Hondarribia

History

From Prehistory to the Roman Oiasso

In the eastern area of the 543-meter slope of the Jaizkibel massif, near Gaintxurizketa-Guadalupe, José Miguel de Barandiarán discovered in 1934-1935 two dolmens that were later destroyed by road construction. These archaeological surveys and subsequent campaigns during the 1980s and 1990s allow us to trace the first population nuclei in the area where Hondarribia would later be established back to the Middle Paleolithic, i.e., 50,000 years BC. A biface from that period was found not far from Cape Higuer, discovered by José Luis Caso during excavations in 1992. However, according to Jesús Altuna, the lithic remains suggest an even earlier date, specifically 150,000 years BC, in the Middle Paleolithic.

The scarcity of excavated sites directly related to the urban area of present-day Hondarribia, beyond Jaizkibel, does not allow for a fully certain reconstruction of the prehistoric evolution of the future city. Nevertheless, the evidence found in its immediate surroundings s a prototypical development of the different phases — Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age… — of that historical period.

The same applies to the process of Romanization. Excavations within the town by Miren Aierbe and underwater surveys outline a typical Romanization process in the area, beginning during the wars Sertorius and Pompey in 75 BC. In fact, discoveries made in the last twenty years of the previous century in the marine perimeter of Cape Higuer seem to confirm the suspicions of Berrotarán and Díaz in 1785 (report to the Academy of History), recorded by Serapio Múgica, regarding the existence of Roman-type port establishments in the Bidasoa estuary, now rapidly silting up, but which in Roman times appears to have been an estuary reaching Endarlaza, an active area for navigation and coastal shipping.

Archaeological and toponymic remains also exist along the transverse courses of Jaizubía, Ibarla, and Estebenea. Mezquiriz, Hernandorena, and Rodríguez Salis have found a series of Roman archaeological materials, especially ceramics, in the Asturiaga anchorage (toward Higuer), opposite the Castle of San Telmo. These finds, along with significant discoveries in Irún by J. Rodríguez Salís, led scholars like Ignacio Barandiarán to suggest “that the site of Juncal and whatever may be discovered nearby corresponds precisely to the urban core of that Oiason of the Vascones, which, due to the change of Era, was linked with the Romans” (Guipúzcoa en la edad antigua, CAP, 1973, p. 84).

Oiason thus appears as a polyvalent designation. According to Barandiarán, it could refer to a city, a cape or promontory, and a passage Iberia and Aquitaine. Adolf Schulten, guided by his interpretation of a passage in Avienus’ Ora Marítima, conducted an excavation in 1926 under the old chapel of San Telmo in search of a maritime temple to Venus (Veneris iugum). The famous German archaeologist found an ancient structure that reinforced his theory, although it was disputed by several authors, based on the mention of two rocks — Amuitz and Les Briquets for Schulten — which they consider insignificant to be those referred to by the classical chronicler.

Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages

As is the case with the prehistoric period and, to a lesser extent, the Romanization stage, the transitional centuries Antiquity and the Middle Ages (4th to 8th centuries AD) are scarcely documented in Hondarribia. Much of the available information is indirect, and direct references to the territory where Hondarribia would later be established are strongly legendary in character. For example, some literary references assume the existence in this area of communities independent both from the Arab invaders entering the Iberian Peninsula — who seized Pamplona — and from the Carolingian Empire up to Poitiers 711 and 732, as well as from the Carolingians themselves.

Thus, in the Poema de Fernán González, attributed to a monk of the Arlanza Monastery and written around 1260, Hondarribia is mentioned as the setting for an action by Charlemagne, either prior to or simultaneous with the Battle of Roncevaux:

132 Sopo Bernald del Carpyo que françeses passavan, que a Fuente Rrabya todos y arrybauan, por conqueryr Espanna segunt que ellos cuydavan, que ge la conquerryan mas non lo byen asmavan.
133 Ovo grandes poderes Bernaldo dayuntar, e dessi enbyo los al puerte de la mar; ovol'todas sus gentes el rrey casto a dar, non dexo a ese puerto el rrey Carlos ribar.
134 Mato y de frranceses rreyes e potestades, com diz la escrrytura syete fueron, sepades, muchos morieron y, esto byen lo creades, que nunca más tornaron a las sus vecindades.

This Roncevaux–Fontarabia parallel is also observable in Milton’s Paradise Lost (1667):

585 Or whom from Biserta sent from Afric shore
586 when Charlemain with all his peerage fell
587 by Fontarabia.

A legend tells of the kings of Navarre hunting on Mount Jaizkibel. According to it, King Sancho II "Abarca" (970-994) encountered a young woman whose beauty he praised, calling her guztiz ederra, and she became the mother of one of his sons. Captain Martín de Juztiz obtained in 1613 that a king of arms issue a certification of royal descent for members of the Juztiz lineage, based on the supposed equivalence juztiz = guztiz. The document was granted by Philip III. The tradition also attributes to this monarch the erection of the castle predating the walls, although one of the bastions of the later wall was called, until the 18th century, de Wamba.

None of the cited sources allows for a precise reconstruction of the process by which Roman authority in the region disintegrated and was gradually replaced by various barbarian peoples — Asting Vandals, Herules… — culminating in 613 with a more or less stable occupation by the Visigoths according to certain chronicles, such as Fredegarius Scholasticus in the 8th century. However, this circumstance does not appear to have prevented the existence of independent Vascon communities and a clear Merovingian presence from what is now Aquitaine, in the territory where the future Hondarribia would be established.

From the Early Middle Ages to the Late Middle Ages

In the field of documented evidence, the name Hundarribia already appears among the lands granted by the King of Navarre to the inhabitants of San Sebastián, in a document that Banús dates 1153-1157 and 1169-1194.

This presence, now clearly documented as a community identifiable with present-day Hondarribia, is confirmed in documents produced at the time when the Guipúzcoa territory passed into the hands of the King of Castile in 1200, through a complex process in which — once again — the scarcity of documentation leads to speculation. In this case, it is difficult to discern the degree of military force employed by the Castilians to annex this territory — which already included a community identified as Hondarribia — and the possibility that a substantial part of the population — especially those living in fortified places — decided to abandon loyalty to the King of Navarre in exchange for a set of negotiated conditions, as maintained by the prevailing foral doctrine until the 19th century.

This situation, in the case of Hondarribia and unlike the rest of the Guipúzcoa territory, would fluctuate throughout the Early Modern period, during which this population would be reintegrated into the Kingdom of Navarre either voluntarily, as occurred on several occasions during the 17th century, or through various Navarrese counterattacks, such as those that turned it into a place of the King of Navarre in 1521 and 1524.

In any case, the name Hondarribia appears after San Sebastián in the enumeration of places of the Kingdom of Navarre conquered by King Alfonso VIII of Castile, as reported by the Archbishop of Toledo, Rodrigo Ximénez de Rada [(cf. De Rebus Hispaniae, Lib. VII, Cap. XXXII, p. 172, Madrid edition, 1793)]. In the original Latin text it is written Fontem Rapidum, and according to the Toledo codex of the same text, Fontem Rapitum, both in the accusative.

The Fuero of Hondarribia

It was granted by Alfonso VIII, together with his wife Eleanor and his son Ferdinand, on April 18, 1203, three years after Gipuzkoa had passed into the hands of the Castilian crown. Gorosabel reproduces the Latin text in his Diccionario Histórico de Guipúzcoa, a text of which neither the original nor any early copy survives today.

The council of Hondarribia was granted the same status as San Sebastián and was given the territories from the Oyarzun River to the Bidasoa, from Peña de Aya to the sea, from Lesaca and Belfa (Vera?) to the sea, as well as Irún with all its inhabitants, and the port of Astuniaga, from which the king received 500 maravedís. He designated Guillermo de Lazón and his associates as inhabitants and exempted the people of Hondarribia from all tolls throughout the kingdom.

Town Charter of Fuenterrabía granted by Alfonso VIII

“Let it be known to present and future that I, Aldefonsus, by the grace of God King of Castile and Toledo, together with my wife Eleanor and my son Ferdinand, grant and concede to you, the council of Fuenterrabía, present and future, the foro of Saint Sebastian to hold in perpetuity. I also grant and concede to you the following territories: from the Oyarzun River to the river of Fuenterrabía, from Peña de Aya to the sea, from Lesaca to the sea, from Belfa to the sea, and the territory of Irún with all its inhabitants. I also grant to you Guillermo de Lazon and his associates, to be your neighbors. I grant you the port of Astuniaga, so that it shall always be yours, on the condition that every year you give fifty maravedís for this port. I firmly command that no livestock shall be sent to pasture in your territories without your consent. And if anyone dares to violate or diminish this charter, let them incur the full wrath of Almighty God, pay the royal party four hundred aureos as security, and restore double the damage caused. This charter was made at Palencia on the 18th day of April, 1203. And I, King Aldefonsus, reigning in Castile and Toledo, have written, sealed, and confirmed this charter by my own hand.”

Regarding the extent of the territories, Gorosabel comments:

“From the context of King Alfonso VIII’s privilege, it can be seen that the jurisdictional terms granted to Fuenterrabía from west to east extended from the Pasajes channel to the Bidasoa River. They therefore included the territories of Irún, Lezo, and Pasajes in the eastern part, that is, the San Juan quarter. Irún is explicitly mentioned in the privilege, as is Lezo, referred to as Guillermo Lazon; and those supposed to be associates or neighbors seem to be the inhabitants of Pasajes or its surroundings. Considering the limits from south to north — Peña de Aya, Lesaca, and Belfa (probably Vera) to the sea — one might think that the Oyarzun valley should also be included within Hondarribia’s jurisdiction. However, this does not appear to have been the case; at that time, the valley was independent of the city. In proof, there is no record that it was ever subject to Hondarribia, unlike the other three places mentioned. Thus, the area granted to Hondarribia by the charter from these points to the sea should be understood as excluding the territory of the Oyarzun valley.”

The fortification and repopulation of Hondarribia were motivated by Castilian royal convenience following the conquest of Guipúzcoa in 1200. Sancho the Strong concluded in 1201 a treaty of peace and friendship with John Lackland, and with the burghers of Bayonne the following year, which allowed him to prepare the reconquest of this part of his kingdom and, with respect to England, to counter Alfonso VIII’s hereditary claims.

A significant portion of Hondarribia’s inhabitants gathered around the castle and its fortifications, attracted by the advantages of the royal charter. Others preferred to farm the slopes of Jaizkibel or fish, the latter settling on the Magdalena sands. Since the Middle Ages, Hondarribia’s population was mainly involved in three productive sectors that persisted throughout the Early Modern period: farmers, merchants, and fishermen. The latter were especially known for their skill in fishing and whaling, one of these cetaceans appearing on the council’s seal in 1295. The animals were spotted from a watchtower by a paid lookout employed by the council or by the Confraternity of Saint Peter, established in the 14th century. Once informed, the fishermen would set out to catch the animal, which was then butchered on the beach itself.

The men settled within the town engaged in trade. The name La Lonja, still applied to part of the current urban area near the Bidasoa, is a vestige of this intense medieval commercial activity, somewhat reduced during the Early Modern period. Near the Puntal, duties were collected on goods passing along the Bidasoa or stored in the port, whether destined for or coming from Navarre. The merchandise was varied: iron from Bizkaia and Guipúzcoa for Bidasoa’s forges, iron manufactured goods, Navarrese agricultural products — oil, wool, cereals, wood, wine — whale products, other fish, etc. The town thus had two ports: Asturiaga, a refuge in case of storms, and Puntal, primarily commercial in character.

Close Relationship with Navarre

Despite the transfer from one crown to another, longstanding economic ties kept Hondarribia in a cordial position with the Kingdom of Navarre, especially regarding commercial relations that the town sought to keep open, beyond the almost endemic border conflicts the two crowns. Thus, taking advantage of truces established Castile and Navarre, the council of Hondarribia signed an agreement in 1245 with King Theobald I, by which it committed to protecting Navarrese people and their property:

“We, the provost, the jurors, and the entire council of Fuenterrabía: make known to all who see these letters, that we have, in good faith, received under our command and in our defense, for the duration of the kings’ truce, the men and women and all the goods of the Kingdom of Navarre, as far as our power extends, they paying in our town the customs they are due to pay. We must not receive in our town, nor under its authority, any wrongdoer or theft committed there, unless by order of our lord the King of Castile, or by him who holds the town for honor.”

