Romana Homicidiorum
[Pamphlet 13.]
Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord:
In the beginning of his recent information, my Lord Advocate of the Poor has criticised as unjust the decree of this Supreme Tribunal, which inflicted the torture of the vigil upon Count Guido Franceschini and his associates, for the purpose of getting confession of that most horrible crime committed by them. Hence he claims that those confessions, given under the fear of it and ratified after it was over (as is the custom), cannot do the Accused any harm. He attempts, indeed, to deny the justice of the said decree, not merely because of the absence of the quality of special atrocity (as required by the decree of Paul V. of sacred memory for the reformation of the tribunals of the City), but also from the fact that the death penalty cannot be demanded for the crime under discussion. And this he claims is so (in spite of the unusual powers for ordering the torture of the vigil granted to this Tribunal) lest there may be greater harshness in the course of the trial than in the penalty itself. [Citation.]
In the end of this said recent information, he also criticises me because, to the very great wonder of himself and others, I have failed in my duty of seeking the truth in that I have made certain allegations in the defence of the rights of the Fisc, which I have not communicated to him. I thought he had complained quite enough about that orally, so that he might have spared us his new complaint. But it was not my duty to tell them to him, just as his informations, which he made for the Defence (very learned indeed in their way), have never been made known to me by him. But I assert only this, that I have paid the price of much labour, lest I may seem to have failed in my office and in the reverence with which I attend upon my Lord.
Passing over, therefore, my own personal apology, I go on to vindicate the decree of this Tribunal from the injustice charged against it. I also omit proof of the quality of the crime as to whether it may be considered very atrocious, for I have abundantly argued this point in my past response, § Sed quatenus etiam, with the one following. For I showed that this quality could be sustained because of the attendant circumstances which exasperated and raised the crime to the outraging of the majesty of the law, according to the provisions of the Apostolic Constitutions and the General Banns. I think it is quite enough in my present argument to show that for this offence the death penalty should be demanded. I hope to accomplish this with little difficulty, since from the very kind of severe torture decreed, by judges of such integrity, the applicability of this said penalty is pre-supposed. And so since nothing new, whether in fact or in law, can be brought, which has not been already examined in relation to the cause for decreeing the torture, now that the confession of the Accused has followed it, it is the duty of the Judges to pronounce the execution of the well-deserved penalty, which has been long expected by every one.
I have said that nothing new is brought by the defence, since their special attempt consists in repeating the plea of injured honour because of the pretended adultery committed by the wife of Guido, with the help and conspiracy of her parents, who were barbarously slaughtered along with her. This plea is offered for the purpose of exciting the pity of my Most Illustrious Lord, and the Lords Judges, in order that Guido and his associates may be punished more mildly, according to the authorities adduced on that point in their first information, § hoc stante, together with the one following, and § Prædictis nullatenus, likewise with the one following; and in the present information, § Verum et socios. But the same response recurs, that for the Accused this exception on the plea of pretended injury to honour can afford no refuge, because this plea has no foundation in fact and is irrelevant in law.
For what difference does it make even if the mere strong suspicion of adultery is enough to excuse vengeance taken immediately by a husband against his wife or her lover? If she were found either in lustful acts, or in those preparatory thereto; then because of such a sudden grievance excited thereby, which provokes a man to anger, the penalty should very often be tempered according to the nature of the case and the persons. But it is quite certain that to escape the ordinary penalty of the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis for the murder of a wife committed after an interval, the mere suspicion of adultery, however strong, is not enough; but the clearest proof of it is required, either from the confession of the wife herself or from a condemnatory sentence following. [Citations.]
But such proof is entirely lacking in our case. For the luckless wife constantly denied the adultery even till the last breath of her life, as is evident from the sworn attestations of priests and others who gladly ministered to her after she had been wounded. For they unanimously assert that she always affirmed that she had never violated her conjugal faith. Nor did she ask that such sin be forgiven her by the Divine Clemency; this assertion indeed should have much weight, since no one is presumed to die unmindful of his eternal safety. [Citations.]
Nor are the responses given by the Defence at all relevant; namely, that such proof in denial of the adultery is drawn entirely from testimony taken out of court, and extorted by the heir while a lawsuit was pending, to remove the annoyances brought by the Monastery of the Convertites, and that some of the undersigned were legatees. They also respond that since such an assertion as hers served to cover her own baseness, it should not be believed, especially as it was not sworn. And further, that although no one is presumed to be unmindful of his eternal safety, yet all are not supposed to be immune from sin, like Saint John the Baptist, which is especially true when the argument is about the prejudice of a third party and about the more severe punishment of an enemy of the one making declaration.
Now that all these claims are destroyed with so little trouble, the irregularity of the proof could stand in our way, if the Fisc were obliged to assume proof and perfect it. But the burden of proof rests upon the Accused, according to the authorities cited above for avoiding the death penalty, whenever a man kills his wife after an interval. The above attestations are brought merely to damage the proof of pretended adultery, offered by Guido. In this case, certainly, such attestations are not to be spurned, especially when we consider the quality of the persons attesting, since they are priests of well-known probity, and it is incredible that they would be willing to lie. [Citations.]
The further objection that these attestations were extorted by the heir, while a lawsuit was pending, for the purpose of escaping the trouble brought upon him by the Monastery of the Convertites, is also removed by the same reply; because when one is arguing for the proof of an assertion given in the last days of life and in the very face of death, proof cannot be established, unless this hold good. And the heir is praiseworthy, because he is obliged to avenge the murder of the one slain, lest he be considered unworthy according to the text. [Citation.] “Heirs who are proved to let the murder of the testator go unavenged are compelled to give back the entire property,” etc. He procured these attestations that he might guard the good fame of the testatrix; and this was rather because of his zeal for her good repute than to prevent the annoyances unjustly brought, and the quashing of these latter could be turned back for the exclusion of the pretended proof of the dishonesty of the unfortunate wife.
Still less can it stand in our way that some of the signers are legatees, since their interest is not large enough to prevent their giving testimony. [Citations.] And this is especially true when one is arguing to prove a matter which happened within the walls of a home, and the proof of which, on that account, is considered difficult. [Citations.] And such an exception to their testimony, so far as it has any foundation, is utterly removed by the number of the witnesses subscribed to the said attestations. [Citations.]
