If this particular punishment already existed for the crime stated in the Act to be "new," why the necessity for thus particularising the mode of punishment? The conclusion of the Act (differing much in the verbiage from that part relating to Roose) confirms me in my opinion, for it enacts that all future poisoners should not only be adjudged guilty of high treason, and not be admitted to the benefit of clergy, but also provides for the punishment in the mode in question.
With regard to the case instanced by MR. NICHOLS, in the 13th Hen., I merely observe that it appears to have escaped the attention of Blackstone, and others who have written upon the subject. Assuming that case to have happened, a reference to the statutes of Henry of that period might probably show that an Act was passed for the punishment of that particular offence; but not extending further, it became necessary to pass another, both specific and general, upon the occurrence of Roose's case.
In support of my view as to the discontinuance of the punishment, vide Blackstone, vol. iv. p. 96.
N.B. The date "1524" (third line from the bottom of second column, p. 112.) appears a misprint for "1542".
J. B. COLMAN.
Eye.
The punishment of boiling criminals to death was not inflicted solely for such a crime as poisoning. It was a common punishment for coining. See Annales Dominicanarum Colmariensium in Urstisius, Ger. Illust. Script., vol. ii. p. 12.; and Ducange, in verb. Caldariis decoquere. I believe instances of it will also be found in Döpler, Theatrum Pœnarum; and it will be seen by a reference to Ayala, Cronica del Rey Don Pedro, that this was the favourite mode of putting to death all persons who had offended him, employed by that monarch, who is best, and, as I think, most truly, known in history as "Peter the Cruel."
W. B. MACCABE.
As the punishment of boiling has been a matter of investigation lately in your columns, perhaps the following contribution on the same subject may not be uninteresting to some of your readers. It appears that in the year 1392, when Florentius Wewelinghofen, or Wewelkofen, was Bishop of Utrecht, a certain Jacobus von Jülich, by means of forged credentials from the Pope, contrived to pass himself off, for a time, as suffragan to the same see. Upon the discovery of the cheat, however, Florentius summoned a synod of six bishops to Utrecht, who condemned the unfortunate pretender to be sodden to death in boiling water! Zedler, in his Universal Lexicon, tom. ix. col. 1282., alludes to the fact. Wilh. Heda, in his Hist. Episc. Ultraject. pp. 259, 260., gives the story thus:
"Circa hæc tempora, scilicet anno 1392 ... quidam ex professione Divi Francisci, sese pro Sacerdote et Episcopo gerens, et in Suffraganeum Episcopi Florentii assumptus, cum aliquandiu sacra omnia peregisset, inventus falso charactere atque literis usus, destituitur, et ferventibus aquis immergendus adjudicatur; impositus vero aquis (quia clamore suo Episcopum ad pietatem commovit) statim extrahitur et capite truncatus obtinuit sepulturam."