The Press.
London, England, 1855-12-15 00:00:00

THE WEEK.

So far as public opinion can be gathered from the press, it does not
appear unfavorable to the pacific negotiation now acknowledged to
be proceeding. The tone of our leading journals has been wonder-
fully modified during the last few weeks. Then it was authoritatively
proclaimed that the time for negotiation was past, or had not arrived ;
that peace was not to be thought of until Russia was completely sub-
dued ; that Russia must pay all the expenses of the war ; that the
Crimea must be wrested from her; and that, in short, she must be
" thumped" into a jelly which could be moulded into any shape her
conquerors pleased. Quite a different tone is now adopted : proba-
bilities of peace are calmly discussed, and the conditions on which it
may be concluded rationally considered. The Morning Post thiS"
week, in a tone of bluster which is natural and excusable, considering
its source of inspiration, says : " Not a Russian ship on the Black
" Sea ; not a Russian fort at Sebastopol ; no Muscovite gripe on the
" throat of the Danube ; no more protectorates and interferences.
" . . . . These main terms secured by material guarantees, would,
" there is not a doubt, secure peace." We are not informed what the
"material guarantees " are to be however. The Times assumes a more
moderate tone, and begins to hint that Russia may be, after all, a
party to the negotiation. Of the London press, the Morning Advertiser
alone seems inclined to be " ruinpageous," and to overthrow the
French alliance. But it wants heart for so bold a course, and still
pins its hopes tO PALMERSTON. The speech of Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND
at Guildford yesterday is significant. Ho seized the whole point of
the present situation. " Shall we continue the war without France ?"
asked he. A shout of " No, no," was the answer. Then he hinted
we must be prepared to accept reasonable conditions of peace ;
and this is the conclusion to which the mind of the country is
fast tending.

The Burdon poisoning case adds one more, and not the least sin-
gular, chapter to the Causes Cilibres of Criminal Jurisprudence. The
loading facts of the case are simple. It is indisputable that Mrs.
WOOLER died from the effects of arsenical poison, administered con-
tinuously for a lengthened period, and in small doses. She was ill for
fifty days, and from her first attack, or at all events a few days after
it, to the time of her death, her symptoms were the same. All the
facts of the case exclude the supposition that arsenic could have been
given her by accident, or in her medicine. The only question is, who
administered it ? The crime must have been committed systemati-
cally, and with some skill. It must have been done by a resident in
the house ; and for the first three weeks of Mrs. WOOLER'S illness,
there were in the house only Mr. WOOLER, his wife, and their servant,
ANN TAYLOR. Suspicion fell, not unnaturally, on the husband.
Briefly summed up, the points against him were—that poisons, espe-
cially solution of arsenic, were in his possession ; that he had some
knowledge of the use of medicines ; and that he was in constant
attendance by his wife's bedside. As to all the other circumstances
of suspicion, they were evidently suggested by preconception of his
guilt, and would not bear calm examination. On the other hand, his con-
duct towards his wife had always been affectionate and natural, and
continued so to the last. On the day she first complained of illness,
he had, against her wish, called in medical assistance, and succes-
sively summoned Dr. JACKSON, Dr. DEVEY, and Dr. HAZLEWOOD. He
reproached the first with not having earlier acquainted him of his
wife's danger, that he might have had other advice. He made no
secret of his possession of the Indian basket and its contents, but
showed it to both the doctors in attendance on his wife, the solution
of arsenic being placed with the rest. He had invited to his house
Miss LANCEESTER, that she might be n constant attendance on his
wife, and also his niece, a girl of fifteen. According to the statement
of Miss BUCKNELL, his wife's sister, he had sent " numerous pressing
requests" to her to come. It was at his instance that the body was
exhumed and the examinations made, all costs being defrayed by
himself; and it does not appear that he had ever been seen tampering
with the medicines, or had any hand in preparing the injections.
Assuming his innocence, who is the criminal ? Who prepared the in-
jections into which arsenic was introduced? Who had charge of the
deceased's evacuations? Who collected all the bottles? And upon
whom did Mr. WOOLER'S suspicion first appear to light? But could
an ignorant person have administered poison with so much subtlety,
skill, and persistence? Great art must have been combined with
great hardihood, and one would imagine with the most unrelenting
hatred towards the unfortunate woman, whose cruel sufferings never
once moved her murderer to compassion. There must be new exer-
tions made to discover the criminal ; and social safety demands
that such guilt should not be allowed to remain undetected. At the
conclusion of the trial Miss BUCKNELL and ANN TAYLOR still seem to
have been left in charge of the house. The conduct of the medical
mon is not the least extraordinary part of this extraordinary case.
Dr. JACKSON and his assistant, Mr. HENZELL, arrived at the conclusion
on the 7th of June that poison was at work, yet they took no steps to
intercept the deadly process, or to save the victim. Nay, Dr. JACKSON
does not seem even to have communicated his suspicions to Dr.
HAZLEWOOD until ten days after they first met in consultation; and
then for ten days more these practitioners, supposed to be faithful
guardians of health and life, watched the evidences of poison accumu
lating—anticipated what fatal symptoms should follow next—saw their
patient sinking under the deadly potency of arsenic—witnessed her
distress—incessant vomiting, intense thirst, continual restlessness,