Search

Throughout the nineteenth century and up to the proclamation of the Second Republic in 1931 the Catholic Church played an essential role with regard to death in Spain: it had the power to decide where the dead were buried. It could refuse to bury a body in a Catholic cemetery, or prevent one from being interred in a civil cemetery. The prohibition of burials in consecrated ground frequently gave rise to serious conflicts with the relatives of the deceased, as in other countries such as France, Italy or Portugal where Catholicism had been the hegemonic religion at the beginning of the late modern period. However, in the early 1900s the Church changed its strategy. Without renouncing any of its principles, but aware that the prohibition of burials in holy ground was encouraging the growth of civil funerary rituals, it gradually set aside the denial of ecclesiastical burial. Nevertheless, in order to combat the spread of secular funerals, it still demanded that all those who had been baptized and had not formally renounced their religion should be consigned to Catholic cemeteries, even when their families wished for a burial in a civil cemetery, so that this new policy continued to provoke conflicts around the issues of death and burial. This article analyses this type of clashes in Spain between 1874 and 1923: in particular, the Church’s criteria for denying ecclesiastical burial or claiming the dead for Catholic cemeteries; the ways families, friends, neighbours or political associates of the dead reacted; and the attitude taken by the civil authorities.

Through the analysis of the Joaquin Chapaprieta's political activity between 1916 and 1923, we realize, from a privileged position, the crisis of the Liberal Party in the last years of the Spanish Restoration. Chapaprieta was Subsecretario of the Ministerio de Hacienda with Santiago Alba in 1916, Vice President of Izquierda Liberal—a party under Alba's leadership— between 1918 and 1923, and Ministro de Trabajo in the last constitutional Cabinet of the Restoration. On the other hand, his work during these years shows the most statalist aspect of the dinastic liberalism. With the example of the Soviet Russia at the horizon, in order to prevent the revolution, the state should become arbiter in the labour disputes and should develop the social protection over the working class. The cost of the social policy should be financied with the help of a tax reform for to strengthen the progressive taxes. This policy was resumed in one of the Chapaprieta's most significant sentences: «There is nothing more socializative than the tax». In short, a strong state, the more efficient, the more legitimate. Chapaprieta transformed his political thought in definite plans, in two moments: in 1916, from the Ministerio de Hacienda, with Santiago Alba; in 1923, from the Ministerio de Trabajo. In both occasions without success. This article also analyzes the reasons which cause the failure of the Chapaprieta's initiatives., A través del análisis de la actividad política de Joaquín Chapaprieta entre 1916 y 1923, podemos observar, desde una posición privilegiada, la crisis del Partido liberal en los últimos años de la Restauración. Chapaprieta fue Subsecretario del Ministerio de Hacienda con Santiago Alba en 1916, Vicepresidente de Izquierda Liberal —partido liderado por Alba— entre 1918 y 1923 y Ministro de Trabajo en el último Gobierno constitucional de la Restauración. Por otra parte, su labor durante estos años muestra la vertiente más estatalista del liberalismo dinástico. Para evitar la revolución, con el ejemplo de la Rusia soviética en el horizonte, el Estado debía erigirse en árbitro de los conflictos laborales y desplegar un abanico de protección social sobre las clases populares. El coste de la política social debía ser financiado mediante una reforma tributaria que reforzara los impuestos progresivos. Esta política se resume en una de sus frases más significativas: «no hay nada más socializador que el impuesto». En definitiva, un Estado fuerte, más legítimo cuanto más eficaz. Chapaprieta transformó su pensamiento político en propuestas concretas, en dos oportunidades: en 1916, junto con Santiago Alba desde el Ministerio de Hacienda, y en 1923, desde el Ministerio de Trabajo. En ambas ocasiones sin éxito. Este artículo analiza también las causas que provocaron el fracaso de las propuestas de Chapaprieta.