But [last of all], as to the objection that the assertion of one dying is not to be attended, when directed toward the exoneration of one’s self, because no one is compelled to reveal his own baseness. This might indeed hold good if the adultery had been proved, and if it were not evident that, though wounded, she had died with strongest manifestation of Christian penitence, which would exclude all suspicion of a lie. In this case such an objection does not hold good, but another very valid supposition takes its place, namely, that no one is believed to be willing to die unmindful of his eternal safety. [Citations.]
For Mascardus [Citation.] says that a confession given in the hour of death holds good, and he adds that this approaches nearer the truth, and cites in proof of it Marsilius. [Citation.] The latter affirms that if any one assert that a person making oath in the hour of death is lying, he says what is improbable. And Mascardus concludes that this opinion is more just, and more in accord with reason and with natural law. And though he offers some limitations, none of these are applicable to our case; and the question about which he was arguing was concerning the assertion of one wounded, as to whether such assertion constituted proof against the one charged; and this differs by the whole heaven from our dispute, if we only note that the burden of proof does not rest with the Fisc. Nor does the assertion of Pompilia when dying tend principally toward vengeance, since it is quite evident from those making attestations that she shrank with horror from that; as she always professed that she most freely pardoned her husband.
These matters we have noted beforehand rather in super-abundance than because we were obliged to assert the justice of the decree of this Tribunal. It will now be easy to escape the proof of pretended adultery, brought by the counsel for the Defence. For so far as this proof is drawn from the other decree of this same Tribunal, condemning Canon Caponsacchi for flight and carnal knowledge with Francesca Pompilia, the response which has already been given holds good: namely, that a title should be given no attention, but merely the proof resulting from the trial, and the penalty imposed by the sentence. And what if in that decree, along with the “title” of “complicity in the flight and escape of Francesca Pompilia,” there was also added the title “for criminal knowledge of the same”? Yet since in the trial itself no proof in verification of this was found, and since the penalty of three years’ banishment does not correspond therewith, the mere title should not be given attention, according to the authorities adduced in my past response, § non relevante.
And on account of the following reason, still less can such clear proof of the pretended adultery be established as is required to escape the ordinary penalty for taking vengeance after an interval. For at the instance of the Procurator of the Poor a correction was decreed by the Judges, with the approval of my Most Illustrious Lord, which substituted a general title relative to that suit, namely Pro causa de qua in actis; and although this correction is not to be read in the record (commonly called the Vachetta) in which decisions are usually noted, yet it was made in the order for the dispatching of Caponsacchi to his exile and in the decree assigning to Pompilia the home as a prison. (Summary, No. 1.) And since the latter was made with the consent of Abate Paolo Franceschini, we may assert that the said change of title became known to him because of his notorious solicitude in conducting the case; and so it would be very improbable that he had not carefully examined such a decree and the obligation made by Pietro to furnish her food, without hope of repayment, and the bond given for her to keep the home as a prison. For these reasons his knowledge of that change should be considered as sufficiently proved. [Citations.]
And therefore the response falls to the ground that the decree could not be changed unless both sides were given a hearing. For while Francesca Pompilia, whose defence had not yet been finished, was unheard, much less could the title of criminal knowledge be included in the condemnation of the Canon. For this would be injurious to her, not merely as regards her reputation, but also for the loss of her dowry, for which her husband was especially greedy. For in this way would an undefended woman suffer condemnation, and what is worse, as the event shows, would be exposed to the fury of her husband. And hence with justice was this correction requested and made. And even if this had not happened, a sentence given against the Canon could not injure her, as it was a matter done with regard to other parties. [Citations.]
But it is quite gratuitous to assert that a change as regards the matter of the trial does also impart the same change as to the expression of the title of carnal knowledge. For since several titles were originally expressed in the decree of condemnation (such as complicity in flight, running away, and carnal knowledge upon which the suit was based) the statement of the cause contained therein is no more probable as regards one than as regards another, and certainly it is not probable as regards them all. For if they had wished to include all those in the modified decree, they would have said: Pro causis de quibus in Processu, for the singular number does not agree with several causes. [Citations.] But in the prosecution the charge of “criminal knowledge” was not proved and the Canon could not be condemned for that while Francesca Pompilia was unheard and undefended. This is on account of the indivisibility of the crime of adultery, which does not permit the division of the case for the purpose of condemning the one, while the case is pending as regards the other. And this is especially true when all parties are present and are held in prison. [Citations.] The expression, therefore, Causæ, de qua in Processu, should be understood to apply only to the complicity in flight and running away (for this could be issued without the condemnation of Francesca Pompilia), and not to apply to “carnal knowledge.” For the statement made should be considered applicable only to those matters with which the judgment relative thereto agrees. [Citations.]
And this claim of ours is rendered manifest by the mildness of the penalty to which the Canon was condemned, namely, that of three years’ banishment. This certainly does not correspond with the offences of running away with a married woman from her husband’s home, bringing her to the City, and carnal knowledge of her. For inasmuch as the attendant circumstance of rape, spoken about, is punishable by the capital penalty, unless a priest is being dealt with, a far severer penalty would have to be inflicted for the adultery alone, if proof thereof had resulted from the trial. [Citations.]
My Lord Advocate of the Poor acknowledges that the penalty was too light to expiate harshly such a crime, and especially in accordance with the Constitution of Sixtus, revived by Innocent XI. of sacred memory. And therefore to avoid acknowledging the lack of proof, which might very well be inferred from the lightness of the penalty, he attempts to respond that the said Canon was dealt with more mildly because he was a foreigner and because the crime under consideration had been committed outside of the Ecclesiastical State. In this case one should be dismissed merely with exile. But this response is proved to be without foundation for many reasons.
First, because on account of the well-known privilege of the City of Rome, which is the country of all men, even those may be punished here who have committed crime outside of the Ecclesiastical State, which is subject to the secular authority of the Pope. And this is true, not merely for the handling of criminals, which is permitted to any Prince, but for the trial of the crimes. [Citations.] Cyrill testifies that he himself had so held in 1540, in the Capitolian Court, and Farinacci testifies that it was so held in this same Court in the year 1580, in the case of Gregorio Corso, who had been condemned to the galleys, because he had committed murder in Florence and had come here to Rome, after seizing the horse of the one he had slain. And this was notwithstanding the fact that the cause was very sharply defended for the accused. [Citations.]
Second, because this authority holds good whenever there is argument for punishing crimes committed by churchmen, who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Pontiff, and in the City can be punished for their crimes with the ordinary penalty, even though the crimes were committed outside of the temporal authority of the Pope. [Citations.] “Rome is a common country and, therefore, in the Roman courts any cleric or layman may be brought to trial, even though he did not commit his crime there.” [Citation.]
