The Sun.
London, England, 1865-07-08 00:00:00

Yesterday an inquest was held by Dr. Lankester at the
British Stores, New-street, Portland-town, on the body of
Marie Bullot, 22, a young French lady lately residing at
28, Portland-terrace, St. John's-wood.
-Priscilla Oliver said she lived at 28, Portland-terrace,
and was in the habit of letting apartments. A few weeks
since a gentleman came and hired some apartments, and
said they were for a young lady from Paris. She was not
with him then. Witness asked the gentleman for his card.
He said he had not got one just then, but she should have
one. She never did get the card, and never knew what his
name was. She believed he was an Englishman. He could
talk English well. On Friday, the 23d of June, he came
again at 6 o'clock in the evening, and brought a young
lady—the deceased—with him. The young lady was visited
by the gentleman every day, and he generally took her for
a walk. He never stayed with her during the night. On
the following Wednesday the lady was taken ill, and rang
the bell violently. The servant went upstairs, and deceased
told her to go to two doctors whom she named. She was
to go to a -doctor near Grosvenor-square first, and if he
were out she gave the addreas of another doctor who lived
near Cavendish-square. The doctor who attended is here.
The witness also went to her and asked her what was the
matter. She said it was nothing, and 4he would soon be
better. She could speak very little English. She wanted
an extra sheet upon her bed. The gentleman had been to
see her on the previous day between 11 and 12 o'clock. She
believed the lady and gentleman did not go out that day,
but he stayed with her till about 6 o'clock in the evening.
The servant came back from her message and brought the
gentleman now present with her, who attended to the lady
.Frf
while she wee The doctor tame also the following day,
but not on the next day, Friday. Witness sent for him
on the Saturday, and he came.• The doctor told her that
the deceased had been delivered of a four months' child,
and that he had put it in the cupboard in the bedroom.
Witness looked into the cupboard, but never saw it. Did
not know what became of it. The young lady died that
Saturday evening. The gentleman was with the young lady
till shortly before her death. The gentleman gave deceased
her medicine. After having been with her some time on
Saturday, thegentleman told witness he was very tired, and
that he would be away for an hour for refreshment. He
was away longer than he said he should be, and the young
lady died. When he came back witness told him of the
lady's death, and he fell down in a fit. She obtained assis-
tance and had him carried to the drawing-room. When he
ca me to he went with witness to the bedroom. He cried
very much during the evening. He left about 10 o'clock.
He came again on Sunday and asked witness to go to an
undertaker and arrange about the funeral, which witness
did. The gentleman came again on Monday, and he saw
the undertaker. He gave him £6 to bury the lady in
Kensal-green Cemetery, and said he would not have her
buried in a common grave. He fixed the funeral for Wed-
nesday morning at 11 o'clock. He said he should attend
the funeral if he could, or, if not, he should be at the ceme-
tery. On Tuesday he called again and witness told him
there would be an inquest. He seemed very much
lady and
word e
sur-
prised, and said, "Dear me, what a shocking thing that
will be !" Witness again asked him for his address, but he
would not give it, neither would he leave his card. He
merely told
witness
on
He
Frenchdidnot say a
had
as been
in
to
London
whether she was his wife or not, or whether she was
elce before.she wa
H s
married. Witness had not seen him since..
Dr. George Harley, M.D., F.R.S., said he was a Pro-
fessor in University College, London, and that he had made
a post mortem examination. Externally there was an ap-
pearance that deceased was a well-nourished person. There
were no marks of violence, but an extreme pallor was ob-
servable. The brain was healthy, but bloodless ; the lungs
and heart also were healthy. There was a small modicum
of fluid on the right side of the heart, but the left side was
empty. The abdominal organs, stomach, and kidneys were
also healthy. There was no sign of disease observable. The
uterus was considerably enlarged. He found its organisa-
tion in a remarkably healthy state. Ho found no appear-
ance of poison. The medicines were roughly examined by
him, but there was nothing deleterious in them. In his
opinion tho cause of death was hemorrhage of intestines
caused by abortion, but ho was not able to say whether
that abortion was brought about by natural or by artificia'

means.
The Coroner, observing a well known solicitor present,
asked him whether he wished to examine any of the wit-
nesses, as he presumed ho was representing somo one at
the inquest. The gentleman referred to said he had no
questions to ask, as he was merely there to watch the pro-