The Cathedral of Pamplona continued to hold a series of bustalizas near Hondarribia the 13th and 15th centuries. Similarly, San Miguel in Excelsis held some according to documents dated 1371 and 1374.

The Return of Hondarribia to Navarre (1256)

These close ties facilitated the temporary return of Hondarribia to the Kingdom of Navarre on January 1, 1256. Following a meeting the kings of Castile and Navarre in Vitoria, Alfonso X “the Wise” returned the towns of San Sebastián and Hondarribia to Theobald II of Navarre (1253–1270), along with all their land and maritime revenues. The return was carried out “de mi en amor en toda su vida,” meaning that the population belonged to Theobald for his lifetime, reverting thereafter to the Kingdom of Castile.

Alfonso’s presence in Gipuzkoa in 1280, when Philip “the Bold” attempted to besiege the town but was thwarted by the Hondarribiarra Machin de Arsu, confirms that this arrangement was indeed carried out.

New Exemptions

Alfonso the Wise, by a privilege issued in San Sebastián on December 28, 1280, in order to encourage better settlement of Hondarribia, exempted it from all taxes and levies forever, except for the tithe of the sea. His son, King Sancho IV, issued another in Madrid on December 1, 1290, ordering that merchants coming to the port of Hondarribia, or departing from it with goods to Navarre, travel safely and securely, paying the customary duties from the time of his grandfather and the tithe on goods they exported or imported, except for those prohibited.

War of the Normans and Bayonne Citizens, 1293–1303

This clear commercial vocation, however, did not prevent Hondarribia from being drawn into the numerous conflicts affecting the surrounding territory, straddling England, Navarre, and Castile. Thus, in 1297, the important coastal towns from Hondarribia to San Vicente de la Barquera gathered in Castro Urdiales to agree on the stance they would take regarding the war that had broken out in 1293 the Bayonne citizens and the Normans, the former supported by the English, the latter by the French and Navarrese.

Normandy Campaign of Charles II of Navarre, 1355–136

Despite the existence of partial peace agreements various towns in the immediate vicinity of Hondarribia — San Sebastián, Biarritz, Bayonne, Laredo… — Hondarribia, with the approval of the King of Castile, was used at least as a base for the ongoing wars Navarre and other powers of the time. This was the case with the Normandy campaign, which began in July 1355 and aimed to recover the patrimonial possessions of the House of Évreux threatened by the King of France. The expedition, composed of 2,000 Navarrese, departed from Hondarribia, stopping in Bayonne, then an English town.

From 1356 to 1357, the Navarrese king, an important piece on the European chessboard during the Hundred Years’ War, remained imprisoned in Arleux, and after his release, became the master of the situation. But with the death of Étienne Marcel, leader of the Parisian popular revolt, his fortunes declined. And although new ships sailed from Hondarribia under Muñoz de Salt with 334 Navarrese and Guipuzcoans, Charles II preferred to make peace in October 1360.

This steady support from Guipúzcoa was the result of Charles of Évreux’s policy of rapprochement with Castile from the very beginning of his reign, a policy that materialized in the pacification of the border Navarre and Gipuzkoa and in the mercenary contracts signed by various Guipuzcoan lords, such as the Oñaz, Berastegui, Lazcano, and others, with the Navarrese king.

New Agreement with Navarre (1365)

In August 1365, Hondarribia concluded a commercial treaty with Charles II of Navarre, under which he would construct a warehouse in his port of Monzón, in Andara (Lesaca), where Navarrese merchants could unload their goods for transport to the sea, and would also build, near the port, a bridge for the passage of people, animals, and goods. The king committed to maintain the roads in his kingdom up to the warehouse and bridge, and the council of Hondarribia pledged, at its own expense, to create a suitable route from the warehouse and bridge by land and water, “removing obstacles, clearing and widening the river and roads, so that a ship of forty cargas could reach the port by water, and the goods could travel safely by land and water to the said town or to the large ships, the merchants paying the sailors, boats, and mule drivers their wages.”

Merchants making this journey would be exempt from all other duties, paying six cornados or six carlin coins per load, without any new tolls, taxes, or levies, except if they bought or sold in Castile goods that were prohibited and subject to tithes. Merchants transporting Navarrese wine through the port could load it and take it wherever they wished by ship, or sell it in Hondarribia under their jurisdiction, in bulk, in barrels or casks, “not selling in taverns or retail,” paying the six dineros. For each quintal of iron loaded at the port, they had to pay 4 maravedís.

Return of Hondarribia to the Kingdom of Navarre (1366–1368)

The civil war Peter I and Henry of Trastámara allowed Charles II “the Bad” of Navarre to regain much of the Navarrese kingdom’s lands that had been conquered by Castile. Peter I promised in Livorno on September 23, 1366, the return of a series of towns, among which was Hondarribia. Consequently, Henry of Trastámara promised the same at Santa Cruz de Campezo in January 1367 to counter that offer from the Navarrese king. The following year, Charles secured what had been promised. However, in 1373, papal arbitration forced the Navarrese king to abandon Araba and Rioja, and in the subsequent war with Castile, the remaining territories.

Franchises

Both Henry II, the Catholic Monarchs, and Joanna I of Castile granted new privileges and exemptions to the ships and merchants of Hondarribia, with the aim of attracting entrepreneurs to settle a community that was otherwise subjected to almost constant military tensions due to its border location rival powers such as Navarre, Castile, France, and England.

For example, a document signed by Henry II in Toledo on December 12, 1374, ordered that the ten maravedís annually assigned to Hondarribia for the maintenance of its walls be paid from the rights of the ironworks and the tithe of the sea. The Catholic Monarchs issued a similar order in Medina del Campo on March 21, 1489, mandating that the residents and natives of Hondarribia, and their ships, fustas, and vessels, should not have any of their supplies taken or blocked, despite any contrary privilege.

King Ferdinand the Catholic issued another privilege in Zaragoza on July 18, 1498, ordering that Hondarribia receive annually, as long as he wished, 250 gold florins for the town’s sails and the guard of its gates. Another privilege of the same king, dated 1516, granted Hondarribia 112,000 maravedís from the alcabalas for the services rendered by the Guipuzcoans during the Battle of Belate in 1512.

Hondarribia also received a privilege from Queen Joanna in Valladolid (March 18, 1527) ensuring that no ship was given preference for loading over those from Hondarribia, even if larger. Another from the same queen, dated March 22, 1527, ordered that Hondarribia’s ships be free from anchorage, provost, admiralty, and royal duties in all ports of the kingdom.

Representative in the Castilian Cortes of 1391

The prosperity of Hondarribia as a commercial and urban center at the end of the Late Middle Ages is evident, as Gorosabel rightly noted, in the names of some of its streets, such as Platería, Obispo, Reina, Florencia, Ubilla, Gamboa, Tristán, Laborda, and others, which reflect the presence of guilds working in luxury trades — such as silversmiths — or notable noble families who made these streets their residences.

Another indication of Hondarribia’s importance at that time is the attendance, at the Cortes held in Madrid in January 1391 by King Henry III of Castile, of a procurator representing Hondarribia, Esteban de Aluda. This is recorded in the official register of those Cortes, published by the Real Academia de la Historia.

Way of Saint James

The same frontier character and status as a major commercial center also facilitated Hondarribia’s inclusion in one of the main pilgrimage routes of the time: the route to Santiago de Compostela, along with Rome, one of the two principal sanctuaries of Christendom. The hermitage of Santiago is already mentioned in documents from the early 15th century, where its patron is depicted dressed as a pilgrim. In Hondarribia, pilgrims also had access to the hospitals of San Bartolomé and Santa Magdalena, could visit the hermitages of La Gracia and Santiago, and then continued their journey toward Lezo via Jaizubia.

The Final Years of the Middle Ages

Unlike most of the territory of Guipúzcoa, these years were relatively peaceful for Hondarribia. The catastrophic events, whether accidental or deliberate, that affected the area at a time when Guipúzcoa — like much of Europe — was experiencing the consequences of wars noble factions — Yorks and Lancasters, Giles and Negretes, Armagnacs and Burgundians… — were limited to two fires. In 1462, Hondarribia suffered a partial fire, and in 1498 a general fire, leaving only nine houses standing. However, the population recovered from this disaster and throughout the Early Modern period remained a thriving urban and commercial center, despite new destructive episodes, mainly due to the various sieges it endured 1476 and 1876. Only the arrival of the railway and the opening of new communication routes — primarily the main road, which bypassed the town — would reduce its former importance, almost relegating it to the status of a small fishing village. This situation persisted only until much of its former vitality was regained during the 20th century, mainly through the development of new industries — such as tourism — and new transportation links, including the airport connecting it directly to Madrid and Barcelona since the mid-20th century.

These fires were compounded by the siege of 1476, which lasted until 1477. That year, Alain d’Albret “the Great” entered Guipúzcoa with 40,000 men, while Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon were engaged in the struggle to claim the throne from the heiress, Joanna, supported by Portugal allied with France under Louis XI. All the knights of Biscay, Álava, and Guipúzcoa took part, with Juan de Gamboa appointed governor of the besieged town. Alain d’Albret was forced to withdraw, though he attempted again the following year with the same result. At the time, the town was nearly impregnable.

According to Garibay: “The town stands on a height and is surrounded by a high wall. The river waters surround it for the most part and rise at high tide to the middle of this wall. On the land side, it is heavily towered. It is rugged terrain where horses can barely move.” Violet-le-Duc also describes it, but in more detail in Hernando del Pulgar’s Chronicle (part 2, chap. XXXVII), recounting the 1476 siege: the townspeople “resolved to defend themselves from the base of the walls, from the bastions and the ditches they had; for this, they demolished the tops of the towers and the battlements, so that if French artillery struck the wall and brought it down, the falling stones would not injure or impede those defending the town around it.”

According to an inventory dated May 15, 1508, the castle’s stored war materials included: 27 major artillery pieces; flying pieces and lombards with two attendants each; three pieces called lombardetas; 14 lisardetas; 6 crossbows; 28 ribaduquines; 5 arquebuses; 3 barrels of iron shot; 56 barrels of gunpowder; 2 sacks of saltpeter; a pipe full of sulfur; 133 crossbows; 46 iron pulleys; 19 storage boxes; 375 bundles; 50 pairs of breastplates; 102 helmets with neck guards; 34 bundles of used lances and 77 heavy lances.

Governors of the fortress

The alcaides in charge of this fortress from 1491 to 1524, according to J. de Altadill, were as follows:

1491: D. Juan de Gamboa, who died in office on February 13, 1496
1496: Captain D. Diego de Ayala, who died on March 2 of the same year
1496: Captain D. Hurtado de Luna, from July 12
1506: D. Carlos Enríquez de Cisneros, from August 24, 1506
1506: simultaneously with the previous, D. Pedro Ruiz de Ibarra, from March 29
1511: D. Diego de Vera, Artillery Captain, from October 30
1519: his son, D. Fernando de Vera, until July 17, 1519
1524: D. Sancho Martínez de Leiva, from March 30 until his death on March 30, 1542

Castle of San Telmo

In addition to the town’s defenses, from 1598 onward, the Castle of San Telmo was established at the mouth of the Bidasoa River. Built by explicit royal order, it was intended, as stated on the inscription above its lintel, to combat raids by corsairs from other powers in the town’s waters, simply referred to in the inscription as “pirates.” Over time, this adjective replaced its original designation in common speech, and the fortress became popularly known as the Castle of the Pirates.

Port Projects with Navarre

Commercial Relations and the Bidasoa Canal Project with Navarre after 1512

The annexation of peninsular Navarre to the Crown of Castile in 1512 largely mitigated the conflicts surrounding Hondarribia during the medieval period. A clear example of this new situation was the strengthening of commercial ties with Navarre. Ten years after incorporation into Castile, the people of Hondarribia petitioned the Cortes of Navarre to study the possibility of canalizing the Bidasoa River to facilitate Navarrese foreign trade.

Navarre responded by depositing one thousand gold ducats to assist the works, funds that were auctioned twice without practical results. According to Ciriquian, Tolosa and San Sebastián protested, arguing that the canalization would harm the transit rights of the former and the port interests of the latter. Nevertheless, negotiations Hondarribia and Navarre continued.

