* Beccaria, § 32. Suicide. Homicides are, 1. Justifiable. 2. Excusable. 3. Felonious. For the last, punishments have been already provided. The first are held to be totally without guilt, or rather commendable. The second are, in some cases, not quite unblamable. These should subject the party to marks of contrition; viz. the killing of a man in defence of property; so also in defence of one’s person, which is a species of excusable homicide; because, although cases may happen where these also are commendable, yet most frequently they are done on too slight appearance of danger; as in return for a blow, kick, fillip, &c; or on a person’s getting into a house, not _anirno furandi_, but perhaps _veneris causa_, &c. Bracton says, ‘_Si quis furem noctupnum occiderit, ita demum impune foret, si parcere ei sine periculo suo non potuit; si autem potuit, aliter erit.’ ‘Item erit si quis hamsokne qua; dicitur invasio domus contra pacem domini regis in domo sua se defenderit, et invasor occisus fuerit; impersecutus et inultus ramanebit, si ille quem invasit aliter se defendere non potuit; dicitur enim quod non est dignus habere pacem qui non vult observare earn.’ L.3. c.23. § 3. ‘Qui latronetn Occident, non tenetur, nocturnum vel diurnnm, si aliter periculum evadere non possit; tenetur ta-men, si possit. Item non tenetur si per inforlunium, et non anitno et voluntate occidendi, nee dolus, nec culpa ejus inveniatur_.’ L.3. c.36. § 1. The stat. 24 H. 8. c. 5 is therefore merely declaratory of the Common law. See on the general subject, Puffend. 2. 5. § 10, 11, 12, 16, 17. Excusable homicides are by misadventure, or in self-defence. It is the opinion of some lawyers, that the Common law punished these with death, and that the statute of Marlbridge, c. 26. and Gloucester, c. 9. first took away this by giving them title to a pardon, as matter of right, and a writ of restitution of their goods. See 2 Inst, 148. 315; 3 Inst. 55. Bracton, L. 3. c. 4. § 2. Fleta L, 1. c. 23. § 14, 15; 21 E. 3. 23. But it is believed never to have been capital. 1 H. P. C. 425; 1 Hawk. 75; Foster, 282; 4 Bl. 188. It seems doubtful also, whether at Common law, the party forfeited all his chattels in this case, or only paid a weregild. Foster, _ubi supra_, doubts, and thinks it of no consequence, as the statute of Gloucester entitles the party to Royal grace, which goes as well to forfeiture as life. To me, there seems no reason for calling these excusable homicides, and the killing a man in defence of property, a justifiable homicide. The latter is less guiltless than misadventure or self defence.