[24] Given that a political structure had to be built from nothing in the newly reconquered city and tierra of Córdoba, it was inevitable that the new government would owe much to previous experience in circumstances of this kind. In the early thirteenth century, the prevailing wisdom was that each town should be governed by what was called an 'open council' (concejoabierto), that is, an assembly of all the male householders (vecinos) to discuss their common concerns and make decisions. The fuero of Usagre (Badajoz) and Cáceres, for example, envisaged such meetings taking place after mass on Sundays. ⁽¹⁾ Magistrates were appointed by the king, sometimes after election by the vecinos, to represent his overall authority, but there was no provision for the setting-up of citizens as councillors to make decisions on behalf of their fellows. This definition of the council was never superseded in any Castilian town subject directly to the Crown and documents were still addressed by Ferdinand and Isabella firstly to the concejo and only then to any other officials who might represent or govern it.

Much of the interest in the governmental structure of late medieval Córdoba centres around the office of jurado. As far as the major Andalusian towns are concerned, it seems probable, as Hipólito Sancho argues in the case of Jerez, that the concejo abierto never operated. Instead, they were divided into parishes, for governmental as well as ecclesiastical purposes, and in each parish a citizen was sworn (jurado) to represent his fe1lows and govern the town in conjunction with the king's magistrates. It appears that from the earliest times Córdoba's chief magistrate and constable were not elected but appointed by the king. ⁽²⁾ The ancestors of the late medieval jurados, however, appear for the first time in a document of 22 October 1258, which speaks of a representative of each parish (collación) who took part in the government of the town. ⁽³⁾ Another document, from Ferdinand IV's reign [25] (9 January 1296) refers to the duties of the jurados in keeping order in their parishes and in guarding the city walls, but the first clear description of jurados as they were to operate in the late fifteenth century is to be found in a document of 1320. Here Alfonso XI indicates that they were the spokesmen of their parishes and the king's agents, with the duty of informing him about the way in which the town was being governed. ⁽⁴⁾ There were two jurados for each of the fifteen parishes, these being conveniently divided into two groups. The former Medina contained, under Christian rule, the parishes of St Mary (the Cathedral), St John, All Saints', St Dominic, St Saviour, St Michael, St Nicholas 'de la Villa' and St Bartholomew. The Ajarqula to the east contained the parishes of St Mary Magdalene, St Lawrence, St Marina, St Andrew, St Peter, St James and St Nicholas 'del Ajarquía'.

The definition of the role of the jurados in the early fourteenth century coincided with the introduction to the city of a permanent council, whose members were known as regidores. The exact date of their introduction to Córdoba is not known, but the new council was the result of a policy carried out on a wide scale by Alfonso XI. Under the new system, the magistrates (alcaldes mayores) continued to be appointed by the Crown, but they were joined by twenty-four regidores, nominated by the Crown, who were commonly known, from their number, as veinticuatros. A council of similar size and type was introduced to Seville at about the same time.

The magistrates placed over the towns by the king were naturally assisted by officers to enforce the law and the post of alguacil mayor (chief constable) was established in Córdoba, as in other royal towns, in the thirteenth century. However, the simple structure of two magistrates, a chief constable, a council of regidores and two jurados from each parish was not regarded as adequate for the successful government of the town and extra officials were soon added. In late fifteenth-century Córdoba, there was an alcalde de la justicia, who heard criminal cases in daily audience at the public prison. There were alcaldes ordinarios for civil cases in the first instance. The alguacil mayor of Córdoba was provided with a deputy, the alguacil menor, and together they led a force of alguaciles de espada, or parish constables, one of whom was allocated to each parish. ⁽⁵⁾

The orderly conduct of public and private life in Castile depended on the recording of transactions by escribanos públicos (public scribes). Public business in royal towns was placed in the hands of these escribanos by the Siete Partidas of Alfonso X, and by the mid-fifteenth [26] century it was established by ordinance that there were to be twenty-four escribanos públicos in Córdoba. ⁽⁶⁾ Their duties were various. They were required to record legal proceedings before the magistrates, and gradually new tasks were given to them, as royal officials proliferated in the town. The escribanos of Córdoba, as a body, were required to provide one of their number to work in each of the city's parishes. The proceedings of the meetings of the regidores were recorded by a member of that council entitled the escribano del concejo. He normally appointed a deputy from among the escribanos públicos, who actually composed the records of council acts which are now one of the main sources of information about the government of medieval Castilian towns.

By the late fifteenth century, the public authorities in Córdoba had acquired a large staff of officials, ranging from the alférez, or town standard-bearer, whose duty it was to lead the town's forces into battle, to the council messenger and the town-crier. The most exalted of these officials was the procurador mayor del concejo, the council proctor, who represented that body whenever one man was required to speak in its name. The regidores also named two of their number, in addition to the procurador mayor, as proctors whenever the Crown summoned the Cortes, or parliament. Córdoba was one of the seventeen Castilian towns represented in this assembly, probably because it was the capital of the kingdom of the same name.

The council employed a number of other officials to help expedite its business. The most important of these were lawyers (letrados), who played a crucial role in many council decisions, a town-crier to publicise royal and municipal measures, trumpeters and drummers to accompany the council troops and perform on ceremonial occasions, a messenger (correo), a chaplain and an official to supervise the council porters (fiel de la portería).

Some of these minor officials helped to enforce the law. One of them was the alguacil de las entregas, a constable who appears to have been responsible for the collection of entregas, the payments required to settle debts or other legal cases. ⁽⁷⁾ Goods and cash collected in this way were stored in the council meeting-house, though in 1498 the Crown told the council to provide a special building for the purpose, and representatives were sent to examine the working of such a house in Seville. ⁽⁸⁾ There was a municipal gaol for offenders sentenced by the local magistrates. A fiel (literally a faithful or reliable man) was appointed by the council to supervise its running from the official point of view, [27] while the interests of the prisoners were supposedly defended by an official who was chosen each year by the regidores from outside the council to be their representative, that is, the procurador de la cárcel. ⁽⁹⁾

The council's property in rents and land, the propios, was supervised and administered by the council's mayordomo. This office was included in the original fuero and its holder had overall responsibility for the public accounts, with which he was assisted by the public accountant (contador del concejo). He was also helped by a collector of funds (cobrador de la cuenta pública).

In addition to the mayordomo and his staff, there were other officials to supervise public works, trade and agriculture. For public works, the council provided two clerks (alarifes) and a collector of funds. It also appointed two mayordomos de las calles, who were responsible for the cleanliness of the streets. The staff of the custom-house (casa de la aduana) was also provided largely by the council. It consisted of an alcalde and a porter, who were supervised by a fiel on behalf of the council. Other fieles performed a similar task for the various trades of the town. They and the veedores (examiners) were responsible for checking the weights and measures used by traders and for supervising the sale of salt, flour and fish, the trades of tanning and dye and cloth manufacture and the work of silversmiths. ⁽¹⁰⁾

As will become clear later, Córdoba council was heavily involved in disputes over land boundaries. It employed a fiel de los cortijos to supervise the boundaries of farms, with the help of medidores de tierras, who carried out the actual measurement of the lands in question. When the council became involved in legal action over boundaries, it appointed a procurador de términos to take charge of its dealings with lawyers.
 
 

The arrangements made by Alfonso XI for the government of royal towns by alcaldes mayores and councils of regidores, helped by jurados and escribanos, did not prove to be definitive. As so often, later changes took the form of additions to the structure of government rather than the replacement of existing parts. By far the most significant change which took place between the mid-fourteenth century and the beginning of Ferdinand and Isabella's reign was the introduction of the corregidor (or asistente) as the Crown's representative with overall control of the government of its towns.

The idea of a magistrate with powers to supervise the actions of his [28] colleagues in the locality had already found a place in Castilian practice before the Trastámara line seized the throne. In Andalusia, the adelantado mayor (chief governor) heard appeals against the verdicts of the alcaldes mayores in towns such as Córdoba. However, the new dynasty soon concluded that the major royal towns needed to be supervised more closely and the post of corregidor ('corrector' of abuses) was created. John I's 1383 legislation on the subject described the corregidor as an arbitrator, who was to be sent by the king to towns where the existing officials had proved unsatisfactory. He was to stay only as long as it took to rectify the situation and his salary was to be paid by the local community whose misdemeanours had caused him to be sent. The law also stated that a corregidor would only be sent if requested by the town concerned, but this notion never bore much relation to reality. ⁽¹¹⁾

Probably because of their temporary nature, little information is available about the early appointments of corregidores. However, it is clear that the reign of Henry III (1390-1406) was the important period for the development of the office. ⁽¹²⁾ The first known corregidor of Seville (in this town, the Corregidor was known as the asistente after 1459) was appointed in 1406. Two men held the office in that year, Dr Juan Alonso de Toro and Dr Pedro Sánchez del Castillo. They were succeeded by Dr Luis Sánchez de Badajoz in 1407, but thereafter no appointment is known until 1417. ⁽¹³⁾ According to Mitre Fernández, the first corregidor in Córdoba was Sánchez del Castillo, who served from 1402 until his appointment to the same office in Seville. He was replaced in Córdoba by Sánchez de Badajoz, who also moved later to Seville. ⁽¹⁴⁾ Information on succeeding corregidores in Córdoba is not available until 1452, but it is probable that appointments were intermittent, as in other towns in the region. Nearly all the early corregidores in Andalusia were lawyers from the royal administration and lawcourts, suggesting that the Crown was still concerned to use the corregidor as a means of controlling the towns more closely. When a corregidor was appointed, he was given the supreme position in the government of the town concerned and no alcaldes mayores were chosen under the local ordinances during his period of office. As soon as he was withdrawn by the Crown, the local alcaldes mayores were restored. In John II's reign (1406-54), the alternation between the two systems could be fairly frequent.

The king had another resource if he was dissatisfied with the government of one of his towns. This was to appoint a pesquisidor (investigator) [29] who generally came, like the corregidor, from the royal administration, to examine the situation in a local community and either make a report to the king or take action in his name, as appropriate. The procuradores at the Cortes of Burgos in 1430 asked the king to appoint pesquisidores to examine the conduct of corregidores and ensure that they did not abuse their powers. ⁽¹⁵⁾ John II gave an evasive reply, but gradually the idea was put into practice. There had been pesquisidores before this date, but they had been appointed, like judges with special commissions from the Crown, to investigate a specific problem.