ceedings.
Dr. Colomiati Meredith said he lived in Margaret-street,
Cavendish-square, and was a doctor of medicine of Paris,
and a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, England.
Was sent for to see the deceased on the 27th of June last.
He never saw or heard of her before. She told him that
when she came over in the vessel to England a week or
ten days previously she fell down and became very wet.
That was all he heard of her case. When he came to her
on the Wednesday he found the child, or foetus rather,
born, which he removed, and tied the cord. There was
scarcely any bleeding. There had been a slight bleeding
before he came in, but nothing alarming. The foetus was
in a state of putrefaction, and it must have been dead for
some time, but he could not say how long. He should be
inclined to believe its death was owing to the fall on board
the vessel. He saw her again next morning about nine
o'clock, and everything was favourable. He did not see
her on the next day to that, Friday ; but on Saturday he
was sent for. He came to her about a quarter to four
o'clock, and found a great contraction of the womb and
great flowing of blood. It was not, however, alarming,
He left her for half an hour, and onhis return ho found her
so weak that he sent for another medical men. He ordered
brandy to be given her, which was done. She died in their
presence about half-past Bin the evening.
Dr. Harley said the evidence given by Dr. Meredith
would fully account for the symptoms observed by him.
In answer to the Coroner, Mr. Meredith said most dis-
tinctly that he did not think deceased had been tampered
with, and that her fall on board the vessel would account
for the abortion, and that the decomposition of the child
would be caused by the mother falling into the water.
The Coroner observed that the suspicious nature of the
case was, that the gentleman referred to was not present.
Ho must say that the medical evidence did not inculpate
him, and it would be a question for the jury whether it
would be of any advantage to adjourn the case to see if the
gentleman could be found, or whether the jury, acting on
the medical evidence, would at once agree to a verdict.

A juror to Dr. Meredith—Have you over seen this gen-
tleman ?
Dr. Meredith—Certainly I have.
The juror—To whom do you look for payment for your
service ?

Dr. Meredith—l cannot say. Unfortunately, medics;
men are often called to attend cases for which they do not
get paid.

The Coroner said there were two letters addressed to
the deceased, which he thought it was his duty to have
read, and he should feel obliged if Dr. Meredith would
translate them. The first letter was from a working man
in France, upbraiding deceased for having left France in
his debt, and charging her with having taken certain ar-
ticles, which he enumerated, The second letter was ad-
dressed from Chatillon Sur Indre, and was dated the 26th
of June, 1865. The writer termed deceased "Me chore
Marie," expressed her regret that she had not seen "Marie"
for two years, and concluded by styling herself her affec-
tionate mother, widow Bullot. It also appeared that de-
ceased had been recently in Brazil.
In answer to a juror, the landlady of the house in Port-
land-terrace said that on the Saturday evening when the
young lady died she forced her way into the ;bedroom to
see her. That was after she understood she had been con-
fined. Deceased was in bed and looked very feeble. Wit
ness gave her some brandy to drink, but the gentleman re-
ferred to told her not to give any more, as it would do no
good. Witness said it would not possibly do any harm, and
again gave her a drink. The young lady appeared very
grateful, and took hold of witness's hand, looked full into
her face, and said, " Dear, dear Madame." Her hand and
forehead were as cold as death. She died shortly after.
Susan Lydford, servant to the last witness, gave confir-
matory evidence. '
In reply to the Coroner,
The Foreman said they were not at all satisfied with the
evidence, and that they unanimously wished the inquiry
adjourned, which was accordingly .done until Saturday
next.

Foreign Mail Packet List.

Australia and New Zealand, via Southampton July —.
Ditto, via Marseilles July 13
Brazil and Cape Verds. by British packet Aug. 4.
Ditto, by French packet . July 2g
Cape of Good Hope, Ascension, and St Helena July 22.
China, Penang, and Singapore, via Sou hampton July —.
Ditto, via Marseilles July 13
Falkland Islands
Gibraltar, via Southampton
India (Calcutta), and Ceylon, via Southampton.... July 2
Ditto, via Maneilles
India (13,mbay), via Southampton. July 11.
Ditto, via Marseilles
Mauritius, via Southampton July li.
Ditto, via Marseil e+ Aug. 4.
Newfoundland July 19.
Portugal Aug. 4.
Ditto, by private ship to Lisbon ..
United States and British North America, by Bri-
tish packet . July 13
Ditto, by United States packet, via Southamp-
ton ..
•
Ditto, via Cork

