Brotherhood of Guipúzcoa. Title X of the Book of Laws states that in ancient times the Brotherhood was established, as we shall see later. The first chapter stipulates that this Brotherhood must be upheld and observed, and that its councils and representatives must take action against those who violate it. The following chapters order that the representatives of the Council correct and amend any ‘incorrectly pronounced’ sentences by the mayors of the Brotherhood. That the province may hear cases of crimes committed by its residents against each other or against others. That the province itself, its Board and attorneys may hear civil and criminal cases arising councils and individuals and councils. That the province and its mayors shall be judges in cases of death and injury caused by crossbows or firearms. That the province, Council and mayors of the Brotherhood have jurisdiction to proceed against rebels and those who disobey the calls of the province itself, being able to pronounce their sentences within 9 days. That neither the Chancelleries, Courts, magistrates, judges nor other courts of justice of the kingdoms of Castile may hear the lawsuits and cases of the Brotherhood, except the king or his Council. That the judges appointed by the monarch to hear the cases of the Brotherhood shall proceed briefly and summarily. That the attorneys of the Board shall not interfere in judicial or extrajudicial proceedings, except in cases and matters permitted to them under the laws and ordinances of the Brotherhood. Likewise, that the attorneys of the Board may not issue orders against ordinary mayors in matters pertaining to their jurisdiction. That the courts of the province and their ministers in Vizcaya and those of Vizcaya in the province may arrest those who, having committed a crime in their territory, pass into either of the two. That the places neighbouring the province shall not take into their jurisdiction those who commit crimes, unless they hand them over to the mayors of the Brotherhood and other justices, and if they do not do so, the province and its ministers shall arrest them. That the province and its Board may remove and replace the mayors of the Brotherhood who do not make good use of their office. That no one be exempt from the jurisdiction of the Brotherhood by virtue of office, removal, pre-eminence or other royal favour. That houses demolished or burned by order and sentence of the province not be rebuilt. That the mayors of the Brotherhood collect the fines in their municipalities and deliver them to whoever the province commands. And finally, if no other buyers can be found for the property of those who have been sentenced to certain penalties, the councils shall purchase it.
Next, we will study the origin of the General Brotherhood of the towns and places of the land of Guipúzcoa, leaving aside the analysis of both the integration of Guipúzcoa into the Castilian general brotherhoods and the border brotherhoods, which have been masterfully studied by Banús and Orella respectively, and which would greatly exceed the scope of our task. In 1370, Henry II ordered, in the Cortes of Medina del Campo, that ‘ffaga hermandat en todos los nuestros regnos’ (a brotherhood be formed in all our kingdoms). In 1375, at the Council of Tolosa, presided over by the mayor of the Royal Court, García Pérez de Camargo, ordinances were drafted for the Brotherhood of Guipúzcoa. They were approved by King Henry II in Seville on 20 December of that year. Don Juan confirmed them at the Cortes of Burgos on 18 September 1379. At first, Santos Lasurtegui states, little was achieved despite the sanctions provided for in the ordinances. Along the same lines, Gorosábel says that "it cannot be denied that those who worked on the task of repairing the country were guided by the purest intentions of success. Despite this, experience ed that they did not produce the effects that had been proposed and desired; and if reason alone were not enough to convince us that the rigour of the laws is not the best means of repressing crime, the multitude of laws that had to be made subsequently would prove it. What brought about the pacification of the country, its moderation and the decrease in those atrocious crimes that had previously been experienced, was certainly not the terrible penalties of the old ordinances. There is no doubt that what contributed to this mainly was the regularisation of the supreme government of the nation, its greater strength, respect and consideration with the subjugation of the powerful who resisted its obedience.
This brotherhood, formed at the behest of Henry II in 1375, barely lasted and fulfilled its objective, which was to pursue the criminals who infested the province, committing murders, robberies and other crimes. John I, after the military disaster in Portuguese lands, convened the Cortes in Valladolid and Segovia in 1385 and 1386 respectively. At these meetings, he authorised the reconstitution of the brotherhoods of the Councils. In Guipúzcoa, the result was not a general brotherhood, as only representatives from a small number of towns (8 of the 26 existing ones, namely Tolosa, Segura, Urrechua, Azpeitia, Bergara, Hernani, Eibar and Ordizia) and two mayoralties (Arería and Aiztondo) attended. The meeting will take place in Villafranca (in the orchard of María Martínez de Isasondo) in 1387. The agreements adopted are markedly anti-partisan in nature. The representatives attending are from the area dominated by the Parientes Mayores oñacinos. Banús does not know if this has any significance. Díez de Salazar, in a very recent study on this partial Brotherhood of 1387, also fails to resolve this mystery.
In view of the deplorable state of the province, Henry III ordered (Ávila, 20-III-1397) the provincial magistrate, Gonzalo Moro, to convene a general meeting of the entire Brotherhood and, after examining the notebooks compiled during the reigns of Henry II and John I, to propose the best course of action to preserve the land and the Brotherhood. The Assembly met in the choir of the church of Getaria and drew up a book of 60 laws, which was published and granted as a charter in the church of San Salvador on 6 July 1397, once it had been confirmed by Henry III. The book of Ordinances of Guetaria contains criminal provisions, most of which relate to the organisation of justice and procedural order. In the administration of justice, great importance was given to witnesses, as torture could not be used. Due to the abuse of the death penalty, torture was established, which must have been abused when, in 1469, the province ed and the king approved that no mayor of the Brotherhood could torture any member of the Brotherhood without the advice and signature of a known lawyer. Otherwise, the mayor of the Brotherhood would incur the death penalty. The organisational section of the Guetaria notebook regulated an institution created by Henry II in 1375: the mayors of the Brotherhood, which we will discuss at the end.
In 1449, John II ordered the creation of a general brotherhood of the councils of the three Basque provinces. In 1451, the same monarch renewed the brotherhoods at the Cortes of Valladolid, and in Guipúzcoa, the general provincial brotherhood was rebuilt. By means of the Royal Charter of 8 April 1453, the brotherhood's was approved so that no appeal could be made to the king regarding the five cases of the brotherhood, to which we will refer later. In 1456, according to Lope García de Salazar, the Brotherhood decided to demolish all the tower houses of the Banderizos, without distinguishing Oñacinos and Gamboínos, to break the truces and to banish the older relatives from the province. Henry IV sanctioned these measures and ordered the creation of a new set of ordinances for the Brotherhood. This book consisted of 147 laws (one less according to Marichalar and Manrique), most of which related to the administration of justice. It stipulated, for example, that the General Assemblies should review the sentences handed down by the mayors of the Brotherhood. The king approved and confirmed this book in Vitoria on 30 March 1457. Henry IV, while in Fuenterrabía, ordered on 4 May 1463 that Doctors González de Toledo and González de Zamora, as well as Alonso de Valdivielsoy García de Santo Domingo, reform the previous book. The province met in Mondragón on 13 June of that year and recognised that the previous ordinances of the Brotherhood had not adequately provided for the cases and matters that had subsequently arisen. They therefore compiled a collection of 217 ordinances, repealing the previous notebooks in all matters that were not in accordance with the new ones. New laws were added in 1469 and the following years. Others would still be formed during the time of the RR.CC. In fact, on 8 January 1482, the representatives of the towns would meet in Basarte with the assistance of the provincial magistrate, Juan de Sepúlveda, and on the basis that due to the "bad government and disorder of the Ministers of the Brotherhood of this province and the defect of the magistrate, justice was greatly impaired, the number of complainants had increased and the wrongdoers had become arrogant," they agreed on new chapters or laws, the enforcement of which was ordered by the aforementioned corregidor by virtue of the powers vested in him for that purpose. These new ordinances were confirmed by the RR.CC. on 17 March 1482. Later, other ordinances were drawn up, which were confirmed in 1529 by Queen Juana and King Carlos. In order to bring unity to these successive laws, the province ed, from 1526 onwards, the creation of a new volume: this was achieved in 1581 and the compilation work was completed in 1583. It remained in force for 107 years.
Finally, we will refer to an institution created in 1375: the mayors of the Brotherhood. The first ordinances of 1375 mandated that seven mayors of the Brotherhood be appointed throughout the land of Guipúzcoa. The Ordinances of Gonzalo Moro of 1397 confirmed this institution. They were elected on St John the Baptist's Day, i.e. 24 June. Their jurisdiction extended to the five cases of the Brotherhood. Chapter IV of Title XIII of the Fueros de Guipúzcoa refers to these five cases, which are theft or robbery on the road or elsewhere; force, arson of houses, crops, vineyards, apple orchards or other fruits belonging to others; felling or cutting down fruit trees or ironworks; ambushes to injure or kill, death or injury, these things occurring in the mountains or wastelands of the province outside the walled towns and non-residents of a place and mayoralty, or at night. To these five cases of Brotherhood was added a sixth of thefts from churches, included in the Supplement to the Provincial Laws of 1758. The seven mayors of the Brotherhood exercised their jurisdiction over the entire territory of the province. The procedure was summary, and to pass judgement, the investigating mayor of the Brotherhood met with the nearest one; if their judgements did not agree, they appealed to a third party, with two concurring opinions being sufficient to pass judgement. There was no possibility of appeal against their sentences, only a complaint to the king. The jurisdiction of the mayors of the Brotherhood did not extend to common crimes. It was limited to the five cases listed above. These cases were heard cumulatively and preventively by all the mayors of the Brotherhood. The excessive authority of the mayors of the Brotherhood led to notable abuses. An ordinance of 1470 to remedy these abuses ordered that the Councils should have power and jurisdiction over those mayors who committed injustices. In 1611, the Councils of Zumaya agreed to abolish these mayors. Confirmation of this decree was ed from the king. This agreement was adopted by subsequent Assemblies, which also instructed the agent in the Court to expedite the abolition of this judiciary. The Assemblies of Rentería in 1684 decreed that the towns could either maintain or abolish the mayors of the Brotherhood, as they deemed most appropriate. Finally, by Royal Provision of 13 December 1688, ordinary mayors were authorised to hear the five cases of Hermandad. In 1800, the Assemblies of Azcoitia attempted to re-establish this type of judiciary; however, this attempt failed.