Likewise I cannot pass over what is said as to the Canon having been condemned only to the penalty of banishment because of defect of proof of adultery. For if such proof had not existed, how could my Lords Judges express in the decree that they condemned him for criminal knowledge of the same Francesca Pompilia? It is the truth that the judges held that the said adultery was most conclusively proved, and that the said Canon was convicted of the same, since in the prosecution nothing is wanting but the taking of them in the foul act; and this is not necessary to prove adultery. [Citations.]
The penalty to which the said Canon was condemned did not indeed correspond with the said crime. As to this many replies may be made, but, because this has no connection with Count Guido let it also pass by. For however that may be, who can deny that Count Guido, on reading the said decree, which needed no comment, ought justly to be angered for the conjugal faith violated toward himself? And who can deny that he ought to be somewhat excused, if afterwards he took vengeance for such a violation? [Citations.]
And this is true, although he took such vengeance after an interval, as was plainly demonstrated in my said past information, § Nec verum est. For there are few authorities who hold the contrary, and therefore it would be almost heretical to doubt the truth of such an opinion. [Citation.] Especially since this has been accepted in almost all the tribunals in the world, particularly in that of the Sacred Council, which establishes the precedent for all the other tribunals of the City and of the entire Ecclesiastical State. Hence Concioli affirms that it is almost like sacrilege to depart from this opinion. [Citation.]
And is it not a fine pretence to wish to exclude the plainest proofs of adultery by the word of the very wife convicted of it, and then retained in the nunnery by reason of it, as my honourable Lord Procurator General of the Fisc has ingenuously acknowledged? For a person is not obliged to disclose his own baseness in the face of death, as we have proved in the said present information, § Et quatenus, and the § following. And since she had lived badly, not to say in utter baseness, to the injury of the honour and reputation of her husband, we inflict no injury on her by wishing to presume that even in death she did not come to her right mind, according to the saying: "He who lives badly dies badly." And no one, even in death, is presumed to be a Saint John the Baptist, as in my information, § Nec valet dici.
As therefore it remains firmly established that Count Guido had just cause for killing, or causing to be killed, Francesca Pompilia, his wife, the same must be said as to the murder of Pietro and Violante, the father-in-law and mother-in-law. For in the prosecution of the said Francesca Pompilia for flight from her husband, proof also came to light that they had conspired in that same crime, and consequently were among the causes of the injured honour and reputation of Count Guido. And this injury to his honour had also resulted from what they had pretended and had exposed before every one—that his wife was not their daughter, nor legitimately born, but was the daughter of a harlot. And afterward they had received her into their home when she had been declared an adulteress. For either she was their daughter, and they ought not to deny it in Court, or else she was not their daughter, and they should not receive her into their home after she had been convicted of adultery. For in doing so they had, by that very act, declared that they had been and wished to be her panderers. [Citations.]
The confession of Count Guido cannot be divided from its qualification, that he had demanded the murders for honour's sake. But it ought to be accepted by the Fisc along with the said qualification, as we have proved in our information, § Huiusmodi enim confessio. The authorities alleged to the contrary by my Lord Advocate of the Fisc hold good in a qualification, extraneous to the confession itself and which is not therefore proved otherwise, and when there is argument for some extraordinary penalty, and we have admitted this in our information, § Præsertim.
But just as the plea of injured honour relieves Count Guido from the ordinary penalty for murder, so should he be excused from certain other ordinary penalties, laid in the Banns and Apostolic Constitutions against those bearing prohibited arms or committing other crimes. For I have said, and I repeat, that the just anger which excuses him from the one crime should also excuse him from the others, since this reason is everywhere and always in his favour, that he was not of sound mind, according to what was affirmed in our information from § Agnoscit Fiscus, down to § quo vero ad litem.
And just as this cause is enough to gain for Count Guido a diminution of the penalty, so should it be considered to be sufficient likewise to gain that favour for his fellows, who as auxiliaries cannot be punished with a greater penalty than the principal himself, according to almost innumerable authorities, and they of great name, who were alleged in my past argument, § quæ dicta sunt, with the following, and in my present argument, § Verum et Sociis. To this, no response has been given by the other side.
This is all the easier as regards Blasio Agostinelli, who has not at all confessed that he killed or wounded any one, but only that he was present, as we have formerly considered the matter in our information, § Quoad Blasium.
And as to Domenico and Francesco, beside what has been deduced in favour of the others, they are foreigners, and are therefore not bound by the Banns of the Governor (for by these, men who live outside of the District are not bound) nor by the Apostolic Constitutions prohibiting the bearing of arms, as we have said in our past argument, § Quae eo facilius.