Ditto, by Canadian packet, via Londonderry July 14.
West Coast of Africa, Madeira, and Tenerife July 12.

nmEs•—Since Palmer watched the dying agonies
of his victim, Cook, there has been no more cold-
blooded crime than that of which Dr. Edward
William Pritchard was yesterday convicted at
Edinburgh. Such offences are apt to fill society
with vague fear and suspicion. Poisoning is the
foulest kind of murder; when the victims are help-
less women, members of the murderer's own family,
the deed is especially infamous ; and when, more
more-
over, he who. commits it is a medical man who pre-
tends to relieve those whom he is destroying, there
wants no circumstance of treachery and wickedness.
Yet the facts of this case show how easy it is for a
man conversant with drugs to make away with per-
sons in his own household who have confidence in
him, and for whom his professional calling justifies
his prescribing. People naturally come to the con-
clusion that there is no crime more likely to go un-
detected than that in which relatives or nurses find
it to their advantage to help their patients out of
the world. The facility of the deed, the improba-
bility of discovery, and the difficulty of proof even
when suspicion is aroused, make domestic poisoning
the most fearful of offences. It is, therefore, the
duty of society to spare no pains in investigating
each case that may be presented, and to punish un-
sparingly whenever the crime has been brought
home. Of Dr. Pritchard's guilt we conceive there
can be no doubt. Never was murder by poison
proved by clearer evidence. Even his counsel was
unable to deny the fact that his wife and her mother
had died by foul means, and the only course open
to them was to charge the deed on the- young girl
who was in the prisoner's service. Xat this sup-„
position was so improbable that the jury unani-
mously rejected it, and their verdict of guilty will
be fully assented to by all who read the trial. In
the first place, it is proved indisputably that both
the women died by poison. This is no case of
doubtful medical opinions combated by medical
opinions equally worthy of credit. It is not some in-
finitesimally small quantity of poison that is found;
it is not the mere "appearance" of the intestines that
is relied on, or some colour-test, which may pos-
sibly be fallacious. It is not the diagnosis of the
malady which makes the case for the prosecution ;
nor is the prisoner condemned merely on the opinion
of this or that doctor that the symptoms described
by the servants betoken in his judgment the
action of poison. A far firmer ground of conviction
is obtained by the discovery of the poison itself in
large quantities in the bodies of the victims. The
medical witnesses who made the post mortem exami-
nation report, first, that there was no natural cause
of death discernible, and, next, there was present in
the body quite sufficient poison to cause death. In
the case of Mrs. Pritchard antimony was found in
the stomach, liver, and other portions of the frame.
The conclusions were that she had taken a large
quantity of this substance in the form of tartar
emetic, and that, having regard to the absence of
morbid appearances sufficient to account for death,
and the presence of a large quantity of a substance
known to be capable of destroying life, her death
must be ascribed to the action of antimony. It was
also clear, from the extent to which all the organs
and fluids of the body had been impregnated with
it that it must have been taken in repeated doses,
the aggregate of which must have amounted to a
large quantity. Another report, that of Professor
Penny, states that all the parts of the body con-
tained antimony, that the contents of the intestines,
the spleen, the heart, the blood, and the kidneys
contained mercury ; that the presence of antimony
and mercury in the contents of the intestines indi-
cates that these metals were passed from the deceased
up to the time of death. There can, consequently,
not be the shadow of a doubt that Mrs. Pritchard
died from the effects of poison administered in
comparatively small doses over a considerable period
of time. The evidence in the case of Mrs. Taylor
is similar. There are two reports by different
medical men. These concur in stating that anti-
mony and mercury were found in the body, and the
conclusion is that Mrs. Taylor, like Mrs. Pritchard,
died from slow poisoning. Since, then, it is esta-
blished that these two persons' were poisoned, the
question simply is, who did it ? Suicide is, of course,
out of the question, and the victims must, there-
fore, have perished through the crime of some one
who lived with them in the house. Now, of the two
cooks who gave evidence one had been there during
the former part of the illness of Mrs. Pritchard, and
the other during the latter part. It, consequently,
could be neither of these. The matter, in short, lies
between Dr. Pritchard and Mary M'Leod, the house-
maid, a young girl in her seventeenth year, with whom
the Doctor had formed an improper connexion, and
whom his counsel, in a defence on which we need
not comment, sought to fix with the guilt of the
murder. However desperate may have been Dr.
Pritchard's case, we are surprised that his counsel
should have been instructed to take this line. The
notion that a young and ignorant girl should poison
two women by slow degrees, and with a skill which
kept one at least of them alive for weeks, so as to
give the appearance of a natural death, is one which
cannot be accepted by any person of sense. If even
it be granted that the girl had some motive fcr the
crime, inasmuch as she may have believed that Dr.
Pritchard would marry her when his wife died, it is
impossible to believe that she would of her own de-
vice carried out such a scheme of artistic murder.
Mrs. Pritchard's illness was such as might have been
imagined by the author of some horrible romance.
She was ill for a day or two together, then came a
respite, then again the symptoms returned. We
know by the medical evidence that these symptoms
were caused by the administration in small doses of
very powerful poisons, by which an unskilful hand
would soon have made an end of its victim. It is
reasonable to conclude, then, that the girl was not
the poisoner, and, if it be so, there is no one but
Dr. Pritchard who could have committed the crime.
The suspicions of his unhappy wife appear to have
been aroused some time before her death, but she
had not energy to resist the man who was destroy-
ing her. It is difficult to understand how the un-
happy lady could have failed to connect her ill-health
with the presence of her husband. Whenever he was
away for a few days she was better, but as soon its
he returned the sickness recommenced. She was ill
continually afterwards, and the articles of food which
were prepared expressly for her were those which
usually brought on the unfavourable symptoms.
The evidence of the three servants makes it suffi-
ciently clear that the prisoner, having probably
studied the details of former cases o f poisoning,
conceived the idea of destroying his wife so gradu-
ally and naturally that even the neighbouring
doctors whom he called in should be unable to
detect anything wrong. He seems, however, for
some reasons of his own, or perhaps through negli-
gence, to have made more hasty work with Mrs.
Taylor. That poor woman had, indeed, " got the
same complaint as her daughter," but, more fortu-
nate, she was killed outright, instead of being made
to linger in misery for weeks to come. Dr. Prit-
chard, relying, no doubt, on his own skill, was not
afraid to have medical assistance, as indeed no
murderer needs be if he calls in a gentleman so strict
an upholder of professional etiquette as Dr. James
Paterson. This practitioner stated, in cross-exami-
nation, that it was his impression on seeing Mrs.
Pritchard that she was poisoned with antimony.
But he did not go back to see her, " because she was
not his patient." He had nothing to do with her.
It was not his duty to do so. She had her husband,
who was a medical man ; and in the case of a con-
sultation the consultant has no right to go back.
However, in spite of such perverted scrupulosity,
Dr. Paterson happily did not think it unprofessional
to speak the truth at the trial, and his evidedce was
to the effect that both 'then and now he believed
that Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Pritchard died of poison.
His description of these two unfortunates is one of
the most harrowing that were given in a court of
justice. All this evidence pointed one way, and that
was towards Dr. Pritchard. He alone had anin-
terest in the death of the two women ; he alone
could have poisoned them as they were poisoned ;
he told lies about their illness, and made false re-
ports to the registrar. By his conviction a great
act of public justice is accomplished, for it is long
since there has been so cruel and treacherous a mur-
derer

Victoria Cross•

(Front the London Gazette of July 7.)

WAR-OFFICE, July 7.
The Queen has been graciously pleased to signify her
intention to confer the decoration of the Victoria Cross on
the undermentioned officer of her Majesty's Indian forces,
whose claim to the same has been submitted to her Majesty's
approval, for his gallant conduct during the operations at
Umbeyla, on the north-western frontier of India, as recorded
against his name, viz. :
Lieut. (now Capt.) George Vincent Fosbery late 4th
Bengal European Regiment, for the daring and gallant
manner in which, on the 30th October, 1863, acting as a
volunteer at the time, he led a party of his regiment to re-
capture the Crag Picket, after its garrison had been driven
in by the enemy, on which occasion GO of them were killed
in desperate hand-to-hand fighting. From the nature of
the approach to the top of the crag auiong the large rocks
ono or two men only could advance at one time ; and
"while I ascended one path," relates Lieut.-Col. Keyes,
C. 8., commanding the Ist Punjab Infantry, "I directed
Lieut. Fosbery, of the late 4th European Regiment, to push
up another at the head of a few men. He led this party
with the greatest coolness and intrepidity, and was the first
man to gain the top of the crag on his side of the attack."
Subsequently, Lieut.-Col. Keyes being woundod, Lieut.
Fosbery assembled a party with which he pursued the
routed enemy in the direction of the Lallooßidge,infiicting
on them further loss and confirming possession of the post.

