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 Poenarum_; 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: