The author then moves on to another fundamental aspect: knowledge of the Kingdom ’ s Constitution and form of government. And here he is, once again, peremptory: it has always been a ‘pure monarchy’ and hereditary, in fact, he says, ‘like the rest of the Gothic race’. The previous Memory had already mentioned ‘the command of a single Chief’ and, he continues, ‘the various Orders of State are contemplated in serious cases; but only to ensure the suitability of the Ordinances, and not to have an influence on them with a decisive vote’ (p. 32). The Courts of Lamego confirmed with a written Law the hereditary succession to the throne, which had already been established since Count D. Henrique . According to ACA, and in the same vein as the Academia Real da História [Royal Academy of History] , ‘it is improper and useless for any Portuguese person to investigate the veracity of a monument, the contents of which have been authentically received as our Fundamental Law’ (p. 32).

Likewise, says ACA, the form of government is offered at first glance as purely monarchical, i.e . , the Courts ‘had a nature that was no different from that of any less solemn Council, where the Kings listened to the Bishops and Greats of the Court … no one would say that these secret consultations … denoted a shared right to legislate between the Sovereign and the people heard or consulted’. The same is true of the courts, they are purely ‘consultati ve ’. Sovereignty lies exclusively with the King. And, in this regard, he goes on to quote João Pedro Ribeiro and Pascoal José de Melo Freire in a note to Dedução Cronológica e Analítica [Chronological and Analytical Deduction] . In fact, in all these aspects, ACA is in total agreement not only with the Pombaline Statutes of the University of Coimbra and the new degree in Natural, Public and Universal Law, but above all with Pascoal José de Melo Freire, with whom the coincidence of positions and points of view is very significant. In the field of political-religious thought, the author ’ s position is also clear on another strong and controversial topic of his day (a position that goes hand in hand with that of A. Pereira de Figueiredo), the question of the Church ’ s material assets : ‘the Sovereign retains an eminent dominion over all the assets of his Kingdoms so that he can dispose of them for public needs’ (pp. 62 - 63), all the more so, he says, because many of those same goods had been ‘liberalised’ by the monarchs themselves or by previous monarchs. The references are often to the excessive opulence and ‘exemption’ of the ecclesiastics in those days, confused as they were due to their ignorance of the limits of ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | (Pdf)