In the mid-fifteenth century, it seems that corregidores were still appointed to Córdoba from time to time. They were servants of the Crown, such as Gómez de Avila, who was a guarda real, a member of the Crown's elite military corps, and Dr Alonso de Paz, who was a judge (oidor) in the high court, the audiencia. Unlike the practice in some towns, it was not customary in Córdoba for the local magistrates and constable to be suspended during the corregidor's term of office. Thus noblemen such as the alcalde mayor, Don Alonso de Aguilar, continued to govern the town, more or less regardless of royal officials sent in from outside. ⁽¹⁶⁾

This state of affairs changed drastically after Ferdinand and Isabella's visit to the area in 1477. Until then, the existing arrangements for the government of Andalusia had perforce to continue, because the Monarchs were preoccupied with the invasion from Portugal on behalf of Isabella's rival for the Castilian throne, Henry IV's daughter Joanna, known as 'La Beltraneja'. The region was left in the hands of the local magnates, many of whom were in varying degrees favourable to Joanna's cause. Once free, at least temporarily, of the Portuguese threat, Isabella went to Andalusia. When she arrived in Seville, in July 1477, she deprived the duke of Medina Sidonia of the governorship of the royal castles (reales alcázares), the dockyards (atarazanas) and the castle of Triana, and established corregidores on a regular basis. After the queen had been joined by her husband, they adjourned to Jerez and, on 20 October, provided the town with its first corregidor appointed directly by the Crown, and not by a magnate, since 1456. ⁽¹⁷⁾

In the case of Córdoba, a corregidor was introduced before Ferdinand and Isabella's visit to Andalusia. During 1476, Diego de Merlo, a guarda real and member of the royal council, became corregidor of Córdoba. At first he was accepted by Don Alonso de Aguilar, who was anxious to lose any reputation he may have acquired for being favourable to Joanna's cause. However, Merlo's attempts to mediate in [30] a long-standing dispute between Don Alonso and the count of Cabra quickly led to a breakdown in relations, and Isabella apparently suffered the embarrassment of having to ask Don Alonso to release her corregidor from prison. In July and September of 1477, there are references in royal documents to Diego Osorio, the maestresala (literally, head-waiter), a senior courtier, as corregidor, but for the sake of establishing her authority in Córdoba, the queen felt bound to restore Merlo to his post. Once the gesture had been made, however, the continuing need for good relations with Don Alonso became paramount and on 7 November, Merlo was transferred, in what might be seen as promotion, to the office of asistente of Seville. He was succeeded in Córdoba by Francisco de Valdés, a permanent member (contino) of the royal household. ⁽¹⁸⁾ At the same time, the alcázar (castle) and the tower at the south end of the bridge over the Guadalquivir, known as the Calahorra, were removed from the charge of the alguacil mayor, the count of Cabra, and entrusted to the corregidor.

Under Ferdinand and Isabella, there were few periods during which Córdoba had no corregidor. In October 1496, Francisco de Bobadilla died in office. The council of regidores held an emergency meeting and decided that as the permanent alcalde mayor, Don Alonso de Aguilar, and alguacil mayor, the count of Cabra, were still under suspension, and the corregidor's officials had resigned as soon as he died, it was essential that the council should elect 'officials and ministers of justice and ordinary jurisdiction'. The existing officials in Córdoba's tierra were told to remain at their posts until the Monarchs' will was known. These arrangements seem to have worked satisfactorily until the Crown appointed Alfonso Enríquez as corregidor, after three months had elapsed. ⁽¹⁹⁾

Between 1500 and 1516, there were three more breaks in the succession of corregidores and pesquisidores. In June 1506, Diego López Dávalos abandoned his post as corregidor at a time when the town was facing famine and disorder. To deal with this situation, the marquis of Priego, son of Don Alonso de Aguilar, and the count of Cabra, took up their offices as alcalde mayor and alguacil mayor, until the Crown provided a new corregidor, Don Diego Osorio, after two months had elapsed. A year later, the nobles returned, after they and the rest of the council had objected to the terms of the document renewing Osorio's appointment, and controlled the town from August until December, when new documents arrived. On the third occasion, the nobles intervened in doubtful circumstances in the summer of 1508 and the royal [31] authority had to be restored by an army of veterans from the Italian campaigns, commanded by Ferdinand himself. The system seems to have functioned smoothly thereafter. ⁽²⁰⁾

At this stage it would be useful to examine the role of the corregidor in normal conditions -- if such a phrase may ever be used -- in the reign of the Catholic Monarchs. The first point to notice is that the time spent by a corregidor in any one town was generally strictly limited. The laws of Zamora established in 1433 that a corregidor was to have no more than one term in a town and that this might not last more than two years, with the requirement that it be renewed after one. This was still the law under Ferdinand and Isabella, although Juan de Robles remained for many years in another Andalusian town, Jerez de la Frontera. ⁽²¹⁾ In Córdoba, it was normal in this period for more than one renewal to be granted to corregidores. This applied in the cases of Francisco de Valdés, Francisco de Bobadilla, Alfonso Enríquez, Diego López Dávalos and Fernando Duque de Estrada. ⁽²²⁾

One of the first concerns of the Cortes under John II was to secure adequate legal means of checking on the conduct of corregidores in office, to prevent the abuse of their wide powers. At Toledo in 1436, the Cortes obtained a pronouncement from the king to the effect that corregidores would be subject to the requirement laid down in the Partidas, that officials had to supply financial guarantees, made by fiadores, when they entered office, that they would indemnify any who were proved to have just claims against them. Also, when the corregidor came to the end of his term, he had to devote fifty days to the satisfaction of those who had complaints against his administration. ⁽²³⁾ This procedure became known as the toma de residencia and under the Catholic Monarchs it was carried out by a royal official of the same type as the corregidor himself, known either as a juez de residencia (judge of residence) or as a pesquisidor. Tomas de residencia were supposed to take place at the end of each two-year term, but although they occurred often, they did not precisely follow this pattern. In Córdoba, pesquisas or tomas de residencia are known to have taken place in 1480, 1490, 1494, 1495, 1499, 1500 and 1514. The lack of documentation on Córdoba in the 1480s may explain the long gap between investigations in that decade, but the failure of the Crown to provide jueces de residencia in the early years of the sixteenth century is well documented.

The provision of guarantees by corregidores and pesquisidores caused dissension on occasions. When Alfonso Enríquez was first received in [32] February 1497, he offered the last third of his first year's salary as a security for himself and his officials. This was no great concession, as the law stipulated that the last third of the year's salary was not to be paid in any case until the residencia had been carried out. The council insisted that the officials give their own guarantees and three veinticuatros, two jurados and one of the council's lawyers agreed to act as guarantors. This practice was later forbidden by the Crown, which required that all fiadores should be found outside the council, but in 1506 Diego Osorio had two jurados as his guarantors and in 1513 the Crown once again forbade such arrangements. ⁽²⁴⁾ In 1500, the council raised the question of financial guarantees for pesquisidores, asking the new corregidor, Diego López Dávalos, to obtain such securities from the departing pesquisidor, Lic. de Porras, and his officials, or else seize his last four months' salary. Dávalos replied that he had no power to do this and the council received no satisfaction. Another attempt was made in 1514 to obtain guarantees from a pesquisidor, but to no avail. It is worth noting that, in both cases, the council later petitioned the Crown to allow the pesquisidor in question to remain in the town as corregidor, which suggests that no personal hostility was implied in the demand for guarantees. ⁽²⁵⁾

The clearest impression of the role which Ferdinand and Isabella envisaged for the corregidor in local government is to be found in the articles issued as a pragmatic at Seville in July 1500. This lengthy and comprehensive account of the duties of a corregidor consolidated past legislation, for example, the 1485 Seville ordinances recorded by Pulgar, and attempted to ensure that this official acted as far as possible in the same way as the Monarchs would have done, had they been present. ⁽²⁶⁾ Priority was given to ensuring that the corregidor and his officials were entirely devoted to the royal interest and not either to their own or to that of the place which they were sent to govern. The salary of the corregidor was limited to the sum stated in his letter of appointment and he and his officials were confined to the tables of standard charges laid down by the Crown for their services to the public. When a corregidor was appointed, the existing alcaldes mayores and alguacil mayor were suspended without pay for his term of office. The corregidor then appointed his own officials, whom he brought in from outside. It was his responsibility to pay them out of the salary which the town gave him. ⁽²⁷⁾

The corregidor and his officials were forbidden to receive bribes in the form of gifts and promises and, indeed, they were not permitted to [33] establish any personal connection with the inhabitants of the town concerned, or bring any of their own property, such as flocks, into its territory. They might not buy property or engage in trade within the area of their jurisdiction without specific royal permission. Their most important function, however, was the legal one and, in order to keep their justice as pure as possible, they were forbidden to act in law for private clients locally, though the corregidor was permitted to further, without receiving extra payment, the legal interests of his area as a whole. The officials appointed by the corregidor had to be natives (naturales) and residents (vecinos y moradores) of another place, and if they were related to the corregidor within the fourth degree of affinity, a royal licence was required for their appointment. To ensure that the fundamental duties of the corregidor as chief magistrate were efficiently performed, it was stipulated that either he or his alcalde mayor had to be fully qualified in civil and criminal law.

When the corregidor was first appointed, he had to visit the whole término of his town within sixty days of his arrival, without extra payment, and enforce the existing scale of charges for the services of escribanos and other officials. At the end of each year of his term, he had to give the Crown an account of the state of his town, including the problems which he had encountered and the steps which he had taken to solve them. Although he was free, within these limitations, to choose his officials, all such appointments had to be approved by the Crown, which reserved the right to replace his officials at any time. He was not permitted to take clothing or lodgings or any other gift or levy from the town to which he was appointed, and he and his officials were required to administer the legal and tax systems without profit to themselves.

