Those who did not agree with these sentiments of vengeance rather than justice did not dare to lift their voices against the will of Doria. The senate referred the question to a commission of jurists, who rather than incur the enmity of Doria, devoted themselves to find a justification for breach of faith and a decree of blood. They reported:--“The act of pardon is not binding because it was conceded in a rebellion with the sword at the throat of the nation; and because it was not granted in a regular session of the senate but by a number of them casually met and having no power under the laws to make decrees and issue amnesties.” They further declared that Doria as the representative of Cæsar could proceed against the rebels, because neither he nor his master had given any promise of pardon. This opinion was chiefly invented by Bernardo Ottobuono who exhausted much subtle argument to procure the condemnation of the Fieschi. His dialectic and legal skill was at that time in great repute among the partisans of Spain; now history stirs his forgotten pleadings, only to put a note of infamy before his name. The senate, having heard the complacent judgment of its legal advisers, took up the filthy burden and hastened to be rid of it by condemning the Fieschi. It is a new proof that Prince Doria possessed an absolute power over the Republic. But this solicitude for vengeance has crowned his name with an eternal reproach. The act of pardon was revoked; the Fieschi and the soldiers who had deserted the standards of the senate, particularly Gerolamo d’Urbino, were declared guilty of high treason. The decree of condemnation bore the date of the 12th of February. We report it in full because, though rather an act of wrath than of justice, it serves to acquit Gianluigi of many crimes of which he was afterwards accused. “The illustrious Doge and magnificent Governors and Procurators of the most serene Republic of Genoa. “Every state is governed by two things which are divine principles, reward and punishment, the first encouraging the good to honest living and love of country and the second withholding the bad from treason and insurrection. If the reward of well-doing be taken away the motives for patriotism cease to exist and if criminals are not punished the ill-disposed are encouraged to continuance in disobedience when new occasions are presented them. Iterated crimes are the most dangerous, since they always increase in magnitude and peril, and small beginnings of treason threaten the safety of Republics.