the rights of the church. Nevertheless, at Dueñas Infante Juan received four servicios from the prelates, nobles, and military orders. In the cortes of Valladolid 1314 Maria de Molina and Infante Pedro obtained five servicios--four to pay stipends and the fifth for the crown.⁽⁵⁶⁾

The regents assured the cortes of Burgos 1315 that they would live within a budget, expending royal revenues in such a manner that no [141] extraordinary tribute would be imposed (art. 4). However, the cortes, concerned that the resources of the crown be carefully husbanded, demanded a financial report. When the report was announced, it became apparent that the treasury was much depleted. Thus, the cortes authorized customs duties as well as two servicios and three ayudas (each of which amounted to a moneda) for the defense of the frontier.⁽⁵⁷⁾

Hoping to improve the fiscal situation, the regents, much to the irritation of the prelates, proposed to recover royal lands acquired by the church since the cortes of Haro 1288 (art. 54). To avert that, the prelates at Medina del Campo in 1316 consented to a servicio and an ayuda, on condition that no action be taken until the king came of age. That summer the frontier towns granted Infante Pedro a servicio of a million maravedís for the war against Granada.⁽⁵⁸⁾

When the government tried to collect arrears of taxes going back to the cortes of Madrid 1309, the hermandad of Carrión 1317 objected, arguing that Fernando IV had exempted the people from any inquiry into taxes past due in return for servicios. Even though some towns had not paid their taxes and so could not claim exemption, the regents agreed to abandon the attempt (art. 10). When a new accounting revealed a huge deficit, a grant of five servicios payable by the working class (los labradores) was approved. When the nobles engaged in an unseemly quarrel over the apportionment of these funds, Maria de Molina left the assembly. In the next year the cortes of Valladolid and Medina del Campo granted four servicios and a moneda (which fell due at that time) for the sustenance of the king and his household, and for the payment of stipends to the nobles participating in the war against Granada.⁽⁵⁹⁾

As the regency broke down, each of the contenders for power levied taxes on his or her constituents, The hermandad of Burgos 1320 gave Juan the one-eyed seven servicios, while Maria de Molina collected six from the vassals of the nobility and the church. Juan Manuel obtained seven and a half from his supporters at Madrid in 1321. In the cortes of Valladolid 1322, Infante Felipe pledged to expend the ordinary revenues of the crown so that no servicios or illegal tributes would be imposed (art. 16). Juan the one-eyeds adherents granted him five servicios at Burgos in 1323, and Juan Manuel, boldly explaining that be would not be able to collect these taxes once the king came of age, asked for a like amount from his followers at Madrid in 1324. Thus the regents exploited the kingdom for their personal benefit, levying extraordinary [142] taxes even though after 1319 there was no war with the Moors or with the kings other enemies.⁽⁶⁰⁾

After he came of age, Alfonso XI effected significant changes in extraordinary taxation. He failed to summon the cortes regularly, thereby diminishing its role in voting taxes, and he changed the types of taxes so as to yield greater revenue without provoking as much protest. As his finances were in disorder, the cortes of Valladolid 1325 approved a grant of five servicios and a moneda.⁽⁶¹⁾ The prelates at Medina del Campo in 1326 also gave him a servicio, in return for his renunciation of claims to royal lands acquired by the church. The cortes of Madrid 1329, pleased by his resolve to launch an offensive against the Moors and by his promise not to impose any extraordinary tribute without consent (art. 68), authorized four ayudas and a moneda.⁽⁶²⁾

Thereafter, Alfonso XI avoided summoning the cortes and sought to raise money in other ways. The magnates, knights, and masters of the military orders at Valladolid in 1336 granted five servicios and a moneda payable by their vassals, but also urged him to summon the towns to get their consent. Only the more important Castilian towns were summoned to Burgos, and the Leonese to Zamora, but their consent was taken as the consent of all. Rather than convene the cortes, the king preferred to meet separately with three different bodies--the nobles, the townsmen of Castile, and the townsmen of León. Because "the men of the realm were in such great poverty on account of the many tributes," he asked the prelates at Madrid in 1337, and the towns two years later, for unspecified sums. Following his victory at Salado in October 1340, the towns at Llerena approved a small quantity of servicios and monedas in expectation of a renewed enemy assault.⁽⁶³⁾ In succeeding years, Alfonso XI looked for other, more productive sources of revenue. Before we consider them, however, several questions concerning servicios need to be addressed.

Receipts and Rates of Taxation

The disappearance of fiscal records makes it difficult to determine how much the king realized from any extraordinary tax. Utilizing surviving royal accounts for 1288, 1292, and 1294, Ladero Quesada estimates that Sancho IV received more than 1,500,000 maravedís from each servicio. This would accord with the grant of 1,400,000 by the prelates in 1291, but the servicio granted to Infante Pedro in 1316 amounted [143] only to 1,000,000. If five servicios were intended to meet the deficit of 8,000,000 maravedís revealed at Carrión 1317, then each servicio would have amounted to 1 ,600,000--but it is apparent that the sum collected was insufficient. Unless more detailed records come to light, the amount garnered by the imposition of servicios will remain uncertain.⁽⁶⁴⁾

The rate of taxation is similarly difficult to estimate. On occasion the servicio or ayuda was a capitation tax payable at the same rate as moneda, but at other times it was a tax of variable amount on movables. When the curia of Benavente 1202 gave moneda to Alfonso IX, each taxpayer was to pay one maravedí. The servicios authorized by the cortes of Burgos 1269 and 1272 evidently amounted to a moneda each, or one maravedí payable by each taxpayer. In the cortes of Burgos 1277, however, the moneda amounted to five and a third maravedís per person, and at Burgos 1304 it was eight maravedís. Yet at Madrid 1339 each moneda and each servicio amounted to half a maravedí (art. 2.).⁽⁶⁵⁾

At other times the tax rate varied. When Fernando III asked for an emprestíto in 1248 the rate was 5%. The three aids granted to Alfonso X in 1275 and at Burgos 1276 were payable at the rate of 10 sueldos for every 10 maravedís, or 20%. Burgos contracted in 1279 to pay servicios at the same level, which seems inordinately high; in fact, the men of the realm could justifiably complain that they were being reduced to poverty. In the cortes of Palencia 1286 (art. 10, 13), Sancho IV, stipulating that servicios would be payable in the same manner as moneda, fixed the rate at 10%. Personal clothing was excluded from estimated wealth, and anyone worth less than five maravedís would pay nothing. He declared in the cortes of Haro 1288 (art. 20) that servicios should be paid at the same rate as moneda, but not per capita; thus new assessments (padrones) should be prepared each year. When Juan Manuel levied servicios in Extremadura in 1321 the rate was 6%. On the basis of this scanty information, no judgment can be made as to the usual rate of taxation, or even whether there was one.⁽⁶⁶⁾

Servicio de los Ganados and Customs Duties

Aside from direct taxes on income, the cortes also authorized or regulated exceptional taxes on migratory sheep and on exports and imports. As sheepraising became more profitable and herds traveled long distances to take advantage of southern pastures, the crown sought to tap that resource. Alfonso X seems to have first levied the servicio de [144] los ganados in 1269 for the marriage of his oldest son, but whether he asked the cortes of Burgos to consent to it is unknown. The nobles at Toledo in 1273 demanded that he abandon this servicio, but he evidently refused. It may have become a customary tax levied without the consent of the cortes.⁽⁶⁷⁾ The cortes of Valladolid 1293 (art. 8 LEM), and later cortes as well, insisted that the tax not be levied on livestock within municipal districts or on animals taken to market.⁽⁶⁸⁾

Alfonso X designated certain frontier towns where customs duties would be collected (Jerez 1268, art. 21-23). Pressed by the magnates in the cortes of Burgos 1272 to give up the duties, he offered at Almagro 1273 to do so after six years. The demand of the Leonese hermandad of 1282 (art. 7) that duties be levied as in the time of Alfonso IX and Fernando III reveals not only that they continued to be a regular source of income but also that the amounts had steadily increased. The cortes of Palencia 1313 tried to persuade Infante Juan to levy them at the rate prevailing under Fernando III (art. 4 J), and the assembly of Carrión 1317 (art. 22) demanded that collection be restricted to Fernando IVs customs posts. The cortes of Valladolid 1325 granted customs duties for three years to Alfonso XI, but he continued to take them beyond that term, despite the protest of the cortes of Madrid 1329 (art. 86).⁽⁶⁹⁾

The Alcabala

Alfonso XI recognized the inadequacy of income taxes and turned to the alcabala, a tax on all sales, as a primary means of getting the funds he wanted. Alfonso X had authorized Burgos to levy this tax for the upkeep of its walls, but when the nobles protested in the cortes of Burgos 1272, he exempted them, even though they had consented to it. Sancho IVs similar device, the sisa, was condemned by the hermandad of 1295 and promptly abolished.⁽⁷⁰⁾

The alcabala, an indirect tax falling on nobles, clergy, and the people of the realm generally, seemed less likely to elicit an outcry than the servicios. Recalling that the Moors had just recovered Gibraltar in 1333, Alfonso XI appealed to Seville, Córdoba, and Murcia, hoping that once they consented the smaller towns would follow suit. Thus the alcabala, a tax on sales of bread, wine, fish, and clothing, was introduced in a limited way and was probably renewed when it expired three years later.⁽⁷¹⁾

Intent on besieging Algeciras, but realizing that "the workers and those who could do little were especially burdened, while the magnates [145] paid only small amounts," the king decided to extend the alcabala to all commercial transactions. As this was an extraordinary tax not previously collected, he convened four separate assemblies of varied composition at Burgos, León, Zamora, and Ávila in 1342 to obtain consent. Burgos expressed its reluctance, but by emphasizing that the siege was essential to the well-being of his kingdom and Christendom, the king persuaded Burgos and the prelates and nobles assembled there to give consent for the duration of the war. In the assemblies of León, Zamora, and Ávila there was no significant opposition.⁽⁷²⁾

Three years later, after the fall of Algeciras, the assemblies of Alcalá (art. 8,12,15), Burgos (art. 8,11-12), and León (art. 26-29) authorized the alcabala for six years. During that time no other tributes were to be levied, except moneda forera when it fell due every seven years, and fonsadera when necessary. In the future, the alcabala would not be taken as a matter of custom. Sales of horses and arms--important for military defense--were exempted, but the plea of the Castilian merchants to be exempted from customs duties so long as they paid the alcabala was refused (Burgos 1345, art. 2).⁽⁷³⁾

The cortes of Alcalá 1348 complained that men were unable to pay the alcabala and tercias due to harsh weather and a poor harvest in the preceding fall, but the king promised relief only if it were proved that they were truly in need (art. 35). In spite of this bluster, the cortes apparently consented to the continuance of the alcabala for the defense of Algeciras, Tarifa, and the frontier. In later years, the alcabala became one of the most important sources of royal revenue.⁽⁷⁴⁾

Control of Taxation

As extraordinary taxation became an inescapable fact of political and economic life, the cortes began to seek some control over the frequency of such levies, the uses to which the money was put, and the process of collection. At a time when extraordinary taxation was still a novelty, both Alfonso X and Sancho IV were able to persuade the cortes to accede to long-term levies. The cortes of Burgos 1272 gave Alfonso X an annual servicio for as long as he thought necessary, and the cortes of Burgos 1277 granted another for life. That would seem to have limited the need to convoke the cortes regularly, but that was not the case. The cortes of Haro 1288 (art. 1-3), on the other hand, enabled Sancho IV to avoid convening the cortes for at least five years by granting him [146] an annual tribute for ten years. In fulfilling the distasteful but necessary duty of voting taxes, the townsmen may have hoped that the king would never bother them again, but they soon discovered that that was not true.⁽⁷⁵⁾

Not surprisingly, the levies approved by the cortes in the minority of Fernando IV (Cuéllar 1297, Valladolid 1298, 1299, 1300, Burgos and Zamora 1301) were for one year only. This practice continued through Fernando IVs mature years (Medina del Campo and Burgos 1302, Medina del Campo 1305, and Valladolid 1 307, 1312), though the cortes of Madrid 1309 did approve one three-year grant (according to the royal chronicle, it was for an indeterminate period).⁽⁷⁶⁾

The cortes of Valladolid 1307 (art. 6) seems to have been the first to suggest that if the king lived off his customary revenues he would not have to ask for extraordinary taxes. This idea was taken up again during the minority of Alfonso XI by the cortes of Palencia 1313 (art. 4 J, 10 M), Burgos 1315 (art. 4), and Valladolid 1322 (art. 16). As that suggestion proved unrealistic, new levies were made, probably for a year at a time (Valladolid 13 14, Burgos 1315, Carrión 1317, Valladolid and Medina del Campo 13 18, Valladolid 1325, and Madrid 1329). Alfonso XIs haphazard convocation of the cortes and other assemblies thereafter made it impossible to control him.⁽⁷⁷⁾ The assemblies of Alcalá (art. 8,12, 15), Burgos (art. 8, 11-12), and León 1345 (art. 26-29), which authorized the alcabala for six years, were keenly aware that it might become a customary tribute collected without consent.

At times, especially in the minorities, the cortes tried to control the use of taxes. The Castilians at Cuéllar 1297 (art. 1) demanded that twelve townsmen be admitted to a regular place in the royal household to give advice concerning the disposition of royal revenues. For the first time in its history, the cortes of Valladolid 1300 (art. 3) explicitly limited the expenditure of taxes to a particular end, to the exclusion of all others, insisting that money given to the king (specifically to suppress his enemies and to obtain a papal dispensation) should be used "for no other purpose." Nonetheless, much of it was diverted to other ends.

Accounting of Royal Revenues

Attempts were also made to obtain an accounting of the kings finances. The cortes of Valladolid 1307 (art. 6) asked him to determine [147] how much he received from his customary revenues. To implement this proposal, Maria de Molina suggested an accounting to the magnates at Grijota 1308; they agreed but insisted that the townsmen be convened for this event. Thus the matter of balancing the budget was the main business of the cortes of Burgos 1308. When the audit was completed, a deficit of 4,5 00,000 maravedís, caused by the constant rise in noble stipends, was revealed. The king decided to decrease the stipends (art. 3), but one cannot imagine that the magnates willingly accepted a significant reduction of their income. To increase revenues, charters conceding tributes to individuals or towns (art. 4, 9) and special tax exemptions were revoked (art. 10-11), but these measures were offset by the kings confirmation of an ordinance made at Burgos 1304, remitting arrears of taxes (art. 18). Thus, financial reforms were not consistently enforced and fell far short of what was necessary. The kings pledge in the cortes of Valladolid 1312 (art. 83) to balance the budget, so that stipends and other expenses could be covered by his ordinary income without further impoverishing the people, is evidence of the continuance of this problem.⁽⁷⁸⁾

The cortes of Palencia 1313 (art. 4J, 10 M) urged Alfonso XIs regents to be limited by customary revenues, but when the cortes of Burgos 1315 demanded an audit, it became apparent that the treasury was greatly depleted and that extraordinary taxes were essential. The Castilian hermandad at Burgos in 1316 also insisted on a detailed accounting, a process that took four months. The results, presented at Carrión 1317, showed that royal revenues amounted to 1,600,000 maravedís levied on the entire realm except the frontier, while expenses (the maintenance of the king and his court, custody of castles, and noble stipends) amounted to 9,600,000, heaving a deficit of 8,000,000.⁽⁷⁹⁾

Alfonso XI, in the cortes of Valladolid 1325 (art. 1), bound himself to carry out an accounting, but it is uncertain whether be did. When he asked the cortes of Madrid 1329 to tell him what matters he should correct "with their consent," they asked him to account for his revenues, retaining a sufficient amount for himself and apportioning the remainder among the nobility (art. 24). However, there is no evidence that he acceded to this request. In neither instance does the petition to Alfonso XI appear to have been made with great urgency.