The Navarrese viceroy visited the river, commissioned the drafting of the canal project to Maestre Gil of Gallur, and Hondarribia left in Pamplona, as a guarantee of its commitments, a cross base weighing over 11 kg that belonged to the town. The project never came to fruition, although it was renewed in one form or another in 1569, 1597, and 1638, always without success, and the issue continued to be raised into the 19th century. The Napoleonic occupation, which returned Hondarribia to full Navarrese control, once again sparked among some local afrancesados the idea of connecting Hondarribia with Pamplona by a canal.

Disputes with the Province

Disputes with the Province (16th–17th centuries)

This independent spirit, which led the city to establish stronger ties with its mother kingdom – Navarre – than with the rest of the province, sparked numerous conflicts Hondarribia and the rest of Gipuzkoa. These disputes occurred throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, reaching perhaps their peak, as detailed by Gorosabel:

« Since ancient times, Hondarribia claimed that in the place called Puntal, near the city, there should be a boat for the passage of people to France, also maintaining that its ordinary alcaldes were competent to issue licenses, that is, passports for goods exported to that kingdom. In short, the aim was to nullify the concession that the Catholic Monarchs had granted to the province for the alcaldía de sacas, which it had long held. Hondarribia based its claim on the consideration that the Beobia crossing was under its jurisdiction and added that in the past its alcaldes had been exclusively responsible for border smuggling. From this, it concluded that the grant of the alcaldía de sacas to the province could not prejudice the existing rights at the time, or in other words, it should be understood without harm to third parties.

The province consistently rejected these claims and firmly upheld the exclusive jurisdiction of its alcalde de sacas over the passage. As a result of this disagreement, the then town of Fuenterrabia filed a complaint against the province before the Council of Castile around 1560; the province, offended by such conduct, deprived Fuenterrabia of the benefit of the alcaldía de sacas, whose jurisdiction it refused to recognize. This situation persisted until 1621, when the city proposed a settlement. A concord was drawn up on May 2 of that year: Fuenterrabia renounced its claims and lawsuits, recognizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the alcalde de sacas over the entire Beobia passage. In recognition of this submission, and because Fuenterrabia had been excluded from that alcaldía for more than sixty years, the province granted it two extraordinary turns.

Nevertheless, despite this formal settlement, the city later renewed its old claims on several occasions. In 1675, for example, its alcaldes insisted that their inhabitants not be registered by the guards of the alcaldía de sacas when crossing to France, claiming instead to issue the passports for goods exported to the kingdom themselves. At other times, they sought for the boat at the passage to be located at Puntal, near the city. Their alcaldes also tried to take over jurisdiction over cases of smuggling complaints made by themselves, their dependents, or neighbors. The province, however, always vigorously rejected these unprecedented claims, maintaining the exclusive jurisdiction of its alcalde de sacas. This led to new, lengthy lawsuits before the Council of Castile. The outcome was that in 1713, the supreme tribunal d that the jurisdiction of the alcalde de sacas was cumulative and preventive alongside the ordinary alcaldes of Hondarribia in its territory. »

The Witches of Hondarribia

The town of Hondarribia became involved in a famous witchcraft trial in 1611. Under the accusation of engaging in witchcraft, made by children, several alleged witches were arrested. They were: María de Garro, Inesa de Gaxen, María de Illarra, and María de Echagaray. Their property was confiscated and a letter was sent to the inquisitor Salazar. Forty-one people were called to testify during these events, which were contemporary with those culminating in the 1610 Auto de Fe in Logroño; only one confessed to knowing the existence of a witches’ conventicle or akelarre in the area. All the accused women eventually d themselves witches except for the indomitable Inesa de Gaxen, who, despite all the pressure and mistreatment, denied it until the end. A few months later, the Inquisition pardoned them all and returned their property, but a sentence of exile, to be enforced by the civil authorities of Hondarribia, remained pending. The theater group “Intxixu” from Oiartzun, led by Eugenio Arocena, staged in the spring-summer of 1980 the free play Inexa, based on these events but directing the action and script toward a feminist interpretation of the repression of such heterodoxy in the Basque Country.

The 1611 trial, as well as subsequent cases that also took place in Hondarribia — specifically in 1636 — constitute a valuable example of an almost unique attitude in Europe at the time: the refusal, by both religious and civil authorities, to believe in the existence of witches. This approach would take a century to be commonly accepted in the rest of the continent.

Jurisdiction Issues with Irún, Lezo, and Pasajes

After the late medieval period marked by factional wars, Hondarribia was established as a lordship over a large territory. This status as a collective seigneury, common in Europe at the time, led to long and constant jurisdictional disputes with the populations under its authority. The main disputes concerned Irún over the loading and unloading of goods, demolition of built houses, funerals of royal persons, imposition of taxes, delivery of repartimientos, military services, verification of weights and measures, and, more generally, any matter asserting Hondarribia’s exemption from seigneurial jurisdiction. The inhabitants of this town, along with those of Lezo and Pasajes de San Juan, had further disagreements with Hondarribia regarding military service of their neighbors on the following occasions, according to Gorosabel:

“Another dispute arose in 1615 concerning the deliveries of Infanta D.ª Ana and Princess D.ª Isabel, and the preparations the French intended to make on an island in the river; but those in 1617 were even more serious. Two criminals attempting to cross into France boarded a gabare in the Fuenterrabía section; the city’s alcaldes, informed, ordered the provost with six companions to arrest them in a small boat. Upon reaching Endaya, they were attacked by the villagers, captured, mistreated, and their boat burned. The people of Fuenterrabía took five ages from Endaya and burned five of their gabarres. These initial events led to mutual reprisals, such as the seizure of French ships in the port of Pasajes and the imprisonment of several Fuenterrabía residents by the military governor of Bayonne. Meanwhile, the French placed a large mast on one of the islands in the Bidasoa river as a sign of possession. The alcaldes of Fuenterrabía, with one hundred armed citizens, removed the mast and burned it in view of Endaya. All these events were brought to the attention of the Spanish and French governments, whose intervention resolved the conflict with the return of prisoners and ships. After the death of King Philip III in 1621, the province decreed that all towns celebrate his funeral with maximum solemnity, and that the following day banners be raised in honor of Philip IV. In accordance with this decision, Fuenterrabía scheduled days for both ceremonies and sent a mandate to Irún, Lezo, and Pasajes, ordering their residents to appear in the city armed and in mourning. These three towns refused, considering it offensive to their civil status. They therefore sent their regidores, Cristóbal de Zumarrista and Vicente de la Torre, to explain their reasons to Hondarribia. The city council was not satisfied and imprisoned them. Although the provincial corregidor ordered their immediate release without prejudice to the case, his order was ignored. After twenty-three days of strict imprisonment, the matter was resolved through a concord agreement on June 14 of the same year. In it, Lezo and Pasajes promised to attend Fuenterrabía on such occasions and other royal service events, as they had previously done. Fuenterrabía, in turn, dropped the criminal proceedings.”

However, despite such temporary agreements, tensions the three communities and the Hondarribia council continued, sometimes erupting into actual armed rebellions, such as those led by Irún residents in 1667 and 1669. These disputes and the constant insistence of the communities affected by Hondarribia’s lordship eventually led to its disintegration, as the late 18th and mid-19th centuries, Pasajes and Irún first, followed by Lezo, became independent of Hondarribia’s seigneurial domain.

The Siege of 1638

If the siege of 1476 must be framed in the context of the struggles the crowns of Spain and France for supremacy over Europe, the one that besieged Hondarribia for two months during the summer of 1638 follows the same geostrategic pattern but on a much larger scale: that of the so-called Thirty Years’ War, which involved practically all the powers of Europe, aligned respectively with the Catholic and Protestant sides. In 1636, Spanish troops, reinforced by the provincial militias of Gipuzkoa, invaded Labourd. In 1638, it was the French troops that entered Guipúzcoa.

The fortress of Hondarribia was formally besieged from early July to early September of that year by a large French army commanded by the Prince of Condé, while at the same time the Archbishop of Bordeaux blockaded the town from the sea with a large fleet, whose flagship was the prestigious warship La Couronne, practically newly built but, despite the spectacular presence in the Bay of Txingudi, completely ineffective from a military point of view. Like the other ships under the command of Archbishop Sourdis, it could only record a partial victory on 22 August 1638 over the relief fleet led by Lope de Hoces, cornered at Getaria and destroyed—except for a single ship—through the effective use of incendiary fireships.

However, the operation was not fully successful, as the attempted landing at Getaria was repelled by militias from several towns—including Getaria itself and Zarautz—concentrated at that point to prevent this other stronghold of Guipúzcoa, and above all its magnificent natural port, from falling into French hands.

The siege of Hondarribia began on 1 July and lasted sixty-nine consecutive days. The garrison consisted of Irish soldiers, the town’s inhabitants, and troops from the towns of Tolosa and Azpeitia, who, by order of the province, entered the fortress for its defense, totaling 700 men under the command of Domingo de Eguía from Bilbao and the two elected mayors of Hondarribia for 1638, Don Pedro Saez de Izquierdo and Captain Diego de Butrón, a specialist in mining and countermining tactics, fundamental for the defense of a fortress under a siege of the scale that surrounded Hondarribia.

The hardships of this long and determined siege were immense. The enemy opened two breaches in the walls, large enough to ride through on horseback, detonated seven mines, and launched nine assaults, all of which were repelled. Their bombardment destroyed many houses in the town. Despite all this and the scarcity of provisions, the fortress held valiantly until 7 September, when it was relieved by the Spanish army under Juan Alonso Henríquez de Cabrera, Admiral of Castile, who, after a difficult advance from the port of Pasajes, retaken from the French, marched along Jaizkibel in extreme conditions against French troops encamped in fortified positions around the Hermitage of the Virgin of Guadalupe.

Once the first French defenses were broken by the Spanish vanguard, panic seized the French troops, forcing them to flee toward Hendaye. The French under Louis XIII, with few exceptions, retreated in disorder to the Bidasoa. Their losses were estimated at 1,500 dead, 2,000 prisoners, and another 2,000 drowned while crossing the strait separating Hondarribia from Hendaye.

The Spanish captured a rich booty in money, jewelry, clothing, highly important documents for the senior officers of the besieging army, all kinds of equipment, 20 pieces of artillery with their ammunition, and 54 flags. A famous paragraph from a letter Domingo de Eguía sent to his wife after the event summarized the end of the siege: “My friend: Since you do not know about war, I will tell you that the enemy army was divided into four parts: one fled, one we killed, one we captured, and one drowned. Farewell, I am going to have dinner in Fuenterrabia.”

Beyond the knowledge of warfare of Domingo de Eguía’s wife, Henao and Soraluce tell of the valor of a hundred armed women among the besieged, who volunteered to take up positions on the walls (Soraluce: Historia General de Guipúzcoa, Vitoria, 1870, vol. II, Book IV). Gorosabel recounts that Philip IV, very pleased with the successful outcome, sent a letter to Hondarribia on 15 September 1638, expressing his royal appreciation, offering to rebuild the destroyed houses and grant other favors to Hondarribia, including the concession of the title of city.

The King. — Justice, governance, and noble knights of the very noble and very loyal town of Fuenterrabía. From what the Admiral of Castile wrote on 7 September, it has been understood how, after having attacked the enemy that day, Our Lord was pleased to grant so happy an outcome to my arms, so that that night he was able to enter that town after having broken and put the enemy to flight, with further losses of their men, banners, artillery, ammunition, and baggage. With this, the fortress was relieved from the peril in which it found itself, having resisted with indescribable valor for sixty-nine days the siege laid upon it; enduring the hardships of that time with such bravery that, without regard for property or life, you upheld the reputation of my arms with the fidelity you have always n, giving an example of your steadfastness and courage to all nations; for which I shall always hold you in the highest regard, as such particular service deserves, since the glory of such a happy outcome consisted therein.

And although all comes from the hand of Our Lord, I acknowledge the part you have had in it, which is so special and in accordance with your duties, and I shall make it manifest by granting you great favors. And although I have already resolved some, you shall tell me which ones you consider most convenient, so that I may take a decision regarding them. From now on, I offer the prompt rebuilding of your houses and have commanded the Admiral to send me an account of the expenses, so that provision may be made without delay, and that aid be given to each neighbor in the manner you see fit. I have also ordered that I be informed of those who distinguished themselves on this occasion, so that they may be given advantages above any pay, so that such good subjects be duly rewarded, and there may be remembrance at all times of the excellence with which you persevered and resisted the enemy army, for even the women attended to all necessary actions, conducting themselves with such valor that they did not refrain from the most dangerous deeds.