Third, because inasmuch as it was claimed that the approach to the City and the carrying away of the wife to the same were done because of lust, and to secure greater liberty for knowing her carnally, by taking her from the home of her husband, so the Canon, on account of this purpose, would have subjected himself to penalties such as could really expiate the crime, and which also might be inflicted here in the City; for one is punishable with the same penalty who continues in a crime here, although he put it into effect outside of the State. [Citations.] Caballus [Citation] holds that, for deciding the jurisdiction of a judge over crimes that have been committed, the person offending, rather than the offence, should be considered. [Citation.]
Fourth, because the pretended carnal knowledge, so far as it can be said to be proved in the prosecution (and it can be verified that the decree was changed with relation to that), happened in the Ecclesiastical State; for the strongest proof of that crime was drawn from the asserted sleeping together in the same bedroom at the inn of Castelnuovo. [Citation.] And therefore the Canon could and should have been punished with condign punishment, not merely for his undertaking, but for the adultery, if that had been proved. And since this was not imposed, it may well be asserted that the Canon was not at all condemned for “criminal knowledge,” unless one wishes to criticise as unjust that decree, which imposed a mild penalty and one suitable merely to simple running away and complicity in flight, and which was much tempered because of the excuse brought by the Procurator of the Poor. Therefore it may be asserted that the Canon was not condemned for the pretended criminal knowledge, since the nature of the penalty well proves the nature of the crime, with which it should be commensurate, according to Deuteronomy 25: “According to the measure of one’s sin shall be the manner of his stripes.” [Citations.]
And therefore, since the pretended condemnation of Canon Caponsacchi for criminal knowledge of Francesca Pompilia is excluded, the pretended notoriousness of the adultery resulting therefrom also falls to the ground. Neither can this notoriousness be alleged against her undefended. And just as public vengeance, which is to be decreed by a judge, cannot be based lawfully upon it, so much less should private vengeance be considered excusable, when taken by the husband in murdering her after an interval. He is immune from the ordinary penalty for murder even according to the more merciful opinion only when the adultery is established by the very clearest proofs displayed in confession by the accused, or by a sentence given thereupon.
Likewise it would be superfluous to avoid the presumptions adduced by the Defence, especially by the Procurator of the Poor, to destroy the proof of adultery drawn therefrom; for this single response would be enough, namely, that these proofs were all gathered together in the prosecution for Pompilia’s flight, made at the instance of Count Guido, he pressing hard to gain the dowry because of her adultery. And this was insisted on by the counsel for the Fisc, who wrote acutely upon these matters at that time. And yet, in the report of the cause these presumptions were not considered by the judges because of their irrelevance. This is evident from the lightness of the penalty decreed against the Canon. And so the examination of these cannot be renewed after the Fisc has yielded and quietly acquiesced in the sentence, from which it could appeal if it considered itself wronged. Nor could Guido legitimately have recourse to such awful vengeance by his own hand. But lest some feature of the case may be left untouched, and that the justice of the decree may be more clearly asserted, I have taken the pains to confute these briefly.
And since, in the first place, the cause of flight is considered by the Defence in order that they may prove that the said flight was entirely illicit and was planned for easier criminal knowledge, the proofs brought for this purpose should be examined. The chief of these was drawn from the asserted letter of Francesca Pompilia, written to Abate Franceschini. This makes pretence that her parents urged her to poison her husband, her brother, and her mother-in-law, to burn the home, and to return to the City with her lover. But one cannot have a better refutation of this than the very tenor of that letter, including matters that are so improbable, yes and indeed incredible, that it was rightly rejected by the judges. For who can be found so destitute and ignorant of filial love and duty as to make himself believe that a mere child, not more than fourteen years old [Citation], married away from her father’s home, grieving bitterly for the departure of her parents, and wretchedly kept in the home of her husband, so that she was obliged to have recourse to ecclesiastic and laic authorities, could have written to her husband’s brother (who was so unfeeling toward them), with a calm mind, of such base counsels and commands given by them, unless, as she ingenuously confesses, she was compelled by her husband to write it? Nor could she, without great peril, refuse her husband, who was demanding this. Such an improbability alone is enough to thrill with horror those reading it, and well shows that she had written this not of her own accord, but under compulsion. [Citations.]
And, therefore, there is no need to examine whether the qualification added to her confession is probable, namely, that her husband had first marked the letters of the said epistle, which she had afterward inked by tracing them with a pen; because she did not know how to write. For possibly she shuddered to confess that she had written such matters, even under compulsion of fear, to the injury of her father and mother. Such fear is quite presumable in a wretched wife of tender age, destitute of all help, away from her father’s hearth and in her husband’s home. [Citations.] Mogolon says that from the absence of relatives, the presumption of such fear may arise. [Citation.] And this is especially true after she had had recourse in vain to the authorities. Nor is a sufficient proof to the contrary deducible from Francesca’s signature to the matrimonial contract, and from the letters that were said to have been written and sent by her in succession to the Canon, or else thrown from the window. [Citation.] For the very brief signature made in the marriage agreement does not show such skill in writing that with the same ease she could have written so long a letter, inasmuch as daily experience teaches that many are found who can scarcely write their own names.
Still less can the ability to write be said to be proved by the asserted love-letters; for these were constantly denied by Pompilia. Nor can these letters be said to be sufficiently verified by the assertion of the said witness for the Fisc, namely, that she threw from the window a note, which the Canon picked up and then departed. For aside from the fact that the witness stands alone and is of the basest condition, namely a dishonest harlot, and so unsuited for proving a matter [Citations], she neither affirms, nor can affirm that the said letter was written by Francesca Pompilia. Likewise the letters found in the prison of Castelnuovo might have been written by some stranger’s hand. And even though they had been written by her, inasmuch as they are of a later date, they do not prove her skill in writing at some past time; for she could have acquired this skill afterward because of desperation which sharpened her wits, for the purpose of inducing the Canon to undertake the flight with her, so that she might escape the peril of imminent death. For in such matters at these, which are variable and can be changed, one cannot well argue from the present to the past. [Citations.] And that in fact she did learn to write in Arezzo after the departure of her parents is evident from her letter written in the prison of Castelnuovo, and found among her private papers after her death. This is given in the present Summary, No. 3.
