184 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



[No. 121. 



BOILING CKIMINALS TO DEATH. 

 (Vol. v., pp.32. 112.) 



Mr. John Gough Nichols's observations upon 

 the repljr you favoured me by publishing upon 

 this subject, require from me some few observa- 

 tions in further support of it. When I wrote the 

 article in question, 1 had not had an opportunity 

 of consultino: the statute of 22 Hen. VIII. itself. 

 In making the assertion that, prior to the case 

 of Roose, " there was no peculiarity in the mode 

 of punishment," I did so principally on the au- 

 thority of Blackstone, who says — 



" Of all species of deaths the most detestable Is tliat 

 of poison, because it can of all others be the least pre- 

 vented eitlier by manhood or forethought, and therefore 

 by the statute of 22 Hen, VIII. c. 9. it was made 

 treason, and a more grievous and lingering kind of 

 death was inflicted on it than the common law allowed, 

 namely, boiling to death." 



Upon a perusal of the statute (as published by 

 you at p. 33), I am confirmed in my opinion that 

 the statute «;«.? "retrospective in its enactments 

 as against " Roose, and was more extensive in its 

 operation than (as Mr. Nichols appears to con- 

 sider) merely depriving the culprit of the " ad- 

 vantage of his clargie." The Act, after reciting 

 the facts of the case, enacted that the particular 

 act of poisoning should be deemed high treason ; 

 and that the said " Richard " should be attainted 

 of high treason : and because that offence, then 

 " newly practised," required condign punishment, it 

 was further enacted, that the said Richard Roose 

 should be boiled to death without benefit of clergy. 



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 (differ- 

 ing 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 ad- 

 judged guilty of high treason, and not be admitted 

 to the benefit of clergy, hut 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 Black- 

 stone, and others who have written upon the sub- 

 ject. 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 occur- 

 rence 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 mis- 

 print for " 1542." J. B. Colman. 



Eye. 



The punishment of boiling criminals to death 

 was not inflicted solely for such a crime as poison- 

 ing. It was a common punishment for coining. 

 See Annules Dontinicanarum Colmariensium in 

 Urstisius, Ger. Illmt. Script., vol. ii. p. 12.; and 

 Ducange, in verb. Caldariis decoquere. I believe 

 instances of it will also be found in Dopier, 

 2'heatrum Pcenarum ; 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, era- 

 ployed 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 mattes 

 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 Weweling- 

 hofen, or Wewelkofen, was Bishop of Utrecht, a 

 certain Jacobus von Jiilich, by means of forged 

 credentials from the Pope, contrived to pass him- 

 self off, for a time, as suffragan to the same see. 

 Upon the discovery of the cheat, however, Floren- 

 tius 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 haec tempora, scilicet anno 1392 . . . quidam 

 ex professione Divi Francisci, sese pro Sacerdote et 

 Episcopo gerens, et in Suffraganeum Episcopi Flo- 

 rentii assumptus, cum ali()uandiu sacra omnia pere- 

 gisset, inventus falso charactere atque Uteris usus, destir 

 tuitur, etferveritibus aquis iinmergendus adjudicature 

 impositus vero aquis (quia clamore suo Episcopum ad 

 pietatem commovit) statini extrahitur et capite trun- 

 catus obtinuit sepulturam." 



Perhaps the Cardinal, should this meet his eye, 

 or any one of your readers equally skilled in 

 Roman ecclesiastical archasology, can inform the 

 public whether this may not be the origin of the 

 phrases, "getting oneself into hot water," and 

 " being sent to pot." J. B. McC. 



British Museum. 



" ADMONITION TO THE PARLIAMENT. 



(Vol. v., p. 4.) 



This is not at all an uncommon book. There 

 are at least three copies in the University Library, 

 Cambridge ; one at Trinity College ; besides others 

 in other college libraries. There is also one at 

 Lambeth ; two in the Bodleian, Oxford ; and 

 copies are from time to time occurring at book- 

 sellers' for sale. There is not, however, one in 

 the British Museum; and the first edition is ex- 

 ceedingly scarce. Mr. Payne Collier is, I 