For this, I consider myself greatly obliged, and for the much and good that you accomplished in this siege, both to the harm of the enemy and in your defense. And indeed, I shall not forget the love and perseverance with which you exposed yourselves to the enemy’s incursions, having such a part in ensuring that my arms maintain the credit they have acquired everywhere. Madrid, 15 September 1638. — I, the King.

As can be deduced from this document, the king entrusted Hondarribia to propose the favors it deemed most convenient for the restoration and reward of its inhabitants. Responding to this invitation, after already having been honored with the title of city, it submitted a petition to the king, ing the following favors:

Le Roi. — Justice, gouvernement, et chevaliers nobles de la très noble et très loyale ville de Fuenterrabía. D’après ce qu’a écrit l’Amiral de Castille le 7 septembre, il a été compris comment, après avoir attaqué l’ennemi ce jour-là, Notre Seigneur a été servi de donner un si heureux succès à mes armes, de sorte que cette nuit-là, il put entrer dans cette ville après avoir brisé et mis l’ennemi en fuite, avec de nouvelles pertes en hommes, étendards, artillerie, munitions et bagages. Ainsi, la place fut délivrée du danger dans lequel elle se trouvait, ayant résisté avec un courage indescriptible pendant soixante-neuf jours au siège qui lui était imposé ; supportant les épreuves de ce temps avec une telle bravoure que, sans égard aux biens ou à la vie, vous avez maintenu la réputation de mes armes avec la fidélité que vous avez toujours montrée, donnant à toutes les nations l’exemple de votre constance et de votre courage ; pour cela, je vous en ferai toujours une estimation particulière, car un service aussi particulier le mérite, puisque la gloire d’un si heureux succès en consistait.

Et bien que tout vienne de la main de Notre Seigneur, je reconnais la part que vous y avez prise, qui est si particulière et conforme à vos obligations, et je le manifesterai en vous faisant de grandes grâces. Et bien que j’en aie déjà résolu certaines, vous me direz celles qui vous paraissent les plus convenables, afin que je puisse prendre une décision à leur sujet. Dès maintenant, j’offre la reconstruction rapide de vos maisons et j’ai ordonné à l’Amiral de m’envoyer un état des dépenses, afin que des provisions soient faites sans délai, et que l’aide soit donnée à chaque voisin selon ce que vous jugerez approprié. J’ai également ordonné qu’on m’informe de ceux qui se sont distingués à cette occasion, afin qu’ils bénéficient d’avantages au-delà de tout salaire, pour que de si bons sujets soient dûment récompensés, et qu’il reste mémoire à tout moment de l’excellence avec laquelle vous avez persévéré et résisté à l’armée ennemie, car même les femmes se sont employées à toutes les actions nécessaires, se comportant avec un tel courage qu’elles ne se sont pas dérobées aux actes les plus dangereux.

Pour cela, je me considère grandement obligé, et pour tout ce que vous avez accompli de bien dans ce siège, tant au détriment de l’ennemi que dans votre défense. Et en vérité, je n’oublierai pas l’amour et la persévérance avec lesquels vous vous êtes exposés aux incursions de l’ennemi, ayant une telle part dans le maintien du crédit acquis partout par mes armes. Madrid, le 15 septembre 1638. — Moi, le Roi.

Comme on le déduit de ce document, le roi chargea Hondarribia de proposer les grâces qu’elle jugeait les plus appropriées pour la restauration et la récompense de ses habitants. En réponse à cette invitation, après avoir déjà été honorée du titre de ville, elle adressa au roi une requête sollicitant les faveurs suivantes :

The king ultimately granted these s in a somewhat general manner. He issued a royal decree confirming the title of “very valiant city,” which had already been previously granted; he also granted Hondarribia the patronage of the parish church of the town of Elgoibar, along with the income from its tithes. Residents who had served as officers during the siege were granted military ranks without further service, and the daughters of the city were given priority in the pious works established by the king. Philip IV also allowed the city to benefit from the fines imposed there for forty years to fund the reconstruction of its walls. Finally, he granted that the Behobia ferry be moved to the city and authorized the assessment and compensation for the damages suffered by residents during the siege. Other s were not considered.

The sieges of Hondarribia, particularly that of 1638, were frequently referenced in Spanish Golden Age literature, such as La Arcadia, Los ramilletes de Madrid, Juan de Dios and Antón Martín by Lope de Vega; La sombra de Mos de la Forza by Quevedo; and No hay cosa como callar by Calderón, among others.

La séparation du Guipuscoa, 1638–1653

The precedence granted to Hondarribia through the favors deserved as a result of the siege of 1638 further deepened the differences that hindered its integration into the provincial structure of Guipúzcoa, established since the 13th century. Thus, for fifteen years, Hondarribia ceased attending the General Juntas of Guipúzcoa and sought to manage its affiliation with Navarra. Gorosabel recounts this incident, which highlights once again the greater geographical and economic convenience that the Kingdom of Navarra continued to represent for Hondarribia, from which it had been detached in 1200:

"Scarcely had it obtained the title of city in 1638 when it ceased to attend the general and particular Juntas of the province, citing various pretexts; but the true cause of its deviation soon became apparent. In fact, it claimed that its representatives should occupy the first seat in the Juntas, also voting first; and that in the convocations, the name of 'city' should precede that of towns. In short, it wished to assert itself in the exercise of prerogatives over all other towns, to the detriment of those more advanced in importance and, consequently, higher in the provincial hierarchy. As the province did not allow such irregular demands, Fuenterrabía preferred to stop attending the Juntas rather than take a lower seat, which in its pride seemed inferior to its new status.

The defense of Fuenterribia was carried out not only by its own residents, but in union with troops and tercios from other towns, who entered by order of the province, as demonstrated by the history of its siege. If it was just to grant the honorary title of very valiant city to perpetuate the heroic resistance of this fortress on that occasion, and to reward its citizens who distinguished themselves therein, it was certainly not just that the glories of the other Guipuzcoans be overshadowed. Nor was it proper that they be left behind in their honors after having shed their blood and made so many sacrifices for the salvation of this town, which seemed afterwards to be forgotten. The province understood this, expressing its disapproval of such conduct; to which was added the news that Fuenterrabía was seeking incorporation into the Kingdom of Navarra, separating from Guipúzcoa."

According to a report presented to the Cortes of Navarra in October 1795, published by Florencio Idoate in Rincones de la Historia de Navarra (II), these efforts consisted of:

"A port of its own to promote internal and external trade for Navarra has been among the most important interests of its General Cortes in this and the previous century. In those held in 1644, it was agreed our national Congress and the secular council of Fuenterrabía, a town of King D. Sancho, to restore absolute, reciprocal, and free trade Navarra and that city, which had existed from time immemorial until it was hindered in 1521 by the bloody war Charles V and Francis I of France, when the French seized Fuenterrabía and the castle and city of Pamplona, diverting Fuenterrabía’s trade to Bayonne, Saint-Jean-de-Luz, and Ciboure.

In those conferences, the advantages and disadvantages of restoring that trade were presented, highlighting Fuenterrabía’s eagerness for mutual commerce with Navarra and the desire to make the Bidasoa River navigable for this purpose. The Cortes had already taken precautions: in 1642, it had been agreed to grant letters of favor to the town of Rentería for its port claims, in consideration of the kingdom’s interests, and that all proper petitions be made to the king, his viceroy, and others to include the Pasajes-Rentería port area within this kingdom. The Deputation was to present and this from His Majesty, emphasizing that it should only concern the inclusion of Navarra in that jurisdiction, without addressing other interests or siding with the towns in dispute. The project did not progress beyond discussion in the Cortes of 1642 and 1644, although it was referred for further review by the Deputation, and the Junta appears not to have acted on it again until the Cortes of 1702."

Faced with Hondarribia’s refusal to reintegrate into Guipúzcoa, the Guipuzcoan Juntas officially decided to separate the city. Gorosabel states:

"The resolution of this serious decision, drafted in harsh terms, was taken at the General Juntas held in the town of Tolosa around April 1651, ordering that it be no longer discussed. From then on, Fuenterrabía was considered an external town with respect to the province in all its former relations, and in its place, the representation of the University of Irun, which had not been part of this secession, was admitted. When the General Juntas convened in the town of Elgoibar around May 1653, Fuenterrabía submitted its obedience and submission to the province, formally abandoning its previous claims; and after fifteen years of separation, it returned to the brotherhood of Guipúzcoa with the same seat it had held previously in the provincial Juntas."

Signature de la Paix des Pyrénées (1659–1660)

Hondarribia, as had happened on previous occasions, served by virtue of its border location as a stage both for wars and for peace ceremonies that took place throughout the 16th and 17th centuries the Spanish Habsburgs and the Bourbons.

The peak of this role as a privileged stage for diplomatic encounters the two dynasties was reached in the summer of 1659, when Don Lope de Haro and Cardinal Mazarin discussed the conditions under which the two kingdoms, exhausted after nearly eighty years of war, sought to conclude a peace that would be sealed by the marriage of the daughter of Philip IV to Louis XIV.

These negotiations aimed not only to establish peace the two crowns but also to create a European-wide status quo that would ensure at least a few years of tranquility. On this occasion, important figures, such as the future Charles II Stuart, King of Great Britain, came to the city hoping that one of the two powers would support their cause—a vain effort that ended with a cooling of relations Philip IV and the future British king. This, in turn, facilitated the latter’s rapprochement with the Kingdom of Portugal, which at that time was in revolt against Spanish authority.

The arranged wedding the two monarchs was celebrated in Hondarribia by proxy in early June 1660. The ceremony was highly spectacular, once again bringing together the entourages of both courts in the Bidasoa region. This occasion allowed Hondarribia to renew the favors granted by Philip IV in 1638, although the same visit gave rise to the project of elevating San Sebastián to city status, which was carried out in 1662. This, evidently, somewhat diminished the singular prestige that Hondarribia had held alone in all of Gipuzkoa since 1638.

However, the habitual state of war in Early Modern Europe soon undermined the agreement sealed by the marriage with Maria Theresa. New wars the two kingdoms arose, leading Hondarribia once again into conflicts with the province and with the towns over which it exercised jurisdiction, both in civil and military matters.

Incident de 1674 avec Pasajes

Hondarribia could not resign itself to losing authority over the towns on which it had exercised seigneurial preeminence. It had a serious conflict with Pasajes in 1674. According to Gorosabel, the dispute arose from a letter that the Town Council of Pasajes sent to Hondarribia, ordering some of its residents to serve guard duty at the Castle of Santa Isabel to better secure the port at a time when the so-called Dutch War was underway, in which the Spanish king allied against Louis XIV with his former enemies, the United Provinces of the Netherlands.

The authorities of Pasajes believed that such orders should be communicated directly by the province or by their colonelcy, responsible for administering the military functions of the town. They considered the received orders, in the terms given, as a harmful novelty that infringed on their liberties. To address this issue, Captain Francisco de Ugarte and Fabián de Goicoechea, councilor and deputy of Pasajes, went to Hondarribia, where they were arrested by the city’s mayors without due process and kept imprisoned for many days.

Pasajes reported the incident to the provincial Deputation, initiating a legal dispute. The case was adjudicated in Azkoitia on 9 October 1675, with the agreement of Dr. Pedro Angulo y Lugo, first professor of canon law at the University of Valladolid and lawyer of its chancery, ruling in favor of Pasajes. The decision confirmed the town’s right to fly its own flag, appoint captains, ensigns, and other officers in cases of war, independently of Hondarribia. It was also d that, militarily, Pasajes should depend directly on the province and its colonelcy, except when Hondarribia had orders from the province to delegate authority to towns under its jurisdiction, or in cases of royal honors and banner-raising ceremonies.

Hondarribia appealed this decision to the Supreme Council of War, and although a royal summons and compulsory provision were issued, Gorosabel does not report any further outcome, suggesting that the matter was either concluded or at least suspended.

New Separation from Guipúzcoa, 1680

An incident with the inhabitants of Hendaye nearly jeopardized the fragile peace France and Spain. To prevent a new coalition war against Louis XIV from erupting prematurely, the General Juntas of the province intervened, without being obeyed by the people of Hondarribia. According to Gorosabel, the incident began in 1679 due to the arrival of Hendaye residents with keel boats during the transit of Queen María Luisa of Bourbon.