The proofs of the abovesaid letter [to Abate Franceschini] drawn from the letters of the Governor of Arezzo, of the Reverend Bishop, and of Bartolommeo Albergotti, are so far from excluding the legitimate reason for flight given by herself and the Canon, during the prosecution, that they rather favour it. For although they criticised her for having such ill-advised recourse to them, they possibly did this to free themselves from censure for having thoughtlessly turned her away. Therefore it is more probable that by them the minds of her cruel husband and of her mother-in-law, who was pitiless and implacable, as experience teaches us, were exasperated all the more. Any one may well know that Guido’s mind was much more embittered after the lawsuit brought concerning the pretence of birth and the rescinding of the dowry contract, and after the publication of pamphlets about the domestic scantiness and the base treatment which they had suffered in the home of the couple in Arezzo. His anger was also stirred by his jealous suspicion of the Canon (although Pompilia’s love of the latter was merely pretended for the purpose of winning him) and by his exasperation, that increases the deadly hatred, which arises from a lawsuit about a considerable amount, and much more about an entire property. [Citations.] Such should the controversy about the pretence of birth be considered. Nor can the just fear of the luckless wife as to her deadly peril be denied. And driven to desperation in avoiding this, she might well have fled; for if it is permissible because of blows beyond mere legitimate correction [Citations] how much more permissible should it be considered, when the wife was continually afraid that he would kill her either with the sword or by means of poison. And, to avoid this, it was but prudent counsel for her to leave her husband and go back to her father’s hearth.
It would indeed have been better if she had won her security by having recourse to the Right Reverend Bishop, in order that he might place her in some nunnery or with some honest matron; or to the Lord Governor, who would have considered her safety and the honour of her husband’s family; or if she had fled in the company of some one connected with the household. But the fear of imminent peril does not permit one to take better counsel, and especially a wretched wife of tender age, destitute of all aid and exposed to the fury of her husband and her mother-in-law. And still further, she might well fear that new recourse to them would be in vain, since she had found the former so useless. Nor could she find any better way of fleeing safely, wherein she thought lay the sole help for herself, than by using the help and company of the Canon, who had been proposed to her for this purpose by the Canon Conti and by Signor Gregorio Guillichini, relatives of her husband. It is incredible that they would have conspired against Guido’s honour without the strongest and most urgent reason and without confidence in Caponsacchi’s honesty and modesty. For one of them, namely Gregorio, had offered himself as a companion for the journey and would have carried out his offer if his infirmity had permitted; as we read in the said letter of Francesca Pompilia found since her death and shown in our present Summary, No. 3, which refers to the same causes, of the infirmity of Gregorio and the imminent peril, which did not permit her to await his convalescence. And therefore she is worthy of excuse since she fled for dire necessity in company of the Canon, a man of modesty well known by her (as is likewise evident from another letter in the Summary of our opponents, No. 7, letter 12, in which she calls him the chaste Joseph, and from the other letter, in which she commends him for his sense of shame). For if she chose this remedy under dire necessity, she should be excused according to the common axiom, “necessity knows no law.” [Citations.]
Nor is an illegitimate cause of flight to be inferred because of the dishonest love with which Francesca Pompilia pursued the Canon in some of these letters. For although they seem amatory, yet they were ordained to the purpose of alluring this same Canon, in order that he might flee with her; since, without him, she knew that she could neither carry that out, nor even attempt it. Hence the letters can afford no proof of subsequent adultery. For although proof may result from love-letters, according to the authorities adduced by the Defence in § His praehibitis, yet this is avoided, if the letters are directed to a permissible end, such as flight to escape deadly peril. For then, inasmuch as the end is permissible, the means are likewise so considered, even though these are not without suspicion; for they are not considered in themselves, but because of their end. [Citations.] Nor is the proof of adultery hitherto drawn from love-letters so very strong unless they include the implicit confession of subsequent fornication. [Citations.]
The following consideration is especially urgent in leading to the belief that the luckless girl thought the Canon would conduct himself modestly during the journey. For in one of her letters she does not fail to take him to task (who had elsewhere been commended for honesty and modesty) because he had sent her questionable verses (present Summary, No. 4): “I am surprised that you, who are so chaste, have composed and copied matters so immodest.” And further on: “I do not want you to do in everything as you have done in these books; the first of them was so very nice, but these other octaves are quite the contrary. I cannot believe that you, who were so honourable, would become so bold.” From this sincere rebuke it is quite evident in what spirit these letters were written, even though they are filled with blandishments and proofs of love; for she shrank even from the dishonourable verses sent to her. Hence the letters should be understood according to the intention of the one writing them, just as one’s words are. [Citations.]
And should not the supposition that the unfortunate wife had destroyed her matronly shame in the journey be therefore considered trivial and improbable? For she had quite enough to do to provide for her own safety by headlong flight. Nor is it probable that she was tempted by the Canon, since the love between them is proved merely by the said letters which were preparing for the flight. And these letters show her solicitude for his modesty and continence, since for the mere sending of them she had made such complaint. For she feared lest he might become too bold, as is evident from details of the letter cited above. Nor are examples lacking of continence observed during a longer and easier journey, which had been undertaken and completed by lovers, even though they might lawfully have indulged their love. Hence it is not improbable that the wretched girl kept herself scrupulously within bounds; for she was in deadly peril, which she hoped to avoid by precipitate flight.
The other proofs of this pretended adultery are far weaker, and were rightly ignored in the report of the case, both as regards the flight and as regards the decreeing of torment; for mutual love between her and the Canon cannot be said to be sufficiently proved by the abovesaid letters; for they were preparatory to this prearranged flight.
The entry and egress to and from the home of Francesca by night is proved by a single base witness. Nor should even such entry be considered to be for a bad end, since it was in preparation for the flight. For when we have a permissible cause given, to which a matter may be referred, it should not be attributed to one that is illegitimate and criminal. [Citation.]
To this reason also should be referred her readiness in showing herself at the window by day and night at the hiss which gave signal that her pretended lover was passing. For since her love might be a mere matter of pretence for the purpose of winning him to give her help in the flight by affording her his company in the journey, these marks of love can be of no further import than the pretended love itself. The unfortunate wife employed it as a stratagem, indeed, that she might provide for her own safety. And so this response recurs: “If the end is lawful, the means ordered toward carrying it out cannot be condemned.”
