Boiling to death as a punishment. (Vol. ii., p. 519.)

L. H. K. gives an extract from Howe's Chronicle, detailing the punishment of one Richard Rose (as also of another person) in the above manner for the crime of poisoning, and inquires if this was a peculiar mode of punishing of cooks. No reply to this having yet appeared, and the subject being only incidentally mentioned at Vol. iii., p. 153., I venture to submit to you the following Notes I have made upon it.

The crime of poisoning was always considered as most detestable, "because it can, of all others, be the least prevented either by manhood or forethought." Nevertheless, prior to the statute of 22 Hen. VIII. c. 9. there was no peculiarity in the mode of punishment. The occurrence to which Howe refers, appears to have excited considerable attention, probably on account of the supposition that the life of the bishop was aimed at; so much so, that the extraordinary step was taken of passing an Act of Parliament, retrospective in its enactments as against the culprit (who is variously [33]described as Rose, Roose, otherwise Cooke, and Rouse), prescribing the mode of punishment as above, and declaring the crime of poisoning to be treason for the future. The occurrence is thus related in a foot-note to Rapin, 2nd edit. vol. i. p. 792.:—

"During this Session of Parliament [1531] one Richard Rouse, a cook, on the 16th February poisoned some soop in the Bishop of Rochester's kitchen, with which seventeen persons were mortally infected; and one of the gentlemen died of it, and some poor people that were charitably fed with the remainder were also infected, one woman dying. The person was apprehended; and by Act of Parliament poisoning was declared treason, and Rouse was attainted and sentenced to be boiled to death, which was to be the punishment of poisoning for all times to come. The sentence was executed in Smithfield soon after."

This horrible punishment did not remain on the Statute Books for any very lengthened period, the above statute of Henry being repealed by statutes 1 Edw. VI. c. 12., and 1 Mary, stat. I. c. 1., by which all new treasons were abolished, since which the punishment has been the same as in other cases of murder. If within the reach of any correspondent, an extract from the statute of Henry would be interesting.

J. B. Colman.

Eye, Dec. 16. 1851.

[The Act of 22 Hen. VIII. c. 9. recites, that "nowe in the tyme of this presente parliament, that is to saye, in the xviijth daye of Februarye in the xxij yere of his moste victorious reygn, one Richard Roose late of Rouchester in the countie of Kent, coke, otherwyse called Richard Coke, of his moste wyked and dampnable dysposicyon dyd caste a certyne venym or poyson into a vessell replenysshed with yeste or barme stondyng in the kechyn of the Reverende Father in God John Bysshopp of Rochester at his place in Lamebyth Marsshe, wyth whych yeste or barme and other thynges convenyent porrage or gruel was forthwyth made for his famylye there beyng, wherby nat only the nombre of xvij persons of his said famylie whych dyd eate of that porrage were mortally enfected and poysoned, and one of them, that is to say, Benett Curwen gentylman therof is deceassed, but also certeyne pore people which resorted to the sayde Bysshops place and were there charytably fedde wyth the remayne of the saide porrage and other vytayles, were in lyke wyse infected, and one pore woman of them, that is to saye, Alyce Tryppytt wydowe, is also thereof now deceassed: our sayde Sovereign Lorde the Kynge of hys blessed disposicion inwardly abhorryng all such abhomynable offences because that in maner no persone can lyve in suertye out of daunger of death by that meane yf practyse therof should not be exchued, hath ordeyned and enacted by auctorytie of thys presente parlyament that the sayde poysonyng be adjudged and demed as high treason. And that the sayde Richard [Rose or Roose] for the sayd murder and poysonynge of the said two persones as is aforesayde by auctoritie of this presente parlyament shall stande and be attaynted of highe treason: And by cause that detestable offence nowe newly practysed and com̅ytted requyreth condign̅e punysshemente for the same; It is ordeyned and enacted by auctoritie of this present parlyament that the said Richard Roose shalbe therfore boyled to deathe withoute havynge any advauntage of his clargie. And that from hensforth every wylfull murder of any persone or persones by any whatsoever persone or persones herafter to be com̅ytted and done by meane or waye of poysonyng shalbe reputed, demed, and juged in the lawe to be highe treason; And that all and every persone or persones which hereafter shalbe lawfully indyted appeled and attaynted or condemned of such treson for any maner poysonyng shall not be admytted to the benefyte of hys or theyre clargye, but shalbe immedyatly committed to execucion of deth by boylynge for the same.]