Tax Collectors

[148] The cortes also tried to control the collection of taxes, which was under the general supervision of the almojarfe mayor, usually a Jew. Infante Juan promised the cortes of Palencia 1313 (art. 31 J) that no Jew would be appointed; however, Alfonso XI named Yûsuf of Écija to the post, until the complaints of the cortes of Madrid 1329 resulted in Yûsufs dismissal and the kings pledge to appoint only Christians, with the tithe of tesorero. This, too, proved to be only a temporary change.⁽⁸⁰⁾

Jews were also employed as tax farmers. In 1276 and 1277 Alfonso X concluded five contracts with Zag de la Maleha (Isaac ibn Zadok--then the almojarife mayor) and several others, authorizing them to collect arrears, including servicios, from the campaign of Niebla in 1261 to the current year. In return, they would pay 1,670,000 maravedís. This intensive scrutiny of accounts dating back fifteen years exacerbated relations between the king and his subjects but was resolved when he cancelled the contracts in the cortes of Burgos 1277, in exchange for an annual servicio for hife.⁽⁸¹⁾ Sancho IV made a similar contract with Abraham el Barchilón in 1287, but opposition soon forced him to abrogate the contract in the cortes of Haro 1288 (art. 1-18, 26-27) in return for a servicio for ten years.⁽⁸²⁾

From the cortes of Palencia 1286 (art. 10) onward, the constant reiteration of demands that taxes be collected by knights and good men of the towns, to the exclusion of Jews, nobles, clerics, and other officials, suggests that the king continued to farm his taxes and to entrust their collection to those who were not townsmen.⁽⁸³⁾

In some places a capitation or poll tax (por cabeza) was payable in a fixed amount, but usually a list (padrón) of taxpayers was prepared with an estimate of their wealth determined by an inquest among their neighbors, so that each man paid proportionate to his worth. In the cortes of Haro 1288 (art. 20), Sancho IV required new padrones to be drawn up each year so that levies would not be made by head, but the cortes of Medina del Campo 1318 (art. 10) acknowledged that payment might be either by head or by assessment. Charges were made at Madrid 1339 (art. 2) that in the preparation of taxrolls, wealth was often deliberately concealed or underestimated.⁽⁸⁴⁾

According to the cortes of Burgos 1315 (art. 6), no man was liable for more than he was assessed, nor could he be forced to pay anothers [149] capitation tax (Madrid 1329, art. 32). If he had no property that could be taken for taxes, he could not be seized for nonpayment (Burgos 1301, art. 2; Zamora 1301, art. 20), for as the cortes of Valladolid 1312 (art. 10) declared, this was "contrary to God and to law." If he had other chattels, his oxen, his wheat, or his clothing or that of his family could not be seized.⁽⁸⁵⁾

Tax collectors were authorized to seize the goods of taxpayers only where they resided; movable property had to be sold to pay the kings taxes within nine days and real estate in thirty. If taxpayers attempted to defraud the king by refusing to purchase property thus offered for sale, five or six of the richest men of the community could be compelled to buy it (Valladolid 1293, art. 11 C).⁽⁸⁶⁾ Local magistrates were empowered to resolve any disputes.⁽⁸⁷⁾

Tax collectors were expected to render accounts to their superiors. Ordinary collectors did so in the seat of the bishopric where they resided (Palencia 1313, art. 39 J), but principal collectors appeared in the kings household (Burgos 1315, art. 6) before two knights or good men from Castile, León, Extremadura, and Andalusia (Valladolid 1322, art. 2l).⁽⁸⁸⁾ In no case could a town be held responsible for malfeasance by one of the tax collectors.⁽⁸⁹⁾

Extraordinary Taxation

The development of extraordinary taxation is the principal characteristic of this period. As fiscal requirements mounted, new sources of revenue had to be found. Although the king at times acted arbitrarily in levying taxes, he often acknowledged his duty to seek consent and convoked the cortes for that purpose. Yet he could not expect the passive consent of an inert and unthinking body of men. He had to justify his request, and the cortes, admitting the validity of his argument, had to assist him. Taxation thus was a collaborative activity involving both the king and the cortes.

The king first tried to meet his newly developing needs by altering the coinage, and then promised not to tamper with it further in return for moneda--a fixed payment of one maravedí; but as this was insufficient, servicios payable in either fixed or variable amounts became the preferred tax. The burden was not distributed equitably, and tax exemptions vitiated the entire process. The nobles and clergy were [150] ordinarily exempt, although the clergy and the vassals of the nobility were taxed from time to time. Monastic communities, more often than not, were exempted. It is one of the ironies of the age that the knights of the towns who usually represented the municipalities, together with their families, were often exempted, at the request of the cortes.⁽⁹⁰⁾ Thus, taxation fell most heavily on merchants, artisans, and peasants. By contrast, the alcabala had the virtue of affecting all classes.

As time passed, the cortes recognized the dangers inherent in the concession of servicios for life or for long terms and opted to limit them, usually to one year. In at least one instance, the cortes strictly defined the purpose of the grant (Valladolid 1300). While occasionally asking to see the kings books, or urging him to adhere to a budget, the cortes did not establish a permanent, effective, and independent system of budgetary review.

Ideally, the cortes preferred the king to live frugally on his ordinary revenues and not to trouble the people for exceptional taxes. He was expected, unrealistically, to defend the realm, administer justice, and maintain internal order on the basis of an inadequate revenue structure. Whenever the cortes did recognize the legitimacy of his needs, it also objected to any attempt to recover arrears of taxes, declaring that the people were being reduced to poverty.⁽⁹¹⁾ In sum, the attitude of the cortes toward taxation was confusing and contradictory.