The pretended insidious manner of preparing for the flight and putting it into execution by means of an opiate administered to her husband and the servants (so far as it is proved, and it was by no means proved in the Prosecution) affords indeed a proof of her flight, but not of adultery; for it was prearranged, not for that purpose, but to escape deadly peril, to which the wife would have exposed herself, all too foolishly, unless she had made sure that her husband, who was lying in bed with her, was sound asleep, or unless she had contrived some such easy way.
The ardour shown in some of the letters is indeed a sign of love, according to the word of the poet: “Love is a thing full of solicitous fear.” [Ovid, Heroides, I. 12.] But since love was pretended for a legitimate end (as was said) she could also make a show of ardour for feigning love, since it tended toward the same end of winning his goodwill, so that possessed of his true service she might escape. Therefore, from this pretended love and these feigned signs of love, one cannot argue that their departure together from the home of the husband and their association during a long journey gives proof of the pretended adultery; because even in true and mutual love continence has been observed, which is certainly more difficult.
Nor are the authorities adduced by the Defence, in § Accedit quod, applicable; because that text has regard to a woman spending the night outside of her husband’s home and against his will, without just and probable cause, as is evident from the words of the same. This decision is not applicable to our case, since the wretched Pompilia left her husband’s home and went to her father’s hearth that she might escape the deadly peril which she feared was threatening her. And so, since she did it for just and probable reason, the condemnation of the aforesaid text is turned away. And Farinacci so explains the assertion. [Citations.] “But it is otherwise if done for reason, because the mere spending of the night together does not of itself prove vice; for a case can be given where a wife spent the night with men, and yet did not break her marriage vow.” [Citation.] Since this possibility is verified in our own case also, the proof of subsequent adultery cannot be inferred from her flight and association with him in the journey, for the purpose of providing for her own safety.
Their mutual kissing on the journey, so far as it is proved, affords no light presumption of violated shame; but the proof of it is too uncertain; for it rests upon the word of a single base witness, who swears to matters that are quite improbable, namely that, while he was driving their carriage very rapidly, he saw Francesca Pompilia and the Canon kissing one another. How full of animus this deposition really may be is evident from this fact—that during the night he saw a momentary and fleeting deed, without giving any reason for his knowledge, such as that the moon was shining or that some artificial light afforded him the opportunity to see it. [Citations.] The improbability, or rather incredibility, is increased because, while the witness was intent on driving the carriage with such great speed as to seem like flying (as another witness testifies), how could he look backward and see their mutual kissing? Such an improbability would take belief away not merely from a single witness, but from many of them. [Citation.] Furthermore, there is the possibility to be considered that the jostling together of those sitting in the carriage might have happened from the high speed; and from this fact an over-curious witness might believe that they were kissing each other, although, in fact, the nearness of their heads and faces to one another might indeed be by mere chance, and not for the purpose of shameful and lustful kisses. Because whenever an act may be presumed to be for either a good or a bad end, the presumption of the evil end is always excluded. [Citations.] And so in the said report of the prosecution for flight, this presumption was justly passed over because of lack of proof; nor would it have been rejected otherwise.
Nor can this improbable and prejudiced deposition of the said witness receive any support from the pretended letters, in which Francesca thanks him for the kisses sent, which she says would be dearer to her if they had been given by the Canon himself, and sends him back ten hundred thousand times as many. For it cannot be thence inferred that if the opportunity were given their mutual kissing would follow, since these words were offered as serviceable and alluring for the purpose of winning him over; nor do they involve an obligation. [Citations.] And therefore they do not lead one to infer that they were carried out, especially since Francesca many and many a time warned the Canon to observe due modesty. And when she found that he had transgressed its limits by sending her dishonourable verses she abjured him not to become bold in urging his passion. This is far removed from impure desire to receive his kisses, which is formally stated in the said letter, as it is without any thought of injuring her matronly honour.
The use also of laic garb, in which the Canon was found clothed, can afford no proof, because, as he is no priest, he cannot be said to be forbidden to do so on a journey. And this was probably arranged in good faith to conceal himself and to avert scandal, which might be conceived at seeing a priest with a woman in the flower of her age and, as I have heard, of no small reputation for beauty, journeying without the company of another woman or servant. [Citation.] And so the authority of Matthæus Sanzio, etc., is not applicable, because in his case there was no concurrent cause on account of which the priest might approach with improper clothes and girded with arms; and he was found by the husband, either in the very act or in preparation thereto, and was killed on the spot. In such a case the proofs of adultery may well be admitted for the purpose of diminishing the penalty, and they were gathered by the same author to that end.
Their sleeping together on the same bed, or at least in the same bedroom, at the inn of Castelnuovo, was not given consideration in the report of the prosecution for flight, because of defect of proof. This charge was indeed denied by Francesca Pompilia, and the Canon frankly confessed merely that he had rested for a little while on another bed in the same room. Nor ought a brief stay in that room be magnified to a crime, since it should be attributed to his guardianship of the said Francesca, whom he was accompanying on the journey, and hence was under obligation to guard her lest some evil might befall her. Whenever an act may be said to be done for a good purpose all suspicion of evil ceases. In these very circumstances, Gravetta [Citation] says that the interpretation should tend toward lenience, even though the harsher interpretation seems the more probable. Nor does it suffice as a full proof of adultery (if one is arguing a criminal case) that a young man be seen alone and naked with her, and that he be found locked in the bedroom with the wife, even though he have his shoes and clothing off; because these matters may be merely preparatory. And much less can proof of adultery arise from his brief stay in the same bedroom for the purpose of protecting her.
Nor can proof of their having slept together be drawn from the deposition of the servant of the same inn who asserted that he had been ordered to prepare only a single bed. For it does not follow from this that both of them slept in it; but this was done because only Pompilia wished to rest a little while to refresh her strength, which had been exhausted by the swiftness of the journey they had made. The Canon was keeping guard over her and preparing for the continuance of the journey; and so, when the husband arrived, he was attending to this by ordering that the carriage be made ready. Hence no proof of their having slept together can result from this deposition, and it was justly rejected by the judges, so that it needs no further refutation.
And although Francesca Pompilia, in her cross-examination, tried to conceal a longer stay at the said inn by asserting that they had arrived there at dawn, yet no proof of adultery may be drawn from the said lie, for she made that assertion to avoid the suspicion of violated modesty, which might be conceived from a longer delay and more convenient opportunity. And so, inasmuch as her confession would have done her no harm, even if she had acknowledged it with circumstances leading to belief in the preservation of her sense of honour, neither can this lie injure her. [Citations.]
Since, for these reasons, the proof of the pretended adultery is excluded and almost utterly destroyed, no attention should be paid to the fact that Count Guido, in his confession, claims the mitigating circumstance of injured honour, as regards both his wife and his parents-in-law; and that this confession cannot be divided for the purpose of inflicting the ordinary penalty. For authorities of great name are not lacking who affirm that a qualification to this end added to a confession, ought to be rejected; and above the others, is Bartolo [Citation], who proves this conclusion by many reasons, and responds to those given contrary [Citation], where it is said that a judge should not admit such qualified confession. [Citations.]
Nor is such a plea of injured honour always in one’s favour in avoiding the capital penalty, but only when vengeance is taken immediately; or after an interval, according to more lenient opinion, when the adultery is proved by condemnatory sentence or by confession.
But the reins of private vengeance would be relaxed far too much to the detriment of the state if, when proof of adultery were lacking, a stand could be made for the purpose of diminishing the penalty upon some qualification added by the defendant to his confession. Because in this way a witness might make a way of escape in his own cause, which is not permitted to any one. [Citations.] And nothing more absurd can be thought of than that the burden of proof incumbent upon him for escaping the ordinary penalty might be discharged by the mere assertion of the defendant.
Nor should we admit the opinion that, even when the adultery is proved, a husband may kill, after an interval, an adulterous wife without incurring the capital penalty, since the weightiest authorities deny that. [Citations.] Bartolo, in distinguishing between real and personal injury, affirms that when injury is personal, it should be resented immediately; but if it be real it may be resented after an interval. [Citations.] And Gomez declares: “I hold the contrary opinion, indeed, that a husband may be punished with the ordinary penalty of such a crime as murder; and for this reason he may not by any means be excused, because murder cannot be committed to compensate for a crime or for its past essence, unless one kill in the act of flagrant crime,” etc. And in subsequent numbers he responds to reasons given to the contrary. [Citation.] Gaillard, after he says that murder committed for honour’s sake is permissible, states that this exception should be understood to hold good if the injury be resented immediately, but that it is otherwise if done after an interval. In this case the retort is more like vengeance than the defence of honour, and the offender is held to account for the injuries. [Citation.]
Much less can it be claimed that the vengeance was taken immediately because the husband executed it as soon as possible, according to the authorities adduced by my Lord Advocate of the Poor [Citation], where he tries to show that since Guido was unarmed, or insufficiently armed (that is, he was girded only with a traveller’s sword), he could not attack the wife accompanied by the Canon; for Caponsacchi, as he claims, is strong and bold, and accustomed to sin in that way, and was carrying firearms. And the wife showed herself ready to die in the defence of her lover; for it is said still further that the wife rushed upon Guido with drawn sword, and was about to kill him, if she had not been checked by the police officers. But the opportunity to kill an adulteress is not to be so taken that a violent death may be visited upon her with all security and without any risk. For every legal opinion giving excuse for diminishing the penalty shrinks from this. For such diminution of the capital penalty follows because of the violence of sudden anger, which compels the husband to neglect the risk to his own life, that he may avenge the injury done him by the adultery. And so this first opportunity, as spoken of by the authorities, in order that murder may be said to be committed immediately, should be understood to be whenever an occasion first offers itself, in excusing the delay in taking vengeance either because of absence or for some other just reason. Such is the fact in the case about which Matthæus Sanfelix writes, contr. 12. For in that case, the adultery was committed in the absence of the husband, and the wife had run away, so that he could not have avenged himself earlier, as is evident from the narrative of fact, given in No. 1, and No. 28 established this conclusion: “So they are excused if they take vengeance as soon as possible, since it then seems that they killed incontinently.”
But who can say in our case that the husband took the first chance, since when he found his wife in the very act of flight, at the tavern of Castelnuovo, he abstained from vengeance with his own hand, and turned to legal vengeance, to which he had always clung. And indeed he charges himself with the worst baseness when he asserts that he was unequal to the task of taking vengeance because of the fierce nature of the Canon; since, when the latter had been arrested, Guido could have rushed upon his wife. Nor ought the kind of arms they carried to have alarmed him, because, according to the description made in the prosecution, it is apparent that the Canon was wearing only a sword. And so they were provided with like arms. He would not have taken such care of his own safety if he had been driven to taking vengeance by the stings of his honour that needed reparation, even at some risk to himself. For just anger knows no moderation. And he should lay the blame on himself if, alone and insufficiently armed, he had followed up his wife, who was fleeing, as he might fear, with a strong and better-armed lover. His very manner of following her proves the more strongly that his mind had turned toward legal vengeance, for the purpose of winning the coveted dowry, rather than to vengeance with his own hand for recovering his honour. For facts well show that such was his thought. [Citations.]
Likewise the delay of the vengeance after the return of the wife to her father’s home excludes the pretended qualification that the vengeance was taken “immediately,” because he could not put it into execution sooner. For the return home took place on October 12 of last year, and the murder was not committed till the second of January of this year. And we should rather assert that he was waiting for her confinement, which took place on December 18, in order that he might make safe the succession to the property, for which he was eagerly gaping; because he immediately put into effect his depraved plan by destroying his wife and her parents with an awful murder. Hence, from a comparison of these dates it will be easy to see this, and it is evident with what purpose he committed the murders, and whether this vengeance for the asserted reparation of his injured honour may be said to have been undertaken “immediately,” that is, as soon as opportunity was given, according to the authorities adduced on the other side.
Then when he had chosen legal vengeance by the imprisonment of the wife and of the pretended lover, and by the prosecution of the criminal cause, it was not permissible for him to go back to vengeance with his own hand; and in taking that he cannot be said to have taken vengeance immediately. He also violated public justice and the majesty of the Prince himself. This single circumstance greatly exasperates the penalty and increases the crime. [Citations.]
[But the above is true] in spite of the fact that the conclusions adduced by the Advocate of the Poor, in § Et tantum abest, may be applicable, and likewise the authorities approving those conclusions, on the ground that it is not presumable that the husband has remitted the injury, but rather that his desire to avenge himself has continued; and that this excludes the charge of treachery, even though the husband use trickery in taking vengeance. Because in the present case the question is not as to the nature of the murder, from which it might be claimed to have been treacherous. The husband indeed did not conceal his injury, but rather laid it bare by turning to legal vengeance. Although this is possibly less honourable, yet since it was pleasing to him, for the purpose of gaining the dowry, he could not when frustrated in this hope, because the adultery was unproved, take up again the vengeance with his own hand. And this is true even though he pretends as an excuse for his delay that he could not accomplish it sooner. For since the delay and hindrance arose from his own act he could not take therefrom the protection of an excuse. [Citations.]