The corregidor had a duty to investigate any circumstance, however small, which might affect the well-being and good government of the town and its territory. He had the power to alter or remove any local laws which he regarded as unsuitable, provided that he secured the agreement of the regidores, paying particular attention to the procedure followed in the election of officers, the prevention of fraud among public officials, the supply of food to the population at reasonable prices and the maintenance of public cleanliness in streets and slaughterhouses. He was especially asked to ensure that there was a suitable public gaol in the town and that the town council kept records of its own proceedings and stored the royal documents which it received. He was to defend the town against interference from ecclesiastical courts, curb [34] the unlicensed building of towers on private houses and ensure that roads and bridges in the surrounding area were kept in good condition and that the taxes levied on travellers and their goods, including those raised by lords, had a sound legal basis and were properly collected. Strenuous efforts were to be made to secure the return of wrong-doers who took refuge from the royal justices in señoríos and, if these efforts were unsuccessful, the whereabouts of the offenders were to be reported to the Crown. The effect of this extraordinary code of instructions was to place the whole responsibility for the government of the town and its tierra on the corregidor. In order that local councils might be aware of the burden that the Crown had placed on their chief magistrate, each new corregidor had to produce the articles outlining his duties when he was received by the town.

The 1500 pragmatic also clarified the procedure to be followed in tomas de residencia. The inhabitants of the area concerned had first to be warned, by the escribanos who assisted the juez de residencia or pesquisidor, that the investigation was to take place. When it began, the pesquisidor was instructed to concern himself only with specific charges, not with vague denunciations, and to consider all evidence in favour of the corregidor as well as complaints against him. If a charge was substantiated, the pesquisidor was to give sentence, and the corregidor and other guilty parties had the right to appeal against his verdict to the royal council. The commission given to a pesquisidor was as all embracing as that of the corregidor and was similarly phrased. He took over responsibility for the government of the town during the investigation and had the power to name officials to replace those of the corregidor, who were forced to remain in the town with their master, for as long as the investigation lasted, to answer any charges which might arise. The effectiveness of these safeguards will be apparent later, but it is clear from the legislation that the corregidor was intended to be the chief representative of the Crown's authority in royal towns.

The Crown did not, however, neglect other ways of influencing the government of the towns directly under its lordship, and one of the most important of these was control over the appointment of the towns' leading officials. By determining the balance between royal, or government, influence and local pressure in the appointment of each type of [35] official, it is possible to gain some impression of the degree of political control which Ferdinand and Isabella could in practice exercise over their towns.

Until Alfonso XI introduced the council of regidores in the fourteenth century, the relationship between royal and local influences seems to have been quite simple. The king provided the alcaldes mayores and alguacil mayor and the parishes chose the jurados to represent them. When the regidores were introduced, however, the system changed. The magistrates were henceforth elected by this new permanent council, though the parishes retained their jurados. This did not, however, cause a shift in the balance towards local influence, because the veinticuatros were appointed for life by the Crown. As a result, Alfonso Xl's measure did little or nothing to increase the vitality of local institutions and neither he nor his successors seem to have regarded such an aim as desirable. Nonetheless, there were complications in the appointment of regidores which merit study, and it is in any case important to understand the nature of the permanent councils which were such a vital part of urban government under the Catholic Monarchs.

A veinticuatro of Córdoba in the fifteenth century needed to have little fear of dismissal. Indeed, the Crown encouraged him to regard his office as a family possession, to be transmitted to his heir. Partly for this reason, the demand for offices of this kind seems to have exceeded the supply throughout the fifteenth century and not only in Andalusia. The number of regidores in Castilian towns had already gone beyond that fixed in their constitutions when John II declared in the Cortes of 1428 that the royal policy would in future be to return to the former number (antiguo número) of regidores, by not making further grants of offices beyond this number when their holders resigned or died. ⁽²⁸⁾ This was made possible by the fact that the original offices (oficios del número) were always distinguished in official documents from the later additions, which were known as oficios acrecentados. However, in practice the king pursued the opposite policy and continued to expand town councils, as did his successor, Henry IV.

John II's statement of 1428, and a later revocation of grants of oficios acrecentados made by Henry IV at the Cortes of Ocaña in 1469, do however show that the Catholic Monarchs were not the first to tackle the problem. When they did so, at the Cortes of Toledo in 1480, they concentrated on the offices which had been added after 1440, thus implicitly blaming John II for the growth of the problem. Those who had received oficios acrecentados after that date were not allowed to [36] resign them to any other person and the Crown would not provide successors to the offices concerned. ⁽²⁹⁾

It is arguable that the situation in Córdoba was one of the main factors in provoking the Crown to act against oficioc acrecentados. In theory, there had, of course, been a council of twenty-four regidores since the fourteenth century, but by 1469 the actual number had reached about seventy. In the last years of Henry IV's reign and in the early years of Ferdinand and Isabella, the council apparently grew each year, to reach a peak in 1480. In the surviving local documents, no fewer than ninety-five regidores are mentioned in that year and, according to a memorandum sent to the Crown in 1480, there were in fact ninety oficios acrecentados, which, when added to the original twenty-four, produce the remarkable total of 114 ⁽³⁰⁾ Whether or not this particular case was responsible for the legislation which followed, there is no doubt that determined action was required and taken. Although Córdoba council at no stage returned to the antiguo número between 1480 and 1516, there was a gradual and steady fall in numbers, so that by 1515 the recorded total of veinticuatros had been reduced to thirty-four, leaving ten oficios acrecentados compared with ninety in 1480.

Despite this success, however, the demand for veinticuatrzías was a force which Ferdinand and Isabella had to reckon with throughout their reign, and there is little doubt that the possibility of transmitting such an office to an heir, and thus establishing the family in a position of public influence and respectability for the future, was one of the main factors which created it. Councils of regidores were never intended to be democratic, and John II's legislation had allowed the hereditary transfer of offices. When he introduced a council of veinticuatros to Jerez de la Frontera in 1465, Henry IV explicitly acknowledged the hereditary principle. ⁽³¹⁾ John II had insisted, however, that the Crown should authorise each transfer individually and, in answer to Cortes complaints, had undertaken not to grant offices to a holder and his heir in the same document. Other limitations on royal grants of regimientos were that each beneficiary should hold only one office at a time and that he should reside in the town concerned, of which he had to be a native. ⁽³²⁾ The procedure whereby an office-holder might resign his office to a chosen successor, applying afterwards to the Crown for ratification of this renunciación, seems to have been largely uncontrolled in the troubled years of the mid-fifteenth century. This meant that an oficio acrecentado, once created, was very hard to suppress. As early as 1428, John II declared to the Cortes that any renunciación which hindered [37] the return of town councils to the antiguonúmero would henceforth be considered to have no legal force, but he had no power, or perhaps inclination, to take any action. ⁽³³⁾

Ferdinand and Isabella also realised that if the Crown could regain its control of resignations, the solution of the problem of proliferating offices would be brought nearer. The laws of Toledo thus contain a powerful statement of their intention to abolish hereditary office-holding altogether. ⁽³⁴⁾ The preamble to the law concerned is a masterpiece of special pleading. In the first place, the practice of the Crown's granting letters of expectation (cartas expectativas) was rejected. These letters gave the recipient the right to the next vacancy in the town concerned, whichever it might be. In future, the Crown would only make provisions to specific offices and all previous grants of cartas expectativas which had not already been used were revoked. However, the law concentrated mainly on the principle of filling offices on a hereditary basis. The legislators expressed the view that the public service was too high a calling to be exercised by officials chosen in this way.
 

Both writings and experience {the Monarchs said] make us certain that many were good and had bad sons. Many were friends of God whose brothers were abhorred of Him. It would be a great error in thought to suppose that the gift or grace of governing well is derived from the father by the son or by one person from another.
 

If public office was open to all, the result would be higher standards, as 'all will exert themselves to practise goodness and virtues, to win the prize of honour'. In an argument which was probably less likely to appeal to those outside the legal and administrative circles of the Court, it was also stated that resignations to named beneficiaries were wrong because they limited the Crown's freedom to choose its own officials. It was also pointed out that in former times, 'when justice flourished, public offices were annual'. This was a somewhat unscrupulous argument, as it used the supposed golden age of local self-determination as a justification for a measure which was intended to increase royal control over appointments to council offices. The actual point of the law was very much simpler than the arguments used to justify it. A ninety-day period of grace was given to those who already had such grants, so that they might use them. After that, any attempt to do so would lead to loss of the office and confiscation of goods. Up to this time, many office-holders had obtained permission from the Crown in advance to resign their office to a named person, whenever they wished. In such [38] cases, it was merely necessary, when the time came, to obtain royal confirmation of the transaction. No new licence was required.

In fact, the practice of resignation continued as before in the period after 1480, and the temptation to see the laws of Toledo as the beginning of a new era in the government of the royal towns should be firmly resisted. Indeed, the very same code included a law which implied that resignations were still permitted. It was stated that they would be considered valid if office-holders lived for at least twenty days after making them. This might require fine timing, but certainly did not make renunciaciones impossible. ⁽³⁵⁾

There is no doubt that resignations were normal in Córdoba after 1480. Between 1475 and 1515, the Crown is known to have granted sixteen faculties for future resignations of veinticuatrías to named beneficiaries and it is known when seven of these were used. In addition, thirty-two other resignations to particular individuals took place in this period. In twenty-one other cases, the Crown provided men who had not been named by the previous office-holders. These figures are incomplete, but they are sufficient to form the basis for general observations. They suggest that, on balance, the holder of an office was rather more likely than not to choose his own successor.

In view of this it is not surprising that the connection between the resignation of offices and the hereditary principle was very close. Thirty-four of the forty-eight recorded cases of resignation or faculty to resign a veinticuatria in Córdoba between 1475 and 1515 involved a transfer to the office-holder's son. In one case the beneficiary was the holder's father and there was one example of resignation to a brother and one to a nephew. Faculties for resignation in all cases involved sons. When the Crown provided a veinticuatro who had not been named by his predecessor in the office there was usually a particular reason. This was not stated in all of the twenty-one such provisions made to Córdoba offices between 1475 and 1515, but in ten of these cases the previous holder had died before he could resign, or obtain a royal faculty to resign, his office to a named individual. Up to 1480, such provisions might be made to a new oficio acrecentado, but afterwards this was not permitted. ⁽³⁶⁾ In two cases the Crown used its discretion to restore veinticuatros who had favoured the Portuguese cause and in another case it restored a veinticuatro who had been removed, presumably because of his Jewish origins, after the riots of 1473. ⁽³⁷⁾ Resignation, though, was still the normal way of transferring veinticuatrías after 1480, as before, even if the Crown might make its own provision in [39] special cases. Faculties to resign expired with the office-holders who had obtained them and if they had not by then been used, the Crown was free to ignore them and make its own choice. This was also the case when officers were deprived after conviction of some offence.