"The French complained that the people of Fuenterrabia had committed certain abuses and excesses against them, such as burning a small boat in which certain priests and attendants of Prince d’Ancourt were traveling during the royal transit, and having desecrated the white flag of their nation. To punish this, numerous troops gathered near Bayonne the following year, intending to invade Guipúzcoa, while four war frigates were stationed in the bay of Fuenterrabia, seizing any vessels entering or leaving the port. This led to a series of reciprocal ilities, damages, and grievances.

In view of this alarming situation, the province convened a General Junta in San Sebastián. Following the king’s orders, it sought to prevent a rupture with France and, to this end, tried to remove any pretext for conflict. One of the measures taken was to appoint Don Martín Antonio de Barrutia y Salinas, a resident of Mondragón, as a commissioner judge to investigate the alleged abuses, arrest those responsible if necessary, and bring them to San Sebastián. In carrying out his commission, Barrutia went to the city with his advisor, scribe, and constable, but upon reaching the Capuchin convent, the guardian and one of the preachers he consulted persuaded him not to enter. It was well known that the locals were armed and determined not to allow any procedure against them, even threatening to kill him should he attempt to investigate.

Given this alarming situation, Commissioner Barrutia dared not proceed; but wishing to fulfill his mission as best he could, he sent the convent preacher to present the matter to the city’s mayors. This effort also failed, as some priests blocked the preacher, forcing him to return. Barrutia then reported to the General Junta in San Sebastián, which decided that the investigation should proceed in the surrounding towns without entering Fuenterrabia. Meanwhile, Fuenterrabia informed the Junta that its representatives could not attend due to various impediments, and the province asked the city to appoint other deputies.

When the provincial messenger approached the city, eight armed clerics stopped him, examined the document he carried, and forced him to return to San Sebastián, declaring that Fuenterrabia would no longer obey the orders of Guipúzcoa. Not satisfied, these priests threatened him with daggers and tore his clothing. The province reported this grave event to the king and continued gathering information on the resistance of the people of Fuenterrabia to provincial authority.

Based on this, the General Junta of 21 May 1680 decreed that, due to the state of affairs and the desire for communal peace, it was not then possible to fully enforce the provincial law against the disobedient residents of Fuenterrabia, reserving the right to do so at a later time, and d them permanently excluded from the brotherhood of Guipúzcoa. This resolution was communicated to the king, who expressed his appreciation for the province’s loyalty and zeal, while also ing that it maintain good relations with Fuenterrabia in consideration of the city’s loyal status.

Upon receipt of this royal decree, a special junta was convened at the hermitage of Olas, and to satisfy the king’s wishes, it was agreed to reinstate Fuenterrabia in the Guipuzcoan brotherhood. The city initially refused, claiming the matter was still pending before the royal council, further defying provincial authority. Finally, by royal provision of 3 October 1680, the Junta’s decision was annulled, excluding Fuenterrabia from the province’s brotherhood, and ordering that the city be reunited with it as before, retaining its honors. In compliance, Fuenterrabia was admitted to the next General Juntas under the same terms as previously."

Nouveau défi envers la province

Gorosabel goes on to recount that another, no less serious, dispute the city and the province, though of a different nature, occurred later.

"In 1693, the tax collection guards reported at the Mendelo bridge a certain amount of money being carried in the portfolio of Fuenterrabia from San Sebastián. Consequently, the mayors of Fuenterrabia, accompanied by sixteen townsmen, went early the next morning to the customs house in Irun, where they arrested the tax collector, who had not yet risen. Brought under this of force as a prisoner to the town hall of Fuenterrabia, he was formally charged, as in a court trial, for having detained the letters he carried. Satisfied with his explanations—or perhaps fearing the consequences of their arbitrary action—they released him.

The province, to whom the tax collector reported the incident, commissioned Licentiate Juan de Larreta to investigate. He presented himself on site, prepared the corresponding judicial file, and, based on witness testimony, the Deputation decided to personally reprimand the three individuals from Fuenterrabia who appeared most culpable. To enforce this, a commissioner was dispatched to summon them before the Deputation. However, they not only ignored this call; they imprisoned the commissioner in the public jail, violently taking the commission document from him. Not content with this, they sent the Deputation a letter in the most improper and even threatening terms.

Offended by such behavior, the province reported the entire occurrence to the king and his council. By royal provision of 15 April of the same year, the council ordered the immediate release of the commissioner arrested by the people of Fuenterrabia. They also ordered the personal appearance of the city’s mayors at court within fifteen days. Once this was done, and after the mayors made some conciliatory gestures, the matter was concluded without further proceedings."

Entrance of Philip V

The 18th century also began with incidents, this time caused by the visit of the new Bourbon king, designated heir to the Spanish throne by the last will of Charles II, in 1701. Hondarribia, according to Gorosabel, intended that one of its mayors should go to Irun with a company formed of its own townsmen to perform all the salutes and guards for His Royal Majesty.

"This was based on the consideration that Irun was under its jurisdiction, and that the province had ordered that each mayor perform such honors in their respective town in the usual manner. The inhabitants of Irun, offended by this claim, mixed their complaints with threats; and they were reportedly prepared not only with powder for the salutes, but also with bullets to resist the people of Fuenterrabia if the public rumors were true. The Deputation sought to prevent a confrontation the two towns; and after reviewing the documents in its archives, it found that on several previous occasions Irun had provided its company independently of Fuenterrabia.

The province therefore wished Hondarribia to abandon its insistence, but in vain. In this situation, to avoid a clash and thus a scandal that would have discredited both towns and even the province itself in the eyes of a monarch setting foot in Spanish territory for the first time, the Deputation reported the matter to His Majesty upon his arrival in Saint-Jean-de-Luz, so that he could issue the most appropriate resolution.

Upon learning of the case, the king ordered that, since it was not his intention to harm either town in this matter, the garrison entering Irun should consist of soldiers from the San Sebastián presidio, without involvement of the townsmen. In a further communication to the province explaining this royal order, he expressed that it would be to his royal pleasure that neither the mayor of Fuenterrabia nor the captain of Irun go out to receive or bid him farewell, and this was accordingly carried out."

Hondarribia, port of the Sea of Navarre: the 1702 project

The report of the Navarrese Cortes of 1795 provides details about the port and road works project agreed at the beginning of the 18th century the authorities of Navarre and Hondarribia:

"At the 1702 congress, the matter was discussed seriously. Two members of the Cortes were commissioned, accompanied by an engineer, to survey the land from the city of Pamplona to the town of Santesteban for the construction of a road, and the Bidasoa River from Santesteban to Fuenterrabia to facilitate its navigation. Along this stretch, the costs of the works were estimated, and a plan was made that still exists. Detailed reports on traffic and other factors that could contribute to the allocation of funds for the project and its maintenance were gathered.

With all this background, the Cortes resolved to by law the authority to make the Bidasoa navigable from Santesteban to Fuenterrabia, to build the road from Pamplona to Santesteban, and to establish the corresponding levies as indicated in the petition. If this law was not fully granted, it had to be influenced by the vicissitudes of the War of Succession, as suggested by the context of the royal decree issued for the petition under the political circumstances of the time. Undoubtedly, the benefits of the new trade with Hondarribia were judged inferior to the costs required for equipping the port, improving the navigation of the Bidasoa, and constructing the road from Pamplona to Santesteban, even though it was a project as thoroughly studied as it was recommended to the Deputations."

The Siege of Hondarribia, 1719

Hondarribia’s strategic location and status as a fortified town made it a target of a new siege in 1719, during the War of the Quadruple Alliance. Spain, encouraged by Cardinal Alberoni and Queen Elisabeth Farnese, sought to challenge the European balance established by the 1714 treaties that ended the War of Spanish Succession.

In May 1719, French troops under the command of the Duke of Berwick laid siege to Hondarribia. After breaching the walls in June, the city surrendered on the 16th, with Philip V’s authorization, who acknowledged that it was impossible to relieve the town as had been done in 1638.

The capitulation was conducted under favorable terms, consistent with the polite customs of 18th-century warfare: the surviving regular regiments were allowed to leave the town with arms and baggage, marching through the breaches with their flags unfurled and drums and fifes sounding as homage to their valor. They were permitted to proceed to Pamplona to reinforce the garrison there, with only the route and pace of march prescribed.

The civilian population, which had also participated in the defense as part of the local militia, received advantageous terms: they could leave the town with their belongings or remain with guarantees that their lives and property would be respected. Although these conditions were generally observed, isolated incidents with some occupying soldiers occurred, and an epidemic lightly affected those residents who stayed under French occupation.

Finally, in 1721, Hondarribia was returned to the Kingdom of Spain as part of the final peace agreements the warring powers.

Attempts at Reincorporation into the Kingdom of Navarre (1743-1757)

The two long years of occupation of Hondarribia by French troops 1719 and 1721 did not mark an end to the problems of integrating Hondarribia into the Crown of Castile. New attempts would thus be made by the city authorities to separate from Gipuzkoa. This occurred in 1743, barely two decades after the end of the French occupation, which had detached Hondarribia from the Guipuzcoan jurisdiction. At that time, the city would again attempt to separate from Gipuzkoa, this time voluntarily, to join the Kingdom of Navarre.

The report of the Cortes of Navarre from 1795 provides important information in this regard:

"In the instruction given by the Cortes of 1743 and 1744, the same intention was entrusted, which extended to ing, along with Fuenterrabía, its incorporation, since without it, Navarrese merchants would be left almost entirely at the mercy of the Consulate and Province of Gipuzkoa, which, through surtaxes on goods or under the pretext of public needs, could hinder our trade. And since Fuenterrabía was not part of this Kingdom, jurisdictional conflicts would arise and the cases of our merchants would be referred on appeal to the Chancellery of Valladolid, classic inconveniences that were resolved if Fuenterrabía were separated from Gipuzkoa. The Illustrious Deputation handled this matter with the greatest circumspection with the city of Fuenterrabía, and the latter, willing to become a member of Navarre, consulted in 1747 the Bishop of Casia and Don Juan Gregorio Muniain, then Governor of this fortress. The former posed no substantial obstacle, and the latter only the one he found on grounds of state, since we would (if the desired case occurred) submit our interest to the discretion of France, in case it established customs on the banks within its domain, and allowed the troops of that Sovereign to cross the Pyrenees. On Muniáin’s advice, the Deputation withdrew from this task, which was considered resolved by the Cortes in 1757."

In 1754, “the city of Fuenterrabía, with the towns of its district and jurisdiction, which are the universities of Irún and Lezo and the town of Pasajes on its side” granted power to the licensed lawyers D. Juan de Arriaga and D. Miguel Antonio de Casadevante to manage in Madrid and before the Navarrese Deputation its reincorporation into Navarre. In return, it ed a seat in the Cortes with voice and vote and wished to continue maintaining its military, civil, and economic superiority over its subordinates.

Irún and Pasajes become independent

The only political-administrative changes that would succeed in the jurisdiction of Hondarribia throughout the 18th century were not, precisely, those attempts at segregation to join the Kingdom of Navarre, but rather those of the populations that had formed the city’s jurisdictional lordship since the Middle Ages. The university of Irún separated from the jurisdiction of Hondarribia in 1766, and the district of San Juan de Pasajes in 1767. From that point on, the ancient territory of Hondarribia was reduced to the area it currently occupies, plus the particular territory of Lezo, which would also separate at an undetermined date in the first half of the 19th century.

War of the Convention

The French Revolution of 1789 drew the town of Hondarribia into a new cycle of war. On this occasion, the age-old confrontation Spain and France was once again revived, having been interrupted since 1700 by the fact that the Bourbon dynasty reigned in both Madrid and Paris. The overthrow of the French branch of the dynasty and the proclamation of the Republican Convention led to a new conflict the two powers.

On the French side, the struggle aimed to preserve the achievements of the Revolution and, if possible, to extend them beyond its borders. On the Spanish coast, the objective was to maintain the status quo prior to the Revolution and to restore the monarchy in French territory. ilities resumed in 1793, and the campaign of that year proved relatively favorable to Spanish arms, which managed to advance to the immediate outskirts of Bayonne.