But, however he might find excuse for the barbarous slaughter of his wife while under the authority of the judge at the instance and delivery of her husband, certainly the murder of Pietro and Violante should be considered utterly inexcusable. In his confession he has tried to apply to them also his plea of injured honour, because of their pretended complicity in urging the flight of his wife and in her asserted dishonour. Yet no proof of this qualification can be brought, nor did the slightest shadow of it result from the prosecution for flight. And this is proved to be improbable, and utterly incredible, from merely considering the fact that Abate Franceschini, brother of the accused and confessed defendant, would not have consented that she be committed to their custody if he had had even the slightest suspicion of their complicity, since he so keenly desired the reparation of their honour. This fact, which was plainly confessed in an instrument prepared in the statement of fact in the Italian language [Pamphlet 10] and very stoutly denied by the Procurator of the Poor, was admitted by his own wonderful ingenuity in denying merely that notice had reached the husband, or in claiming that the Fisc could pretend to no more than mere presumptive knowledge in Guido.
But, still further, such knowledge is quite probable and is drawn from strong proof. For it is very probable that Guido was informed by his brother of his wife’s departure from the Monastery, of her establishment in the said home, of the obligation assumed by her parents to provide her with food, and especially of her detected pregnancy. [Citation.] But we are not now arguing to prove the husband’s knowledge thereof, but to draw from that consent of Abate Paolo a proof which would exclude the pretended complicity of Pietro and Violante in the dishonour of the wife, which latter is by no means proved.
So far is such complicity from being proved as regards Pietro, that the very contrary is quite evident from his will, made in 1695, after litigation had been instituted about Pompilia’s pretended birth. In this will, notwithstanding the litigation, in the first place he leaves as his usufructuary heir Violante his wife, and after her death Francesca Pompilia, laying upon her the obligation to dwell in the City and to live honourably. This is evident from the details of the said will given in our present Summary, No. 5. In this he also asserts that she had thus far conducted herself honourably, and he claimed to leave the annuity to her because of her good manner of life. And so it becomes still further incredible that he, while alive, was willing to conspire in her dishonour, from which he shrank even when dead. For the income was to be taken from her if she should live a dishonest life, and he urged her in case her marriage were dissolved to assume a religious dress, and he left her a fat legacy to that end.
Nor can it afford any proof of this pretended complicity that when Guido had made pretence of delivering a letter sent to them from the Canon, the doors were immediately opened by Violante to the assassins. The attorneys for the Defence try to argue from this ready credulity that the name of the lover was not hateful to Violante, and that hence his intimacy with Francesca was not displeasing. But since the Canon was the author of her liberation from deadly peril by bringing her from her husband’s home to her father’s hearth at the neglect of his own risk, it should not seem wonderful that Violante should give proof of a grateful mind for the help given her daughter and should open the door. Nor can one infer therefrom consent in unchastity, from which their past acquaintance had been entirely free. Much more is this so at a time when he himself was absent and in banishment at Civita Vecchia.
Therefore the true cause, on account of which the Comparini also were murdered, could be no other than the hatred with which the husband had been aflame; [and this first of all was] because of the lawsuit concerning the supposed birth, which they had brought, and which had deceived him in his hope of gaining a fat dowry and inheritance; [and second] his desire for vengeance because of the pamphlets distributed at the time of the said lawsuit, and which had exposed the meagreness of the home comforts and the wretched treatment they had received in the home of the husband. These two do not excuse Guido from the penalty for premeditated murder, and indeed increase it, even raising it to the crime of læsa majestas, according to the well-known order of the Constitution of Alexander, as was proved in our past information, § Accedit ad exasperandam.
To escape the penalty assigned thereto by the disposition of this decree, in vain does he turn to an excuse drawn from supervening provocation. [Citation.] But so far as it is claimed that this crime resulted from the counsel they gave toward her flight, and their complicity in the same, the proof of such complicity is entirely drawn from the asserted letter, written by Francesca Pompilia to Abate Franceschini. But this letter has been completely rejected, and even spurned by Guido himself, since in the prosecution for flight we find no insistence was made that action should be entered against Pietro and Violante for their pretended instigation. Pietro, moreover, had long ago broken off the lawsuit brought as regards the pretended birth and the revocation of the dowry contract, and so this complicity cannot be made to seem the sole provoking cause, which would exclude causa litis. For such a cause should be true and not pretended, and should be in accord with the crime committed. [Citations.] These excuses, indeed, which are claimed to be drawn from complicity in the asserted dishonour, are still further excluded by lack of proof, both of the impurity and of their connivance therein; and so the provocation implied therefrom is shown to be entirely irrelevant, and possibly fraudulent.
The other suit for divorce, brought in the name of Francesca Pompilia, it is vainly claimed is made void because of the asserted invalidity of the summons; for this summons was executed against Abate Franceschini, who lacked the authority of a proxy. Yet his authorisation was quite full enough for a lawsuit, as is evident from its tenor as given in our present Summary, No. 6, and accordingly when a suit was brought it was ample for receiving a summons. [Citation.] We are also dealing with the conditions of the Constitution of Alexander and of the order of the Banns given against those who commit offence on account of lawsuits. Hence the reply is not relevant, which is given by the Procurator of the Poor in § Quae etiam aptantur, that when the dishonesty of the wife is established her impunity from the wrath of her husband, who would take vengeance, should not be permitted by the introduction of a divorce suit. Nor can such murder be said to be committed for the reparation of honour when committed in anger at a lawsuit. For he takes for granted as proved, what is in question, namely, the dishonour of the wife, the proof of which is quite lacking. And Guido might have proceeded to such an extreme if, as soon as the adultery was committed, his wife brought a suit for divorce; but it is otherwise since he tried that revenge after the way of legal vengeance had been chosen by bringing criminal charge for the pretended adultery and for the purpose of winning the dowry. For after he was frustrated in this hope (since no proofs of adultery resulted from the prosecution), and after her husband’s mind had been exasperated, she ought to be permitted to provide for her own safety by begging for the remedy of divorce. And while such judgment is pending any murder inflicted upon her ought surely to be expiated by the penalties inflicted under the sanction of the Alexandrian Constitution and of the Banns. For the provision of this decree is applicable, since the murder was committed while the criminal cause, brought against her for pretended adultery by her husband, was still pending. And this decree includes both civil and criminal suits, as is evident from reading it.