It is a matter of some interest to discover what kind of man benefited from royal provisions to veinticuatrias, as it may be assumed that, after the corregidor, the Crown regarded the council of regidores as its main instrument for controlling local government. If royal nominees were to be placed in a town, this would be a likely place in which to find them. In fact, the practice of appointing Crown servants to veinticuatrías in Córdoba seems to have been relatively rare. Cristóbal Bermúdez, a captain of the royal guard under Henry IV, was a regidor of Córdoba until he lost his office for supporting the claim of Joanna to the Castlian throne. His successor, Diego Proaño, was certainly a full-time royal servant, as a magistrate at Court (alcalde de la real casa y corte), but his connection with Córdoba cannot be established. ⁽³⁸⁾ These examples show that council posts might be used as rewards for royal servants, but most references to personal service to the Crown appear in documents ratifying resignations to relatives of previous holders. In these cases, local influence was almost certainly the stronger. There was a connection between Córdoba's council and the royal service, but most of the pressure for appointment to urban offices seems to have been local, with the Crown happy to allow this state of affairs to continue.

Although the council of regidores was the scene of the Crown's main effort to intervene in local appointments, there was some royal interest in controlling admission to other urban offices. Of these, the most ancient was that of jurado, which certainly did not escape the royal intervention experienced by the more recently created senior office. The problem of oficiosacrecentados affected the jurados to a small extent, in that two extra jurados were added to St Mary's parish representation during the fifteenth century. ⁽³⁹⁾

Royal legislation tried to ensure that the jurados were effective representatives of their parishes by insisting that they had to live in or close to the parish concerned and might not appoint deputies to do their work for them. ⁽⁴⁰⁾ However the main security for the representative character of the jurados was the right of the parishes to elect them, which was safeguarded in general by John II in 1432 and confirmed by the Catholic Monarchs in the specific case of Córdoba in 1484. The Córdoba privilege stated that when a jurado died in office, the [40] citizens (vecinos) of his parish were to meet in the parish church and elect a replacement. These vecinos were the people included in the list of tax-payers (padrón) of the parish. The election was open, without lots or ballots, and took place in the presence of the other jurados of the city and the corregidor, if he wished to attend. The vecinos' choice had to be approved first of all by the other jurados, who then conducted the successful candidate to the council of regidores for their ratification. Once this had been obtained, the corregidor and the council administered the oath of office to the new jurado and instructed the constables to instal him in his parish. ⁽⁴¹⁾

The details of fifteen such elections survive in Córdoba and they all took place after the previous jurado had died in office. Voting lists are available in two cases and the number on each is very small. Thirty-five vecinos are recorded as taking part in the election in the parish of St James in 1501, and sixty-five in a similar election in St Andrew's in 1510. The lists indicate that the voters consisted of a few regidores resident in the parishes concerned, some cloth-merchants (traperos), a range of tradesmen and artisans and a small number of tenant-farmers (labradores). Both elections seem to have been unanimous, which suggests that the selection in fact took place beforehand. ⁽⁴²⁾

Most jurados, nevertheless, between two-thirds and three-quarters in the period 1476-1515, were appointed by royal provision rather than local election, and in the majority of cases they were specifically named in their predecessors' resignations. As with veinticuatrias, the Crown exploited any unusual circumstances in order to make provisions. For example, three jurados who had been deprived of their offices for heresy were replaced directly by the Crown. ⁽⁴³⁾ However, little use was made of juraderías as rewards for royal servants. One case in Córdoba was Alfonso Carrillo, a court servant who was made a jurado in 1479. ⁽⁴⁴⁾

There was also a heavy demand for escribanías and they were included in the legislation on oficios acrecentados in the laws of Toledo. According to the 1480 memorandum, there were in Córdoba in that year twenty-four escribanos of the antiguo número and twenty oficiosacrecentados which had been added since 1440. By 1498, the total had been reduced to thirty-three, which meant that eleven of the oficios acrecentados had been suppressed. In 1501, eight jurados petitioned the council, asking that in its zeal for reform it should not suppress an oficio del número, but by 1503 the council had issued a directive that all surplus offices were to lapse at the death or resignation of their holders, until the number had been reduced to thirty, rather than [41] twenty-four. The escribanías seem to have been stabilised thereafter at this compromise figure. ⁽⁴⁵⁾

According to the fuero of 1241, there should have been an annual election of an escribano in each parish. The practice did indeed continue in Ferdinand and Isabella's reign, but a fixed number of escribanos for the whole town had been added later and the power of provision to that body seems to have been invested for all practical purposes in the town council. Thus the eighteen resignations of escribanías in Córdoba which are recorded between 1493 and 1507 were ratified by the council, and only two of them received royal confirmation as well. Direct royal provision was also possible, but generally occurred in special circumstances, as with the other offices. Nine such provisions are recorded in Córdoba between 1484 and 1505, and in the six cases where details are provided, those being replaced were escribanos who had been burnt or reconciled by the Inquisition. ⁽⁴⁶⁾ There was a dispute in 1496 between the royal alcalde mayor and the council, when an escribano was dismissed for dishonesty and the council provided his successor. The alcalde claimed the right of provision for the Crown, because it was a case of dismissal and not resignation. Eventually, the council candidate received a royal letter of provision, presented it to the corregidor and council and received the office again from their hands. ⁽⁴⁷⁾ In this way, honour was satisfied, but the dispute serves to illustrate the delicate balance which had to be kept at all times between royal and local pretensions in the appointment of officials.

The other offices in the town were shared out between the Crown, the alguacil mayor and the representatives of the parishes. Direct nominations by the Crown were rare. Indeed, the only offices filled in this way were those of fiel and portero of the custom-house and alférez. The alférez was always a veinticuatro or a jurado, while the customs offices seem to have been used as rewards for royal servants. In 1475, the Crown gave the fieldad to the chronicler Gonzalo de Ayora, who was also a veinticuatro of Córdoba. He was frequently absent on royal business and when his son, who succeeded him in 1504, tried to follow the same practice, the council threatened to replace him. The office of portero in the custom-house was entirely honorary. In 1496 it was given to the royal steward (repostero), Rodrigo de Mesilla, and the town accepted his privilege without question. ⁽⁴⁸⁾

It has already been noted that the magistrates were either elected by the veinticuatros or appointed by the corregidor. The alguacil menor and the alguacil de las entregas were named by the alguacil mayor, but [42] the vast majority of appointments were made by the town council. In some cases, the jobs went to members of the council itself, while in others the office-holders were sought outside. The council's procurador mayor was always a veinticuatro, as were proctors elected to the Cortes. Most of the officials, however, such as the lawyers, the chaplain, the musicians, the accountants, the fieles, the measurer of lands (medidor de tierras) and the mayordomo, came from outside the council. The appointment of some officials was disputed between the council and the caballeros de premia, who obtained their knightly rank on the basis of a wealth qualification. According to a council decree of 1496, the tradition was that the alcaldes ordinarios, the alcalde de las dehesas and the alcalde de la aduana should be elected annually by two caballeros de premia from each parish. The offices were to go round all the parishes in turn and each holder was to be restricted to a single term. However, the rights of the caballeros de premia were disputed, and in 1493 and 1498 the Crown had to intervene to protect their privilege against the attempts of the corregidor to take over the appointment of alcaldes ordinarios. The caballeros de premia seem to have been fighting a rearguard action for the former practice of electing magistrates locally.

Certain fieldades, notably those of the almotacenazgo and the council porters, became a battle-ground in the same way. A royal provision of 1480 supported the claim of the caballeros to make the election, but the council and corregidor obstinately insisted that the right belonged to them and continued to make the appointments throughout the region, although the jurados finally obtained a decision in favour of the caballeros from the Granada high court (audiencia) in 1515, after an action which lasted over twenty years. ⁽⁴⁹⁾ Other fieles, supervising, for example, the tanneries and the sale of fish and flour, were elected by the caballeros de premia without interference. The mayordomía de las calles, an unpopular office because work on cleaning the streets had to be carried out at the office-holder's expense, was filled by the council and the parishes, acting jointly. Names were brought to the council by the jurados and the final choice was made by the veinticuatros. At the bottom of the scale were the alcaldes and veedores of the various trades, who were generally chosen by the practitioners (often known as oficiales) of the trade concerned from their own number, though the council might supervise the election, as with the silversmiths in 1498. ⁽⁵⁰⁾

Although a great many lesser posts in Córdoba were filled by nomination, the practice of drawing lots was also traditional and extensively [43] employed. The council used lots to choose its mayordomo, procurador mayor and contadores, and also the fieles of the almotacenazgo and portería. ⁽⁵¹⁾ The caballeros de premia used the same method to choose the various alcaldes, but the appointment of the more important officials, such as the letrados (lawyers) was not left to chance in this way and lots were never used in direct royal appointments.