POST.—That the American Union as it was can
hardly be restored, notwithstanding the military
subjugation of the South, is a proposition from
I which few who understand the teachings of history
will be found to dissent. But though it may be
found a comparatively easy task to determine nega-
tively what form of government will not exist in the
American republic, it may be exceedingly difficult
to define the new political system which will take
the place of the old. _Still there are various con-
siderations which may serve to guide us in forming
an approximative estimate of what is likely to take
place. For instance, we may be tolerably sure that
the leading statesmen on the victorious side will
endeavour to take measures for precluding in the
future such a secession on the part of a portion of
the States of the Union as that which has just ended
in failure. It appears to be thought that the most ROYAL ISTITTJTION.—Mr. Thomas Henry Hux.
obvious means for securing this end would consist in ley, F.R.S., the Professor of Comparative Anatomy and
doing away with the doctrine of States' rightsand Physiology to the Royal College of Surgeons, has just been
appointed Fullerian Professor of Physiology to the Royal
the principle of confederation. It appears to be Institution of Great Britain.

•••• • ; <-, -.,... ...:.--fl - . fr'4.,7
,4
•N` 3-t-,.
~.,„X=,..:- eat-
thought that, if the United States h sec 7. i -1,, 11,,,,i4 E..; lie, one and indivisible, the South cot' •gke --- ,IN .--i'' 46
not have seceded. The way to t?prevela -Z i i UT.zz&,l9
the future then, is, upon this assumptiktg ems:r • - .
the Constitution, and establish a consolidhed ' • -
ry
public, one and indivisible. Such a political system
would, of course, be quite unlike the Union as it
was, so that the South will at least have succeeded
in abolishing the old Union, and the North, which
went to war to restore it, will have to confess that
the task which it undertook to accomplish was an
enterprise beyond its strength. Under these cir-
cumstances it becomes a very interesting problem
whether any particular form of Government or poli-
tical system could have prevented the secession we
witnessed four years ago, or would have the effect
of obviating alike revolution in the future. Revo-
lutions have their origin in the feelings and interests
of large bodies of people. The population of the
South desired to be an independent nation, because
it believed that this was essential for the protection
of its best interests. There was in the opinion of the
Southern people no alternative between self-govern-
ment, to be obtained by secession, and a defensive
war, if need be, and government against their will
by the Northerners. The antagonistic interests of
the North and South were in part moral and politi-
cal, and in part material ; but even the former were
in fact the result of the latter. The antagonism
which existed between North and South, including
ithe element of slavery, had its sources in the geo-
graphical position of the two sections, and is as
little susceptible of being removed by artificial
means as the climate of the country itself. If,
then, the United States had been a consolidated
Republic, one and indivisible, these antagonistic
interests would have been just as powerful and
just as sharply defined as they have actually
proved themselves to be. The two sections of
American society, the Northern and the Southern,
would have been under any possible form of govern-
ment just what they have been and are. The same
struggle for power would have gone on between
them. Each party would have striven to get one of
its own statesmen elected as President, and to go-
vern the country through his agency. In all coun-
tries and under all forms of government where the
representative-principle is admitted at all, there are
two parties, each of whom aspires to govern the
country through the agency of the Prime Minister,
if it is a Monarchy ; of the President, if it is a Re-
public. And if revolutions and secessions do not
take place, it is because society is more homoge-
neous, and because there is not a strong antagonism
of material interests, the result of physical geo-
graphy. Revolutions are'by no means a novelty in
the history of the world. The British colonies
showed themselves quite as ready to revolt against
us in the last age as the South has done to separate
itself from the North in the present, and from mo-
tives which were insignificant in comparison. Yet
the colonists were the subjects of a great Power
which, it was supposed at the commencement of the
struggle, would put them down in a few months.
The fact of a Republic taking the consolidated form,
as one and indivisible, instea of the form of a con-
federacy of States, does not in the least alter the
fundamental principle upon which it is based. What
that principle is we learn from the Declaration of
Independence, drawn up and promulgated by the
colonists when they threw off their allegiance to
Great Britain, and when it was as yet uncertain
what form of Republic they would adopt, or even