A European Perspective

The experience of other western European monarchies was similar. In Portugal, Afonso III obtained a monetágio from the cortes of Leiria in 1254 by pledging to maintain the coinage for seven years. He also had to admit, in the cortes of Coimbra in 1261, that he could not devalue the coinage without the consent of the cortes. The general reluctance to accept extraordinary taxes was reflected in Pedro IIIs guarantee to the Catalan corts of Barcelona in 1283 that he would not introduce any new taxes without consent. Concern about the use of tax monies led the Catalan corts of Monzón in 1289 to appoint a commission to supervise collection. Eventually this resulted in the development of the Generalitat, a body representing the corts when it was not in session.⁽⁹²⁾

Philip VI of France tacitly accepted the principle of consent when, [151] in return for a sales tax, he assured the Estates of Languedoil in 1343 that he would maintain a sound money. During the crisis of 1355-1356, the Estates also tried to control collection and disbursement.⁽⁹³⁾ Edward III, declaring that a wool tax granted by the English parliament in 1340 should not be taken as a precedent, pledged to seek consent for future taxes. The parliament in 1341 asked to examine royal accounts, but this did not become a standard practice for many years.⁽⁹⁴⁾ Although several precedents were established at this time, their full implementation did not come until much later.

1. Miguel Angel Ladero Quesada, "Las transformaciones de la fiscalidad regia castellano-leonesa en la segunda mital del siglo XIII (1252-1312)," Historía de la Hacienda española (Homenaje al Profesor García de Valdeavellano) (Madrid 1982), 323-324; "Les Cortes de Castille et la politique financière de la Monarchie 1252-1369," Parliaments, Estates and Representation 4 (1984): 107-116; OCallaghan, "The Cortes and Royal Taxation during the Reign of Alfonso X of Castile," Traditio 27(1971): 379-398.

2. Juan Gil de Zamora, Liber de preconiis Hispaniae, III, 2-4, pp. 27-41; Alvaro Pelayo, Speculum regum, 240, 250.

3. Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1254-1293, no. 26, pp. 41-42; Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 32, pp. 75-76; González Díez, Burgos, no. 125, p. 212.

4. MFIV, II, nos. 3-4, 541, 543-544, 546, pp. 7-13, 789-791, 793-799, 800-805; Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 63, pp. 140-145; Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1294-1316, nos. 453-454, pp. 288-296.

5. González Díez, Burgos, no. 44, pp. 129-130; Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 32, pp. 75-76; CAX, 75, pp. 59-60.

6. CLC, I, 99-106; CSIV, 8, p. 86.

7. Martín, Salamanca, no. 465, pp. 592-593; CFIV, 8-9, pp. 119-121.

8. CAXI, 12, 40,80, pp. 182, 199, 222; Barrios García, Alba de Tormes, no. 29, pp. 97-99.

9. González Díez, Burgos, no. 44, pp. 129-130.

10. Post, "Plena Postestas and Consent in Medieval Assemblies," Studies, 91-162.

11. González, Alfonso VIII, II, no. 344, pp. 522-524; Rodrigo, De rebus Hispaniae, VIII, 3, pp. 177-178.

12. Les Registres de Grégoire IX, ed. Lucíen Auvray (Paris 1896-1910), II, nos. 3315-3316, cols. 473-474; Les Registres de Innocent IV, ed. Elie Berger (Paris 1884-1921), I, no. 2538, p. 377.

13. Ballesteros, "Cortes de 1252," 114-143, art. 44; Martin, Salamanca, nos. 255, 262, pp. 341-342, 352-354; MHE, I, nos. 34-35, pp. 70-75; OCallaghan, "Ecclesiastical Estate," 191- 192.

14. Les Registres de Clément IV, ed. E. Jordan (Paris 1893-1945), nos. 890, 896, pp. 350-352; Les Registres de Nicolas III, ed. J. Cay (Paris 1898- 1938), nos. 739-741,743, Pp. 338-340,342-344.

15. José Goñi Gaztambide, Historia de la bula de la cruzada en España (Vitoria 1958), 299-300, 323-329.

16. Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1254-1293, no. 26, pp. 41-42; Fernández del Pulgar, Palencia, II, 340-341; Menéndez Pidal, Documentos, no. 201, p. 257; CDIV, 8, p. 96; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, II, 294-297; Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 71, pp. 156-158; MFIV, II, no. 213, p. 316; CAXI, 40, 177, pp. 199, 287; Suárez Fernández, "Hermandades," no. 7, pp. 58-60.

17. CLC, I, 85-86; CAX, 25, p. 22; Serrano, Covarrubias, no. 124, pp. 158- 159; CAXI, 154, p. 273.

18. Hilda Grassotti, "Un emprestíto para la conquista de Sevilla," CHE 45-46 (1967): 191-247; MHE, I, no. 33, p. 68; MFIV, II, nos. 3-4, pp. 6,11; CAXI, III, 128, 154, 183, pp. 245, 259, 273, 29l.

19. González, Alfonso IX, II, no. 167, p. 237; Martín, Salamanca, no. 260, pp. 347-350; Mingüella, Sigüenza, I, no. 261, pp. 576-578; Fernández del Pulgar, Palencia, II, 338-3 39; Loperráez, Osma, III, no. 58, pp. 8 1-83; AM Toledo, cajón 10, legajo 1, no. 1; MHE, I, nos. 4, 132, pp. 5-8, 292-295, and II, no. 177, p. 27; OCallaghan, "Begínnings," 1518-1520; "Ecclesiastical Estate," 192-193.

20. Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 225-228; CAX, 40, pp. 30-31; González Díez, Burgos, nos. 118, 120-122, 125, pp.205-210, 212; MHE, II, no.209, pp.79-80.

21. Royal letter to Seville, 12 February era 1322 (recte 1326) or 1288, AM Sevilla, Tumbo, no. 29, fol. 30r-30v; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, I, clii-cliii, clvii- clviii, clxxiv- clxxv.

22. CFIV, 1, 20, pp. 96, 169; Loaysa, Crónica, 60, pp. 152-154; CAX1, 12, 40, 80, 82, 155, 282, pp. 182, 199, 222-224, 273, 354.