Alongside the internal structure of government in the royal towns, Ferdinand and Isabella set up a new and separate national organisation which was subject directly to the Crown and which was entrusted with the maintenance of order in the countryside between the major cities in which it was based. This new royal agency was known as the Santa Hermandad (Holy Brotherhood) and was an extension to the whole kingdom of the associations previously formed by local communities for the same purpose. The national Hermandad was set up at the Cortes of Madrigal in 1476 and all towns, including those under seignorial jurisdiction, were required to swear allegiance to it. A permanent junta of royal servants and an annual assembly of representatives from the provinces (the diputación general) were the national organs of the Hermandad and, on a local level, the kingdom was divided into provinces, each with its chief town, or cabeza de provincia. ⁽⁵²⁾ Córdoba was one of these chief towns and thus the council elected one of its members as diputado general when the diputación met. The Hermandad of the province was under the authority of two alcaldes, one representing the nobles (hidalgos) and the other the rest of the citizens. The latter was known sometimes as the alcalde de los peones or pecheros, in other words, commoners or tax-payers, and sometimes as the alcalde de los caballeros, or knights. The receiver of goods confiscated by Hermandad officers (the receptor) was a veinticuatro of Córdoba, chosen by the council. Each province of the Hermandad, including Córdoba, had its own prison, with a gaoler. The treasurer, who was subordinate to the receptor, worked in the same building. The alcaldes of the Hermandad were assisted in their duties by an alguacil and squads (cuadrillas) of men under cuadrilleros. ⁽⁵³⁾

The Hermandad was not established on a permanent basis in 1476, but had to be periodically extended. The first such extension was from 1478 to 1481. Tn the latter stages of the Granada campaign, the Hermandad was used to raise men and money for the Crown, thus [44] avoiding the need to summon the Cortes. However, its basic function was always to keep order on the roads and in the countryside, and it was only possible to use it for military purposes as long as the royal armies were fighting on Castilian soil. After 1500, with the Crown's growing involvement in foreign campaigns, the Hermandad was once again entirely devoted to local peace-keeping. At first, the Monarchs dismantled all the national and provincial organisation, for example, the junta general, the diputación general and the provincial assemblies, leaving only the local alcaldes and cuadrilleros, but the provincial apparatus was quickly restored to provide an appeal mechanism and on this basis the Hermandad survived to be mocked by Cervantes. ⁽⁵⁴⁾

Although it was based in the towns, the Hermandad had no jurisdiction within them and it was not subject to the corregidor or the council, like the other magistrates and officials. It had charge of everywhere that was too thinly populated to have a council of its own. All places with fewer than fifty citizens were deemed to be despoblados (depopulated) or yermos (deserts) and placed under Hermandad jurisdiction, which also covered those convicted of crimes in the town who fled from royal justice to the countryside. Despite the fact that it had no part in urban politics, the Hermandad was inevitably distrusted by the other authorities in the town, and has a place in any survey of royal involvement in local government.

It is perhaps not surprising that the Crown should have been closely involved in the government of its own towns, both through the appointment of officials and in the person of the corregidor. What is more noteworthy is the scope still allowed for local influence even after Ferdinand and Isabella began their undoubtedly vigorous and fairly successful campaign to reform the town councils of Castile. The difference between the laws of Toledo and earlier legislation was not great. The same claim of overall royal sovereignty was expressed in both, and most of the policies which the Catholic Monarchs adopted were by no means original. However their legislation had greater bite and was better enforced. There is no doubt that the number of officials in Córdoba was drastically reduced, and even if the hereditary transfer of offices was not curbed, the effective establishment of corregidores in the town on a regular basis, for the first time, greatly strengthened royal control. Much still needed to be done, but it is undeniable that in 1516 all the major offices in Córdoba were more closely controlled by the Crown than they had been in 1474.

Before moving on to consider the procedures and activities of [45] Córdoba council in this period, it is worth noting one other feature. This is the virtually complete absence, in royal and municipal records, of reference to the sale of offices in the town. It is clear that the main motives behind the granting of municipal offices were the Crown's desire to reward its servants, and, more significantly, local families' desire for power and influence in their home district and their anxiety to preserve it for their descendants. Royal legislation scarcely mentions the purchase of offices, however, in marked contrast to practice in Castile under the Habsburgs, when sales were actively promoted by the Crown. One can only conclude that demand from local families was adequately catered for by royal grants and that the Crown either had not envisaged, or else did not need, the income which might have been gained from the sale of what the government was still content to give. The evidence which does exist for the sale of offices will be considered in later chapters, but it must be clear that such a practice would have contrasted sharply with the lofty principles for public office-holding which were set out in the laws of Toledo. ⁽⁵⁵⁾

Long before the corregidor was introduced to royal towns as the Crown's representative, a number of the sovereign's powers had been delegated to local councils. The Crown made provision for the conduct of these assemblies and the use which they made of the administrative, legal and financial resources which were entrusted to them.

Probably because they were anxious visibly to demonstrate the town council's independence of private influence, Ferdinand and Isabella, at the Cortes of Toledo in 1480, ordered all councils in royal towns to obtain a special meeting-house. This was to be done within two years of the publication of the law, on pain of removal for magistrates and regidores who failed to comply. ⁽⁵⁶⁾ In Córdoba, a meeting-house is referred to as new in 1427, though in 1435 the council was meeting in the lodgings of the corregidor. The two regular weekly meetings of the council were on Tuesdays and Fridays until 1479, when the Tuesday meeting was moved to Wednesday. Other meetings were held as business required, Monday being a frequent choice, though in the early sixteenth century other days were equally common. Meetings were not normally held on Sundays or holidays, or in Lent, but there were exceptions, and when urgent measures were required, more than one meeting might take place in a day. ⁽⁵⁷⁾

[46] If there was a corregidor, he had the right to preside at all meetings, but he frequently delegated the responsibility to his alcalde mayor, his alguacil mayor or some other deputy. Because he was an outsider, the corregidor was legally entitled to spend a third of the year away from his post, in order to attend to his own business. Before leaving for a lengthy period, he formally presented a deputy, usually one of his officials, to the council, to exercise his powers until his return. In many years, the lesser magistrates of Córdoba presided over far more meetings than the corregidor.

The way in which council proceedings were recorded by the escribano del concejo or his deputy inevitably creates the surviving impression of how they were conducted. Even with the same escribano, the method varied. Sometimes, documents were merely referred to, while at others they were fully transcribed, or else the originals were stitched into the book of acts. It was customary to record the names of the president and all those who attended the meeting, to summarise the discussion which took place, record the voting and set down all the decisions that were reached. However, the neatness of the surviving records indicates that they were composed after the meeting from notes and, indeed, a sheet of these notes, with corrections, survives in the book of acts for 1479. It covers the meetings from 25 to 27 July and contains lists of documents which had been received by the council or the corregidor and of the tasks which had been allocated to individual veinticuatros. ⁽⁵⁸⁾ The Crown required councils to keep all royal documents which they received and the corregidor had to ensure that this was done, but the date of the earliest book of acts in Córdoba is not known. A loose sheet, giving an account of a meeting in December 1473, was stitched into the 1479 book, which is the oldest surviving, but this is not conclusive proof that books were not used at that stage. However, it is possible that they were introduced after the Monarchs' visit in 1477. The council also had a chest for the storage of privileges and other charters, in accordance with royal instructions. The keys were held by two different veinticuatros. ⁽⁵⁹⁾

Admission to council-meetings was tightly controlled by royal legislation. This was an inevitable consequence of the introduction of regidores and the laws of Palenzuela (1430), which limited entry to meetings to 'the alcaldes and regidores and the other people contained in the ordinances', merely confirmed this state of affairs. In Córdoba, these ordinances admitted the jurados, but they were only allowed to intervene in discussions if asked to do so by the magistrates and [47] regidores. In 1503, a dispute arose over the presence of lawyers in council-meetings. A royal letter was received, forbidding them to attend, and both the veinticuatros and the jurados voted to appeal against it. Nevertheless, at the next meeting, on 11 October, Dr de Manos Albas and Bach. Alfonso Fernández de Baena, both lawyers, were ordered by the corregidor to leave the council-chamber or face a 50,000 maravedís fine. It appears that their advice had been required so frequently by the veinticuatros that they had virtually been coopted as permanent members of the council. They protested at their expulsion and threatened to appeal to the Crown, but the corregidor told them there was no procedure whereby they might do so as individuals. Nonetheless, the corregidor then asked the veinticuatros whether they regarded the lawyers as necessary to the council and was told that they were indispensable. After this, they continued to be called into virtually every meeting to help with specific problems, but although their opinions were noted and respected, they had no formal vote. ⁽⁶⁰⁾

Issues in council were decided by majority votes, with the presiding magistrate exercising a casting vote if necessary. Votes were generally given orally and frequently consisted of a statement of opinion, rather than a simple 'yes' or 'no'. Abstentions were common and so were proxy-votes. The latter enabled an absentee to participate by entrusting his vote to a colleague or to the chairman. If an action was agreed upon without a vote being taken, but a few of the veinticuatros were opposed to the decision, their dissent might be recorded in the book of acts in the phrase, 'Fulano no fue en esto' (N. did not agree with this). Sometimes a regidor or magistrate justified a particular vote or decision in writing and his reasons were recorded by an escribano, in some cases in the book of acts. This generally happened if there had been dissension over the issue in the council. ⁽⁶¹⁾

Order was maintained in council-meetings by the presiding magistrate. In 1496, the veinticuatros and jurados were instructed by the alcalde mayor to remain in their seats throughout the meeting, so as to avoid violence. If trouble did occur, the offending parties, regardless of responsibility for starting the incident, were immediately confined to their houses and they and their 'relations and friends and servants' were forbidden to continue the quarrel. The effectiveness of such measures should become clear in due course. ⁽⁶²⁾

Although their votes, if taken at all, were not counted in any decision of the council, the jurados had the same power as the veinticuatros to make formal demands (requerimientos) to the presiding magistrate [48] to allow a particular matter to be discussed or action taken. Problems might also be brought to the council's attention by means of petitions from citizens, either in groups or as individuals. When the matter concerned was discussed, the petitioners were allowed to attend the meeting and any other individual might be summoned if required to further council business. The acts for 1493 contain a note to the effect that a petitioner came to the council-house when there was no meeting and stated his business to a magistrate who was deputising for the corregidor. ⁽⁶³⁾

For a council-meeting to be held, there had to be a quorum of seven regidores, according to a royal provision of 1513, and this seems to have been enforced. In 1498, six veinticuatros were sent home by the magistrates as insufficient for a meeting. Attendance figures in the actas show that business was normally carried on by a limited section of the regimiento and a small following of jurados. Sometimes, no jurados at all attended. In 1479, when the council was nearing its peak membership of one hundred and fourteen veinticuatros, the most recorded at a single meeting were thirty-eight. In the same year, the highest attendance of  jurados was twenty out of a possible thirty-two. A similar impression is given by the figures for the later years. The typical turnout for a meeting was between ten and twenty veinticuatros and fewer than ten jurados. Larger attendances were generally achieved when a corregidor was received or procuradores to the Cortes were elected. ⁽⁶⁴⁾