Fighting began along the border on April 23, 1793, with the destruction of the fortress of Hendaye from Hondarribia. These initial successes, greater even than those achieved by other monarchical powers (Austria, Great Britain, etc.) attacking the French Republican Convention on other fronts, did not last long.

Throughout 1793, the young Republic reacted forcefully, aware that its survival depended on repelling the attack of the absolutist powers. This critical situation served to galvanize the nation and fully mobilize all human and military resources, allowing France to regain the initiative on all fronts and counterbalance the coalition forces.

The situation in southwestern France was no different. There, too, Spanish troops, which had occupied—and devastated—part of the territory of Labourd, were pushed back and forced to retreat toward the Pyrenees and the Bidasoa River. Revolutionary troops did not stop there. Determined to carry to its ultimate consequences the Convention’s slogan — “peace to peoples, war on tyrants” — they bombarded Hondarribia in July 1794.

Subsequently, they secured the surrender of the stronghold on August 1 of that same year, after demanding unconditional capitulation under threat of massacring the entire population — the French military commander spoke of “putting the inhabitants to the sword.” Deprived of defense following the withdrawal of royal troops, the city capitulated and once again, though for entirely different reasons, came under French occupation, as in 1719, until the city and the rest of the Gipuzkoan territory occupied by Convention forces were returned to the Spanish Crown by the Peace of Basel in 1795.

After the surrender, the French army seized in Hondarribia a significant amount of war booty:

The Convention did not order the evacuation of its troops until September 1795. By that time, the French garrison had nearly completed the atic destruction of this fortress, considered strategically problematic for France. The fortifications facing Hendaye were particularly affected.

The section facing the coast was also on the verge of destruction: the holes intended for mines—still visible today—had already been dug into the walls and bastions when the evacuation order was issued following the signing of the Peace of Basel.

The Gaceta de Madrid of the time attributed the surrender of the stronghold to the revolutionary sympathies of its mayor, Joaquín de Irarreta, which, according to the same source, were also evident among other members of the municipal council and among certain inhabitants of the city. As a result of such insinuations, widely encouraged by Prime Minister Godoy, a court-martial composed of general officers convened in Pamplona to determine the validity of these accusations. After examining their conduct, the council d that the mayor, the councilors, and the accused inhabitants had, as far as possible, contributed to delaying and obstructing the surrender.

Incident with Irún, 1801

Despite the effective separation of jurisdictions Irún and Hondarribia since the late 18th century, the passage of the kings of Tuscany in 1801 — the result of an understanding the Spanish Crown and the French republican authorities following the Peace of Basel — gave rise to new confrontations the two towns. By royal order dated May 28 of that same year, it was decreed that both parties should mutually forget what had occurred on this occasion, with the understanding that if a similar situation were to arise in the future, the king would determine in advance the right that had been disputed in relation to the aforementioned matter.

Once again a Navarrese port, 1805–1814

On September 16, 1805, the Navarre Diputación ed from the king the annexation of Irún and Hondarribia to Navarre, highlighting the great importance for Navarre of possessing a seaport. The king agreed by royal order on September 26 of the same year. Thus, on October 10, the Navarre commissioner, Miguel Escudero, took possession of Hondarribia.

The Guipuzcoan Diputación submitted several petitions to the monarch, protesting the annexation, but they were not heard by the king, who ratified the order of September 26 (doc. in CCPV, t. III, fol. 494). Nevertheless, Gipuzkoa continued to attempt to recover the lost territories. Its efforts were in vain 1808 and 1813, during the Napoleonic occupation.

The restored Spanish authorities, however, responded to its . On August 18, 1814, the Viceroy of Navarre, Count of Ezpeleta, informed the Navarre Diputación of the royal decision to return Irún and Hondarribia to Gipuzkoa, which took place shortly thereafter.

Under French control, 1808–1813

The fortress was occupied in the name of Joseph I following the events of May 1808. On March 11, 1813, Sergeant 1st Class D. Fermín Leguía, accompanied by fifteen guerrillas, captured the Castle of San Telmo at the mouth of the Bidasoa, surprising its garrison during the night. He took as much weaponry and ammunition as he could, rendered the rest unusable, and set fire to the bastion, which was destroyed three-quarters. After the Battle of San Marcial, the French definitively abandoned the fortress.

Carlist Wars

Hondarribia during the Carlist Wars and the Restoration (1833-1876)

During the First Carlist War (1833-1839), the Carlists occupied Hondarribia without difficulty, forcing liberal elements to flee to San Sebastián, Hendaye, or other safe locations. Among these refugees was the mayor J. M. Benigno Iriarte.

The intervention of the British Legion, sent by Great Britain to support the Spanish liberal government, made the Carlist position in the area more difficult. On May 18, 1837, the Carlist garrison of Hondarribia capitulated to attacks led by Schelly, in operations coordinated with maneuvers along the Hernani line prepared by Espartero, while the main Carlist army was engaged in the unsuccessful “Royal Expedition” to Madrid.

During the Second Carlist War in the Basque Country (1873-1876), the town never fell into rebel hands. Hondarribia ed a significant garrison composed of regular army troops and liberal volunteer militias formed by local inhabitants. Its walls were used as the base for a defensive structure that kept the Carlists at bay for the three years of conflict, preventing them from flanking the rear of the coastal line which, Hondarribia and Getaria (excluding Hernani), remained the only area of Guipuzcoa not under Carlist control. Jaizkibel served as a communication hub and military transport route connecting the fortified positions of Hondarribia, Lezo, Pasajes, and San Sebastián.

Hondarribia’s resistance, reinforced by several liberal naval units patrolling the Bidasoa the city and Irun, allowed the liberal forces to maintain some control over the border, hindering Carlist operations France and Guipuzcoa.

However, this loyalty to the liberal cause did not bring significant economic benefits to Hondarribia after the war ended in 1876. Following the abolition of the fueros and the establishment of the Bourbon Restoration regime (1876-1924), the city entered a period of economic stagnation, focusing its activity on fishing and agriculture. This allowed the economic center of the region to shift to its former feudal possession, Irun, which, thanks to the international railway line, became the main industrial development hub of the area.

Foral Organization

It was one of the eighteen republics in which the Juntas Generales were to be held [F. de G., Tit. IV, Chap. I]. It had a seat in these and in the particular Juntas at the seventh place to the right of the Corregidor and voted with fifty-eight hearths, which included those of the chief place of the localities in its jurisdiction [F. de G., Tit. IX, Chap. III and IV]. By the mid-19th century, it had, together with Lezo, 31 hearths. This city was a fortified place surrounded by very strong walls, with its bastions and other major outer defenses and fortifications, and well supplied with stores of provisions and ammunition for its maintenance. It had a Royal Presidio for its protection at the royal expense. Its security and preservation were entrusted by the king to the province, charging it to keep it under its control, removing it from Marshal D. García de Ayala, who had been in possession of it [F. de G., Tit. II, Chap. V]. By the mid-19th century, it had a fourth-class customs office with employees and a force of public finance carabineers.

Elections in the 19th century

Elecciones generales del 20-IV 1879 (sección)
Candidatos	Votos
Ref. Archivo municipal de San Sebastián, A, negoc. 7, lib. 4, exped. 3
José Olano y Altuna	146
Fermín Machimbarrena y Echave	56

Elecciones generales del 1-II-1891
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. La Voz de Guipúzcoa del 2-II-1891
Calbetón	Coalición liberal	413
San Felices	Conservador

Elecciones generales Del 5-III-1893
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipuzcoa del 9-III-1893. Filiaciones en diversas publicaciones de la época
Calbetón	Coalición liberal	442
Satrústegui	Independiente	259

Elecciones generales del 12-IV-1896
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipuzcoa del 17-IV-1896. Filiaciones en La Unión Vascongada del 13-IV-1896
Pavia	Integrista	435
Satrústegui	Conservador	249

Elecciones generales del 27-III-1898
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipuzcoa del 30-III-1898. Filaciones en El Fuerista del 27-II-1898
Brunet	Coalición liberal	409
Juan Rojo Pellán		1

Elecciones generales del 16-IV-1899
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipúzcoa del 19-IV-1899. Filiaciones en La Unión Vascongada del 27-IV-1899
Zabala	Republicano	433

The rise of smuggling

The limited industrial development and the proximity of the border area two major states facilitated a significant smuggling activity around Hondarribia. It experienced considerable growth especially during World War I, when the temptation to bring goods into the neighboring country, which was in great need, led many Hondarribia residents to specialize in smuggling.

However, this activity did not decline at the end of the war and continued to develop, also in the reverse direction, particularly after World War II, when postwar Spaniards experienced severe shortages and needs. The activity decreased around the early 1950s. One of its most notable practitioners was the famous Hondarribia smuggler “Patxiku.”

Elections 1900-1936

Elecciones generales del 19-V-1902
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipuzcoa del 24-V-1901. Filiaciones en La Unión Vascongada del 13-V-1901
Picavea	Liberal	548

Elecciones generales del 21-IV-1907
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipúzcoa del 24-IV-1907. Filiaciones en La Voz de Guipúzcoa del 22-IV-1907
Gaytán de Ayala	Católico	737

Elección a diputados en Cortes del 8 de mayo de 1910
Candidatos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipúzcoa, mayo 1910.
Manuel Lizasoain Minondo	780
Tomás Berminghan Brunet	59
Votos en blanco	1

Elecciones a diputados en Cortes del 8 de marzo de 1914
Candidatos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipúzcoa, marzo, 1914
Leonardo Moyúa Alzaga, marqués de Rocaverde	810
Pío Bizcarrondo Erquicia	18

Elecciones generales del 9-IV-1916
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipúzcoa. del 12-IV-1916. Filiaciones en La Voz de Guipúzcoa del 10-IV-1916.
Marqués de Roca Verde	Liberal	794
Sánchez	Republicano	11

Elecciones generales del 24-II-1918
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipúzcoa. del 27-II-1918. Filiaciones en La Voz de Guipúzcoa del 25-II-1918.
Elósegui	Maurista	589
Azqueta	Liberal	255

Elecciones generales del 29-IV-I923
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. El Pueblo Vasco del 1-V-1923
Marqués de Tenorio	Conservador	715
Zuaznávar	Independiente	1

Elecciones municipales del 12 de abril de 1931

Resultaron elegidos seis concejales republicanos, seis monárquicos, un nacionalista y un UMN (Sagarzazu). Ref. La Voz de Guipúzcoa, abril 1931.

Instaurada la República, las diferentes citas ante las urnas dieron los siguientes resultados.

Elecciones generales del 28-VI-1931
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. La Voz de Guipúzcoa del 30-VI-1931. Filiaciones en El Pueblo Vasco del 30-VI-1931.
Leizaola	Nacionalista	587
Picavea	Independiente	587
Pildain	Integrista	579
Urquijo	Tradicionalista	564
Amilibia	Unión Republicana	548
De Francisco	Socialista	518
Gárate	Acción Nacionalista	511
Usabiaga	Derecha Republicana	511

Elecciones generales del 28-VI 1931
Candidatos	Partidos	Votos
Ref. Boletín Oficial de Guipuzcoa del 29-VI-1931. Filiaciones en El Pueblo Vasco del 30-VI-1931.
Distr. 1, secc. 1
Amilibia	Unión Republicana	107
De Francisco	Socialista	97
Usabiaga	Derecha Republicana	96
Gárate	Acción Nacionalista	94
Picavea	Independiente	47
Leizaola	Nacionalista	46
Pildain	Canónigo (Integrista)	42
Urquijo	Tradicionalista	37
Castro	Re-publicano	1
Urgoiti	Unión Republicana	1
Distr. 1, secc. 2
Picavea	Independiente	207
Pildain	Canónigo (Integrista)	207
Leizaola	Nacionalista	205
Urquijo	Tradicionalista	202
Amilibia	Unión Republicana	201
Usabiaga	Derecha Republicana	198
De Francisco	Socialista	197
Gárate	Acción Nacionalista	195
Castro	Republicano	1
Urgoiti	Unión Republicana	1
Distr. 2, secc. 1
Leizaola	Nacionalista	161
Picavea	Independiente	161
Pildain	Canónigo (Integrista)	160
Urquijo	Tradicionalista	153
Amilibia	Unión Republicana	131
De Francisco	Socialista	123
Usabiaga	Derecha Republicana	121
Gárate	Acción Republicana	11
Distr. 2, secc. 2
Leizaola	Nacionalista	174
Picavea	Independiente	174
Urquijo	Tradicionalista	172
Pildain	Canónigo (Integrista)	170
Amilibia	Unión Republicana	108
Gárate	Acción Republicana	102
Usabiaga	Derecha Republicana	102
De Francisco	Socialista	101
Votos en blanco		1