23. MFIV, II, no. 3, p. 4; Fuero viejo, I.1.1; Partidas (III.18.10).

24. Fernández del Pulgar, Palencia, II, 340-341; Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1254-1293, no. 26, pp. 41-42.

25. CLC, I, 85-86; CAX, 21, 23-25, pp. 17, 21-22 González Díez, Burgos, no. 40, pp. 124-125; Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 23, p. 67.

26. CAX, 18, 47, pp. 13, 35; González Díez, Burgos, no. 42, pp. 127-128; AC Toledo, A3A17; AM León, no. 14; MHE, I, no. 137, p. 305; Palacio, Madrid, I, 119-122; Miguel Vigil, Oviedo, no. 36, p. 63; UbietoArteta, Cuéllar, no. 30, pp. 73-74; González, Colección, no. 59, pp. 189-190.

27. González Diez, Burgos, no. 44, pp. 129- 130; AC Toledo, Z8D41; Menéndez Pidal, Documentos, no. 201, p. 257; Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 787, 793, 838; Procter, Curia, 191-192.

28. MHE, I, no. 140, pp. 308-324; Yitzhak Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Philadelphia 1966), II, 126-128.

29. AM León, nos. 15-17; MHE, I, nos. 140- 141, pp. 308-324; Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, nos. 32, 34, pp. 75-76, 78-79; Colección diplomática de Riaza (1258-1457) (Segovia 1959), no. 3, pp. 8-9; Miguel Vigil, Oviedo, no. 41, p. 75; Fernández del Pulgar, Palencia, III, 323; Berganza, Antigüedades, II, no. 183, p. 492; Juan Agapito y Revilla, Los Privilegios de Valladolid (Valladolid 1906), no. 33-XIV, p. 55; Colmenares, Segovia, I, 412-413; Mingüella, Sigüenza, I, no. 240, pp. 622-624; Fidel Fita, "La Guardia, villa del Partido de Lillo, Provincia de Toledo, datos históricos," BRAH 11(1887): 413-414; Floriano, Cáceres, no. 8, p. 20; Dionisio Nogales Delicado, Historia de la muy noble y leal ciudad de Ciudad Rodrigo (Ciudad Rodrigo 1882), 65; Barrios García, Alba de Tormes, no. 13, p. 51.

30. Escudero de la Peña, "Súplica hecha al Papa Juan XXI para que absolviese al rey de Castilla, Don Alfonso X, del juramento de no acuñar otra moneda que los dineros prietos," RABM 2 (1872): 58-59.

31. CAX, 68-69, PP. 53-54; Ballesteros, Alfonso X, 785.

32. MHE, I, no. 153, pp. 339-341; González Diez, Burgos, nos. 77, 87-89, 92, 94, pp. 158-160, 169-172, 175, 177.

33. CAX, 75, pp. 59-60.

34. González Díez, Burgos, nos. 118, 120-122, 125, pp. 205-210, 212; MHE, II, no. 209, pp. 78-80; González, Colección, VI, no. 83, pp. 23 1-233; CODOM, III, no. 77, pp. 70-71.

35. González Díez, Burgos, no. 125, p. 212; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, I, cl-cli, clvii, clxxiii, and III, nos. 5, 83, pp. ii-iii, liii-liv.

36. Loaysa, Crónica, 57, p. 146; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, III, nos. 1,15, pp.i, xi; González Díez, Burgos, no. 135, p. 220.

37. Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 38, pp. 82-87; Baer, Jews, I,131-132.

38. Gaibrois, Sancho IV, I, clx- clxiii, clxvii-clxviíi, clxx, clxxviii, and III, no. 108, p. lxix.

39. CLC, I, 99-106; López Ferreiro, Historia, V, 45, pp. 123-124; Procter, Curia, 194; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, I, xxx, xxxvii, li, lv, lxiii, lxvi, lxix, lxxi, lxxxvii-lxxxviii.

40. CSIV, 8-9, p. 86; CLC, I, 125; Eliseo Vidal Beltrán, "Privilegios y franquicias de Tarifa," Hispania 17 (1957): 3-78.

41. Gaibrois, Sancho IV, I, pp. xxx-xxxi, xxxvi-xxxix, xlviii, lí, lv, lxiii, lxxx, xci.

42. Barrios García, Alba de Tormes, no. 16, pp. 57-58; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, III, nos. 500, 506, 592, pp. cccliii-cccliv, cccxlvi-cccxlvii, cdiv-cdvii.

43. CSIV, 10-11, pp. 87-89; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, II, 294-297, and III, nos. 524-529, 535-540, 544-546, 548, 562, 570-571, pp. ccclx-ccclxv, ccclxviii-ccclxxiv, cclxxxi-ccclxxxii, ccclxxxvi-ccclxxxviui; "Tarifa y la política de Sancho IV de Castilla," BRAH 76(1920): 430-433,437-439, and BRAH 77 (1920): 212-215.

44. MFIV, II, nos. 1,3-4, pp. 1-13; Valdeavellano, "Carta de Hermandad," 70-74; CFIV, I, pp. 93, 96; Loaysa, Crónica, 60-61, pp. 152-154; CLC, I,134.

45. CFIV, 2, 4-6, 8-9, pp. 108, 111, 115-116, 119-122; MFIV, II, no. 135, pp. 188- 189; Miguel Vigil, Oviedo, nos. 69-70, pp. 110-111; Martín, Salamanca, no. 465, pp. 592-593; ACToledo Z8D43.