The veinticuatros were under oath to keep the proceedings of the council secret. In 1497, the corregidor required them to keep their oath on pain of six months' banishment from the town, and in 1500 the same demand was made of the jurados. ⁽⁶⁵⁾

What has been said up to now about office-holding and about the conduct of council-meetings may serve to illustrate the strong oligarchical tendencies in the government of Córdoba in this period. As a result, any group or institution which might counterbalance the influence of the veinticuatros assumed very great importance. The prime candidates, locally, for such a role were the jurados, as the survivors of an earlier and more representative political structure. In addition to attending council-meetings, the jurados of Córdoba assembled in a cabildo (chapter) of their own, with its acts recorded by one of their number. The surviving book for 1509-13 suggests that the jurados' meetings were less frequent than those of the full council and took place in the same chamber. The jurados had their own chest for funds, which [49] seem to have consisted mainly of dues paid by new members when they were received by their colleagues. Each year, the cabildo elected one of its number as alcalde, to preside over its meetings, and another as mayordomo to take charge of its finances. Many royal documents were addressed directly to the jurados of Córdoba, some of them concerning their own affairs and others referring to more general matters, such as disputes between the jurados and the veinticuatros over the conduct of the town's business. One procedural difference from the full council was that the jurados fined any member who was absent from meetings without giving a reason. The fine was one real. ⁽⁶⁶⁾

A wide range of supervisory duties was delegated by the council to two veinticuatros and a jurado who were chosen by lots each month as diputados del mes. Their tasks were laid down in ordinances given by Henry IV in 1458, but they might be entrusted with extra commissions. For example, in 1493 they were given the task of publicising the laws of the Hermandad and in 1495 they were involved in tax-collecting. They also acquired the duty of hearing civil cases involving goods worth less than 3000 mrs. Apart from the diputados del mes, who were generally chosen for the whole year at one meeting, other members of the council might receive specific commissions to carry on official business. At the meeting on 27 July 1479, for example, the tasks allocated to commissions, which normally consisted of two veinticuatros and a jurado, included auditing the municipal accounts, examining weights and measures, collecting fines for failing to comply with the terms of private wills and investigating the affairs of the magistrates and of the cloth-dyers. ⁽⁶⁷⁾
 
 

The scope of Córdoba town council's activities was not, of course, limited to the city itself. One of its most important roles was the control of its tierra, and this was exercised primarily through officials who were appointed or supervised by the council, but worked in outlying areas. Not all such appointments were in the hands of the council. Many of the towns in Córdoba's tierra had castles and fortresses and, throughout the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, their governors (alcaides) were appointed by the Crown. Such cases in the period 1478-1513 include Castro del Río, Almodóvar del Río, Bujalance, Montoro, La Rambla and Hornachuelos. ⁽⁶⁸⁾

The structure of local government within the towns of the tierra seems to have been fairly rudimentary. There is only one indication in [50] the Córdoba archives that any of these towns, apart from Córdoba itself, had a council of regidores. This is a reference to the regimiento de la villa in the 1511 ordinances of Montoro. If there were regidores in Montoro, it would seem likely that some of the larger towns in the tierra, such as Castro del Río and Bujalance, were similarly endowed, but in default of other evidence, it is more probable that the term merely referred to the officials of the town in general. It is known that the towns and villages of the tierra generally had councils which consisted, as in Torremilano and Montoro, of two alcaldes, an alguacil, two jurados and at least one escribano. However, the open council, consisting of caballeros de premia, or knights qualified by wealth, and the peones, who served the king on foot, still had a role on occasions. Thus while in Fuente Obejuna in 1496, entry to council meetings was restricted to the magistrates and jurados, the escribano and five representatives each of the caballeros and peones, in Montoro in 1511, the whole citizen body was summoned by bells to hear and approve the new municipal ordinances before they were submitted to the corregidor and council of Córdoba for ratification. Magistrates in the tierra of Córdoba were elected annually, and the city's 1483 ordinances forbade the extension of terms of office beyond one renewal of a year. Such extensions were only to be granted in response to a petition from the town concerned. There was some place for the local election of magistrates, at least in the larger towns. In Bujalance, the two alcaldes, the alguacil and his deputy were elected by the caballeros de premia, but Córdoba retained overall control of nominations in case of dispute. If magistrates were appointed directly by Córdoba, lots were used, containing the names of candidates proposed by the council of the town concerned. ⁽⁶⁹⁾

The provision of escribanos for the tierra was in general the responsibility of Córdoba. In nine cases, the resignation of the previous officeholder to a specific individual was ratified by the council. In 1497, for example, Fernando González de Badajoz, escribano of Castro, resigned his office to his 'lords', Córdoba council, and to his son, Rodrigo Yáñez. As with the escribanías in Córdoba itself, it was customary for the abilities of the candidate to be examined and there are five such cases recorded. On one occasion, an escribano died in office in La Rambla, without having named a successor. The council in Córdoba received petitions from two candidates for the post and when a vote was taken, the veinticuatros were equally divided between them. The last man to vote broke the deadlock by the simple expedient of going out of the [51] council-chamber and examining the handwriting of the two candidates. Once, at least, in this period, the Crown intervened in the appointment of an escribano for the tierra, when one such official was suspended in Fuente Obejuna. The Crown took the opportunity to provide his successor, but within a few weeks the suspended escribano had gained another such office in the same town, by means of a resignation which was ratified by Córdoba council. In 1505, the council discussed the type of candidate which should be provided to escribanías in the tierra and decided that such offices should be confined to vecinos of the town concerned. ⁽⁷⁰⁾

All the royal possessions in the Córdoba area, except for Alcolea and Castro Viejo, were represented by two jurados. Their affairs were in the hands of the cabildo de los jurados in Córdoba, which had the power to appoint and remove them. Resignations were ratified by this cabildo and, if no specific person were named in the resignation, the cabildo was responsible for finding a suitable candidate. Thus in 1513, Andrés de Córdoba, jurado of St Marina, Córdoba, went to Montoro and chose Juan de Lorca to be jurado there. He was brought to Córdoba and sworn in at the cabildo of jurados. Often, jurados in the tierra resigned their offices into the hands of the cabildo, as with Alfonso Rodríguez of Torremilano in 1510 and another case in Posadas in 1511. Jurados in the tierra might also be deprived of their offices by their colleagues in Córdoba. This happened in 1510, when the jurados of Bujalance carried out a pes quisa on their own authority into the activities in the town of Córdoba's council and corregidor. Probably at the instigation of the authorities in Córdoba, the cabildo of jurados removed the officials in Bujalance, though one of them was restored in 1512. ⁽⁷¹⁾
 
 

As elsewhere in medieval Europe, the law was essential to the expression and, in some cases, the resolution, of social and political conflicts. As a result, much of the energy of the authorities in Córdoba in this period was devoted to litigation, and it is therefore important to set Córdoba and its council in their proper legal context.

It has already been noted that the administration of justice in the region was one of the powers delegated to the local council by the Crown in the early days after the Reconquest. The majority of civil and criminal cases involving the inhabitants of Córdoba and its tierra were therefore settled by local magistrates. The hierarchy rose from the [52] alcaldes ordinarios, through the courts of the alcalde de la justicia, to the alcaldes mayores and the corregidor, if there was one. This meant that actions which did not go beyond one appeal, which would clearly be the great majority, had no need ever to leave the boundaries of the town concerned. The right of the alcaldes mayores to hear first appeals in legal cases was enshrined in local ordinances and inherited by the corregidor when he swore to observe them. The appeal mechanism within the town might on occasions be by-passed, as in 1515, when a party appealed directly to the high court at Granada against his conviction by the alcalde de la justicia, and his appeal was admitted, but the Crown generally tried to leave most cases to the local magistrates. ⁽⁷²⁾

In 1480, the Crown confined civil cases involving goods worth 3000 mrs or less to the jurisdiction in which the supposed offence occurred, provided that it was more than eight leagues (about forty-five kilometres) from one of the high courts. Appeals in such cases were to be made to the council and justices of the town concerned, who then had to elect two deputies to hear them, after taking an oath to give good justice. In order that the matter should not be left entirely to amateurs, the judge who had given sentence in the first instance attended the hearing, but it should be remembered that the alcaldes ordinarios were themselves elected citizens and not necessarily qualified in law. This does not seem to have worried either legislators or the public. The former were more concerned with the efficiency of legal proceedings and the latter with their cost. The confinement of lesser cases to the locality would have found favour on both counts.

