Most Illustrious and most Reverend Lord Governor:
The confession of Count Guido and his fellows as to the murder of Francesca, his wife, and of Pietro and Violante Comparini, his father-in-law and mother-in-law, falls far short of supporting the Fisc in demanding the ordinary death penalty. But, rather, it is remarkably in our favour in excluding that penalty. For there is no longer any doubt as to the cause of the murders, namely causa honoris. This at first was denied by the Fisc because of the presence of other causes, though these either were insufficient or were indirectly hurtful to the sense of honour. We will go over them hereafter, not "with unwashed hands." For a confession indeed should be received along with all its details, and is not to be divided according to a preconceived purpose. [Citations.]
This cause alone would be ground enough for demanding that he and his fellows be dealt with more mildly, if we bear in mind that causa honoris is quite sufficient for the moderating of this penalty. For we have proved in our other argument that a husband may kill his adulterous wife, even after an interval, without incurring the death penalty, wherever the adultery is really proved, as the Advocate of the Fisc concedes in his response. § Solamque suspicionem.
And in very truth, we have in our other plea adduced a great many decisions of the highest courts, wherefrom it is evident that the penalty has been diminished for husbands who have had their wives killed even by means of an assassin; and, on the contrary, no decision favourable to the Fisc is cited. Such an opinion is therefore to be accepted more readily, inasmuch as it is sanctioned by the greater number of authorities. And even although Farinacci and Rainaldi seem to take the other side, yet Farinacci, in his Questions, shows himself very much in doubt, as I have shown in my other plea; and in cons. 141, he shows that he is very changeable, since in cons. 66, No. 5, he has proved the contrary. Therefore, when his attention was called to this changeableness, in excusing himself, he asserted, in the said cons. 141, under No. 16, that Beatrice, in behalf of whom he had written in cons. 66, had been beheaded; as if this kind of rigorous sentence should be followed in practice. And may this distinguished authority pardon me, but he responds inconsistently, having forgotten what he had written in the end of cons. 66: that is, that Beatrice was put to death not because she, after an interval, had commanded that one be put to death who was plotting against her honour, but because she did not prove her right to this latter exception, where he says: "So also there was strong hope for the sister Beatrice, if she had proved the excuse she offered, as she did not prove it."
But the Honourable Rainaldi, whose words and writings I venerate, in his Observationes Criminales (cap. 2, § 4, No. 156), after he asserts that some remission from the ordinary penalty may be hoped through the benignity of the Prince, does not decide the point by citing Gizzarellus and Giurba, who affirm that in justice the penalty should be decreased. But he goes back to what he had written (cap. 7 in Rubrica sub No. 60), where, however, he does not openly examine the point as to murder permitted for honour's sake. Otherwise he would go contrary to the general opinion of authorities, and to many decisions of the highest magistrates, that is to the common practice of the courts. [Citation.] "And this opinion is followed in practice, as I find in the event of such a fact the Neapolitan court has so decided." And concerning this same practice, Matthæus likewise bears witness. [Citation.]
Yet, as I have said, it would be enough to clear Guido of conviction if only his confession be taken in its entirety without subdivision. For greater completeness, however, we offer full proofs of the adultery, as brought out in the prosecution for the flight from home. The Fisc has attempted to attack these proofs lest he might have to lay down his arms; and the Achilles of his pretence is solely a preposterous cross-examination, which was not admitted into the suit for permanent record. It gives the word of a certain baseborn woman, formerly a servant in the home of the Accused, who was severely maltreated by Guido, by the Canon his brother, and by their mother. All too eagerly she narrates the ill-treatment suffered by Pietro and Violante, and by Francesca their daughter, and his wife, respectively, especially in the matter of their food, on account of which Pietro and Violante preferred to return to Rome.
Yet Guido by a written agreement had bound himself to furnish food to the abovesaid couple. And furthermore it is claimed that the flight of Pompilia also was necessary, because she was being threatened with death; in order that her own base desire of violating her matrimonial fidelity may not be deduced therefrom.
If, however, we have any regard for the truth, the domestic affairs of the Accused were not so pinched, because they were more than enough, not merely for frugal, but even for lavish living. The theft of the moneys committed by Francesca in the act of flight demonstrates this. (See the prosecution for flight, pages 5, 63, and 92.)
The real and true cause which moved Pietro and his wife to go back to Rome was undoubtedly that the mother of Count Guido could not bear that the aforesaid Comparini should regulate family matters and should at their own pleasure dispose of everything looking toward the government of the home; this with greatest flagrancy and with none the less boldness they desired to do. Furthermore, Pietro took it ill that he was rebuked for leaving the company of the noble class and associating in taverns with the commonest persons in town, to the scandal of well-born men. And still more because he was compelled by the Governor of the City, under fear of imprisonment, to restore certain trinkets and gems of his daughter, which he had taken away, as Count Guido testified in his examination (pp. 96 and 97). And this is admirably proved by a letter of the same Governor recently presented by ourselves, which we give in Summary, [No. 1].
With these statements the cross-examination of the same Francesca, when arrested in her flight, agrees; in it we nowhere read that she was maltreated, nor that she ever complained of that home of decent poverty. And yet it is very probable that, to put a good face upon her flight, she would have alleged the domestic want and home miseries, if she had ever suffered them.