46. Loaysa, Crónica, 87, p. 195; CFIV, 10-11, pp. 125-127, 133.

47. José Sánchez Herrero, Concilios provinciales y sínodos toledanos de los siglos XIV y XV(Seville 1976), no. 1, pp. 165-172; Martínez Marina, Teoría, BAE, CCXIX, 201; MFIV, II, nos. 208, 214, 223-224, pp. 307, 316, 335-338; López Ferreiro, Fueros, 313-314.

48. CFIV, 11, p. 133; MFIV, II, no. 271, pp. 404-405; Ubíeto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 54, pp. 210-215; Palacio, Madrid, I, 181-188.

49. CFIV, 13-14, pp. 139-140, 144, 146; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, no. 120, pp. 3 15-316; MFIV, II, no. 349, p. 516.

50. CFIV, 15, p. 151; CLC, I, 184-197; AC Toledo, Z8D48, Z8D49; Francisco Hernández, Los Cartularios de Toledo: Catálogo documental (Madrid 1985), no. 513, p. 453; Villar y Macías, Salamanca, IV, 93; González Mínguez, Fernando IV, no. 23, p. 374; MFIV , II, no. 385, pp. 565-566; Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1294-1316, no. 420, pp. 244-245.

51. Colmeiro, I, 209; Piskorski, 150; González Mínguez, Fernando IV, 242.

52. CFIV, 16, p. 160; AM Cuenca, legajo 2, no. 5; MFIV, II, no. 408, pp. 605-607; OCallaghan, "Cortes de Fernando IV," 324-328.

53. CFIV, 16, p. 162; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, nos. 192-195, pp. 364-365.

54. CFIV, 20, p. 169; AC Toledo, Z8D410; Hernández, Toledo, no. 515, p.454; MFIV, II, nos. 243, 582-583, pp. 365-367, 861-863.

55. Juan Ignacio Ruiz de la Peña, "La hermandad leonesa de 1313," León medieval (León1978), 139-164; CLC, I, 223, 236.

56. Suárez Fernández, "Hermandades," no. 7, pp. 58-60; José Antonio García Luján, Privilegios reales de la Catedral de Toledo (1086-1462). Formación del patrimonio de la S.I.C.P a través de las donaciones reales (Toledo 1982), II, no. 99, pp. 233-235; Serrano, Covarrubias, no. 124, pp. 158-159; Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1294-1316, no. 469, pp. 319-320.

57. CAXI, 8, p. 179, and GCXI, ch. 9, vol. I, p. 295; Miguel Vigil, Oviedo, no. 104, p. 169; CLC, I,316 (Carrión 1317, art. 45).

58. Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 71, pp. 156-158; López Ferreiro, Historia, no. 61, pp. 175-178; Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1294-1316, no. 491, pp. 360- 363; CAXI, 8-9, p. 180; GCAXI, ch. 10, 12, vol. I, pp. 296, 299.

59. CAXI, 10, 12, pp. 180-182; GCAXI, ch. 13, 16, vol. I, pp. 301, 307; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, no. 337, p. 472; Barrios García, Alba de Tormes, no. 29, pp. 97-99.

60. CAXI 19-27, 29, 31, pp. 187-193, 195; GCAXI, ch. 24-34, 40, 42, vol. I, pp. 327-346, 353, 359 and ch. 34, vol. II, pp. 471-472; Giménez Soler, Juan Manuel, no. 380, p. 504.

61. CAXI, 40, p. 199; GCAXI, ch. 52, vol. I, p. 378; González, Colección, V, no. 107, pp. 319-320.

62. López Ferreiro, Historia, VI, nos. 14-15, pp. 61-72; ES, XVI, 253; CAXI, 80, pp. 222-224; GCAXI, ch. 101, 103, vol. I, pp. 467-468, 472-473.

63. CAXI,, l54-l55, 177, l96, 253-255, pp.273-274,287,298, 330-331; GCAXI, ch. 176-177, 332-335, vol. II, pp. 125-127,443-449.

64. Ladero Quesada, "Transformaciones," 332-333; Asunción López Dapena, Cuentas y gastos (1292-1294) del Rey D. Sancho IV el Bravo (1284- 1295) (Córdoba 1984).

65. González, Alfonso IX, II, no. 167, p. 237; CLC, I, 85-86; CAX, 18, p. 13; MHE, I, nos. 137, 140-141, pp. 305, 308-324; MFIV, II, no. 271, pp. 404-405.

66. Hilda Grassotti, "Un emprestíto para la conquista de Sevilla" CHE 45-46(1967): 191-247; González Díez, Burgos, nos. 44, 77, pp. 129-130, 158-160; CAXI, 27, pp. 191-192.

67. MHE, I, no. 140, pp. 309-310; CAX, 40, p. 31; González, Colección, VI, no. 258, pp. 117-118; Klein, The Mesta, 257; Procter, Curia, 195-196.

68. Zamora 1301 (art. 33-34); Medina del Campo 1302 (art. 7 L); Valladolid 1318 (art. 16); Madrid 1339 (art.4, 28); Alcalá 1345 (art. 7), 1348 (art.43).

69. CAX, 26, 39, pp. 22, 30; CLC, I, 85-86; Quintana Prieto, San Pedro de los Montes, no. 375, p.483.

70. CAX, 18, p. 13; González Díez, Burgos, nos. 38, 85, pp. 121, 168; Gaibrois, Sancho IV, III, no. 592, pp. cdiv-cdvii; CFIV, 1, p. 93; MFIV, II, nos. 1,4, pp. 1-2, 8.