Plebiscito autonómico del 5 de noviembre 1933
N.° de electores	Favor	Contra
Ref. La Voz de Guipúzcoa, noviembre 1933.
3.060	2.855	175

Elecciones a diputados en Cortes del 19 de noviembre de 1933
Candidatos	Votos
Ref. La Voz de Guipúzcoa, noviembre 1933.
Leizaola	1.540
Picavea	1.435
Monzón	998
Irujo	953
Irazusta	948
De Francisco	423
Usabiaga	414
Bizcarrondo	375
De la Torre	256
Maeztu	228
Paguaga	213
Tellería	209
Uraca	208
Gomendio	177
Alvarez	124
Angulo	123
Echevarría	119
Larrañaga	38
Astigarribia	37
Zapirain	37
Urondo	35
Imaz	3

Elecciones a diputados en Cortes del 6 de febrero de 1936
Ref. El Pueblo Vasco, febrero 1936.
Múgica	944
Oreja	931
Paguaga	922
Lojendio	920
Irujo	894
Monzón	690
Ansó	673
Amilibia	672
Apraiz	672
Larrañaga	667
Irazusta	664
Lasarte	657
Picavea	632

Elecciones a diputados en Cortes del 1 de marzo de 1936
Ref. El Pueblo Vasco, marzo, 1936
Irujo	1.281
Irazusta	1.269
Lasarte	1.265
Picavea	1.256
Amilibia	785
Larrañaga	767
Ansó	742
Apraiz	742

War of 1936

After the military rebellion of July 18, 1936, Hondarribia remained in the zone loyal to the Republic, after elements loyal to the legitimate government suppressed the attempted uprising of the troops stationed at the Fort of Guadalupe. In response to the advance of Colonel Beorlegui’s columns from Navarre toward Irun, a determined resistance formed around Hondarribia, centered on militias recruited from members of the anarchist CNT union and the smaller communist groups of the MAOC (the self-styled Milicias Antifascistas Obreras y Campesinas).

Elements of the CNT militias, after quelling the rebels in San Sebastián, and together with the MAOC, tried to stop the advance of the rebel troops into Guipuzcoan territory. At the same time, an exodus of refugees to Hendaye began. The first to leave Hondarribia were right-wing sympathizers, fearing reprisals from uncontrollable elements orbiting the workers’ militias, who entirely controlled the situation in Guipuzcoan territory and had already uted Falangists such as the Iturrino brothers in San Sebastián, without CNT leaders like Manuel Chiapuso being able to prevent it.

Later, as Beorlegui’s advance continued, some fighters seeking to avoid being encircled withdrew by sea to San Sebastián, along with anyone who feared reprisals from the rebels for one reason or another. Finally, the militias were forced to yield the territory to the rebel troops advancing from Navarre, deprived of the military resources sent by the legitimate government, which had been held up at Hendaye by French government order. Hondarribia was thus occupied by Beorlegui’s forces on September 6, 1936, one day after the fall of Irun.

New Attempt to Incorporate into Navarre (1936)

On September 21, once the new authorities appointed by the rebel military had settled in Hondarribia, they made a new attempt to separate Hondarribia from the jurisdiction of Gipuzkoa and reincorporate it into Navarre. For this purpose, a commission composed of the councilors J. Senén Amunarriz and Ángel Aseguinolaza from Hondarribia and four municipal members from Irun visited the Town Hall of Pamplona and, on September 22, the Diputación Foral to submit a formal petition for reincorporation into Navarre. The project failed due to opposition from the Francoist authorities in Gipuzkoa, which led to a bitter controversy the Diario Vasco of Gipuzkoa on one side and the Diario de Navarra and Arriba España on the other.

Francoism

Municipal power during Francoism

As elsewhere, the first task undertaken by the insurgents after the occupation of Hondarribia was the restoration of municipal political life, although it was to be completely controlled by military authorities. Evidence of this is that the first council appointed after the city’s occupation was nominated at the of the Military Commander appointed by the insurgents, and included several former prisoners from the Fort of Guadalupe, a factor that would weigh heavily on the political landscape of the Bidasoa region in the postwar period.

Similarly, several commissions were created, and in one of them — responsible for Governance, Health, and Supplies — the figure of the former mayor under the Primo de Rivera dictatorship, Francisco Sagarzazu, reappears. Ángel Aseguinolaza was also appointed mayor, a member of the C.E.D.A. (Confederación Española de Derechas Autónomas), who had served on the council in 1934 during the so-called "Bienio negro" (1933–1934), when the electoral victory of the right triggered the annulment of progressive reforms implemented by the first Republican government 1931 and 1933. He was also a former prisoner of the Fort of Guadalupe.

The first measures adopted by the new council were limited to following the directives of the Carlist War Junta, regarding the reinstallation of the Sacred Heart in the council chamber, the prohibition of appointing new officials, and the creation of the Local Council of Primary Education, responsible for opening, blessing, and placing crucifixes in classrooms — which took place on Sunday, September 27, 1936. Other measures adopted at the first council meeting, on September 25, 1936, included renaming several streets: Paseo de Chacón became Paseo de los Mártires de la Revolución, Avenida de la República became Avenida de Javier Barcaíztegui, and Paseo de las Murallas — or Paseo del Catorce de Abril — became Paseo de Miguel María Ayestarán, in memory of the priest who died in Guadalupe.

From that moment, the militarization of daily life became increasingly evident. In May 1937, the Acción Ciudadana militia, in which most of the city’s men enrolled under Félix Laborda, was renamed Requeté de San Marcial, with 44 active requetés and 424 auxiliaries. Similarly, in November 1936, 55 Hondarribia residents embarked on the war cruiser loyal to the rebels, the Baleares. Sixteen of them died in March 1938 when the ship was sunk.

On September 1, 1937, the rules for celebrating the first anniversary of the city’s liberation were published. Streets were to be decorated with flags bearing the inscriptions: “¡Viva España!”, “¡Arriba España!”, “¡Viva Franco!”, “¡Viva Cristo Rey!”, “¡Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!”. Shops were ordered closed from 10 to 12, and a mass was held at the Peñón.

The political development of Francoism and the political unification that led to the creation of the F.E.T. and J.O.N.S. (Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista) produced a political class that would remain in power for many years. Francisco Sagarzazu, former mayor under the Primo de Rivera dictatorship, emerged strongly in municipal politics during the initial phase of the Franco regime. As Press and Propaganda delegate, he accused the mayor in September 1937 of having ties to separatists, alleging that clandestine meetings were held at his home distributing candidates.

In June 1938, Sagarzazu proposed building a monument to the city’s sailors killed on the Baleares, which the council refused. The Civil Governor intervened, forbidding Sagarzazu from taking any initiative, as the monument was planned on his property.

In September 1939, shortly after the end of the Civil War, an important municipal renewal took place in Hondarribia, similar to that in other towns. These changes combined people who had previously served on the council with others who had not held municipal office. Among the former were Manuel Canoura, mayor during the Second Republic, and Simón Munduate — appointed mayor — and Senén Amunarriz, members of the September 1936 council. From the old political class, Bernardo Sistiaga, part of Sagarzazu’s 1931 candidacy, was reinstated.

However, the political profile most aligned with the new regime, represented by Francisco Sagarzazu, clearly benefited when, in 1941, the Civil Governor dismissed the mayor and appointed Sagarzazu as chief municipal officer, restoring the post he had left in 1930, which he held until 1958.

Among the first measures he took in 1941 was approving an increase in the price of the Puntal de España fill, resuming the old Sociedad Progreso de Hondarribia project, which became the basis for his municipal administration. In 1947, the Franco regime held its first plebiscitary consultation, with active participation from the mayor. Records his involvement in three rallies: June 30 in Irun, July 4 in Andoain, and July 5 in Irun at the Teatro Bellas Artes, reflecting the close alignment Sagarzazu and the regime.

In 1948, Francoism sought to adopt a more credible democratic façade through what became known as “organic democracy,” whose most notable feature was the first “organic municipal elections” in autumn 1948. Hondarribia was one of seventeen Guipuzcoan towns to hold a simulated election, with five candidates competing for three posts in the Tercio Familiar — the only posts elected by direct universal suffrage, as the others were selected by second- or third-degree voting.

Composition of the City Council in 1948

Alcalde
Nombre	Profesión	Edad	FET-JONS	Filiación
Francisco Sagarzazu Sagarzazu	Industrial	61	Militante	Derechista
Tercio Familiar
Justo Iñarra Lecuona	Tablajero	47	Militante	Derechista
Miguel Lizargárate Olaso	Linternero	48	Militante	Derechista
José Oronoz Elizasu	Pescador	31	Militante	Derechista
Tercio Sindical
Dionisio Sagarzazu Sagarzazu	Horticultor	51	Militante	Derechista
Fausto Zubillaga Pérez	Pescador	41	Militante	Derechista
José Mª Berrotarán Echeverría	Labrador	33	Militante	Derechista
Tercio De Entidades
José Luis Álvarez Olascoaga	Estudiante	25	No afiliado	Derechista
Francisco Mendizábal Roteta	Labrador	52	No afiliado	Derechista
Pedro Mª Aramburu Irastorza	Empleado	52	Militante	Derechista

Composition of the City Council in 1948 and postwar repression

Unlike in 1948, we do not have clear information on the other electoral processes that took place in the 1950s. We only know of a note dated 1954 ing a list of local individuals deemed suitable by ability and solvency to fill vacancies in that year’s municipal elections. The note states:

“It is traditional that the two main districts of Hondarribia (farmers and fishermen) each have two representatives on the City Council. Currently, one representative of the farmers remains as councillor, who, together with the proclaimed candidate and councillor of the Tercio de Cabezas de Familia, José María Daguer Aguinaga, a former combatant, completes the two. For the fishermen’s district, Florencio Lecuona Zubillaga, a former combatant, was proclaimed candidate. Another must be appointed by the Union, thus completing the two fishermen’s representatives.”

In the 1954 elections, the Tercio de Entidades was monopolized by the Hermandad de Labradores, which held all three council seats of that tercio. The presence of former combatants and ex-prisoners in political roles remained significant, as three of the nine proposed candidates met these criteria. The latest information available dates from 1957, proposing candidates to renew the third tercio. Notable among them is Juan Vila Madrid, teacher, former prisoner, Chief of Franco’s Guard, delegate of the Frente de Juventudes, regional delegate of the Servicio Español del Magisterio, and local secretary of F.E.T. and J.O.N.S., possibly one of the most highly positioned figures of the early Franco period. Another former prisoner of Guadalupe among the candidates was Regino Elejalde Gil, teacher at the Escuelas Viteri.

Postwar repression

In Hondarribia, as elsewhere in Guipuzcoa, a series of repressive processes began in 1937 and continued several years after the Civil War. The first reference for Francoist repression is that exercised by military authorities. From July 28, 1936, in territory controlled by the insurgents, a State of War was decreed, placing much of what would normally fall under civil justice under military jurisdiction.

The Military Justice Code provided for a summary procedure, reducing the investigative period to five days, greatly limiting procedural guarantees. Despite the harshness of this military repression, it appears to have affected Hondarribia minimally. Unreliable sources cite eight uted residents, but all deaths occurred during the city’s occupation, possibly representing extrajudicial utions in combat or primarily militiamen uted at the Fort of Guadalupe.

More reliable sources report no Hondarribia residents uted by the rebels in that district, though residents absent from the city may have been punished elsewhere. Only one case is documented: Arturo Hernández San Martín, a doctor at the Fort of Guadalupe, acquitted by military jurisdiction but fined 1,000 pesetas by the Juzgado de Instrucción de Responsabilidades Políticas (Beperet, 2001; 143).

On September 13, 1936, coinciding with the occupation of San Sebastián, the National Defense Board decreed the seizure of all property belonging to persons and political parties opposed to the rebellion of July 18. The Provincial Commission for the Seizure of Assets of Guipuzcoa (CPIB) was established by decree on January 9, 1937, under the Central Commission for the Seizure of Assets, appointed by the president of the Junta Técnica via order of January 20, 1937.