Córdoba seems not to have hurried to introduce this system of deputies to hear appeals. The first mention of the council's electing two of its members for this purpose is in 1498. At first, different veinticuatros were deputed each week, suggesting that business was fairly brisk, but after 1501 this duty was added to those of the deputies of the month. It may well be that after 1500 litigants became less satisfied with amateur judges, as there are signs of a growing demand for appeals, even in minor cases, to be heard in the high court. It is probable that these courts were becoming more efficient and the establishment of the audiencia in Ciudad Real and then Granada certainly made this kind of justice more accessible to Córdoba than it had been when the only such court was in Valladolid. In any event, the Monarchs found it necessary in 1500 to confirm the right of Córdoba's own magistrates to hear minor appeals and at the same time gave one litigant, Pedro Páez, the right to have his appeal heard by the magistrates and not the [53] council's deputies. By 1514, matters had reached a stage at which the Crown permitted the audiencia at Granada to hear any appeals involving cases over goods worth 3000 mrs or less which reached it from Córdoba, despite what was said in the laws of Toledo, if they concerned the interpretation of the town's ordinances. ⁽⁷³⁾

Once a case left Córdoba's magistrates, it entered an appeal system which had developed piecemeal since the thirteenth century, or earlier, and was still evolving in the time of Ferdinand and Isabella. Throughout all the changes, the final court of appeal continued to be the royal council (concejo real), which consisted of clergy, nobles and secular lawyers. In order to deal with the select cases which rose as high as this in the legal structure, the Catholic Monarchs ensured that the council was provided with eight or nine lawyers, in addition to a basic quota of three caballeros, all under the presidency of a bishop. However, this was not the main business of the royal council and towards the end of the fourteenth century the duty of hearing appeals was given to special judges, known as oidores (lit. 'hearers'). At the Cortes of Toro in 137 I, Henry II ordained that the seven oidores should give justice in the residence of the king and queen, but if the monarchs were away, cases should be heard in the house of the chancellor (chanciller mayor) or wherever the chancillería was working. Since 1200, if not before, the chancillería had been the department of the royal administration which housed the royal seal for use on letters and charters. Now, the oidores became a part of this department, so that the terms audiencia and chancillería were used indiscriminately to describe the tribunal. The old function of guarding the seal was retained, but the chancillería gradually developed into the appeal court of the kingdom. ⁽⁷⁴⁾

When a party in a civil case wanted to appeal against the sentence of a judge in a lower court, his representative (procurador) asked the audiencia to issue a summons (real provisión de emplazamiento), which would require all the documents of the case to be sent to the audiencia from the lower court. This summons was normally issued automatically. At the same time, the appellant would give his procurador power to represent him at the proving (prueba) of the case, during which the parties would bring forward their evidence, which consisted of documents and witnesses' depositions. If the audiencia took any steps to advance the case, it did so by means of a royal provision, issued in the Monarchs' names. When the hearing was completed, a group of oidores gave sentence (sentencia de vista). The document had to be signed by at least three of them. If an appeal was lodged immediately against this [54] sentence, a review sentence was given, within four months of the date of the first sentence. Once this sentencia de revista had been given, or after the sentencia de vista if there was no appeal, the case was deemed to be completed (pleito fenecido) and a letter of execution (carta ejecutoria) was drawn up, which contained the definitive sentence. Cases which for some reason did not stay the course in the audiencia were either forgotten (olvidados) or stored away (depositados), in case they were ever revived. Appeals in criminal cases were heard by three alcaldes. According to royal dispositions of 1502, hearings were not to begin unless the alcaldes thought the appeals had some basis in law. The alcaldes were also entitled to demand information on cases from local magistrates, if they suspected that parties were unwilling to appear before them because of intimidation. In other respects, procedure in such cases was similar to that followed in civil hearings. ⁽⁷⁵⁾

In order to prosecute a case in the audiencia, a party had to appoint a procurador to represent him and engage advocates (abogados) to speak for him in court. Staff, such as escribanos, had to be paid by the litigant, through his procurador, and the client was also responsible for other legal costs, such as the collection of evidence from witnesses by receptores (receivers) outside the tribunal. However, the situation for Andalusian litigants was made easier in 1494, when a new audiencia was set up, on the model of the old, in Ciudad Real, to take care of all business from areas south of the Tagus. Its first president was Don Iñigo Manrique de Lara, bishop of Córdoba, and it dealt with most cases which went beyond Córdoba's local tribunals. It was transferred to Granada in 1505. ⁽⁷⁶⁾

The public authorities in Córdoba were heavily involved in hearings before the audiencia. In 1496, for example, the town was engaged in opposing the appeals of five lords at Ciudad Real. These were, Gonzalo Mexía, lord of Santa Eufemia, Don Alfonso Fernández de Córdoba, lord of Montemayor, Alfonso de los Ríos, lord of Fernán Núñez, Gonzalo de León, veinticuatro of Córdoba, and Fernando Yáñez de Badajoz. Other cases which came before the audiencia in the appeal stage involved the boundaries between Córdoba's lands at Castro del Río and those of the house of Aguilar at Carchena and the count of Cabra at Baena. The chancillería at Ciudad Real dealt at one stage with the dispute over Fuente Obejuna between Córdoba and the order of Calatrava. Boundary litigation was not, however, the only activity which involved Córdoba with the audiencia. The alcaldes de los hijosdalgo vindicated the claims to hidalguía of several of the town's [55] citizens and the chancillería heard some appeals against the verdicts of Cordoba's magistrates In 1495, Anton del Rosal appealed against his flogging, which had been ordered by the local magistrates. The audiencia demanded the documents of the case, but on this occasion Córdoba council was very reluctant to see the case leave its jurisdiction and decided to send to Ciudad Real a copy of its privilege, which stated that completed cases should not be taken outside the town's boundaries for further trial. The town's sensitivity seems to have been aroused when its opponents in law attempted to use the audiencia against it, as there were protests about infringements of the town's jurisdiction when private landowners brought actions in Ciudad Real, for example in 1496. On the other hand, the council was happy to use that tribunal to further its own interests. For example, a case in which a jurado in Torremilano was attacked in Mora was referred to Granada by the corregidor in 1506, with the council's consent, and in 1511, a dispute over the taxation of wine imported by the clergy of Cordoba was referred in the same way. More interesting, perhaps, is the use made by the Crown of the Granada audiencia for political rather than legal purposes, in the early sixteenth century. In 1506, the lawyers at Granada intervened to protect Pedro Fernández de Córdoba, brother of the alcaide de los donceles, in the governorship of the fortress of Castro del Río, which had been granted to him by the Crown against the wishes of Córdoba council. ⁽⁷⁷⁾

In order to pursue cases in the audiencia, it was necessary for a town to employ legal staff resident in Ciudad Real or, later, Granada. In 1495, for example, Córdoba sent a jurado as its representative to Ciudad Real to engage a procurador and a lawyer to carry on litigation there. They were appointed for a year and received a third of their salary in advance. Early in 1496, the town's lawyer transferred the council's business to one of his colleagues and only informed his employers of the fact afterwards. In June of that year, yet another lawyer was appointed. In addition to the procurador, who was resident in Ciudad Real and paid a retaining salary by Córdoba, the town would send another representative when summoned for the hearing of a particular case. For example, in 1496, Córdoba's procurador de términos, the official responsible for questions concerning boundaries, was summoned to Ciudad Real for a case involving an enclosure, which was in dispute between Córdoba and the council of Santaella. ⁽⁷⁸⁾

Before the audiencias were established as permanent appeal courts, the Crown used to appoint special judges, who were generally legally [56] qualified members of the royal council, to go to the locality concerned and hear and judge the case in the king's name. This system continued after the Valladolid and Ciudad Real chancillerías had been set up, and the oidores from these tribunals sometimes performed such duties in the same way as the members of the royal council. These judges were given commissions to hear cases and were therefore called jueces de comisión. If they received a general commission to investigate all offences concerned with boundaries in a certain area, they might be known as jueces de términos.

Jueces de comisión were not prominent in Córdoba under the Catholic Monarchs, except in the more specific role of jueces de términos. Before 1480, the Crown had dealt with such questions by sending jueces de comisión to hear specific cases. Thus in 1457, Dr Diego Sánchez del Castillo was sent to deal with boundaries disputes between the council and Gonzalo Mexía, lord of Santa Eufemia. In 1477, the Crown appointed another oidor, Don Rodrigo Maldonado de Talavera, as juez de términos in the diocese of Córdoba. He delegated the commission to Lic. Diego de Rojas, who dealt with a number of cases in 1477-8. After this, such appointments were quite frequent. Lic. Sancho Sánchez de Montiel was in Córdoba between 1491 and 1499, Lic. Antonio de Cuéllar heard some cases in 1513-14 and Lic. Fernando Díaz de Lobón replaced him in the office between October 1514 and May 1515. ⁽⁷⁹⁾

While Montiel was in Córdoba, the Crown, apparently at his request, appointed Pedro Jiménez de Góngora, a citizen of Córdoba, as juez de los cortijos (judge of farms). He was first given a general responsibility, without any title, for ensuring that farms in the Córdoba area were properly marked. Córdoba council decided in January 1498 to appeal against the appointment, on the grounds that the fieles and judges were already at work to enforce royal legislation on land-use. The royal letter confirming Góngora's appointment stated that Montiel had asked for assistance because he was dissatisfied with the work of the existing boundary officials. Góngora was formally designated a judge in September 1498, but when he presented a royal letter ordering the fieles and medidor to work efficiently or else pay from their own pockets for the fencing to be done by others, the council protested to the Crown. This was to no avail, however, and after the juez de términos departed, Góngora replaced him in part, for example prosecuting Francisco Cabrera, a veinticuatro in 1504, for illegal enclosure. It is not surprising, therefore, that he was unpopular in council circles. ⁽⁸⁰⁾

[57] In the administration of the legal system, Córdoba council acted as the intermediary between the Crown and the towns of the tierra. The royal judges and officials had the automatic right to enter Córdoba's tierra in the exercise of their functions, as in any señorío, but in March 1497 the council reiterated the principle that no royal letter, brought by a juez de comisión, might be received by a subordinate council in the tierra unless the judge's letters of credence had first been presented and approved in Córdoba. The Crown seems not to have accepted Córdoba's claim, however, as in 1502 La Rambla and Santaella successfully made a direct appeal to the Monarchs against the way in which their taxes (alcabalas) had been collected. They obtained royal judges to arbitrate, although, probably so as not to erode respect for Córdoba's authority, the choice of the judges was left to its corregidor. ⁽⁸¹⁾

In most cases, the litigation of the towns in the tierra was undertaken by Córdoba council. If litigation was begun with the council's approval, Córdoba was prepared to pay the costs. In 1504, for example, the council paid a fine of 8000 mrs which had been imposed on Fuente Obejuna in a case over boundaries against the count of Belalcázar, and it also paid 4000 mrs towards Fuente Obejuna's expenses in the hearing. Such payments were apparently only made if the money could not be raised locally by a repartimiento of up to the maximum permitted quantity of 3000 mrs, collected from the citizens. Such fines could be a major burden on a small town. In 1493, for example, Córdoba told the alcaldes and jurados of Bujalance to raise by this method a fine of 15,000 mrs which had been imposed on the town for invading a dehesa which belonged to Córdoba. In cases where the authority of the council in outlying areas was in question, it naturally took a hard line and the same applied if a town started a legal action without the parent council's consent. In 1497, Fuente Obejuna was told, for this reason, that it would have to pay its own costs in a petition to the Crown about taxation. On other occasions, Córdoba's control over the tierra was exercised in a more beneficent way, as when the council, in 1497, sent two veinticuatros to arbitrate in a dispute over land between La Rambla and Santaella. In view of this evidence, it is perhaps not surprising that Córdoba's lordship over its tierra sometimes appeared more oppressive than that of lords in their señoríos. ⁽⁸²⁾

1. Fuero de Usagre, ed. Rafael de Ureña and Adolfo Bonilla (Madrid, 1907), art. 392.

2. Hipólito Sancho de Sopranis, Historia de Jerez de la Frontera desde su incorporación a los dominios cristianos (2 vols., Jerez, 1964-5), i, 75. Quintanilla, Nobleza, p. 31.