whether they would establish a Republic at all, and
not a Monarchy. The principle in question is that
men ought not to be governed against their will ;
that all government rests on the consent of the go-
verned. lithe Americans had established aMonarchy
their Southern descendants at the present day would
not have been likely to pay more respect to it than
they did to the British Government of which they
were the lawful subjects. On the contrary, having
broken up one Monarchy, so far as they were con-
cerned, to establish another, based upon the principle
of consent, they would have been able to urge this
very principle as the justification for secession.
If, then, the North were to abolish the old Con-
stitution entirely, and establish a consolidated Re-
public, one and indivisible, on its ruins, or even if
they were to establish a military despotism under a
dictator called a President, it is difficult to see in
what way this would preclude the possibility of
future secessions when any large number of the
States believed it was their interest to separate, and
also that they were strong enough to give effect to
their will. It is under the most tyrannical and con-
centrated Governments that revolutions have been
the most plentiful. If the Southern States had not
believed themselves strong enough to achieve their
independence they would not have seceded when
they did. And any other portion of the American
population which might in the future believe it was
its interest to secede, and that it was strong enough
to win its independence, would do as the South has
done, whether the Union remain a Federation, or
be formally changed into a consolidated Republic,
one and indivisible. The events of the past four
years of war have shown that the Federal Govern-
ment has wielded a power as great and as absolute
as that possessed by the military despotisms of the
Old World, and what greater power over the liberty
of the citizen could be possessed or exercised by
the government of a consolidated Republic, or a
Dictatorship, or any other, there would be a large
standing army at its command. But so there would
be at the command of the old Government, under
its old form, if it chose to keep such an army on
foot. And if that army consisted in part of
Southerners, such part could not be relied on in case
of the South attempting to secede again. If to avoid
this the North were to take care to exclude all
Southerners from the army, the case would not be
much altered, for they could do this as well under
the present form of government as under any
other ; and it would, besides, be no safeguard
against the future secession of any other States
than those of the South. We find such of the
Southerners as were in the United States army
seceding from it, as their States seceded
from the Union ; and what the Southerners did
yesterday the inhabitants of other States would do
to-morrow. The feeling which for genera-
tions has attached the American to the State of
which he is a native is not likely to be eradicated by
a mere change of names, a mere alteration on paper
of the form of the Government from a Federal to a
consolidated Republic, or even to a military Dicta-
torship. That the South may be too much broken
and exhausted to attempt a revolution for a long
period of time is obvious"; but should it ever be re-
stored to prosperity, should it ever become relatively
as strong as it has been, and should it believe it to
be its interest to secede, we may be assured that if
it abstain from seceding it will be through the re-
collection of the past war, and not through any
change in the paper constitution of the United
States or in the name which maybe given to its form
of government, or in the title of its chief magistrate.
The fact is, that the American Union covers too vast
an extent of territory for a single country, and the
more populous it becomes the greater will be the
difficulty of keeping it together. It is possible that,
with the experience of the past, the South, even if
stronger relatively to the North than before, would
not at a future time think it expedient to renew the
attemp which has ended in failure. But, on the
other hand, if the South were to secede, would not
experience equally warn'the North against going to
war to oppose it ? The South has lost its cause, but
what has the North gained ? Or, assuming that may
have gained something, is that something worth the
war, and the evils which the war has left behind it?
The South has lost its cause, but what has the North
gained ? Or, assuming that may have gained some-
thing, is that something worth the war, and the evils
which the war has left behind it? Nature has made
the North and South—North and South separate
they might make two great and prosperous empires,
unnaturally united they are an ill-assorted pair that
never can be one. The closer the union between them
the more strongly will their antipathies and their
antagonistic interests come into conflict and colli-
sion. What nature has separated let not man seek
to weld together.