eal judge,
not the nominal lay court, which does little more than register the fact,
that the crime is proved _prima facie_.

On the 15th of February, 1859, after a delay of four months more from the
time of appeal, the court of the supreme tribunal of the Consulta Sacra,
assembled at the Monte Citorio in Rome, to try the appeal. The court was
composed of six "most illustrious and reverend Judges," all "Monsignori"
and all dignitaries of the Church, assisted by a public prosecutor and
counsel for the defence, attached to the Papal exchequer. The course of
proceedings appears to be much the same as in the inferior courts, except
that no witnesses, save the prisoner, were examined orally, and the whole
evidence was taken from written depositions. At last, after "invoking
the most sacred name of God," the court pronounce their sentence. This
sentence is in a great measure a recapitulation of the preceding one.
Either no new facts were adduced, or none are alluded to. The grounds
for the defence are the same as on the previous occasion, namely, the
provocation given by the father, and the doubt as to the son's paternity.
There were, in fact, two questions before the court. First, whether the
crime committed was murder or manslaughter; and, if it was murder,
whether the murderer was or was not the son of the murdered man. Instead,
however, of facing either of these questions of fact, the court seems to
enter upon abstract considerations, which to our notions are quite
irrelevant. The degree to which paternal corrections can be carried
without abuse, and the problem whether a man who kills a person, whom he
believes and has reason to believe to be his father, but who is not so in
fact, is guilty or not of the sin of parricide, seem rather questions for
clerical casuistry than considerations which bear upon facts. The final
conclusion drawn from these various reflections is, that the court
confirms the judgment of the Perugian tribunal, in every respect.

The rejection of the appeal is not communicated for two months more, that
is, not till the 22nd of April, to the prisoner, who at once appeals
again against the execution of the verdict to the Upper Court of the
Supreme Tribunal. On the 13th of May the case comes on for its third and
last trial. The court is again composed of six ecclesiastics of high
rank, assisted by the same official counsel as before; the same course of
proceeding is adopted, except that the pr