On January 26, the Guipuzcoan CPIB was constituted, chaired by Civil Governor José María Arellano, with Juan Cobián Fredo, magistrate, and Wenceslao de Archaud, state attorney. Prior to its formation, Arellano had issued a circular in October 1936 instructing notaries and trade brokers not to ute any transfer, encumbrance, or cancellation of assets without his permission, enforcing the “seizure of all assets belonging to members of the Marxist-nationalist Popular Front parties.”

The CPIB held its first session on August 6, 1937, although work had begun earlier. By August, about 1,000 cases had been opened against “those considered liable for acts of ility against the Glorious National Movement,” estimating fines totaling 400 million pesetas (A.G.A.-Justicia, caja 171). In March 1937, municipalities were instructed to investigate the conduct of anyone potentially liable.

For Hondarribia, at least ten residents had property seized and administered by the municipal secretary under CPIB mandate, yielding 5,547.79 pesetas in rental income during the enforcement period, far less than in Irun, where 14,325.60 pesetas were collected at the end of the 1930s (A.G.A.-Justicia, libro 20-E).

Law of Political Responsibilities and postwar repression

In February 1939, the Law of Political Responsibilities was enacted, intended to “settle the guilt of those who contributed, through serious acts or omissions, to foment the red subversion, sustain it for more than two years, and obstruct the providential and historically inevitable triumph of the National Movement.”

Like the CPIB, the law defined a series of sanctionable behaviors retroactive to October 1934. The Regional Tribunal of Political Responsibilities of Navarre, responsible for Guipuzcoa through the Juzgado de Instrucción de Responsabilidades Políticas in San Sebastián, processed 1,116 cases in its first two years.

1939 and 1945, when the law was repealed, 32 Hondarribia residents were prosecuted; fifteen were convicted with fines ranging from 75 to 15,000 pesetas. The harshest sanctions affected Juan Garmendia Idiazabal, a councilman who evacuated the city in early September 1936, and despite returning in November, was exiled 150 km away for being undesirable in the border area. In July 1940, he was fined 15,000 pesetas.

Other council members were also prosecuted: Francisco Sagarzazu Sagarzazu, mayor during Primo de Rivera’s dictatorship; Juan José Petit Ory, mayor at the start of the Republic; and councilors Segundo Martínez Olano (C.E.D.A.) and Ángel Urrutia Zunzunegui (E.A.J.-P.N.V.). Only the nationalist councilor was sanctioned (2,000 pesetas), despite returning from France in 1937. Urrutia was the last resident of Hondarribia to be sentenced under the L.R.P.

Exile and sanctions

Many residents in exile were also affected, due to the evacuation in early September 1936. Fourteen were exiled (four died, seven returned, three remained in France). Of those who returned, five were convicted, one imprisoned at El Dueso, and in 1941 fined an additional 1,000 pesetas. Those who did not return, including José Iriarte Bordonés, president of Eusko Etxea, were also condemned. Total fines imposed under the L.R.P. on Hondarribia residents exceeded €75,000.

By ideology, of 24 known cases, Republicans were the largest group (12: five I.R., four U.R., three unaffiliated), followed by nationalists (seven). However, sanctions were harsher for nationalists, representing 73% of total fines in Hondarribia.

Control of civil life

Repression extended to all aspects of daily life. On December 16, 1936, following instructions from the Civil Governor, the city removed 17 municipal employees who had not returned after evacuation (APG-JTE, leg. 1376). The education sector was purged: 12 teachers investigated, four sanctioned, three permanently dismissed.

Among them, Ambrosio Saseta Lázaro was accused of Basque nationalism despite exemplary Catholic conduct, allegedly influenced by his children. He returned from France in July 1940.

Other teachers were punished for leaving the city during the rebel advance and not returning. One, local Red Cross delegate under Republican control, stayed in France in 1939 and was permanently dismissed. Two others returned in 1940; one affiliated with I.R. was sanctioned in 1946 with a two-year suspension. A teacher from Jaizubia, loyal to the Franco regime but forced to stay in France by her “completely red” husband, was confirmed but barred from managerial positions.

Resistance and the maquis

The proximity to the French border facilitated resistance activity. By 1944, after the German withdrawal from France, exiled Republicans who had fought the Nazis (in Allied units, the maquis, or the Resistance) turned attention to Spain. The Franco regime reinforced troops in the area.

In September 1944, Admiral Calderón, commander of the Bidasoa naval district, assessed the situation as critical due to the boldness of Spanish maquis considered masters of the area. In October, Operation Reconquista de España began, the largest guerrilla infiltration through the Pyrenees, targeting mainly Navarre.

The maquis remained minimally active in the Basque Country. Only one group under Victorio Vicuña, head of the 10th Brigade of the Atlantic Pyrenees of Spanish Guerrillas, led by Marcelo Usabiaga, Francisco Lapeira, and Pedro Barroso, attempted guerrilla infiltration into the Basque Country.

Maquis infiltration and anti-Francoist repression

On November 18, 1944, forty maquisards, led by the aforementioned commanders, landed in Hondarribia intending to move toward Bizkaia and Santander to establish guerrilla bases. The expedition set out from Hendaye and landed on Hondarribia beach, heading for the Higuer Lighthouse. The loss of a machine gun magazine alerted the Francoist police, triggering an intensive mobilization to locate the infiltrators.

Searches and arrests occurred in nearby farmhouses, but the maquisards reached Bilbao, Eibar, and San Sebastián, where they had support networks. Nevertheless, most were arrested by the police and taken to the Irun Command, then transferred to Ondarreta prison for trial by court-martial. Five were sentenced to death; sentences were commuted except for Pedro Barroso, uted in Vitoria-Gasteiz in 1945. Several remained imprisoned until the early 1960s (Rodríguez, 2001).

Besides this failed infiltration, only one other anti-Francoist episode is recorded. In June 1945, several local fishermen were arrested following the capture of Communist Party (PCE) members in San Sebastián, who were believed to support PCE militants in the area.

Postwar urban development (1941–1959)

In 1941, former mayor Francisco Sagarzazu returned to office, remaining until 1958. His return revived old urban plans of the Sociedad Progreso de Hondarribia. According to Eunate Beperet, before resuming office, Sagarzazu consulted José Múgica about municipal lands at Puntal de España, who advised dismantling Republican projects and returning to the 1930 status quo (Beperet, 2002:158). Municipal contracts with the Society were terminated.

Once in control and after annulling all Republican council decisions on February 5, 1942, a major urban reorganization began, lasting until 1963, from the inauguration of Plaza del Obispo (1944) to Murales de Beruete (1963) by mayor Fernández de Casadevante.

Sagarzazu collaborated with architect Pedro Muguruza Otaño, original designer of the Sociedad Progreso de Hondarribia projects, the Alfonso XIII International Bridge, and the Puntal de España expansion. Muguruza became Director General of Architecture postwar and commissioner for Madrid reconstruction in 1945.

Key urban projects included:

Plaza del Obispo (1944)
Statues/reliefs: San Juan de Dios (1947), Balleneros de Terranova (1954), Parque de Madrid (1955)
Murales de Beruete (1964)

The fishermen’s neighborhood Azken Portu was built under the 1939 Cheap Housing Law, inaugurated in 1949 with Foreign Minister Alberto Martín Artajo attending. Other projects: San Juan de Dios statue (1947) and Parque de Madrid (1955), completed despite disagreements with René Petit.

Sculptor José Díaz Bueno uted sculptures and reliefs, completing the Sagarzazu-Díaz Bueno-Muguruza trio responsible for Hondarribia’s urban form under Franco.

Sagarzazu also approved the 1951 Urban Plan and Inner-City Reform Plan, replacing the 1927 plan by Gutiérrez Soto and Cánovas del Castillo. The Hotel Castillo de Carlos V (1948), halted since 1941, was completed.

In a 1943 interview, Sagarzazu emphasized that a mayor must “be passionate about architecture and gardening, devote himself to the common good, even sacrificing private interests.” He refused industrial development, preserving the city’s aesthetics, visible in details such as the polychrome San Pedro in the Fishermen’s Guild arch. In 1968, a bust honored him in the Council Hall.

Mourning festivities (1976)

During the difficult and long months of the political transition from Francoism to the party , Hondarribia became the scene of one of the most painful bloodshed events of the period. After the celebration of the alarde on September 8, 1976, when a crowd filled the streets of the Marina neighborhood, the formation of a small demonstration in favor of amnesty for ETA prisoners prompted the intervention of the Armed Police and Civil Guard, who suddenly used riot control equipment. During one of the charges, as people tried to take refuge in doorways and alleys, the twenty-two-year-old Irundarra Jesús Mari Zabala, a regular participant in the alarde with the Mendelu company, was fatally wounded. From that moment on, the festivities turned into a collective mourning. The authorities’ dinner with the Civil Governor at the castle was suspended, as were dances, dinners, and celebrations. The following day, Mercedes Iridoy, mayor of Hondarribia, resigned along with the rest of the municipal council. On September 10, the province of Guipuzcoa went on a general strike, marked by incidents and demonstrations. A massive demonstration, led by Mrs. Iridoy, took place despite the ban, following the funeral held at the church of Hondarribia on September 11.

First elections after Francoism

Referéndum de 1976

3.549 si, 82 no, 194 votos en blanco y un 56,47 % de votantes

Elecciones de 15-VI-1977.
PNV	1.639
PSOE	1.179
EE	740
DIV	534
ESB	488
GU	359
DCV	320
PCE	137
PSP	113
ANV	73
FUT	66
FDI	31
AETG	12
Nulos	58

Referendum constitucional del 6 de diciembre de 1978
Votos	3.210
Abst.	4.751	60,25%
Sí	1.982	24 89%
No	961	12,32%
Blanco	201
Abst. y No		72,57%

Elecciones generales del 1-III-1979 (Censo electoral: 8.007)
Ref. Ibermática. Norte, SA
PNV	1.844	34,93 %
HB	912	17,27 %
EE	851	16,12 %
UCD	720	13,63 %
PSOE	692	13,10 %
PCE	78	1,47 %
UN	40	0,75 %
EMK	38	0,71 %
UFV	37	0,70 %
EKA	35	0,66 %
ORT	13	0,24 %
IR	10	0,18 %
ULE	5	0,09 %
LKI	4	0,07 %
Abstenciones	2.639	32,95 %

Elecciones municipales de 3 de abril de 1979

Para cubrir las 17 concejalías de este ayuntamiento se presentaron cuatro candidaturas: PNV, PCE, PSOE y Hondarrabiko Ezker Batua, apoyada esta ú1tima por ESEI, EE y HB. Resultando elegidos, sobre un censo de 7.355 electores, los siguientes concejales: PNV con 2.529 votos: Alfonso Oronoz, José M. Olascuaga Garmendia, Miguel Bernedo, Elvira Picabea, Francisco Lapitz, Juan Luis Llorens, Angel M. Salaverria, Yon Arrizabalaga y Juan Mari Sáez; H. Ezker Batua con 1.775: Enrique Lecuona, Alfredo Lainsa, Santiago González, Juan L. Zubillaga, Mikel Zuazabeitia y Juan M. Bello; PSOE con 654: Román Rico y Enrique Iparraguirre. Alcalde: Alfonso Oronoz del PNV.

Referéndum estatutario del 25-X-1979 (Censo electoral: 8.385)
Ref. El Diario Vasco, 27-X-1979.
Votos:	4.908	58,53%
Abst.	3.477	41,47%)
Si:	4.540	92,50%
s/c		54,14%
No	132	2,68%
Blanco	86	1,75%
Nulos	52	1,05%

Elecciones para el Parlamento vasco, 9-III-1980 (Censo electoral: 8.593)
Ref. El Diario Vasco, 11-III-1980.
PNV	2.258	47,21 %
HB	780	16,31 %
EE	664	13,88 %
PSE	455	9,51 %
UCD	245	5,12 %
AP	117	2,44 %
ESEI	64	1,33 %
PCE	58	1,21 %
EMK	41	0,85 %
LKI	10	0,20 %
EKA	9	0,18 %
PTE	9	0,18 %
UC	6	0,12 %
Abstenciones	3.811	44,35 %

Maquis infiltration and anti-Francoist repression

Postwar urban development (1941–1959)

Do you have an article about basque culture?

Types of cookies

Analysis or measurement cookies

Cookies for sharing on social networks