71. CAXI, 128, p. 259; GGAXI, ch. 150, vol. II, pp. 75-76; AM Murcia, Cartulario 1332- 1382 Eras, fol. 110v- 111v; Salvador de Moxó, La Alcabala. Sus origenes, concepto y naturaleza (Madrid 1963).

72. CAXI, 259-263, pp. 335-338.

73. Miguel Angel Ladero Quesada and Manuel González, "La población en la Frontera de Gibraltar y el Repartimiento de Vejer (Siglos XIII y XIV)," HID 4(1977), no. 21, pp. 244-245.

74. Pedro I, l8 January 1351, CODOM, VII, no. 19, pp. 23-28.

75. CAX, 18, p. 13; MHE, IU, nos. 137, 140-141, pp. 305, 308-324; OCallaghan, "The Cortes and Royal Taxation," 387-391.

76. CFIV, 2, 4-6, 8-11, 13-16, 20, pp. 108, 111, 115-116, 119-122, 125-127,133, 139-140, 144,146,151, 162, 169.

77. CAXI, 8,10,12, 40, 80, pp. 179-182, 199, 222-224; García Luján, Toledo, II, no. 99, pp. 233-235; Serrano, Covarrubias, no. 124, pp. 158-159; Pereda Llarena, Burgos 1294-1316, no. 469, pp. 319-320; Miguel Vigil, Oviedo, no. 104, p. 169; Barrios García, Alba de Tormes, no. 29, pp 97-99; González, Colección, V, no. 1207, pp. 319-320; López Ferreiro, Historia, VI, nos. 14-15, pp. 61-72.

78. CFIV, 15-16, pp. 159-160; AM Cuenca, legajo 2, no. 5; OCallaghan, "Cortes de Fernando IV," 324-3 28; MFIV, II, no. 408, pp. 605-607.

79. CAXI, 8-10, pp. 179-181.

80. CAXI, 80, 82, pp. 22 3-224; Sánchez Belda, Galicia, no. 1041, p. 441 (12 December 1329).

81. MHE, I, no. 140, Pp. 309-324; OCallaghan, "Cortes and Royal Taxation," 390-391; Baer, Jews, I,126-128.

82. Gaibrois, Sancho IV, I, clxxx-clxxxviii; CSIV, 4, pp. 7 5-76; Baer, Jews, I, 132-133; Procter, Curia, 200.

83. Haro 1288 (art. 20-21); Valladolid 1293 (art. 9 CE); 1295 (art. 5); 1299 (art. 13); 1300 (art. 3,7); Burgos 1301 (art. 16, 19); Zamora 1301 (art. 14); Medina del Campo 1302 (art. 5-6,8,19); 1305 (art. 9-10 C, 8 E, 9 L); Valladolid 1307 (art. 16); Palencia 1313 (art. 7,31 J, 20 M); Burgos 1315 (art. 6); Carrión 1317 (art. 8, 20, 50); Valladolid 1322 (art. 18-19, 82); 1325 (art. 24-25); Madrid 1339 (art. 20).

84. Carrión 1317 (art. 45); Alcalá 1348 (art. 21, 50); Ubieto Arteta, Cuéllar, no. 54, p. 122; MFIV , II, no. 491, p. 706; Serrano, Covarrubias, no. 118, pp. 153-154.

85. Sevílle 1252 (art. 36); 1261 (art. 18); Palencia 1286 (art. 13); Burgos 1301 (art. 3); Zamora 1301 (art. 20); Burgos 1308 (art. 12); Madrid 1339 (art. 19).

86. Seville 1252 (art. 34); Jerez 1268 (art. 42-43); Haro 1288 (art. 23); Valladolid 1300 (art. 8,16); Burgos 1301 (art. 4); Medina del Campo 1302 (art. 16); Burgos 1308 (art. 25); Palencia 1313 (art. 7J, 20 NI); Burgos 1315 (art. 6); Carrión 1317 (art. 50); Valladolid 1322 (art. 18).

87. Madrid 1339 (art. 2, 27); León 1345 (art. 3, 20); Alcalá 1348 (art. 28); Valladolid 1293 (art. 10, 18 C).

88. Valladolid 1293 (art. 9 C); Carrión 1317 (art. 13).

89. Valladolid 1300 (art. 16); Burgos 1301 (art. 4); Zamora 1301 (art. 20); Carrión 1317 (art. 17); Valladolid 1322 (art. 26).

90. MHE, II, no. 177, p. 27; Valladolid 1293 (art. 14a, 14b); Zamora 1301 (art. 35); Medina del Campo 1305 (art. 11 L); Valladolid 1307 (art. 35 to Vitoria); Palencia 1313 (art. 26, 30, 36, 39 M); Burgos 1315 (art. 40-42, 44); Medina del Campo 1318 (art. 11); Valladolid 1322 (art. 68-70, 74); Salvador de Moxó, "Exenciones tributarias en Castilla a fines de la edad media," Hispania 2 1 (1961): 163-188.

91. Haro 1288 (art. 4-27); Valladolid 1293 (art. 9 C, 14 M, 15 LE); 1312 (art. 105); Carrión 1317 (art. 10-12, 45); Valladolid 1325 (art. 34-35, 39); Madrid 1339 (art. 3).

92. Portugaliae Monumenta Historica, Leges, I,183,196-197, 210; José Coroleu and José Pella y Forgas, Las Cortes catalanas, 2d ed. (Barcelona 1876), 114-115.

93. John Bell Henneman, Royal Taxation in Fourteenth Century France: The Development of War Financing 1322-1356 (Princeton 1971), 167-177, 227- 238, 264-301.

94. Statutes of the Realm, I, 289-290; Rotuli Parliamentorum, II, 126-131.