The Crime of Poisoning by Boiling [Page 112]

Mr. J. B. Colman has directed attention to the special act of attainder passed in 22 Hen. VIII. in order to punish Richard Roose for poisoning the family of the Bishop of Rochester; but I have reason to believe that he is wrong in his assertion that, prior to that statute, "there was no peculiarity in the mode of punishment" for the crime in question. In the Chronicle of the Grey Friars of London, which I am now engaged in editing for the Camden Society, I find an instance of the like punishment being inflicted for the same crime in the 13th Hen. VIII.:

"And this yere was a man soddyne in a cautherne (sc. a cauldron) in Smythfelde, and lett up and downe dyvers tymes tyll he was dede, for because he wold a poyssynd dyvers persons."

I would therefore beg to inquire whether Mr. Colman has taken a correct view of the statute of 22 Hen. VIII. as prescribing a new punishment, retrospective to the case of Richard Roose; and whether the act was not, so far as he was concerned, simply one of attainder, to deprive the culprit of the "advantage of his clargie," whereby he might otherwise have escaped the legal punishment already provided for the crime. Having declared Roose attainted of high treason, the statute proceeds to enact that all future poisoners shall also be debarred of the benefit of clergy, and immediately committed to death by boiling. Roose's own case is recorded in the Grey Friars' Chronicle with the same horrible circumstances as those related in the former instance, of his life being gradually destroyed:

"He was lockyd in a chayne and pullyd up and downe with a gybbyt at dyvers tymes tyll he was dede."

A third instance occurs in 1542, when—

"The x day of March was a mayde boyllyd in Smythfelde for poysynyng of dyvers persons."

This last is the same case which is cited by L. H. K. in your Vol. ii., p. 519. If my view of the statute of 22 Hen. VIII. be the right one, it still remains to be ascertained when this barbarous punishment was first adopted; and is it certain that it ceased with the reign of Hen. VIII.?

John Gough Nichols.

There appears to have occurred in Scotland one instance at least of this barbarous mode of executing justice. In his Notes to Leyden's Ballad of Lord Soulis (in the Minstrelsy of the Border), Sir Walter Scott says:—

"The tradition regarding the death of Lord Soulis, however singular, is not without a parallel in the real history of Scotland. The same extraordinary mode of cookery was actually practised (horresco referens) upon the body of a Sheriff of the Mearns. This person, whose name was Melville of Glenbervie, bore his faculties so harshly, that he became detested by the Barons of the country. Reiterated complaints of his conduct having been made to James I. (or, as others say, to the Duke of Albany), the monarch answered, in a moment of unguarded impatience, 'Sorrow gin the Sheriff were sodden, and supped in broo!' The complainers retired, perfectly satisfied. Shortly after, the Lairds of Arbuthnot, Mather, Laureston, and Pattaraw, decoyed Melville to the top of the hill of Garvock, above Lawrencekirk, under pretence of a grand hunting party. Upon this place (still called the Sheriff's Pot), the Barons had prepared a fire and a boiling cauldron, into which they plunged the unlucky Sheriff. After he was sodden (as the king termed it) for a sufficient time, the savages, that they might literally observe the royal mandate, concluded the scene of abomination by actually partaking of the hell-broth.

"The three Lairds were outlawed for this offence; and Barclay, one of their number, to screen himself from justice, erected the kaim (i.e. the camp, or fortress) of Mathers, which stands upon a rocky and almost inaccessible peninsula, overhanging the German Ocean. The Laird of Arbuthnot is said to have eluded the royal vengeance, by claiming the benefit of the law of clan Macduff. A pardon, or perhaps a deed of replegiation, founded upon that law, is said to be still extant upon the records of the Viscount of Arbuthnot.

Boiling Criminals to Death. (Vol. v., pp. 32. 112.)

Mr. John Gough Nichols's observations upon the reply you favoured me by publishing upon this subject, require from me some few observations in further support of it. When I wrote the article in question, I had not had an opportunity of consulting 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 authority of Blackstone, who says—

"Of all species of deaths the most detestable is that of poison, because it can of all others be the least prevented either 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 was "retrospective in its enactments as against" Roose, and was more extensive in its operation than (as Mr. Nichols appears to consider) merely depriving the culprit of the "advantage 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 (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."

Perhaps the Cardinal, should this meet his eye, or any one of your readers equally skilled in Roman ecclesiastical archæology, 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.