Likewise the assembling of armed men, and their introduction into the City for accomplishing more safely the murder of the entire family, increases the crime to læsa majestas, and also necessitates the increasing of the punishment, as was affirmed in our former information. Nor is this avoided by the replies given, or rather repeated, by the Defence, and especially by the response that since the principal offence was committed for honour’s sake (and hence the ordinary penalty of the Lex Cornelia de Sicariis has no application for that reason), so likewise the penalty for assembling men, imposed by the Apostolic Constitutions and the general Banns, cannot be inflicted; for the latter is included with the penalty for the principal offence, which alone is to be attended, since the spirit and purpose make differences in crimes. [Citations.] Because the order of the said Constitution and Banns would prove utterly vain if the penalty for assemblage should cease, whenever the assembly were made for the purpose of committing some crime that is punishable with a milder penalty. [Citation.] This Bull indeed is applicable even when men are called to arms in a permissible cause and for a good end; because by it the Supreme Pontiff wished to provide for the public security and to restrain the audacity of those laying down the law for themselves. Hence all the more shall it have place when the assembly may be made for an evil end, namely for committing crime, even though the crime may not deserve the ordinary death penalty, and when the crime actually follows. [Citation.] Spada gives this reason, that the Pontiff in establishing this Constitution considered only the uproar and other ills which are accustomed to arise from the assembling of armed men to the injury of the public peace. And although his opinion was rejected by the authorities adduced by his Honour, the Advocate of the Poor, in § non refragante, this refutation does not apply to the assembling of armed men to an evil end (even though this end is not so criminal that the death penalty may be inflicted), but to their assemblage for a permitted cause of regaining possession immediately, by meeting force with force. Even in this latter case Spada holds that there is place for the order of the Bull. Hence the refutation given above does not prevent the application of the provision of the abovesaid Constitution to our case, since the assembling was prearranged for the murder of an entire family, which was put into execution with reckless daring.
Nor may the opinions of the said judges of the Sacred Rota, requiring that the assemblage be directed against the Prince or the State, and not to commit some other crime, stand in the way; because if this qualification were accepted as true the decree would be vain which had raised the act to the crime of læsa majestas and rebellion; for this crime would result plainly enough from the deed itself, and from the intent to disturb the peace of the Prince and the State. And so far as the opinion affirmed by these authorities does have foundation, it can be applied when we investigate the order of the Constitution, and not of the Banns issued later. For this decree would prove vain and useless if the capital penalty, imposed thereby against those assembling armed men, could be applied only when the crime for which the assembly was made was punishable with the same penalty. And even if this necessity be admitted, the application of the Constitution cannot be avoided, because no plea of injured honour can be alleged in excuse for the murder of Pietro and Violante, and it had not at all been proved as regards Francesca Pompilia.
Likewise the preparation and use of prohibited arms is also punishable with the capital penalty, if we investigate the order of the Banns and Constitutions of Alexander VIII., of sacred memory. Nor is this sufficiently avoided by the response given by the Defence that it is included in the main offence; so that no greater penalty can be inflicted for it than the main crime itself deserves. For what we have said above as regards “an assembling” is opposed to such a confusing of the punishment of the Banns, and the authorities adduced in our past response, § nec delationis, affirm the contrary. And those authorities cited for the contrary opinion should be understood to apply only when one is dealing with an insult, or with murder committed in a quarrel, or in self-defence, or for the sake of immediate reparation of honour. [Citation.] The difficulty is at an end in our case, because of the clear disposition of the Banns, which expressly declare and command that the penalty for the carrying of arms is not to be confounded with the penalty of the crime committed therewith. Nor does the response given by the Procurator of the Poor seem strong enough to avoid this; namely that when, under the common law, the Banns receive only a passive interpretation, merely the crime of preparing and bearing arms for committing murder is considered; but that it is otherwise if the arms are borne, for no ill end, and then a crime is committed with them. Because it would be too harsh for one bearing arms for no ill end and then sinning with them, to suffer a greater penalty than one preparing arms to commit crime, and carrying his purpose into effect. Hence these Banns never can receive such an interpretation. For since by them the carrying of arms is forbidden as pernicious and as affording occasion to commit crime, much more should the bearing of them when purposed for committing crime be considered prohibited and punishable with a rigorous penalty. This is especially true when we consider the declaration that the crimes are not to be confounded with one another.
There is left, finally, one other qualification, which greatly aggravates the crime, namely the violating of the home assigned as a prison with the consent of Abate Franceschini. And this is so in spite of what can be alleged as to Guido’s ignorance of this circumstance. Because in the said writing prepared in Italian for giving true notice of the fact [Pamphlet 10], it is asserted that the entire management of the cause was left and committed to this same brother, since Guido had left the City. Hence it is quite incredible that Guido was not informed by him of so important a matter. And as concerning the distinction between violating a public prison and mere custody in a home under bond, and as to offence permitted therein for honour’s sake, we have given sufficient response in our past argument, § Quibus accedit and those following. For the same reasoning is applicable in both cases, since in both the person detained is under the protection of the Prince whose majesty is accordingly insulted. And the excuse would hold good if we were arguing about the resenting of an injury offered in prison. Under these very circumstances do those authorities adduced by the Defence speak, as is evident from their recognition of them.
Therefore, in the present case many grave qualifications are present, which increase the crime, and on account of these his Honour, the Advocate of the Poor, admits in § Agnoscit Fiscus that the penalty should be increased. Nor can such increase of penalty be made good except by death. For even if the adultery were proved, as it is not proved in our case, the mere murder of the wife, when committed after an interval, could demand only a diminution of penalty, according to the more lenient opinion. Hence the justice of the decree for the torment of the vigil should be said to be sufficiently asserted and vindicated against opposing reasons. And now that confession has followed, there remains only that condign punishment be inflicted in expiation of this awful crime.
Giovanni Battista Bottini,
Advocate of the Fisc, and of the Reverend
Apostolic Chamber.
By the Most Illustrious and Most
Reverend Lord Governor in
Criminal Cases:
ROMAN MURDER-CASE
with qualifying circumstance.
For the Fisc, against Count Guido Franceschini
and the others.
Response of the Lord Advocate of the Fisc.
At Rome, in the type of the Reverend Apostolic Chamber,
1698.