LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

extent, and occasionally with circumstances of peculiar atrocity. An instance is recorded by Zurita of a bloody feud between two of these nobles, prosecuted with such inveteracy that the parties bound themselves by solemn oath never to desist from it during their lives, and to resist every effort, even on the part of the crown itself, to effect a pacification between them. [18] This remnant of barbarism lingered longer in Aragon than in any other country in Christendom.

      The Aragonese sovereigns, who were many of them possessed of singular capacity and vigor, [19] made repeated efforts to reduce the authority of their nobles within more temperate limits. Peter the Second, by a bold stretch of prerogative, stripped them of their most important rights of jurisdiction. [20] James the Conqueror artfully endeavored to counterbalance their weight by that of the commons and the ecclesiastics. [21] But they were too formidable when united, and too easily united, to be successfully assailed. The Moorish wars terminated, in Aragon, with the conquest of Valencia, or rather the invasion of Murcia, by the middle of the thirteenth century. The tumultuous spirits of the aristocracy, therefore, instead of finding a vent, as in Castile, in these foreign expeditions, were turned within, and convulsed their own country with perpetual revolution. Haughty from the consciousness of their exclusive privileges and of the limited number who monopolized them, the Aragonese barons regarded themselves rather as the rivals of their sovereign, than as his inferiors. Intrenched within the mountain fastnesses, which the rugged nature of the country everywhere afforded, they easily bade defiance to his authority. Their small number gave a compactness and concert to their operations, which could not have been obtained in a multitudinous body. Ferdinand the Catholic well discriminated the relative position of the Aragonese and Castilian nobility, by saying, "it was as difficult to divide the one, as to unite the other." [22]

      These combinations became still more frequent after formally receiving the approbation of King Alfonso the Third, who, in 1287, signed the two celebrated ordinances entitled the "Privileges of Union," by which his subjects were authorized to resort to arms on an infringement of their liberties. [23] The hermandad of Castile had never been countenanced by legislative sanction; it was chiefly resorted to as a measure of police, and was directed more frequently against the disorders of the nobility, than of the sovereign; it was organized with difficulty, and, compared with the union of Aragon, was cumbrous and languid in its operations. While these privileges continued in force, the nation was delivered over to the most frightful anarchy. The least offensive movement on the part of the monarch, the slightest encroachment on personal right or privilege, was the signal for a general revolt. At the cry of Union, that "last voice," says the enthusiastic historian, "of the expiring republic, full of authority and majesty, and an open indication of the insolence of kings," the nobles and the citizens eagerly rushed to arms. The principal castles belonging to the former were pledged as security for their fidelity, and intrusted to conservators, as they were styled, whose duty it was to direct the operations and watch over the interests of the Union. A common seal was prepared, bearing the device of armed men kneeling before their king, intimating at once their loyalty and their resolution, and a similar device was displayed on the standard and the other military insignia of the confederates. [24]

      The power of the monarch was as nothing before this formidable array. The Union appointed a council to control all his movements, and, in fact, during the whole period of its existence, the reigns of four successive monarchs, it may be said to have dictated law to the land. At length Peter the Fourth, a despot in heart, and naturally enough impatient of this eclipse of regal prerogative, brought the matter to an issue, by defeating the army of the Union, at the memorable battle of Epila, in 1348, "the last," says Zurita, "in which it was permitted to the subject to take up arms against the sovereign for the cause of liberty." Then, convoking an assembly of the states at Saragossa, he produced before them the instrument containing the two Privileges, and cut it in pieces with his dagger. In doing this, having wounded himself in the hand, he suffered the blood to trickle upon the parchment, exclaiming, that "a law which had been the occasion of so much blood, should be blotted out by the blood of a king." [25] All copies of it, whether in the public archives, or in the possession of private individuals, were ordered, under a heavy penalty, to be destroyed. The statute passed to that effect carefully omits the date of the detested instrument, that all evidence of its existence might perish with it. [26]

      Instead of abusing his victory, as might have been anticipated from his character, Peter adopted a far more magnanimous policy. He confirmed the ancient privileges of the realm, and made in addition other wise and salutary concessions. From this period, therefore, is to be dated the possession of constitutional liberty in Aragon; (for surely the reign of unbridled license, above described, is not deserving that name;) and this not so much from the acquisition of new immunities, as from the more perfect security afforded for the enjoyment of the old. The court of the Justicia, that great barrier interposed by the constitution between despotism on the one hand and popular license on the other, was more strongly protected, and causes hitherto decided by arms were referred for adjudication to this tribunal. [27] From this period, too, the cortes, whose voice was scarcely heard amid the wild uproar of preceding times, was allowed to extend a beneficial and protecting sway over the land. And, although the social history of Aragon, like that of other countries in this rude age, is too often stained with deeds of violence and personal feuds, yet the state at large, under the steady operation of its laws, probably enjoyed a more uninterrupted tranquillity than fell to the lot of any other nation in Europe.

      The Aragonese cortes was composed of four branches, or arms; [28] the ricos hombres, or great barons; the lesser nobles, comprehending the knights; the clergy, and the commons. The nobility of every denomination were entitled to a seat in the legislature. The ricos hombres were allowed to appear by proxy, and a similar privilege was enjoyed by baronial heiresses. The number of this body was very limited, twelve of them constituting a quorum. [29]

      The arm of the ecclesiastics embraced an ample delegation from the inferior as well as higher clergy. [30] It is affirmed not to have been a component of the national legislature until more than a century and a half after the admission of the commons. [31] Indeed, the influence of the church was much less sensible in Aragon, than in the other kingdoms of the peninsula. Notwithstanding the humiliating concessions of certain of their princes to the papal see, they were never recognized by the nation, who uniformly asserted their independence of the temporal supremacy of Rome; and who, as we shall see hereafter, resisted the introduction of the Inquisition, that last stretch of ecclesiastical usurpation, even to blood. [32]

      The commons enjoyed higher consideration and civil privileges than in Castile. For this they were perhaps somewhat indebted to the example of their Catalan neighbors, the influence of whose democratic institutions naturally extended to other parts of the Aragonese monarchy. The charters of certain cities accorded to the inhabitants privileges of nobility, particularly that of immunity from taxation; while the magistrates of others were permitted to take their seats in the order of hidalgos. [33] From a very early period we find them employed in offices of public trust, and on important missions. [34] The epoch of their admission into the national assembly is traced as far back as 1133, several years earlier than the commencement of popular representation in Castile. [35] Each city had the right of sending two or more deputies selected from persons eligible to its magistracy; but with the privilege of only one vote, whatever might be the number of its deputies. Any place, which had been once represented in cortes, might always claim to be so. [36]

      By a statute of 1307, the convocation of the states, which had been annual, was declared biennial. The kings, however, paid little regard to this provision, rarely summoning them except for some specific necessity. [37] The great officers of the crown, whatever might be their personal rank, were jealously excluded from their deliberations. The session was opened by an address from the king in person, a point of which they were very tenacious; after which the different arms withdrew to their separate apartments. [38] The greatest scrupulousness was manifested in maintaining the rights and dignity of the body; and their intercourse with one another, and with the king, was regulated by the most precise forms of parliamentary etiquette. [39] The subjects of deliberation were referred to a committee from each order, who, after conferring together, reported to their several departments. Every question, it may be presumed, underwent a careful examination; as the legislature, we are told, was usually divided into two parties, "the one maintaining

Скачать книгу