3. Rafael Ramírez de Arellano, Historia de Córdoba, iv, 30.

4. AMC Sec. 19 Ser. 10, libros varios, i, fol. 7v and Sec. 19 Ser. 4 Nos. 2 and 3. Cited by Femando Mazo Romero in 'Tensiones sociales en el municipio cordobs en la primera mitad del siglo XV', Actas del Primer Congreso de Historia de Andalucía, Andalucía Medieval, ii, 87.

5. AMC Sec. 13 Ser. 10 No. 4, ordinances of Ferdinand, 2 September 1483, fol 3. See also González Jiménez, 'Ordenanzas del concejo de Córdoba (1435)', HID, ii (1975), 204. On alguaciles de espada, see the pragmatic of Catholic Monarchs, Seville, 24.2.1491, in AMC Libro de ordenanzas, iv, fols. 7-12.

6. Partidas 3-19.

7. Partidas 3-27-6. AMC Sec. 13 Ser. 10 No. 4 fol. 3.

8. AMC Actas 10.5.1497, 9.2.1498, 23.5.1498.

9. AMO Actas 7.5.1498.

10. AMC Actas 13.7.1479, 22.6.1479, 27.6.1496, 13.11.1493, 2.10.1510, 13.2.1493, 12.6.1499, 13.11.1495.

11. Montalvo 2-16-3.

12. The available information is to be found in Emilio Mitre Fernández, La extensión del régimen de corregidores en el reinado de Enrique III (Valladolid, í969), and Benjamín Gonzalez Alonso, El corregidor castellano, 1348-1808 (Madrid, 1970).

13. Ladero, Andalucía, pp. 89-90.

14. Mitre, La extensión, p. 28.

15. Cortes, iii, 92.

16. For a list of Córdoba magistrates, see Table 1, p. 195.

17. Ladero, Andalucía, pp. 139-46.

18. Alfonso de Palencia, Crónica de Enrique IV, trans. A. Paz y Melia (5 vols., Madrid, 1904-9), IV, 401-4. RGS 27.6.1477, 15.9.1477, 7.11.1477.

19. AMO Actas 20.10.1496, 30.1.1497.

20. AMC Actas 15.6.1506, 19.8.1506, 25.8.1507, 17.12.1507. The 1508 revolt is discussed below, on pp. 158-61.

21. Cortes, iii, 127 (Montalvo 2-16-2).

22. See Table I.

23. Cortes, iii, 272.

24. AMO Actas 13.2.1497, 28.8.1499, 19.8.1506, 26.10.1513. Montalvo 2-16-6.

25. AMO Actas 28.8.1500, 13.7.1500, 2.8.1514, 16.8.1514, 22.9.1514, 11.12.1514,

26. Hernando del Pulgar, Crónica de los Reyes Católicos, ed. Juan de Mata Carriazo (2 vols., Madrid, 1943), i, 141-4. Capítulos de corregidores (Seville, 1500) (BN R31,811), and in Diego Pérez, Pragmáticas de los Reyes Católicos (Medina del Campo, 1549) (BL 504.g.3), law 57, fols. 47v-52.

27. D. Pérez, Pragmáticas, law 61.

28. Montalvo 7-2-1.

29. Montalvo 7-2-7.

30. Ladero, Andalucía, pp. 86-7.

31. Sancho, Historia de Jerez, i, 155.

32. Montalvo 7-2-18, 7-2-2, 7-2-6, 7-2-8.

33. Montalvo 7-2-2.

34. Montalvo 7-2-13.

35. Montalvo 7-2-22.

36. For example, RGS 14.2.1477.

37. RGS 4.12.1478. See Chapter 6.

38. AMC Actas, 26.3.1479.

39. Ladero, Andalucía, pp. 86-7.

40. Montalvo 7-1-23.

41. AMC Sec. 19 Ser. 4 No. 64.

42. APC Of. 18 vol. 8 fols. 437-40. AMC Sec. 19 Ser. 4 Actas, i, fols. 11v-13v.

43. AMC Actas 8.2.1484, 20.2.1484, 27.2.1484.

44. RGS 19.3.1479.

45. AMC Actas 19.11.1498, 10.3.1501. AMC Sec. 2 Ser. 21 No. 4.

46. RGS 8.3.1484, 20.2.1485, 6.3.1490, (10).1492, 20.7.1494, 10.12.1494. AMO Actas 19.6.1500, 10.2.1505, 6.3.1505.

47. AMC Actas 10.6.1496.

48. RGS 3.2.1478, 21.2.1478, 10.11.1475, 9.11.1475. AMC Actas 24.5.1504, 22.8.1505, 15.3.1506, 27.7.1496.

49. AMC Sec. 2 Ser. 17 No. 2, Sec. 2 Ser. 20 No 8.

50. AMC Actas 8.6.1498.

51. AMC Actas 13.7.1479.

52. For the national organisation of the Hermandad, see Celestino López Martínez, La Santa Hermandad de los Reyes Católicos (Seville, 921), and Luis Suárez Fernández, 'Evolución histórica de las hermandades castellanas', Cuadernos de Historia de España (Buenos Aires), xvi (1951), 5-78. See also M. Lunenfeld, The council of the Santa Hermandad, a study of the pacification forces of Ferdinand and Isabella (Coral Gables, Fla., 1970).

53. AMC Actas 30.3.1479, 5.1.1502, 16.5.1496, 26.4.1499.

54. See Don Quijote, part 1, chs. 22-3.

55. See Chapters 5 and 6.

56. Montalvo 7-1-1.

57. Rafael Fernández González, 'El castillo de Almenara', Boletín de la Asociación Española de Amigos de Castillos, no. 54 (1966), pp. 361-8 and AMO Libro de ordenanzas, i, fol. 258V. AMC Actas 13.8.1479, 30.3.1493.

58. AMC Actas 1479, fols. 6-1.

59. AMC Actas 15.3.1493.

60. Montalvo 7-1-2, 3, 4. AMC Actas 6.10.1503, 11.10.1503.

61. Montalvo 7-1-5.

62. AMC Actas 4.11.1496, 3.9.1512.

63. AMC Actas 1.8.1493.

64. AMC Sec. 19 Ser. 4 No. 107. AMC Actas 14.5.1498.

65. AMC Actas 17.2.1497, 2.12.1500.

66. AMC Sec. 19 Ser. 4 Actas, i, 28.9.1510, 19.7.1511, 26.7.1511. Although there is no record of fines for absence from council-meetings in Córdoba, the practice did exist in Carmona in the early sixteenth century, where regidores were fined one real for each inadequately explained absence (González Jiménez, Ordenanzas del concejo de Carmona (Seville, 1972), p. 7).

67. AMC Sec. 13 Ser. 10 No.1 ,. AMC Actas 2.9.1493, 23.12.1495, 15.1.1498, 2.6.1501.

68. Montalvo 7-2-9. RGS 9.1.1478, 10.11.1480, 10.7.1485. AMC Actas 27.7.1479, 10.11.1501, 5.11.1507, 3.4.1510, 21.10.1506, 31.8.1513.

69. AMC Sec. 13 Ser. ,10 No. 6, Sec. 13 Ser. 10 No. 5 fol. 1. AMC Actas 2.1.1496, 15.1.1496, 28.4.1497, 18.2.1512. AMC Sec. 13 Ser. 10 No. 4 fol. 4.

70. AMC Actas 6.10.1497, 3.12.1498, 3.6.1495, 26.6.1495, 12.12.1505.

71. AMC Sec. 19 Ser. 4 Actas, i, 9.6.1513, 19.11.1510, 30.8.1511, 20.9.1510, 28.2.1512.

72. AMC Sec. 16 Ser. 4 No. 8.

73. AMC Actas 15.1.1498, 18.9.1500, 26.10.1513, 3.7.1500. AMC Sec. 17 Ser. 7 No. I.

74. Cortes, ii, i8q. Francisco Mendizábal, 'La real chancillería de Valladolid', Revista de Archivos, Bibliotecas y Museos, 3rd ser., xxx (1914), 62-4.

75. Mendizábal, 'La real chancillería', xxxi, 96-9 and 'En tomo a la real chancillería de Valladolid', Hidalguía, vi (1958), 35 7-64. Montalvo 3-1-1, 3-2-14.

76. RGS, y, pp. xxi-xxii. RGS 30.10.1494, 25.11.1494.

77. AMC Actas 22.1.1496, 4.4.1498, 3.7.1499, 20.3.1500, 10.5.1501, 23.7.1501, 26.7.1501, 30.10.1495, 2.11.1495, 18.11.1506, 10.9.1511, 15.5.1506, 2.11.1506, 18.11.1506.

78. AMC Actas 8.7.1495, 22.1.1496, 20.6.1496, 9.9.1496, 17.9.1501.

79. AMC Actas 20.8.1499. AMC Sec. 6 Ser.1 , No. 1, Sec. 12 Ser. 4 No. 1, Sec. 12 Ser. 4 No. 3 fol. I, Sec. 6 Ser. , No. ,6, Sec. 12 Ser. 4 No. 14,

80. AMC Actas 3.1.1498, 10.1.1498, 28.2.1498, 28.9.1498, 28.6.1499. AMC Sec. 6 Ser. 1 No. 7.

81. AMC Actas 3.3.1497, 14.3.1502.

82. AMC Actas 27.7.1504, 16.9.1504, 20.6.1502, 23.9.1504, 17.8.1495, 6.2.1493, 15.2.1493, 9.8.1497, 13.12.1497.